Post by Rev. Jim Cunningham on Apr 7, 2009 1:20:24 GMT -5
Dear brothers and sisters, recently I received an email from a Christian brother, we'll call "Bob", who believes that being homosexual is a sin. He wanted me to watch a video which he claims proves that the Bible is against homosexuality. I agreed to watch the video on the condition that he read my presentation on GayChristianSurvivors.com . He agreed, and after reading it he wrote back to tell me where I was wrong. Below is a copy of my reponse to his email. (His words are in blue).
Hi "Bob"
There is something I want to make very clear here before I begin so that you understand where I’m coming from. I believe that fornication is a sin, as God said. I believe that there are heterosexuals and homosexuals and that both are forbidden to fornicate. Sexual activity is only for marriage. This fact has nothing to do with whether or not a person is straight or gay. If you are straight, then you know perfectly well that you didn’t suddenly become straight just because you had sex with a woman. your Heterosexual identity is not based on lust. You are straight whether or not you ever have sex in your entire life. Ditto for a homosexual. I tell you this so that you know where I stand. I’m not saying that there would never be fornication among homosexuals if their Right to marry is finally protected - heterosexuals themselves have proven it doesn’t work that way. There will always be lust and people who give into it. But homosexuals are forbidden by law to marry in most places and therefore they are forced to live in fornication - and then the church, which forced them into that sin in the first place, turns around and condemns them for it. This is the same abuse that the classic book UTOPIA speaks of when it accuses governments of depriving the People of the means of livelihood, saying, "First ye make theives of men, and then ye punish them." That is a grievous wickedness on the part of the church. So, while I do not approve of fornication among homosexuals any more than I approve of fornication among heterosexuals, homosexuals are left with no other choice - and to dictate that homosexuals should subject themselves to loneliness and to never feel the loving touch of another human for their entire lives, is cruelty, when God Himself said, “It is NOT good that the man should be alone”. And now on to the reply to your emails.
Firstly, you said:
Your "our little test" statement [on GayChrstiansurvivors.com] is false. For one, if you look at the words used in that verse [Leviticus 20:13] in the Hebrew, there is no word for "also" in there. The first 3 words are:
'iysh - a man, as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation)
shakab - to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)
zakar - remembered, i.e. a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex) -- him, male, man(child, -kind).
So I could put "also" at the beginning of the sentence (where I think modern English would put it) and it would still be just as good of a translation. Besides why would a heterosexual have sex with a homosexual? Since as you said "a heterosexual does not prefer the opposite gender over the same gender, because the heterosexual had virtually no interest in the same gender in the first place".
Bob, I see that you have presented a definition of those words from some type of dictionary or concordance. Now, there’s nothing wrong with using resources to help learn words from a language you don’t know; however the reference that you used did not translate all of the words contained in the verse. In fact, the very first word you present here (‘iysh) is only PART of the Hebrew word used in Leviticus 20:13.You neglected to write the entire word. Because of this, you incorrectly stated that there is no word “also” here. The first word is not ‘iysh ("a man") as you said. It is written in Scripture as va’iysh ("a man also"), starting with the Hebrew letter "vav". You left out the first letter “vav” (meaning "also") and you only used the three letters for "man" which your resource gave you.
Please allow me to explain this. In Hebrew, most conjunctions and prepositions are not written as separate words, but are added as a single letter at the beginning of a sentence or word and is then understood by grammar, context and syntax. For example, in English we say “In the beginning...”, but the Hebrew doesn’t use a separate word for “in”. It uses the single Hebrew letter “Bet ("B")” for IN, and then connects it to the front of the word BEGINNING like this: b'ereshith (“in [the] beginning”). In the same fashion, the Hebrew in Leviticus 20:13 says va’iysh ("a man also"). Therefore I must say that you are incorrect to say that “also” does not occur in this verse.
You also said, [color=Blue]“I could put "also" at the beginning of the sentence (where I think modern English would put it) and it would still be just as good of a translation.” [/color]
I'm sorry but this is false:
firstly... your statement is false because you yourself claimed that the word "also" was not even in the verse in the first place, and therefore by your own argument you not only contradict yourself but you would be violating Scripture’s commands against adding to God’s Word by inserting "also" wherever you felt like it. If you claim that "also" isn't in this verse, that means that if you are going to insert that word into the verse it therefore could go ANYWHERE and you would be randomly and SUBJECTIVELY placing it at the beginning of the sentence in order to make the verse say what you want it to say, instead of what God said.
secondly... your statement is false because the word "also" actually IS in this verse, and grammar, context and syntax DENIES you the ability to subjectively place it at the beginning of the word. You CANNOT translate it as “Also, a man...". It is required to be placed exactly as the King James Version placed it: “A man also...”. This verse specifically states, “If a man ALSO lieth with mankind...”. It does NOT say "ALSO, if a man lieth with mankind...", which would be a fraudulant transcription.
You then ask...
“why would a heterosexual have sex with a homosexual? Since as you said "a heterosexual does not prefer the opposite gender over the same gender, because the heterosexual had virtually no interest in the same gender in the first place".
Brother, you are only quoting a part of what I said on my site and as a result you are creating a circular nonsensical argument - in my argument’s favor. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that means then that a homosexual is just a heterosexual who has perverted himself. How then can you ask, “Why then would a heterosexual have sex with a homosexual?” The reason you are getting tangled in your own words is because you refuse to acknowledge that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two separate sexual identities and that neither is a perversion of the other. A heterosexual man can pervert himself by lying with another man, just as a lefthanded person can pervert himself by writing with his right hand - but that has nothing to do with those who are homosexual or those who are righthanded. And so long as you keep believing that all humans are innately and stictly of a heterosexual identity and that homosexuality is only a heterosexual perversion, you will forever talk in circles, because it is not the truth.
And notice how you yourself made a distinction between the two – “why would a HETEROSEXUAL have sex with a HOMOSEXUAL”. By your question you have clearly shown that YOU KNOW that a homosexual is NOT a heterosexual. They are two different things, like being EITHER righthanded OR lefthanded. And just as you cannot condemn someone who is left handed just for being left handed, you cannot condemn someone who is homosexual just for being a homosexual.
But as I mentioned, you only quoted part of what I said. As I stated in many other places on my site, many heterosexual men DO have sexual contact with other males who may or may not be gay themselves. It happens in colleges, in prisons, in the armed forces, where there is little to no contact with the opposite gender or where competition is feirce, or where curiousity is explored to a fault.
One man that I've counseled, who was in every way heterosexual and deeply attracted to women, had been molested by a group of men when he was a young and innocent boy; and because the experience was pleasurable and occurred during an impressionable time of his life, a door was opened to something he would not have naturally involved himself with and he secretly sought out men in order to re-experience the pleasure he felt as a child - while at the same time being completely in love with his wife.
Other heterosexual men who have been physically or psychological abused by women often prefer sex with other men to avoid the emotional pain and fear that had built up toward women - even though they remain completely attracted to women. Other men get involved in liberal groups which believe in open sex and they will have sex with anyone without shame. This was big in the 70’s, and its still common. European and Middle Eastern men are not like Americans with their tough and macho attitude (and in fact most of them feel the American Macho attitude is vulgar and unnatural). Foreign men are very intimate with each other, even holding hands. That is because they do not fear being labeled gay for showing human emotions, as American men do. However, many of them do go far beyond that and engage in sexual activity. Its not a gay thing to them. They look at it as, “Hey, we’re buddies, it’s no big deal”. And while it is still fornication and forbidden by the Lord, yet that’s no more bizarre than what goes on in straight frat houses with the extremely intense homoeroticism that goes on with hazing and such. Britain's TV channel 4 even recently aired a video of an evening with entire soccer team which went on the hunt for women in bars and night clubs, and by the end of the night they were stripping for each other and sexually fondling one another! And nobody thought anything of it
The point is, they like women and don’t consider themselves to be gay, but because of their lust they have no problem fooling around with ANY one. For various reasons many straight men DO engage in same gender fornication. And they do so whether it makes sense to you personally or not. Some even say they are bisexual; although there is no such thing. “Bisexual” – not “homosexual” - is the word to describe these heterosexuals who pervert themselves to lie with the same gender (it also applies to homosexuals who pervert themselves to lie with the opposite gender).
Heterosexual men who pervert themselves to lie with men are NOT homosexuals, and no matter how many times they have sex with other men they will ALWAYS be heterosexual – and these men CAN be healed and return to their natural heterosexual identity. Paul talks about this in Romans 1:26-27 – how men who burn in their lust LEAVE their nature by abandoning their wives to be with men. And as I’ve proven, Leviticus 20:13 in fact demonstrates a HETEROSEXUAL - a man who lies with a woman - and ALSO lies with men. THESE are the men that Leviticus and Romans are talking about. Not homosexuals.
Because God condemns heterosexuals who burn in their lust to lie with other men, and because you falsely think a homosexual is merely a perverted heterosexual, you therefore come to the false conclusion that homosexuals are only attracted to men because of lust. It is just as false as saying that heterosexual men are only attracted to women because of lust, or that heterosexual men are only drawn to women because they were deprived of their mother's effection. If you apply your reasoning about homosexuality to heterosexuality, you'll see it's all nonsense, really.
You cannot project your own personal dislike for same-gender love, marriage and intimacy on the Scriptures because, to quote Proverbs 30:6, “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
You also said...
"Also like to point out it also says in Leviticus 18:22 that homosexuality is a sin. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Yes, it does say that. But I still have no idea how in the world you are seeing “homosexuality” here when it clearly speaks of a heterosexual. Homosexuals do not lie with womenkind. It would be completely illogical to tell a homosexual man not to lie with men as they lies with women – only heterosexual men can be told that. And as I said on my site, it doesn’t matter that this verse doesn’t have the word “also” in it, because it still says the exact same thing: men who lie with woman (heterosexuals) may not lie with men.
Why, you must be wondering, would God tell straight men not to fornicate with each other if men are only supposed to be interested in women? For the same reason that we would ask why in the world God would go out of His way to forbid us to lie with our parents or siblings when we are only supposed to be interested in unrelated people – BECAUSE HUMANS WILL DO WHAT EVER THEIR LUSTS DRIVE THEM TO. Don't you remember what God said of Babylon and its Tower to the heavens? "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded, and the Lord said, "Behold, the people is one and they have all one language, and THIS they begin to do! And now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do."" Give Man an inch and he'll take a mile. And why would they do it? Aside from just being perverted? Well, God specifically said that man could only have sex with his spouse, and Man hates being dictated to, and always desires to rebel. Man only does what is right in his OWN eyes and not what GOD says is right.
And so, Heterosexual men (who make up the majority of the planet) would marry their wives and then, because they are forbidden to lay with other women they'd become rebellious and start to wonder... “hmmm, ok I can’t fool around with that hot chick over there because I'm already married, but is it cheating if I fooled around with other people or things?”
Hence God HAS TO GO OUT OF hIS WAY and say, “NO, you can ONLY have sex with your spouse; if you are a man with a wife you cannot have sex with another woman or a man or your parents or your siblings or your extended family or your children or your pet. ONLY your spouse.” If God doesn't state these things specifically, Man will seek loopholes. And since God said "Sin is not imputed where there is no Law", a married heterosexual man who is bored with his wife but does not want to commit adultery with another woman would say, "hey, God didn't specifically state that I couldn't have sex with another dude or with an animal" if God were not implicit. Man will do whatever he can get away with.
Now, because a man is forbidden to lay with his sibling or his aunt, does that mean that his siblings or his aunt can never have sex (i.e. get married and engage in marital sex)? Of course not. The prohibition of a man having sex with his sister or his aunt has nothing to do with the sister or the aunt getting married and having sex with someone else. So why would you think that because the straight man is forbidden to lie with men, that this means that homosexuals can never marry and have sex. There is a puzzle piece missing in your understanding, and that is why you are not comprehending this.
Bob, look at that law in Leviticus 20:13. It says, If a man also lie with mankind AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN. God didn’t say “as he lieth with WOMEN – plural”. God is giving His law to His people who have already been forbidden to fornicate and He is talking here to men who lie with a woman. Since fornication has been forbidden, man is not allowed to lie with ANY woman unless it is his wife - therefore the woman mentioned here can only be the wife of the man in this verse. In other words, God is speaking to heterosexual married men (He's not speaking to heterosexual SINGLE men because single men who serve God aren't supposed to be having sex!). Unless you understand that, you will never understand the meaning of this verse. In summery God says that we may not have sex with anyone who is not our spouse. The man that has a wife may not lie with a man or anyone or anything else. No one can have sex with ANYONE unless they are married to them and NOWHERE does it say that homosexual men and women are forbidden to marry another homosexual. It’s that simple.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that and it isn't that complicated to understand.
"The problem with your theory of your meaning of "strange flesh" [in Jude] is that the crowd continually referred to the angles as "men" so it is apparent that even though Lot appeared to realize that the men weren't normal men (which could be easily debated), but the people did not. so why would God had condemned them because they were going after angles if they didn't know they were angles? Also how can you say that a heterosexual no interest in the same gender. and then later say that heterosexuals practice homosexuality out of lust, and the thrill."
Bob, you seem to think it matters to God who and what they thought of the angels. Whether the people of Sodom thought they were men or angels, the fact was that they WERE angels – they were “strange flesh”, and that is why Jude called them "strange flesh" and not "men". When Abraham told pharaoh that his wife Sarah was his sister, and pharaoh took her as a wife, God came to pharaoh and told him that He would smite him and his whole kingdom for taking Abraham’s wife. Pharaoh told God he had no clue that she was a married woman – and God said “yes I know!” - but his ignorance was no excuse, which is why God threatened him. You are applying a sterilized Americanized world view on the Scriptures. The world of the Bible was gritty and harsh and bitter. Sons groped their fathers groin when they pledged an oath, women had to marry their rapists, brothers had to have sex with their death brother’s wives to produce an heir in their brother’s name, Abraham and Israel and David and Solomon and several other servants of God had multiple spouses, and Adam and Eve’s children had to engage in incest in order to propagate the human race. ALL of that is in the Bible. I’m sorry to say it, and I don’t mean to insult you, but really, your view of all of this is very dim and lacking in understanding. I'm afraid you can't have it your way. Your view is not compatible wth the Word of God.
What gets me is that you are so intent on proving that the issue of Sodom was about men attempting to rape men and that therefore this constitutes a blanket condemnation of ALL homosexuals - yet you totally ignore that almost this exact same story happened again in Bethlehem in Judges 19, where a Levite and his concubine went to the city of Gibeah; and exactly the same thing that Lot told the angels in Sodom, an old man in Gibeah told the Levite - that he should not lodge in the streets, and he brings the Levite and his concubine to lodge in his house, as Lot brought the angels into his house. And then it reads almost verbatim from the Sodom story, “Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”
Do you see this?
The old man tries to protects the Levite who came into his house and then offers his daughters to the men who want to rape the Levite – EXACTLY as Lot did. Now, the men in Sodom merely ATTEMPTED to rape the angels and you denounce all homosexuals by it. But who do you condemn for the wicked men in this story in Judges? Here is what it says these evil men did: “But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.”
So, the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels – but they never actually did anything to them, and nevertheless all homosexuals get condemned by you because of it. Yet here the exact same story occurs - but these men ACTUALLY RAPE the woman that the old man gives them, and then the Levite takes out a knife and cuts her into pieces; and this is followed by the words, "There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day"!! So it is very convenient that you do not view this heinous crime, which was worse than the one in Sodom, as a condemnation of heterosexuality. How is it that the story of Sodom is anti-gay but the story of Judges isn’t anti-straight?!
What's more, your view says that the men of Sodom were homosexuals because they wanted "to know" the angels - yet the men in Judges also wanted "to know" the Levite, but raped the female concubine – proving that if they really wanted to rape males then it was all about LUST, not homosexual identity - yet the church accuses all homosexuals as being equal to such a thing. Your argument is unendingly circular and totally unreasonable. I personally know HUNDREDS, and have been in contact with THOUSANDS, of God fearing gays and lesbians from around the world in every walk of life who would have nothing to do with that wicked behavior of Sodom, and who remain abstinent until they marry a mate as God commanded all of mankind.
And here’s another thing: why is it that you and the church assume that when the men of Sodom said “Bring them out that we may know them”, that they meant that they wanted to have sex with them? When the men in Judges used THE EXACT SAME WORDS words about the Levite, the Levite himself DENIES that "know him" means "sex" (20:4-5): “And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought TO HAVE SLAIN ME: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.” The Levite in THE BIBLE says that the phrase “Bring him out that we may know him” means they wanted to KILL him – not have sex with him!
What do you have to say about all of this?
"As going through this I see more and more that you have to make certain assumptions as it seems like you are just taking verses and saying "ok, homosexuality is not a sin, so what do these verses mean".
While you accuse me of saying “ok, homosexuality is not a sin, so what do these verses mean”, I say that it is actually you who is saying, “Ok I believe that homosexuality is a sin, so I will make verses appear anti-gay in order to support my personal bias.”
You’ve come to the Bible ALREADY anti-gay and then conveniently you “found” anti-gay verses – which actually say NOTHING about homosexuals, and then you promote them in an attempt to prove that your personal bigotry is supported by God! But I tell you that it is MAN that thinks from between his legs – not God. It is straight men - because of their lust toward women and because they are not interested in men - who cannot comprehend that anyone could possibly be different from them, and they are so obsessed with this that they harass gays, invent antigay interpretations of Bible verses to use against them, preach against them from the pulpit, picket against them, defame and shame and humiliate and degrade them, demean them publically to incite nonbelievers to attack and torture and kill them, and pass laws against them to deprive them of their jobs and their homes and their sovereign birth right to life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness – all in the defense of heterosexist testosterone. I will serve God and what his Word actually says - I will not serve your testosterone-dowsed reinvention of Scriptures.
In Christ,
Rev. Jim Cunningham
King James Bible Ministries
www.GayChristianSurvivors.com
________________________________________
Hi "Bob"
There is something I want to make very clear here before I begin so that you understand where I’m coming from. I believe that fornication is a sin, as God said. I believe that there are heterosexuals and homosexuals and that both are forbidden to fornicate. Sexual activity is only for marriage. This fact has nothing to do with whether or not a person is straight or gay. If you are straight, then you know perfectly well that you didn’t suddenly become straight just because you had sex with a woman. your Heterosexual identity is not based on lust. You are straight whether or not you ever have sex in your entire life. Ditto for a homosexual. I tell you this so that you know where I stand. I’m not saying that there would never be fornication among homosexuals if their Right to marry is finally protected - heterosexuals themselves have proven it doesn’t work that way. There will always be lust and people who give into it. But homosexuals are forbidden by law to marry in most places and therefore they are forced to live in fornication - and then the church, which forced them into that sin in the first place, turns around and condemns them for it. This is the same abuse that the classic book UTOPIA speaks of when it accuses governments of depriving the People of the means of livelihood, saying, "First ye make theives of men, and then ye punish them." That is a grievous wickedness on the part of the church. So, while I do not approve of fornication among homosexuals any more than I approve of fornication among heterosexuals, homosexuals are left with no other choice - and to dictate that homosexuals should subject themselves to loneliness and to never feel the loving touch of another human for their entire lives, is cruelty, when God Himself said, “It is NOT good that the man should be alone”. And now on to the reply to your emails.
Firstly, you said:
Your "our little test" statement [on GayChrstiansurvivors.com] is false. For one, if you look at the words used in that verse [Leviticus 20:13] in the Hebrew, there is no word for "also" in there. The first 3 words are:
'iysh - a man, as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation)
shakab - to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)
zakar - remembered, i.e. a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex) -- him, male, man(child, -kind).
So I could put "also" at the beginning of the sentence (where I think modern English would put it) and it would still be just as good of a translation. Besides why would a heterosexual have sex with a homosexual? Since as you said "a heterosexual does not prefer the opposite gender over the same gender, because the heterosexual had virtually no interest in the same gender in the first place".
Bob, I see that you have presented a definition of those words from some type of dictionary or concordance. Now, there’s nothing wrong with using resources to help learn words from a language you don’t know; however the reference that you used did not translate all of the words contained in the verse. In fact, the very first word you present here (‘iysh) is only PART of the Hebrew word used in Leviticus 20:13.You neglected to write the entire word. Because of this, you incorrectly stated that there is no word “also” here. The first word is not ‘iysh ("a man") as you said. It is written in Scripture as va’iysh ("a man also"), starting with the Hebrew letter "vav". You left out the first letter “vav” (meaning "also") and you only used the three letters for "man" which your resource gave you.
Please allow me to explain this. In Hebrew, most conjunctions and prepositions are not written as separate words, but are added as a single letter at the beginning of a sentence or word and is then understood by grammar, context and syntax. For example, in English we say “In the beginning...”, but the Hebrew doesn’t use a separate word for “in”. It uses the single Hebrew letter “Bet ("B")” for IN, and then connects it to the front of the word BEGINNING like this: b'ereshith (“in [the] beginning”). In the same fashion, the Hebrew in Leviticus 20:13 says va’iysh ("a man also"). Therefore I must say that you are incorrect to say that “also” does not occur in this verse.
You also said, [color=Blue]“I could put "also" at the beginning of the sentence (where I think modern English would put it) and it would still be just as good of a translation.” [/color]
I'm sorry but this is false:
firstly... your statement is false because you yourself claimed that the word "also" was not even in the verse in the first place, and therefore by your own argument you not only contradict yourself but you would be violating Scripture’s commands against adding to God’s Word by inserting "also" wherever you felt like it. If you claim that "also" isn't in this verse, that means that if you are going to insert that word into the verse it therefore could go ANYWHERE and you would be randomly and SUBJECTIVELY placing it at the beginning of the sentence in order to make the verse say what you want it to say, instead of what God said.
secondly... your statement is false because the word "also" actually IS in this verse, and grammar, context and syntax DENIES you the ability to subjectively place it at the beginning of the word. You CANNOT translate it as “Also, a man...". It is required to be placed exactly as the King James Version placed it: “A man also...”. This verse specifically states, “If a man ALSO lieth with mankind...”. It does NOT say "ALSO, if a man lieth with mankind...", which would be a fraudulant transcription.
You then ask...
“why would a heterosexual have sex with a homosexual? Since as you said "a heterosexual does not prefer the opposite gender over the same gender, because the heterosexual had virtually no interest in the same gender in the first place".
Brother, you are only quoting a part of what I said on my site and as a result you are creating a circular nonsensical argument - in my argument’s favor. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that means then that a homosexual is just a heterosexual who has perverted himself. How then can you ask, “Why then would a heterosexual have sex with a homosexual?” The reason you are getting tangled in your own words is because you refuse to acknowledge that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two separate sexual identities and that neither is a perversion of the other. A heterosexual man can pervert himself by lying with another man, just as a lefthanded person can pervert himself by writing with his right hand - but that has nothing to do with those who are homosexual or those who are righthanded. And so long as you keep believing that all humans are innately and stictly of a heterosexual identity and that homosexuality is only a heterosexual perversion, you will forever talk in circles, because it is not the truth.
And notice how you yourself made a distinction between the two – “why would a HETEROSEXUAL have sex with a HOMOSEXUAL”. By your question you have clearly shown that YOU KNOW that a homosexual is NOT a heterosexual. They are two different things, like being EITHER righthanded OR lefthanded. And just as you cannot condemn someone who is left handed just for being left handed, you cannot condemn someone who is homosexual just for being a homosexual.
But as I mentioned, you only quoted part of what I said. As I stated in many other places on my site, many heterosexual men DO have sexual contact with other males who may or may not be gay themselves. It happens in colleges, in prisons, in the armed forces, where there is little to no contact with the opposite gender or where competition is feirce, or where curiousity is explored to a fault.
One man that I've counseled, who was in every way heterosexual and deeply attracted to women, had been molested by a group of men when he was a young and innocent boy; and because the experience was pleasurable and occurred during an impressionable time of his life, a door was opened to something he would not have naturally involved himself with and he secretly sought out men in order to re-experience the pleasure he felt as a child - while at the same time being completely in love with his wife.
Other heterosexual men who have been physically or psychological abused by women often prefer sex with other men to avoid the emotional pain and fear that had built up toward women - even though they remain completely attracted to women. Other men get involved in liberal groups which believe in open sex and they will have sex with anyone without shame. This was big in the 70’s, and its still common. European and Middle Eastern men are not like Americans with their tough and macho attitude (and in fact most of them feel the American Macho attitude is vulgar and unnatural). Foreign men are very intimate with each other, even holding hands. That is because they do not fear being labeled gay for showing human emotions, as American men do. However, many of them do go far beyond that and engage in sexual activity. Its not a gay thing to them. They look at it as, “Hey, we’re buddies, it’s no big deal”. And while it is still fornication and forbidden by the Lord, yet that’s no more bizarre than what goes on in straight frat houses with the extremely intense homoeroticism that goes on with hazing and such. Britain's TV channel 4 even recently aired a video of an evening with entire soccer team which went on the hunt for women in bars and night clubs, and by the end of the night they were stripping for each other and sexually fondling one another! And nobody thought anything of it
The point is, they like women and don’t consider themselves to be gay, but because of their lust they have no problem fooling around with ANY one. For various reasons many straight men DO engage in same gender fornication. And they do so whether it makes sense to you personally or not. Some even say they are bisexual; although there is no such thing. “Bisexual” – not “homosexual” - is the word to describe these heterosexuals who pervert themselves to lie with the same gender (it also applies to homosexuals who pervert themselves to lie with the opposite gender).
Heterosexual men who pervert themselves to lie with men are NOT homosexuals, and no matter how many times they have sex with other men they will ALWAYS be heterosexual – and these men CAN be healed and return to their natural heterosexual identity. Paul talks about this in Romans 1:26-27 – how men who burn in their lust LEAVE their nature by abandoning their wives to be with men. And as I’ve proven, Leviticus 20:13 in fact demonstrates a HETEROSEXUAL - a man who lies with a woman - and ALSO lies with men. THESE are the men that Leviticus and Romans are talking about. Not homosexuals.
Because God condemns heterosexuals who burn in their lust to lie with other men, and because you falsely think a homosexual is merely a perverted heterosexual, you therefore come to the false conclusion that homosexuals are only attracted to men because of lust. It is just as false as saying that heterosexual men are only attracted to women because of lust, or that heterosexual men are only drawn to women because they were deprived of their mother's effection. If you apply your reasoning about homosexuality to heterosexuality, you'll see it's all nonsense, really.
You cannot project your own personal dislike for same-gender love, marriage and intimacy on the Scriptures because, to quote Proverbs 30:6, “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
You also said...
"Also like to point out it also says in Leviticus 18:22 that homosexuality is a sin. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Yes, it does say that. But I still have no idea how in the world you are seeing “homosexuality” here when it clearly speaks of a heterosexual. Homosexuals do not lie with womenkind. It would be completely illogical to tell a homosexual man not to lie with men as they lies with women – only heterosexual men can be told that. And as I said on my site, it doesn’t matter that this verse doesn’t have the word “also” in it, because it still says the exact same thing: men who lie with woman (heterosexuals) may not lie with men.
Why, you must be wondering, would God tell straight men not to fornicate with each other if men are only supposed to be interested in women? For the same reason that we would ask why in the world God would go out of His way to forbid us to lie with our parents or siblings when we are only supposed to be interested in unrelated people – BECAUSE HUMANS WILL DO WHAT EVER THEIR LUSTS DRIVE THEM TO. Don't you remember what God said of Babylon and its Tower to the heavens? "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded, and the Lord said, "Behold, the people is one and they have all one language, and THIS they begin to do! And now nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do."" Give Man an inch and he'll take a mile. And why would they do it? Aside from just being perverted? Well, God specifically said that man could only have sex with his spouse, and Man hates being dictated to, and always desires to rebel. Man only does what is right in his OWN eyes and not what GOD says is right.
And so, Heterosexual men (who make up the majority of the planet) would marry their wives and then, because they are forbidden to lay with other women they'd become rebellious and start to wonder... “hmmm, ok I can’t fool around with that hot chick over there because I'm already married, but is it cheating if I fooled around with other people or things?”
Hence God HAS TO GO OUT OF hIS WAY and say, “NO, you can ONLY have sex with your spouse; if you are a man with a wife you cannot have sex with another woman or a man or your parents or your siblings or your extended family or your children or your pet. ONLY your spouse.” If God doesn't state these things specifically, Man will seek loopholes. And since God said "Sin is not imputed where there is no Law", a married heterosexual man who is bored with his wife but does not want to commit adultery with another woman would say, "hey, God didn't specifically state that I couldn't have sex with another dude or with an animal" if God were not implicit. Man will do whatever he can get away with.
Now, because a man is forbidden to lay with his sibling or his aunt, does that mean that his siblings or his aunt can never have sex (i.e. get married and engage in marital sex)? Of course not. The prohibition of a man having sex with his sister or his aunt has nothing to do with the sister or the aunt getting married and having sex with someone else. So why would you think that because the straight man is forbidden to lie with men, that this means that homosexuals can never marry and have sex. There is a puzzle piece missing in your understanding, and that is why you are not comprehending this.
Bob, look at that law in Leviticus 20:13. It says, If a man also lie with mankind AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN. God didn’t say “as he lieth with WOMEN – plural”. God is giving His law to His people who have already been forbidden to fornicate and He is talking here to men who lie with a woman. Since fornication has been forbidden, man is not allowed to lie with ANY woman unless it is his wife - therefore the woman mentioned here can only be the wife of the man in this verse. In other words, God is speaking to heterosexual married men (He's not speaking to heterosexual SINGLE men because single men who serve God aren't supposed to be having sex!). Unless you understand that, you will never understand the meaning of this verse. In summery God says that we may not have sex with anyone who is not our spouse. The man that has a wife may not lie with a man or anyone or anything else. No one can have sex with ANYONE unless they are married to them and NOWHERE does it say that homosexual men and women are forbidden to marry another homosexual. It’s that simple.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that and it isn't that complicated to understand.
"The problem with your theory of your meaning of "strange flesh" [in Jude] is that the crowd continually referred to the angles as "men" so it is apparent that even though Lot appeared to realize that the men weren't normal men (which could be easily debated), but the people did not. so why would God had condemned them because they were going after angles if they didn't know they were angles? Also how can you say that a heterosexual no interest in the same gender. and then later say that heterosexuals practice homosexuality out of lust, and the thrill."
Bob, you seem to think it matters to God who and what they thought of the angels. Whether the people of Sodom thought they were men or angels, the fact was that they WERE angels – they were “strange flesh”, and that is why Jude called them "strange flesh" and not "men". When Abraham told pharaoh that his wife Sarah was his sister, and pharaoh took her as a wife, God came to pharaoh and told him that He would smite him and his whole kingdom for taking Abraham’s wife. Pharaoh told God he had no clue that she was a married woman – and God said “yes I know!” - but his ignorance was no excuse, which is why God threatened him. You are applying a sterilized Americanized world view on the Scriptures. The world of the Bible was gritty and harsh and bitter. Sons groped their fathers groin when they pledged an oath, women had to marry their rapists, brothers had to have sex with their death brother’s wives to produce an heir in their brother’s name, Abraham and Israel and David and Solomon and several other servants of God had multiple spouses, and Adam and Eve’s children had to engage in incest in order to propagate the human race. ALL of that is in the Bible. I’m sorry to say it, and I don’t mean to insult you, but really, your view of all of this is very dim and lacking in understanding. I'm afraid you can't have it your way. Your view is not compatible wth the Word of God.
What gets me is that you are so intent on proving that the issue of Sodom was about men attempting to rape men and that therefore this constitutes a blanket condemnation of ALL homosexuals - yet you totally ignore that almost this exact same story happened again in Bethlehem in Judges 19, where a Levite and his concubine went to the city of Gibeah; and exactly the same thing that Lot told the angels in Sodom, an old man in Gibeah told the Levite - that he should not lodge in the streets, and he brings the Levite and his concubine to lodge in his house, as Lot brought the angels into his house. And then it reads almost verbatim from the Sodom story, “Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”
Do you see this?
The old man tries to protects the Levite who came into his house and then offers his daughters to the men who want to rape the Levite – EXACTLY as Lot did. Now, the men in Sodom merely ATTEMPTED to rape the angels and you denounce all homosexuals by it. But who do you condemn for the wicked men in this story in Judges? Here is what it says these evil men did: “But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.”
So, the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels – but they never actually did anything to them, and nevertheless all homosexuals get condemned by you because of it. Yet here the exact same story occurs - but these men ACTUALLY RAPE the woman that the old man gives them, and then the Levite takes out a knife and cuts her into pieces; and this is followed by the words, "There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day"!! So it is very convenient that you do not view this heinous crime, which was worse than the one in Sodom, as a condemnation of heterosexuality. How is it that the story of Sodom is anti-gay but the story of Judges isn’t anti-straight?!
What's more, your view says that the men of Sodom were homosexuals because they wanted "to know" the angels - yet the men in Judges also wanted "to know" the Levite, but raped the female concubine – proving that if they really wanted to rape males then it was all about LUST, not homosexual identity - yet the church accuses all homosexuals as being equal to such a thing. Your argument is unendingly circular and totally unreasonable. I personally know HUNDREDS, and have been in contact with THOUSANDS, of God fearing gays and lesbians from around the world in every walk of life who would have nothing to do with that wicked behavior of Sodom, and who remain abstinent until they marry a mate as God commanded all of mankind.
And here’s another thing: why is it that you and the church assume that when the men of Sodom said “Bring them out that we may know them”, that they meant that they wanted to have sex with them? When the men in Judges used THE EXACT SAME WORDS words about the Levite, the Levite himself DENIES that "know him" means "sex" (20:4-5): “And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought TO HAVE SLAIN ME: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.” The Levite in THE BIBLE says that the phrase “Bring him out that we may know him” means they wanted to KILL him – not have sex with him!
What do you have to say about all of this?
"As going through this I see more and more that you have to make certain assumptions as it seems like you are just taking verses and saying "ok, homosexuality is not a sin, so what do these verses mean".
While you accuse me of saying “ok, homosexuality is not a sin, so what do these verses mean”, I say that it is actually you who is saying, “Ok I believe that homosexuality is a sin, so I will make verses appear anti-gay in order to support my personal bias.”
You’ve come to the Bible ALREADY anti-gay and then conveniently you “found” anti-gay verses – which actually say NOTHING about homosexuals, and then you promote them in an attempt to prove that your personal bigotry is supported by God! But I tell you that it is MAN that thinks from between his legs – not God. It is straight men - because of their lust toward women and because they are not interested in men - who cannot comprehend that anyone could possibly be different from them, and they are so obsessed with this that they harass gays, invent antigay interpretations of Bible verses to use against them, preach against them from the pulpit, picket against them, defame and shame and humiliate and degrade them, demean them publically to incite nonbelievers to attack and torture and kill them, and pass laws against them to deprive them of their jobs and their homes and their sovereign birth right to life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness – all in the defense of heterosexist testosterone. I will serve God and what his Word actually says - I will not serve your testosterone-dowsed reinvention of Scriptures.
In Christ,
Rev. Jim Cunningham
King James Bible Ministries
www.GayChristianSurvivors.com
