Answer:
Dear John. For as far as I
understand this story, it is about sexual immorality
in the city of Sodom. Therefore God sends two angels
to this city to see if the rumours about this city
are true (Genesis 18:20).
As soon as these men arrive they are welcomed by Lot
who gives them shelter. The guests did not have time
to go to bed because "all the men from
every part of he city of Sodom - both young and old-
surrounded the house" (Genesis 19:4) with the
intention to rape the guests.
For me this means that we are not talking here about
a homosexual minority who are from birth homosexual,
but about heterosexual men who want to rape and
humiliate the guests (just like that sometimes
happens in prisons today).
Lot tries to rescue his guest by
offering his two daughters which for me also shows
that the "rapers" were not homosexuals,
because why should Lot offer his daughters if he knew
they were homosexual? That would not have made sense.
The offer Lot made, shows how important hospitality
was in the Old East. He was even prepared to
sacrifice his own daughters!
My conclusion is that the "sin" of this
city was not homosexuality but the evil of
non-hospitality as a sign of the wickedness of this
people. Related to this story is the story of Judges
19:11-30 which deals with another rape, also a sign
of the wickedness of the people. Here the people
first asked to rape the male guest but later on took
a female instead (those men could therefore not all
be homosexuals).
Furthermore in both the Old- and
New Testament no reference to Sodom/Gomorra is
made which links the fate of these cities to
homosexuality! On the contrary: " Now THIS was
the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters
were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not
help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did
detestable things before me. Therefore I did away
with them as you have seen " (Ezekiel 16:
49-50).
Not homosexuality was their sin but their haughty
attitude which made them violate the laws of
hospitality.
The injustice (haughtiness, greed) of the people is,
according to the Bible, linked with the rejection of
God, a God who comes to us in the Sodom story as a
stranger who looks for shelter among us.
Jesus interprets the Sodom story along the same line.
He speaks to his disciples: " If anyone will not
welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust
of your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell
you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and
Gomorra on the day of judgement than for that
town." (Matthew 10:14 and Luke 10:10).
I think there is sufficient
evidence to say that this story is not about
homosexuality. At most it is about homosexual
acts committed by heterosexuals to humiliate
strangers and violate hospitality. As good as
heterosexual rape does not say anything about
heterosexuality, homosexual rape does not say
anything about homosexuality. You can read more here:
The
Sodom story: the ultimate proof ?
All the best to you John,
Inspiritus
2. "Homosexuality
is a sin. You can never belong to the church"
"Dear mister. I think your
site is horrible. Homosexuality is a disgusting sin
(read Leviticus 18). You can never belong to the
church if you do not give up your homosexuality.
"
Edward
Answer:
Dear Edward,
The main question for us to ask here is: what is
"sin" ? A definition of sin I think the
Bible teaches us is that sin destroys people. Sin is
a deed by which you damage another person or
yourself. Think for example of one of the biggest
sins in the Bible: pride. Just like others sins as
jealousy and greed these sins make you damage
yourself or others.
Speaking of sin: the 10
Commandments give us a comprehensive summary of sins.
According to the 10 commandments sin is to worship
others gods, to kill, to break vows, to steal, to
lie, to long for something that isn't yours etc.
(Exodus 20).
No word in the 10 Commandments about homosexuality.
Apparently it wasn't important enough to reach the
"top 10 sins". I wonder why so many
Christians spent so much time and money to fight
homosexuality instead of the more important 10 sins ?
Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10
Commandments. Why ? Because I believe that
homosexuality doesn't need to be a sin.
Homosexuality is a sin in
Leviticus 18 because there is meant compulsory
homosexuality or homosexual temple prostitution. Only
in those instances it hurts and damages people and is
therefore called "sin".
So I say that homosexuality can become a sin. But
this is also true for heterosexuality. Think of all
the hetero prostitution going on in our world, all
the people that are damaged by that. Is that a reason
to call heterosexuality a sin ? No, of course not,
because everything God has given us can be used in a
good or in a sinful way.
The central theme in Leviticus is :"Be holy
because I, the Lord your God, am holy" (Lev.
19:2). This means that a man or woman should not live
by its sexual instincts but by faith in God
translated in the greatest Commandment: " Love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind. This is the first
and greatest commandment. And the second is like it:
Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the
prophets hang on these two commandments".
(Matthew 22:37-40). That is just what many gays and
lesbians and this website is trying to do.
In the days of Leviticus it was
difficult for the people of Israel to be different
from the other cultures around them. The whole book
of Leviticus has the intention to teach the people:
" You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you
used to live, and you must not do as they do in the
land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not
follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be
careful to follow my degrees. I am the Lord your
God" (Leviticus 18:3-4).
These words refer to a deep
contempt towards temple prostitution in other
cultures. Some of the temple prostitutes let
themselves be used for homosexual acts (Hosea 4:14).
There is sufficient evidence that homosexual temple
prostitution was widespread in Canaan/Israel of which
heterosexuals made use. Even in the temple in
Jerusalem such practices occurred (II Kings 23:7) !
This explains the harsh words which condemn
homosexual temple prostitution. Cultural prostitution
by males or females was strictly forbidden
(Deuteronomy 23:17).
My conclusion: you cannot
say anything about homosexuality in general based on
Leviticus 18. Prostitution is not the same as hetero-
or homosexuality as God meant it to be. All sexuality
can become a sin as soon as it destroys or damages
people. All sexuality can also be used in a good way:
to love your neighbour and by that way love God.
Inspiritus
3. You abuse
Galatians 3:28!
" Dear webmaster. I enjoyed
some of your material but was quite offended when you
tried to justify homosexuality with the scripture
from Galatians 3:28. If you are going to use the
Bible don't just use bits that will help your
justification. In case you did not notice in
Galatians it does not mention anything about
homosexuals. Read Romans please. I think that by
defending homosexuals and at the same time using
God's name you are making a mockery of Him. God save
your soul."
Abigail
Answer:
Hello Abigail,
Although we may have different
ideas I think it is good to share thoughts.
As for Galatians I am not trying to prove anything,
all I want to do is let people see how you can look
at the Bible through the eyes of gay people.
Furthermore I do not believe the Bible is a
recipe-book from which you can just take one or two
sentences to prove something.
Please do not forget that a lot of my visitors are
gay christians who have been thrown out of their own
churches because of who they are. Some are from
countries where they are prosecuted or even maybe
killed just because they are gay. Many of them are
hurt and very disappointed in the church and also are
willing to give up their believe in God. Sometimes
they even consider suicide all because of the church
teachings.
Galatians 3: 28 is about Jesus Christ in whom there
is no room for prejudice. He does not love you more
or less because you are a man or a woman. It is my
believe that God does not discriminate people on
their skin, gender, sexuality, disease or anything
else. We humans are the ones who always try to
discriminate people.
I think I speak in line of the
whole Bible when I say that in God " their is no
east or west, north or south" . We all are His
children, His creation.
Maybe you would say: being gay is a sin. That may be
your view, but are you or other males and females
less sinners ? Why should gays be excluded from the
love of God: because their sin is "greater"
than the sin of an average heterosexual man or woman
?
You also mention Romans (I think
you mean Romans 1:26 and 27). This text refers to the
Roman situation in which other religions used homo-
and heterosexual temple prostitution (you can find
proof of this in many books on ancient Rome for
example: Sexual Life in Ancient Rome by Otto
Kiefer). Romans continues to describe these people in
Romans 1:28-32. This are people who did NOT BELIEVE
in the God of Israel. But they are people full of
"envy, murder, strife, deceit, GOD-HATERS,
faithless, heartless etc." I think that it is
impossible to apply these words on a gay Christian in
our days who believes in God with his or her whole
heart. So I believe the text in Romans speaks of a
different situation and of a different kind of
people. For example: in those days there were no
committed gay relationships like we know today.
Well this, is how I think. I will not ask you to
agree with me but I hope you will see that another
view is possible.
God bless you,
Inspiritus
4. "Homosexuality
is unnatural. Read Romans 1."
Although I disagree in your answers and feel you are
deceived you seem to be soft spoken. I am
especially interested in your response to the Romans
chapter one issue. You are right when you
said it stated evil back biters, haters of God.
But you forgot the part where it clearly says:
likewise the men LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF A 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.
I do hope that you truly know Christ and that He
delivers you from the strong delusion that you are
blinded by. Gab
Answer:
Dear Gab,
Thanks for your time to write
me. I do not have the illusion I can convince you or
win you for my point of view. But perhaps I can
clarify my view a bit. One of the hard questions we
have to deal with is: what is "natural". Is
it "natural" if someone is born
handicapped? According to a biologist it is. It is
not the majority of people who are born handicapped
but technically they are just as "natural"
as healthy persons.
Some scientists also argue that some people are
born homosexual. I know that for many gays and
lesbians that this is true (ask there mothers, that
would say they knew from the start that that child
was different). I also know many families where for
example in one family there are many gays and
lesbians. Is that coincidence? So what is natural?
For example for a gay man to sleep with a woman
would feel totally unnatural, he would probably
not even be able to do anything, his body would not
respond. So who is Paul talking about? Heterosexual
men doing everything they like or is he thinking of
homosexual men? In my view Paul is thinking of
heterosexual men because the concept of homosexuality
was not known in his days. As far as Paul would have
known everyone is heterosexual. God bless you,
Inspiritus
5. "If
Homosexuality were accepted by God then how do you
explain 1 Cor 6:9-10 "
If homosexuality were accepted
by God, then how do you explain 1 Cor.
6:9-10: "Do you not know that the unrighteous
will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will
inherit the kingdom of God" (NKJV).
The passage clearly states that homosexuals are
not accepted by God into his Kingdom. God
loves the person but not the sin and it is the
practice of homosexuality that God detests. The
responsibility of the homosexual practice rests with
the person and it is up to the person to stop
that very sinful practice.
Derk
Answer:
Hi Derk,
Thank you for your mail. The
word "homosexual" is not a biblical word.
In fact the word was "invented" arround
1900. The word the NKJV
translates as "homosexuals" is in the
original Greek text (in which the NT is written) the
word "malakoi" which you will find in any
NT dictionary translated as
"boy-prostitute"or "rent boy". Paul is
mentioning here commercial sexuality which is not the
same as homosexuality.
The 'funny' thing is that this translation-problem
only seems to play a part in the English language. As a
Dutch speaking person I found at that in no Dutch
translation the word 'homosexuals' is used (which
does exists in Dutch). All Dutch translations
from the very old ones to the brand new ones refer to
these words as commercial
or religious/pagan sexuality. The same is
true for the German Bibles I have here. So are
all the Dutch and German scholars wrong? The
final word cannot be said because any translation is
always a matter of choice and interpretation. The
translation-choice some anti-gay scholars make (like
Dr. Zeolla) are not very helpfull either. Dr. Zeolla
for example suggests to translate the Greek words
with "active partners in male-male sex" and
for malakos, "passive partners in
male-male sex".
Maybe Dr. Zeolla does not know that many gay men do
not have anal intercourse. A lot of them don't like
it at all and there are many more ways to express
your love. So often there is no such thing as an
'active or passive partner' in homosexual acts. And
what to think about lesbian women? This
active-passive thing is merely a fantasy and
idea of heterosexuals, an idea given to them by
pornmovies/magazines. Heterosexual men at times rape
other males (in prison for example) as they would do
with a woman (they would choose the anal intercourse)
but this humiliating act is merely an act of power
than of sexual love.
Only heterosexuals often ask gay couples the
stupid question:"who is the man and who is the
woman"? Which shows their limited idea about
homosexual sexuality (they only seem to be able to
think in terms of their own sexuality). I also
think that Paul himself was completely unaware of the
existence of a homosexual orientation (that
also was discovered in the 19th-20th century).
All he would know and see is heterosexual men going
to pagan temples where they would have sex with men
and women as part of having sex with the deity of
that temple (as was a practice in Rome for example). To say
the least I think we should be very careful to
compare ideas and practices of 2000 years ago with
people in our time without considering the cultural
background of the time the texts are written. But
even if dr. Zeolla is right (which I doubt and
can be questioned) would the idea be
possible for you that Paul himself could be
mistaken? Because he did not know all we do know now? I am
sure this will not convince you, but I appreciate it
you are looking into this with care and concern.
Take care Derk,
Inspiritus
