The Power of "With" 6

This post makes me think that this book has principles in it that would apply across the board -- not to just to the gay community. As I read the statement, "So what is love? "tangible and measurable expressions of one's unconditional behaviors toward another", I thought that is universal, regardless of one's place in life. Whether gay or straight but living in a state of sin. In my own church, I'm ashamed to say that we're struggling with the issue of changing our membership process. Currently, such a high price is placed on agreeing the doctrinal statement of the church, that if someone disagrees with one of our testimonies, that can keep them from being a member. And yet our mission statement was recently changed to say we love people unconditionally. SIGH! We (the Church) have got to get it together! If we're really practicing being "with" people, shouldn't that mean that there is room in our churches and in our hearts for people that may not align to our standards, but yet exhibit a love for God and a desire to be with His people?

There is some good discussion here. I appreciate that so many desire to be loving toward the LGBT community. As someone who has same-gender attraction, I appreciate that compassion.

Just one thought. Someone mentioned, "so I remain "agnostic" on taking a religious position" [due to not understanding everything about homosexuality]. While being agnostic may be a personally honest assessment and may seem the most compassionate response, I would like to offer that we need to move beyond agnosticism. Why? Because this is not a theoretical issue for people like me. This is not just an interesting idea or debate to volley around and muse about. This is something that I and others have to make huge, and very difficult life decisions on, and we can't do it alone. I need someone who can come alongside me and say something more than, "Well, I really don't know. Good luck with that."

Those of us who are gay and conflicted in regards to our faith are potentially giving up the love of our lives based on convictions. We are potentially choosing to live single and celibate for life. And there is no way in heck we can or would make those decisions based on "We don't know what the Bible really says or what God wants."

All that to say--take the time to really study and pray about this issue. Don't settle for agnosticism. And hold fast to both grace and truth. There are ways of speaking truth without coming across like the Religious Right. Get to know us, hear our stories, educate yourself, and stand by us when we have to make very painful, difficult life decisions. Be ready to remind us that Jesus is worth losing everything for. If we lose our life, we will find it. But, I am not going to lose my life over something that is mere speculation.

Some questions :

1. At what point do we define social-cultural prohibitions / memes / traditions / elaborations / embellishments as Church Doctrine ?

2. At what point do we define church rules/laws/doctrines/elaborations as Sins?

The question is important because we know many examples of Clergy/ Religious Leaders confusing social norms and interpreting/elaborating/embellishing the Words of God and Christ out of context, converting church doctrine(s) into Sin, excommunicating and even murdering under the premise of heresy. Examples include: “the world is flat” – “witch hunts – “handicapped & deformed are of Satan” – racism – slavery - Bi-Racial Marriage – political views – indulgences - the list goes on.

3. If we worship Christ, why are we to hold to prohibitions (including elaborations and embellishments) written out by “religious leaders” (men who created the Historical/Pauline Epistles/General Epistles/Wisdom books over centuries) to the same degree as Sins clearly defined in the Ten Commandments (delivered directly to Moses from the Hand of God on Mt Sinai), and teachings / attitudes of Christ as triangulated in first hand accounts of the disciples (The Gospels, occurring during the Ministry of Our Lord Jesus Christ)?

4. If we are to hold a literal/conservative/traditionalist view for all books beyond the Gospels, why do we not adhere to the many doctrines/laws/ prohibitions called out in those books: shaving of beards, pork, killing anyone who is of another religion, handling of slaves, role of women, etc, etc.?

5. If I condemn, “run away from”, and deny brethren a place at Christ’s table under guise of doctrine, elaboration, and embellishment, what Sin(s) – as defined in the Ten Commandments and teachings of Christ – am I committing?

6. Christ speaks adamantly about marriage, divorce, and the fact that some should not marry:
MATHEW 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

If we are held to the letter of the “Law” (as the Pharisees did), why do we allow divorced people to partake of the elements and hold church office even though Christ himself admonishes divorce and, in the very same passage, talks about “eunuchs” and those who chose not to marry? Who are these “eunuchs” ? Why does Christ discuss their existence in the same passage? Why do we allow heterosexual people in the church greater “room for error” ?
7. Under a conservative/literal/traditionalist interpretation of the bible, are those born as Hermaphrodites or with Testicular Feminization forbidden to develop physical relationships? Have there not always been homosexual people, in all societies, throughout all time?
8. There is no doubt that Christians must not knowingly continue to engage in a sinful life. That is a given. Can you develop a stronger argument that homosexuality is truly a Sin in the eyes of Christ and not simply another doctrine developed by religious leaders, tradition, and minor prophets within some social-cultural contexts
"Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.” APA 1994
The teachings & attitudes of Christ will stand the test of time and science and will ultimately outshine the teaching and attitudes of “religious leaders” who devise doctrines and social-cultural morays that “elaborate” and “embellish” on God’s clear intent.

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God… 

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

With great respect: These questions are of paramount importance, not to the writer ( a straight – married – Christian ) but for clergy who continually condemn and deny gay people a place at Christ’s table. Clergy live in a cloistered environment, cared for by their parishioners. Parishioners are exposed to gay people in everyday society. Real homosexual people are not liars, thieves, adulterers, charlatans, hypocrites, Godless atheists, promiscuous male prostitutes, rapists, child molesters, or pagan ritualists: they are family members, co-workers, neighbors, friends, and even fellow worshipers. In an effort to live as a conscientious Christian, my focus is to extend compassion and love, regardless of sexual orientation. It is extremely disconcerting that some clergy hold stead fast to traditions and doctrines – rather than the teachings of Christ - perhaps jeopardizing their own place in Christ’s Kingdom and acting as modern day Pharisees. Many first hand biblical accounts describe Christ’s attitude toward the arrogance of Pharisees.
Notes:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; because it is an abomination.”(Leviticus 18:22 Lamsa). The Hebrew literally says: “You shall not lie with a male [on] the beds of a woman (or wife), it is a despising." Going from the literal or plain meaning of the Hebrew text, the lying with a male was done to despise the woman. It appears the sexual act was done in the beds of the woman to rub it in her face.

“Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God. The LORD will not let you go unpunished if you misuse His name.” (Ex. 20:7 NLT). If Christians deliberately misrepresent God by giving false interpretations of Scripture contrary to what God intended, they are taking the LORD’s name with deceit. Presently, most New Testaments are translated from the Greek Text which has Greek words that are translated as homosexuals that don’t mean homosexuals. Hate filled scholars have put their prejudice in our Bible. In the Today’s English Version (TEV), the translators translated the words ma-la-koi and ar-se-no-koi-tai as "homosexual perverts.” Even if these scholars believe these words refer to homosexuals, they deliberately add the word perverts, because of their own prejudice. In Jude 7 it says: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha...giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh...,”: The actual Greek says that the people went after other flesh, which is referring to the foreigners. Some translators translate the underlined portion as the people committing perversion (TEV) and practiced unnatural vice (New American Bible [Catholic]). Remember, people pick and choose verses out of the Bible to justify their own prejudices. In the (NIV), the translators deliberately add the word “sinful” in their translation of Romans 1:24: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.” The word sinful is not in the Greek text, nor in any other English Bible. In the Living Bible, it states: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.” (Leviticus 18:22 THE LIVING BIBLE TYNDALE first printing 1987). The Hebrew word to-e-vah is translated enormous sin (Living) and abomination (KJV), but has the primary meaning of “a despising” or “an abhorrence.” Also, for the New Living Translation, it translates Leviticus 18:22 as: “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.”
When one consults the Greek-English Lexicons on what are the definitions of some Greek words, one also finds some deception here. Scholars are deleting definitions for the Greek words. For the word ma-la-kos, Strong has this word meaning only “soft,” and “effeminate.” But Liddell and Scott have this word meaning someone that is morally weak, lacking in self-control, and indulgent.” Vine has the word ma-la-kos denoting homosexuality and also “someone that is addicted to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.” I believe Strong deliberately left out the definition for ma-la-kos as an indulgent person for his own advantage; to make people not question if the word ma-la-kos carries the definition of homosexual. For Strong’s definition for the word to-e-vah, he adds a definition to this word as: Prop. something disgusting (mor); knowing full well that this word doesn’t mean this, nor can he find this word to carry that definition anywhere in the Bible in context.
There are many more examples I could give, but this should suffice you to see that their is some deliberate forgery of what the Hebrew and Greek actually says.- There is a lot of ignorance on the subject of homosexuality, but a lot of scholars know you can be gay and Christian, but they want to oppress. They use the Bible for power and try to use religion to control society according to their beliefs. Also, there are some hate filled and oppressive verses in the Bible about women, which is not what the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek says.
OLD TESTAMENT:
Gen. 37:36; 39:1; 40:2; 40:7; 1Sam. 8:15; 1Kings 22:9; 2 Kings 8:6; 9:32; 18:17; 20:18; 23:11; 24:12; 24:15; 25:19; 1Chr. 28:1; 2 Chr. 18:8; Judith 12:11; Esther 1:10; 1:12; 1:15; 2:3; 2:14; 2:15; 2:21; 4:4; 4:5; 6:2; 6:14; 7:9; Esther Additions A:12,14,17; Wisdom 3:14; Sirach 20:3; Isa. 39:7; 56:3; 56:4; Jer. 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; 39:3; 39:13; 41:16; 52:25; Dan. 1:3; 1:7; 1:8; 1:9; 1:10; 1:11; 1:18.
ARAMAIC WORD M'HAYM-NA TRANSLATED AS: Eunuch
NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew 19:12 & Acts 8:27,34,36,38-39

Now, is this verse taken out of context?: “For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12 Lamsa). This verse is found when Jesus is speaking about marriage between a man and a woman. Then Jesus goes on and quotes this verse talking about people that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry because of the way they were born, or because of a situation, or because of their choice. - In order to get a correct interpretation of a verse, you have to know the definition of words and the way the verse is used in the context. But also, in regards to the New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John), Jesus said a lot of things that appear to be out of context when he was asked questions; so we have to go by the definitions for the word m'haym-na- Eunuch. Now this verse is actually not out-of-context in regards to males that it wouldn’t be good for them to marry a woman (wife). It would not be good for a homosexual male to marry a woman because he lacks the sexual perophone receptors that enable him to be attracted to women. He has more of the X-chromosome. It should be noted that a homosexual is impotent toward a woman. The other two reasons why a male wouldn’t be able to marry a woman are obvious by the meaning of the word m’haym-na and its associations.
A couple other things that need to be pointed out is, the Aramaic word il-mi-saw, translated in Matthew 19:10 as “to marry,” means "to take." Jesus was talking about males that it wouldn’t be good for them to take a woman. The other thing is when Jesus talks about the eunuchs that it wouldn’t be good for them to take a woman, he says: “…To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” That last phrase is better translated as: "Whoever is able to receive it, let him receive it." The root word here spaq, also metaphorically means to "receive with the mind," "accept." The eunuchs not sleeping with women not only receive it, but they accept it. It is unlikely that Jesus’ reference to a born eunuch is referring to a straight impotent man. I can’t picture a straight man accepting his impotence if he is lusting after a woman. Also, a lot of gay males marry a woman because they don’t know the truth about what the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible teaches. A lot of the males that are impotent toward their wives are homosexuals.