President Jimmy Carter: "I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage," What do you think?

a reply to: The angel of light

There is no evidence that neither the Old Testament or New condemn all expressions of love or physical demonstrations of affection in between people of same gender.

Levivicus 18:22

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:27

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Saying there is no evidence doesn't make it so. Note that I am neither Christian, nor do I agree with the biblical condemnation of same gender sexuality. Just replying to your post.

a reply to: Klassified

Dear Klassified, I am not trying deny nothing that is written, unfortunately it is clear you have misunderstood the point, that by the way emerges only after a very fine observation of the phrases, weighting each word on them, there are no words without role on the scripture, each one has a reason.

Levivicus 18:22


22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13


13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

In bold letters is what refers to Sodomy, it is the act of possible intercourse among people of the same gender what is condemned, not the act of simply lie with another person, that might be absurd since it means that twins would be in sin from the mothers womb, since they are lying each one aside the other .

When the scripture says as with a woman is referring to the act intercourse using the digestive track.

If the solely act to lie, like when two people are cuddling would be a sin the statement should be much shorter, it wouildn't need of more clarification.

The scripture does not say just : If a man lies with a male. or just : You shall not lie with a male. it has always included the second part after a comma, that clarifies that they are not just reclined in the same bed but engaged in intercourse.

Otherwise a misinterpretation of this rule would make appear something that is not sinful as a terrible abomination, notice that the verb used in the following verse is Lying

John 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast said to him, Lord, who is it?

As well as this other verse would not have any sense, since it clearly refers to sodomy committed in between a man and a woman, that is of course also sinful:

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

What Leviticus is condemning is Sodomy, in spite of it is performed with same gender partner or with opposite gender partner. The reason is simple, since it is to try to deposit the seed of life in the digestive track, where only dead materials or even in decomposition process , after digestion, must be located. That is abomination that the Bible condemns.

The Bible is not condemning feelings or love in between partners or friends, even if they are of the same gender, it is warning about the act of sodomy and its consequences. Otherwise also there is a verse that might be clearly an abomination, and it is not, the one that refers to the love of David and Jonathan.

1 Samuel 18 As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light
Interpret those verses whatever way fits your beliefs(Everyone else does). I have studied enough to know what those verses are referring to, and what they include. I have also talked with more than one orthodox Jew about them.

Again. I disagree with the biblical and theological stance on same gender sexuality. I don't believe the bible is a suitable arbiter, or moral authority on human sexuality. So you're debating someone who is already on the same side of this issue as you are.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

LS
Remember when you whole heartily believed that some people (the majority)were doomed to hell for what they did….this is no different.The creator God is not the cosmic policeman arresting people for religious offenses.They know ever person intimately. There is nothing that could surprise them especially someone they created!

There are people that are “intersexed” who were born both sexes.The variation of that manifestation is very wide and many defy distinct categories.There are women that are genetically women that have a fully functional penis and vagina in ways that are almost unimaginable yet true.They can impregnate a woman or be impregnated.There is nothing abnormal about them.They are not abominations.

The creator God has created many variations of humans that are not acceptable to the masses of humankind.Most humans are so closed off to truth all they can do is condemn others for being themselves.The fact is sexuality is not black and white laws of either you conform to or break .Most peoples sexuality are shades of gray but they are way to dishonest to admit it.

The religion of man is what makes void the word of God not the variation of sexualities.There will be MANY things that were “hid”(subverted) that will come to light.The false doctrine of hell is only one.The truth is mankind has never truly known the creator God at all.Their God is an invention of their religious carnal mind(satan) made in their own image.The true creator God is not a petty taskmaster spewing religious dogma as rules and regulations.They are the keeper of their creation.They rightly condemn none for anything, only man does that unrighteously.

originally posted by: Atreya
a reply to: The angel of light

Thats just so much nonsense that Jimmy spoke . Jesus still adhered to the religious principles of the sect he was in . He was not seperate from his religion who were Jews . What he did was put emphasos on Loving GOD ...he didn'y say go have sexual partners indicriminately . That is never a religious principle in any texts . Reducing lustfull mentalities is usually a principle , but I know who does want you to have irreligious sexual relations sex ....

This is very incorrect.Yahoshua did not belong to a Jewish sect.Yahoshua broke the Law of the Jews ALL the time.He always referred to it as "your Law" to the Jewish leaders.His non conformity was so much the Jewish leaders had him murdered.

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: musicismagic

Well Dear musicismagic,

I have the impression that the bar or club scene that is so strong in the LGBT community has grown so much precisely for the lack of other spaces of social acceptance of the human diversity.

Many people that I have asked about this same topic among the LGBT community has manifested that they are certainly tired to be labeled as bohemian people, as promiscuous community, or people that are likely to suffer of addictions, also there are many perfectly aware that there is a lot of over exploitation of their sexuality by people that is essentially only interested in to profit.

Let's talk gay bars for a moment. I used to haunt them, most gay folk have been to one. They are just a means to an end, You see, being gay is not exactly easy when it comes to finding a mate. The first thing one has to ask oneself is whether a person that has caught your eye is actually gay or not. It's pretty hard to tell a lot of the time in public spaces because a large percent of us present just the same as straight people do. Some dress, and wear their hair, and act in an obvious manner, but lots don't. So, you see that the gay bar is one place where we can go and we can be 99% guaranteed that if we see someone we like they are at least going to be gay.

Yes, there is the element of sleaze in the gay community, but it is also there in the straight one too. Having been to both gay and straight bars, the sexual activity in them is not better or worse in one or the other. Many of us wish to avoid these places, but in reality it can be quite difficult if you wish to make contact with other gay folk. As a straight person you can meet Mr / Mrs right just from going to the mall and bumping into someone - all you've got to worry about is whether they are single or not, We don't have quite the same luxury.

Many people that belong to that segment of the population were accused also of to be more likely to consume prostitution services and that is something that with the civil unions of same gender is going to change.

This is true of older men who have been around before freedoms were granted, they are still living the old lives of secrecy and shame many of them can't adjust to our hats won freedom.. For these people I do feel sorry because it must be very lonely to live like that.

Another situation that will change , I hope so, is the so common double life that many gay or lesbian people is following right now, there are a lot of supposed straight people that is using the traditionally marriage just as a folded panel in behind they have adulterous same gender affairs.

I think the times in America in which people like Rod Hudson or Montgomery Cliff were forced to live one life at day hours pretending to be straight and one other very different at nights in the bars are over with this changes in the society.

As it gets safer for us to be ourselves, there will be no reason to hide who we are. This starts with grass roots change at the family level. Support your child and love him / her no matter what their sexuality is and everyone's live will be richer, more open and more honest. Family pressure is one of the biggest reasons people still live the double life.

In essence I think one good consequence of this decision of the supreme court is to reduce spaces for the double moral that has damaged a lot the traditionally family values, so in the long run even the straight people will live in a society that will be better since everybody will show in public its true face, not a mask.

Yes, this is our goal - to live openly and honestly. It does no harm to the greater family to see gay couples. I have nieces and nephews who adore their 2 Uncles. They love us because we buy good presents and because we'll take the time to play cars or dollies with them. We love and spoil them because we know we won't have children of our own, so they are the closest thing.

Most importantly, we don't wish to be at odds with Christianity. People like myself were raised under Christian roofs. We know what the bible says and we also know that nobody on this planet it without sin, We simply want to be accepted as imperfect human beings trying to do our best in this life. And this means we are no better and no worse than anyone else in the eyes of God.

originally posted by: Rex282
a reply to: Lazarus Short

LS
Remember when you whole heartily believed that some people (the majority)were doomed to hell for what they did….this is no different.The creator God is not the cosmic policeman arresting people for religious offenses.They know ever person intimately. There is nothing that could surprise them especially someone they created!

There are people that are “intersexed” who were born both sexes.The variation of that manifestation is very wide and many defy distinct categories.There are women that are genetically women that have a fully functional penis and vagina in ways that are almost unimaginable yet true.They can impregnate a woman or be impregnated.There is nothing abnormal about them.They are not abominations.

The creator God has created many variations of humans that are not acceptable to the masses of humankind.Most humans are so closed off to truth all they can do is condemn others for being themselves.The fact is sexuality is not black and white laws of either you conform to or break .Most peoples sexuality are shades of gray but they are way to dishonest to admit it.

The religion of man is what makes void the word of God not the variation of sexualities.There will be MANY things that were “hid”(subverted) that will come to light.The false doctrine of hell is only one.The truth is mankind has never truly known the creator God at all.Their God is an invention of their religious carnal mind(satan) made in their own image.The true creator God is not a petty taskmaster spewing religious dogma as rules and regulations.They are the keeper of their creation.They rightly condemn none for anything, only man does that unrighteously.

Good points, which I won't argue...BUT, like everyone else, you have not addressed purpose and design.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: Rex282
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Good points, which I won't argue...BUT, like everyone else, you have not addressed purpose and design.

God's purpose and design became polluted with the original sin.

This is my own personal belief, but I think that after that first sin we saw the first illness, we certainly know that God cursed Adam and Eve and told Adam he'd have to work hard to survive from then on and he told Eve that childbirth would not be easy.

God set a series of events in motion on that and he did not intervene to stop any of then. There would have been a 'First' homosexual, but the Bible does make mention of this person strangely. Not did God intervene and ensure there be no more of us.

Sometimes it's not what the Bible does say that is important, it's what it doesn't that raises questions.

a reply to: markosity1973
Well Dear marosity,

First at all the term Homosexual is preFreudian, it was invented in Germany by the second half of the XIX century to label a behavior that also it was believed it was fixed and so it couldn't be treated or changed through any kind of psychological or psychiatric therapies.

Carl Westphal, one of the Masters of Sigmund Freud, in his paper "Contrary Sexual Feeling", in: Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankeiten, Vol. 2, Berlin, 1870, was who invented the term Homosexual. Heterosexual and bisexual are terms derived from it and possibly developed by Freud.

All these PreFreudian categories to classify people according with their sexual orientation are based on the general assumption that the humans are primarily sexual beings. Of course the Bible can't mention Homosexuals as well as it can't mention heterosexuals or bisexuals for the simple reason that those are modern concepts, they belong to a philosophy that didn't exist at that time.

This make me return to my comment that what the Bible condemns is not modern concept of Homosexuality, that is a sexual preference, but the Sodomy that is not a preference but a collection of sexual practices that can be carried out by same gender or opposite gender partners.


I think that is perhaps the beginning of the issue, since it is highly controversial that the principal motivation of the humans is precisely the achievement of the sexual instinct, and notice that when Freud talks about realization of this instinct he is not pointed exclusively to procreation.

I believe all those labels became of common use to classify people around the world precisely from what I have called the Sexual Revolution, one that was boosted by the Freudian theories in Psychology.

Now, Sigmund Freud certainly is one of the founder fathers of modern Psychology, but not the only one, and also he contributed a lot in the exploration of the subconscious using the Psychoanalisys, but he was also a really materialistic person, and also he became addict to coc aine while treating patients with his therapies.

I believe we are not Sexual beings, we are perhaps even more affective beings than anything else, although we are also rational beings, with a lot of intellectual needs, and also spiritual ones, we need of some level of spirituality that helps us to deal with the challenges of the life.

Perhaps it is more precise to talk about Homoaffective, Heteroaffective and biaffective people, than anything else, those are terms that are more descriptive of the humanity in general than the ones invented by Freud or his followers, since anyway we can't deny the existence of asexual people, persons that are naturally conditioned to live in celibacy, but they are perfectly able to express love.

Now, from the affective point of view the Bible certainly talks openly of important figures that didn't have interest for the opposite gender, but were well living with same gender mates.

- Prince Jonathan, son of King Saul who had a well known special rapport with David, a kind of affair that sometimes is mentioned as similar to the one existing among brothers but other times is compared by the own bible with the love existing in between husband and wife.

- Ruth that also became partner of her mother in Law Noemi when her husband died, something that is meaningful since Ruth was ancestor of Christ.

- The Prophet Daniel, who is considered as a really major Messenger of God in the Old Testament, at the same level of connection with the divinity of Abraham, Moses or Elijah, if he might be alive now is likely that he would be classified in some of the subcategories of the LGBT community of today, since he had also a very well known affair with the Principal Eunuch in Babylonia.

homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com...

- St John, the Baptist lived all his life without being ever married preaching in the dessert, but always in company of his numerous disciples.
- St Paul lived all his Apostolic life with male companions, including St Luke, Timothy and Trofimous.
- The beloved apostle of Christ was St John, with all respect, in spite of all the speculations around St Mary Magdalene.
- Before St Peter could move his family to Rome, since he was originaly married, he lived long time in company of St Mark, who apparently never married as it was also the case of St John.
- The Roman centurion that asked Christ for the healing of his serve also pointed clearly how beloved was for him.

Now, interestingly, and in opposition to all the fanaticism against gay people in the so called fundamentalist Christianism, we have that the first non Jew and non Roman converted to Christianism according with the book of Acts was an Ethiopian Eunuch.

Phillipe the Apostle and the Ethyopian Eunuch

www.gaychristian101.com...

So there were indeed people that it is really difficult to label today with the modern label of heterosexual in important roles in the Bible, possibly is more fair to say that they were perhaps homoaffective or at least biaffective figures of the bible.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Thank-you for that eloquent and educated response. I have been made aware of most of those biblical characters before and I thoroughly agree with what you say.

Question for you then; what is your interpretation of the passage 'A man shall not lay with another man as he would a woman' please forgive my paraphrasing, I'm on my phone and its very difficult to paste the verbatim text and passage reference.

Do you believe that this refers to the act of sex (sodomy) or does it refer to something else like perhaps say simply sharing the same bed as another man? Not being skilled in any way at languages I only rely on English translations, but I curious to know what the original says and if it offers more insight to this verse. ,

a reply to: markosity1973

Hi Dear markosity19783,

As I have already replied in my previous posts here in the thread, what Leviticus is condemning is the act of Sodomy, and if you read two writings of the New testament you can verify that.

First, we have from St John account of the last supper that the beloved Apostle, that is nobody else that John himself was lying with his head supported in the Chest of Jesus, so he was clearly cuddling with The Lord.

John 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast said to him, Lord, who is it?

The second writing is by St Paul, who is an author that is used exhaustively to reinforce the idea of how sinful is homosexuality for a lot of fundamentalists conservative Christians, you can also see that Sodomy is sinful even if it is committed in between male and female, so that is enough to clarify any doubt about the meaning of the scriptures, it is not against an affective preference but against a sexual practice even if it is among partners of opposite gender.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural

Now, there is even a research carried out by scholars on the study of the Torah, that have showed that Leviticus is mentioning Sodomy not associated with any affective preference at all, it is not condemning love in between same gender partners, but it is in the context of a ritual of the Philistines, something that was part of a fertility cult of their God Baal, that was performed after children sacrifices, that they used to make.

Dr. Merrill F. Unger, 1909-1980 "Canaanite Worship. The inhabitants of Canaan were addicted to Baal worship, which was conducted by priests in temples and in good weather outdoors in fields and particularly on hilltops called "high places." The cult included animal sacrifice, ritualistic meals, and licentious dances.

Near the rock altar was a sacred pillar or massebah, and close by the symbol of the asherah, both of which apparently symbolized human fertility. High places had chambers for sacred prostitution by male prostitutes (kedishim) and sacred harlots (kedeshoth) (I Kings 14:23, 24; II Kings 23:7)."

www.gaychristian101.com...

So, Leviticus is condemning Male sacred prostitution that occurred in the temples to Baal, that was the context in which Sodomy was practiced at that time. It is very likely that this kind of strange rites were already existing in Palestine since the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, so probably were precisely the kind of abomination that the Bible says produced the destruction of those sinful cities. It makes entire sense since it was sodomy carried out in a ceremony to a false pagan God.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness