An article defining Homosexuality, why it has historically been considered a sin by Christianity, what Jesus the Christ said about it, and how the New Christianity will deal with it.
By Cristo Rey
[The blue color letters are references that take you to sites on the Internet supporting the statements so indicated, these will open new windows or tabs and will not force you to leave this article site]
What is homosexuality? What does it mean to be "gay"? What are the genetics of gayness? Why was homosexuality condemned as a sin in the Old Testament? How did Jesus the Christ feel about homosexuality, and what did He say about it? Why are most Christians today homophobic? How will the New Christianity deal with homosexuality?
The purpose of this article is to attempt to answer these questions by a consideration of the self-evident facts in the Word of God in the Scriptures on this subject, in the example set by Jesus the Christ, and in His pronouncements about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gay Communities?) on Judgment Day.
It is the reasonable expectations of the author that the readers are familiar with the basic facts of the historical Old Testament accounts concerning the Hebrew people, and of Jesus the Christ's life and work in the New Testament, as presented to us by the inspired Word of God in the Scriptures, and for the most part the author will dispense with referencing to them except where emphasis is required.
What is homosexuality?
"Homosexuality" is a self-evident, self-defining concept, and it means "the behavior of engaging in sexual activities with members of the same sex," but it does not specifically imply that the individuals engaging in such activities are necessarily "gay" persons . . .
"Straight," or heterosexual human beings will under various given sets of circumstances engage in such activities without judging themselves to be "gay," and in many cases without these activities altering in any way their otherwise heterosexual orientation. Such circumstances are forced upon the individuals, or arise, when there is an absence of members of the opposite sex as is the case in same-gender prisons, armies in the field or on long ship voyages, gender-restricted schools, or in any other similar restrictive same-sex social situations of long-term duration.
For some, such homosexual activities are a personal choice regardless of the ready availability to them of opposite sex partners (i.e., Bisexuality) . . .
What does it mean to be "gay"?
Contrary to popular impressions, the term "gay," as applied to homosexuals, does not mean to be "merry" or "happy," but rather it is an ancient term, "gai," possibly Greek, and of pre-Historical origins which was customarily used to identify male homosexuals, and is probably etymologically related to the use of the term "guy," a derogatory term referring to a person of grotesque appearance.
To be "gay" means to permanently and exclusively have other individuals belonging to the same gender as the object of romantic and sexual yearnings and desires . . .
To be gay is not just to be a sexual being, but a whole person, having the capacity to love and desire sexually those who attract us for these and various other reasons. In a very real sense, it is no different than being "straight" or heterosexual, except that the objects of romantic feelings and sexual desires permanently and exclusively happen to be people of the same gender.
However, to be gay does not automatically imply that the individual is "homosexual," as cases abound of gay men and women who are non-sexual or prefer not to engage in any sexual activities with even members of their own gender; Such individuals, however, still have a "gay" orientation and harbor romantic and love attachments and feelings for ONLY members of their own gender.
The full extent of alternative gender self-identifications has always been very diverse, and encompasses such instances as "transvestites, transgendered, and transsexual" individual self-identifications.
Whether being gay is a matter of personal choice or genetic determination is a subject of ongoing scientific studies, and the physiological and neurological evidence so far is inconclusive either way. However, gay people, themselves their own best introspective investigators of the subject, report that just like heterosexuals, they have all of their lives "known" and "felt" their gayness.
Homosexuality and gayness occur in every sexual animal species on Earth, with many homosexual members of some species forming permanent and exlusive pair-bonds for ALL of their lifespans (e.g., Penguins, Gorillas, and some bird species); But as all the other species (other than Humans) do not have a "mind," we cannot infer that it is by their own deliberate and personal choice, out of their "personal perverted nature," and in contradiction to their "Christian" teachings, and MUST conclude that there must be some natural or genetic component (Livescience: Being Gay Is Natural: Just Ask Bonobos (Op-Ed), By Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, Duke University, Google Book Reviews: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, By Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D., Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective ) . . .
As Humanity is the only animal species with a conscious "mind," we then erroneously, wrongly, and in bad faith accuse human gay men and women as having chosen on purpose to become gay or homosexual sinners, but we cannot do it in the case of animals that lack conscious minds! This is an error in logic and a severe injustice. Other animals do not condemn those of them who are homosexuals and gays, and do not use the Bible as a pretext to convict them . . .
As biologically just another of the animal species on this planet, homosexual behavior and gayness in Human beings represents a variation in sexual orientation which is scientifically recognized to be a natural characteristic, a genetic variation, notwithstanding its current scientifically questionable reproductive value in the species in which it occurs.
As scientists the ONLY scientific conclusion we can make is that the occurrence in the life of all species of life on planet Earth of homosexual and gay conduct HAS to be by genetic reasons, that is by a genetic variation in sexual predilection in all living species. Some men like a woman very female in physical aspect, while others prefer a more muscular (manly) look, nearly to that of men. The gay or homosexual person is not satisfied with an "almost man," but prefers the "real object," that is to say another man in the case of gay men, and other woman in the case of lesbians. There is NO other alternative interpretation or scientific logic to this situation.
In fact the percentage of people (men and women) exclusively "gay" in Humanity remains fixed at a very low level, 5% of humanity, and lower in the other species. Scientific experiments demonstrate that there is no way possible to be able to intentionally increase the incidence. Heterosexual men do not really have any sexual interest in homosexual or gay persons, and least of all want to marry one. Scientific studies prove that as a homosesexual or gay you risk being killed if you try to convert a heteroxual by seduction to be gay or homosexual. The incidence of homosexual and gay conduct in Humanity always has been and always will be the 5% of those that are born exclusively gay, but it includes another 10% of the population who have experienced having sex with their same gender out of curiosity, while knowing and feeling that they are heterosexual. So 85% of Humanity are exclusively heterosexual, and there is no way that they can be seduced to be gay or homosexual. Thus, there is no homosexual secret "agenda" to achieve that change in mankind, that is a slander against homosexuals in bad faith . . .
Yes, one can influence a child BEFORE THEIR SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT to test or experiment homosexuality for a while, but if they are genetically heterosexual they will cease immediately upon their sexual maturation (in their puberty) and will always hate their previous experiences in these matters. It has been scientifically proven hundreds of times that homophobics are actually cases of repressed wishes of homosexuality, and that their homophobia is their manner of psychologically rejecting such desires because of having been influenced culturally or religiously against such behavior. It is a form of self-punishment for feeling attracted to having homosexual sex with others of their same gender. Most can be treated psiquiatrically enough for that, and the best way is to surrender in the matter and try out sex with another of their same gender, to check if they are in fact "bisexual," that is, part of the 10% of Humanity that ocaccionally want to have sex with the two genres.
Men and women who for a period of their lives engage in sex with their own gender, and later return to a heterosexual orientation, were most likely never "gay" but instead had engaged in "homosexual" relations while really being heterosexuals, a common occurrence in our society today as explained above. Such "Testimonials" by so-called religious "reformed gays" are highly suspect, and reveal only temporary homosexual activity on the part of heterosexual individuals as explained above. For them the homosexual activity was really a conscious and deliberate choice, and its reversal in behavior has no applicability or relation to the case of individuals really, honestly, and exclusively gay. We can all physically, consciously, and occasionally have sex temporarily with our own genre, with animals, with artificially constructed bodies, and even with inanimate objects, but none of these has anything to do with the natural occurrence of genuine gayness in human beings.
Let it be clear, that there is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle," and gay people lead the very same variety of lifestyles as "straight" people . . .
As to the sexual practices of gay people, there is nothing that two men or two women can do with each other that is fundamentally different to what is frequently or routinely done by heterosexual couples. Most, if not all, heterosexual couples have engaged in "mutual masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex" at one time or another during their lives. To condemn these mutually-consenting and safe sexual practices ONLY in gays is a travesty of the socio-ethical logic and morality of Humanity . . .
Likewise, to blame gays for the AIDS epidemic is morally and logically wrong. Children in the late 1940's and throughout the 1950's were playing and socially interacting closely with each other when they were affected by the sudden appearance of the Polio virus within their ranks. It would take a twisted satanic mentality to blame the children, or any of their behavior for the Polio epidemic; And the same moral assessment applies in the case of the AIDS virus and of the gay community and its behaviors. It is fully equivalent to blaming our everyday socializing and interactions for all Common Cold and Flu epidemics. None of these epidemics are "punishments" for "sins," or if they are as some religious people maintain, THEN THEY ALL ARE, and in that case there is no Logical, Ethical, or Moral reason to single out gays as a special or unique group of "sinners" . . .
Likewise to blame the occurrence of Tornadoes, Hurricanes, and Earthquakes on Earth to supposed "punishments" from God for the existence of homosexuality and gayness among Human beings on Earth, is a SATANIC TRAVESTY in interpretation of the Word of God in the Scriptures. Such natural phenomena occur frequently in other planets of our planetary system (e.g., in the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter), where there are NO human beings to punish for such characteristics.
There are no valid biblical, religious, moral, or secular reasons for denying gay people their non-religious Human, Constitutional or Civil Rights, and to do so without also denying them to the "straight" or heterosexual population who engage in the exact same sexual practices as gays defies ALL human ethical logic, and sense of Democratic Equal Justice and Morality . . .
Let it be clear, that a "Civil Matrimony" is not a biblical concept (Wikipedia: Civil marriage). A Civil Matrimony is a secular legislative privilege granted by most Western societies not for religious or biblical reasons, but rather to ensure and legally protect all the related legal rights of both spouses in a matrimonial union.
To deny this Civil Right to gay couples is a travesty of democratic principles of the Separation of Religion and State. Those who oppose such unions, do so while under the full knowledge that gay couples are, and have been for the most part, living in intimate sexual unions for relatively long periods of time, and are not opposing such arrangements, but only their civil legalization, in a mean-spirited fashion. They are either ignoring such arrangements and the sexual practices within them, or tolerating them, and only wish to impede their legalization in a mean-spirited fashion, with the consequent legal rights accruing to members of such unions.
Let it be clear, that there is no such thing as an expected "Christian Lifestyle," none was demanded by Jesus the Christ, nor by the Word of God as brought to us by Him. A Christian should live a life, and develop a lifestyle, independent of his "Christianity," but modified by his/her acquisition of the philosophy, ideals, and values which Jesus the Christ bequeathed to us from His Cross. Whatever demeanor, sexuality and sexual orientation, manner of dress, etc., a Christian has already developed is totally irrelevant to his spiritual life as a "Christian."
"Christianity" is the norm of spiritual behavior expected of "Christians" in interactions with each other, and in their contribution to the life of their community and nation. It is this "spirit" or spiritual behavior which is most important, and which Jesus the Christ emphasized in several of His discourses on the matter.
It is the spirit that quickeneth;
the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)
To reduce the worship of God to a physical worship, or a context about a "physical style of life," is a clear and unmistakable parody of His Word, in spite of invented rationalizations and justifications. The saying that "the flesh profiteth nothing," includes restraining of the flesh, thinking that it will uniquely give us eternal life and will allow us to enter the Kingdom of God. So restraining our flesh from all sin is not necessarily how we are going to be favored by God.
It is the spirit that quickeneth, and it means that the state of our spirit is more important than the restraining to which we submit our "flesh." Whom do you believe that God is going to encourage more? A person who has a bad spirit, like Hitler, or a person that, even though is a homosexual or a prostitute possesses a spirit of love for his/her neighbor, not wishing to hurt their neighbors, nor kill millions because of hatred and racism. We do not have to have a Doctorate to know what's important to God, it is our spirit and its qualities, and not how much we restrain our "flesh." In the former Soviet Union there were Communist agents (Communist government Commisars) that were perfect in their physical behavior, more perfect than "Catholic Saints," but God did not favor them, and the restraining of their "flesh" was unable to help them save their homeland and their Communist economic and political system. Clearly, Jesus the Christ warns us in that message that a physical life, in a perfect physical state, free of sin, "profiteth nothing" in how much we are esteemed by God and for our salvation. The Sadducees and Pharisees of His time were much more perfect in their physical purity than was Jesus the Christ Himself, the drinker of wine, with an almost gay relationship with the Apostle John, and frequenting with sinners of all classes. But this physical purity was not favored by God, for Him to protect them from losing their land, incur the destruction of their Temple, and be scattered throughout the World by the Romans. The important thing for God is then our spirit and spiritual purity, nothing physical matters to Him, unless those physical acts result from a bad or evil spirit in us.
In fact, there always exists conduct or acts which although not classified as "sins" do result in serious dire consequences for us. For example, when we help in total innocence someone who deceives us, and is actually currently a killer without conscience, and can kill us. Or when we give mouth to mouth resuscitation relief to a stranger in danger of death that we do not know is actually infected with the AIDS virus. Many of our innocent acts do result in dire consequences for us . . .
A Christian life is a "spiritual life," lived to create and promote in us and in others the philosophy, values, and ideals brought to us by Jesus the Christ . . . That is, constantly recreating in ourselves and in others the emotional provisions and spirit that His philosophy, values, and ideals instill in us.
What are the genetics of gayness?
Neuroscientists cannot prove that gayness is genetically determined for two reasons: First, the Sexual Preference Center in the brain cannot "speak" to answer the question itself, and so people can hide or misstate their actual preference. And, second, the only way they can detect the actual preference is by human behavior, and that is complicated by the fact of periodic or occasional homosexual behavior by otherwise heterosexual individuals (bisexuality).
A "Brain Center" is defined as a small grouping of cells (Wikipedia: Brain), all of which perform the same or identical function. It might be envisioned as a small village where ALL the inhabitants have the same job or function in the same fashion.
As in all mammals, the human brain has centers for maleness or femaleness (Wikipedia: Biology and sexual orientation), which determine the overt physical characteristics the individual displays, but which also determine the sexual preferences of the individual. The activities of these centers are genetically determined by the genetic constitution of the embryo: If the embryo is genetically female (with two "X" chromosomes, that is "XX"), the center will be "female" in determining physical characteristics and behavior, including a heterosexual preference for sex with males. If the embryo is genetically male (with an "XY" chromosome pattern), the center will be "male" in determining physical characteristics and behavior, including a heterosexual preference for sex with females.
This "normal" development can be altered in a few specific cases by the flooding of the embryo by hormones on the part of the mother (Wikipedia: Biology and sexual orientation). If the mother's system floods the embryo with hormones opposite to the genetic constitution of the embryo, the cells in the sex determining centers will be altered to determine a sexual preference opposite to its intended genetic fate. That is, if the mother's system floods an otherwise genetic "male" embryo with the female hormone (Estrogen), then the cells in the center will determine a "female" sexual preference in the cells, including a homosexual or gay preference for sex with other males. If the mother's system floods an otherwise genetic "female" embryo with the male hormone (Testosterone), then the cells in the center will determine a "male" sexual preference in the cells, including a homosexual or gay preference for sex with other females.
Unless a very strong flooding occurs, in which case the physical characteristics determined by these sex centers will also be affected, the development of sexual preference is weaker and most at risk of being affected.
Thus, the genetic problem in homosexuality and gayness is not anything wrong with the genetic constitution of the growing embryo BUT a genetic predisposition in the mothers in which this flooding occurs. It is believed that sexual activity by pregnant females can and do increase sex hormone levels in the mother (about health: Questions About Pregnant Sex), with some increase in the "female hormone Estrogen" in some while an increase in the "male hormone Testosterone" in others; The source of the Testosterone being the Adrenal glands in those last mentioned.
THE GENETIC SOURCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND GAYNESS IS THEN NOT A GENETIC CONDITION IN THE GROWING EMBRYO, BUT A GENETIC PREDISPOSITION OF THE PREGNANT FEMALE TO FLOOD THE GROWING EMBRYO WITH THE HORMONE OPPOSITE TO THE ONE EXPECTED BY THE GENETIC CONSTITUTION OF THE EMBRYO.
The genetic predisposition in females to flood the growing embryo with the opposite hormone appears to ONLY be active in 5% of all human females.
Why was homosexuality condemned as a sin in the Old Testament?
We revere the Bible so much as the inspired Word of God, that we overlook the fact that the Old Testament is largely a historical document. A document which details the beginnings and history of a primitive, tribal society, the Hebrew people (By the Way, About Israel . . .), and of their primitive Religion and religious practices.
Besides being interspersed with the inspired Word of God, the Old Testament is primarily the historical record of the appearance, beginnings, and development of a new "racial" or "ethnic" group on Earth, with a unique culture and religion. All evidence, from the Books themselves as well as from secular findings, are that a new Human anthropologic type, the Hebrew people, appeared in the region of Southern Iraq (Ur of the Chaldees), the members of which were of a lighter skin than the then existing peoples of the region, and displayed many of the characteristics of the White Race. Whether this group are the very origins of the Greater European White Race, as currently claimed by some Christian "Leaders," is problematic, and a subject for archaeological anthropologists to investigate. It is the author's educated and informed opinion, that this was a totally different anthropological appearance of a particular lighter-skinned group, and was not at all related to the generally accepted appearance of the Great White European Race in the Caucasus Mountains (Caucasians). The Great White European Race appeared about 35,000-years ago (The Washington Post) in Europe, while the Hebrew people appeared only 3,895-years ago, with the birth of the man Abram in Ur of the Chaldees, in today's Southern Iraq.
Nevertheless, without even any of those finer points settled, it is clear that the primitive, tribal Religion of the Old Testament was conceived concurrently with the anthropological appearance and development of the Hebrew people. The writings reveal that they were constantly and eternally preoccupied with the survival of their numbers, and with the perpetuation of their unique physical, cultural, and religious characteristics within their geographical region. The early Hebrew people had already benefited from the partial knowledge already achieved by the Humanity of that time about animal husbandry, breeding of desirable characteristics in domesticated stock, and the heritability of physical and behavioral traits by careful breeding. They then applied this knowledge to their own breeding, so as to perpetuate the unique characteristics which they believed set them apart from all other peoples of the region, their whiteness, culture, and religion; Their goal then became a single-mindedness about the establishment, propagation, and perpetuation of themselves as a new ethnic entity.
Nothing concerned the man Abram (Abraham) or his son Isaac more than to see the fulfillment of what they believed were their "god's" wishes for them, (Gen 17:5,16, Gen 18:18) that they be the progenitors of this new race or ethnic group to rule the rest of the human species on Earth, and the rest of the History of the Hebrew people in the Old Testament is replete with the enactment of "religious-based laws" to both, promote the continuity of their ethnic integrity, and to prevent breeding outside their ethnic group, and thereby either pollute the purity of the group, or risk the loss of its characteristics by genetic dilution, characteristics which gave it its uniqueness in their immediate geographical region.
It was on the rationalized basis of this faith that the primitive Hebrew people enacted certain prohibitions concerning such practices as marriage outside their group (Deu 7:3, Josh 23:12-13), masturbation (Gen 38:9-10), bestiality (Lev 18:23), and homosexuality (Lev 18:22), among others. These were all seen as a "wasting" of the valuable "seed" of the Hebrew group, their male sperm, which they saw as essential for their dutiful fulfillment of what they believed were their god's wishes for them.
Whether, as promulgated by them, that it was the wishes of their primitive "god" and a "covenant" which their "god" had made with them, or just a secular mundane concern which they then elevated to a rationalized religion is problematic. We only have their word that it was their god's wishes (if their "god" does actually exist), and we exercise our prerogatives in accepting their stated rationalizations. The author of this article chooses to sit on the fence with this one, and nevertheless takes the realistic view that such faith and devotion to such a specific cause might well have been a mixture of both, an adoption on their part of the obviously already-expressed WILL of their god, their appearance on Earth, and the already established biological reality of their existence, but that the measures and religious "laws" instituted by them to ensure adherence to their god's wishes, and ascribed as petitions from their "god," might have exceeded what was absolutely required and necessary to carry it out. But given their very small numbers at their historical beginnings (a few hundred), one can only second-guess such issues, given that we were not in their shoes in that time and Era, and in their specific anthropological, demographic, sociological and geographical situations. Given that it has scientifically definitely being established that exclusive gayness will ALWAYS naturally remain ONLY 5% of ANY human population or grouping, and as it is not a matter of deliberate personal choice, tolerance of such characteristic within their population would not have jeopardized their eventual ethnic survival.
How did Jesus the Christ feel about homosexuality, and what did He say about it?
Jesus was not a superhuman, He was an ordinary human being, proven by the fact that He is described in many places in the Scriptures as crying, being tired, sleeping, eating, bathing, angry, afraid, regretful, bragging, joking, swearing, sweating, with hunger, with thirst, in pain, bleeding, and finally dying. He had an Ego, and many times was described as being argumentative and combative, and at other times insecure in Himself. He had a highly driven personality, driven to "fulfill" all the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah. He ate and drank wine heartily, and promised just before His death that He would be drinking wine in the Kingdom of God to come with His followers (Mt 26:29). He carried out an obvious and open, special, very intimate, relationship with the Apostle John, with frequent public displays of physical (sexual?) affection (Jn 13:23), which were obviously tolerated by the rest of His Apostles.
First, it must be assumed that Jesus loved all of His Apostles, and was in turn loved by all of them (Jn 21:16), so for John to single himself out as that disciple "whom Jesus loved (Jn 13:23)" is revealing of a different kind of love, one more special and intimate than the one enjoyed by Jesus with the rest of His Apostles. Such open displays of physical (sexual?) affection in public were tolerated by the rest of the Apostles (Jn 13:22-26).
However, some soap-opera dramatics, and evidence of some jealousy and resentment on the part of the Apostles concerning Jesus' special relationship with John occurs just as Jesus is to Ascend to Heaven, revealed by the following passages:
Peter seeing him saith to Jesus,
Lord, and what shall this man do?
Jesus saith unto him,
If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,
that that disciple should not die:
yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die;
but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?: (Jn 21:20-23)
Clearly Peter's questioning of Jesus in the above passages concerned the welfare of John in view of Jesus' expected departure, but Jesus' response is to tell Peter that if He wished John to remain or still be alive and waiting for Him until His Second Advent it was not any of Peter's business. This response was taken by the Apostles to imply that Jesus was granting John a special dispensation of eternal life until His Second Advent, presumably because of their special relationship, and gossiped among themselves about it after Jesus' Ascent. However, John corrects their misinterpretation of Jesus' words by stating that Jesus did not mean that John would live forever, but only that Jesus hoped for John to wait for Him.
These passages clearly demonstrate the nature and extent of Jesus' special and intimate relationship with the Apostle John, although no other evidence is found in the Scriptures that it was a "gay" relationship, and additionally reveal that Jesus during His lifetime was Himself in the hope and full expectation that His Second Advent as the "Son of Man" would occur sometime during the remainder of John's lifetime. We know from elsewhere in the Scriptures that Jesus professed not to know the actual time appointed for His Second Advent, and this due to the fact that His return is an event-dependent event:
From these Scriptural descriptions which the readers can scan at their leisure, one can only reach the inescapable and unavoidable conclusion, that were Jesus living in our Era, He would have been more at ease in the company of the "Hippies and Flower Children" of the Decade of the 1960's in the Twentieth Century. It would take a twisted satanic mentality to reach any other conclusions from Jesus' own proud descriptions of His "lifestyle" then (Mt 11:19, Jn 21:22).
But it should not be His physical life and behavior which should concern us, except to demonstrate by His example, vividly, that a "Christian" life should be primarily a "spiritual" life, nothing we do in the "flesh" (meaning restraining of the flesh) profiteth as He said (John 6:63):
GOD HAS NEVER JUDGED ANYONE . . .
Clearly, "all judgment" is not given to the Divine side of Jesus (God in Him), but to the Human part in Him, otherwise, this message would be a contradiction. Human beings are the ONLY ones with desires for vengeance, judgements, and punishments . . .
To believe or state otherwise is equivalent to saying that Jesus the Christ was a LIAR . . .
Human beings are the ONLY ones with a desire to judge others . . . God with His Supreme Power over ALL OF EXISTENCE does not have to judge anyone. He had already created His Supreme and All Encompassing "Law of Action and Consequence," which in itself determines the consequences for ALL of our actions, be they good or bad (sins). He created such behavioral law from Before the Foundation of the World (the Universe), as the Law of Cause and Effect. He need not judge anyone from then on other than by that already pre-established Law. A Law which He had to FIRST create in order for Him to become the FIRST OR PRIMAL CAUSE in the Creation of the Universe and everything that exists, otherwise none of that could have been possible even for Him . . . These logical conditions, clearly, are behind Jesus the Christ's assertion above . . .
Clearly, then, ALL of God's supposed "Judgments" in the Old Testament (be the Judgments of Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) are pure inventions of the writers, and could not in fact have ever occurred.
By the statement quoted above, to believe or state otherwise is equivalent to saying that Jesus the Christ was a LIAR . . .
In addition, the statement by Jesus does not say that "all judgment" was committed to you, or to your pastor, or to the rest of your congregation . . . Jesus the Christ, as the SOLE AND FINAL JUDGE OF MANKIND, designated by God, will in His FINAL JUDGMENT OF MANKIND judge very severely those who usurped His role as Sole Judge of Mankind . . . as unqualified and un-recruited Judges of Mankind . . .
Concerning the so-called "sins" of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gay Communities?) and of their fate on Judgment Day, Jesus the Christ repeatedly declares that one other sin would be considered worse than the sexual "sins" of these communities, as revealed by the following passages:
"But I say unto you,
That it shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment,
than for thee." (Mt 11:24)
"And whosoever shall not receive you,
nor hear you, when ye depart thence,
shake off the dust under your feet
for a testimony against them.
Verily I say unto you,
It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah
in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Mk 6:11)
These passages also clearly reveal what Jesus considered to be the real important "sins" of Sodom and Gomorrah, that of their inhospitability and total resistance to hear and receive the Word of God.
Gays and gay communities, then, will be judged along with all of Humanity on Judgment Day, not specifically for their being "gay" or "homosexuals" but according to a measure of their faithfulness in adhering to the norm of spiritual behavior expected of "Christians" in general, and as the Word of Jesus the Christ quoted above, will fare even better than some other communities.
These passages clearly refer to homosexual actitivies, as "grinding" was the Hebrew term then in use for having sex. Also, Jesus knew the difference between the terms "men" and "people," so he specifically chose to say "men," as two men lovers in bed together.
Why are most Christians today homophobic?
"Homophobia" is the irrational fear of homosexuality and of homosexuals. As a point of fact, many gays are themselves homophobic, harboring a dreadful dislike of, and hostility to, very overt "drag queens" and other feminine-acting gays. What this allows us to see clearly is that homophobia is not the exclusive territory of "religious" people, but by and large it has been particularly "Christians" who have irrationally fueled the flames of the homophobia besetting the American Nation today. This stance on the part of everyday Christians is primarily orchestrated by the "Leaders" of the Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, and Pentecostal Christian Churches in America for political reasons, and as one of the "last" battles they hope to win nationally, having politically lost their other battles against the Abolition of Slavery, Civil Rights, the use of Alcohol and Drugs, Abortion, the Civil Rights of Women, and the Women's Movement.
However, there are very simple historical reasons behind their homophobia, and these have to do with the biblical Historical antecedents of the Christian evangelizing movement. All current Protestant "Christian" Religions in America hold as their guiding leader, not Jesus the Christ Himself, the Son of God, but the Apostle Paul. While the Virgin Mary is held in higher esteem than Jesus the Christ by adherents to the Catholic Religion, the Apostle Paul is likewise held in higher esteem by the Protestant Religions in America. The pronouncements, values, and ideas promulgated by the Apostle Paul take precedence in American Protestant, Evangelical, and Pentecostal Religions to those of Jesus the Christ Himself even when they are contradictory. In a very real sense, American so-called "Christian" Religions should be more properly re-labeled "Paulist" Religions . . .
Historically, the original Christian evangelizing movement, started by Jesus the Christ's Apostles, quickly underwent extreme changes at the hands of the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul proceeded to imprint his own version of a revision of Christianity with a mixture of his own personal and cultural biases and prejudices, machismo and homophobia among many, and with peculiarly archaic Jewish ideas and concepts derived from his religious roots in the primitive, tribal Religion of the Old Testament, in effect redefining Christianity.
The practice of making decisions based on "Regional or World Christian Meetings" was also introduced into Christianity by the Apostle Paul, something never practiced or advanced by Jesus the Christ Himself; The Truths or Will of God are not to be decided for Him, or be revealed by Him, in a quasi-political Convention. Imagine if Jesus the Christ would have convened a "Convention" of Apostles and adherents to decide on policy issues such as His willingness to submit to the crucifixion, or what to do with Judas Iscariot. Such a "Convention" most likely would have censured Him for His "refusal" to do baptisms Himself, and condemned Him for His special and intimate relationship with the Apostle John.
A MOST PREPOSTEROUS AND RIDICULOUS SITUATION CANNOT BE ENVISIONED!!!
It is not given to a "Southern Baptist Convention" to decide for God to withhold His Love and approval of gay couples. Gay couples are currently "married" and living together under the Love and Protection of the Most High, and it is left just as reptilian Ritual and Display for the delegates to a Southern Baptist Convention to presume to dictate to God how to feel about the issue.
Jesus the Christ was The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and did not need to advance Himself, and The Way of life he advocated for us to live, as something akin to a political movement, which is the travesty Christianity in America has become today. That this travesty would be enticing and satisfying to the satanic, racist, and reptilian White Southern Baptist mind is no surprise!!!
How will the New Christianity deal with homosexuality?
Jesus the Christ came not to provide us with detailed and specific guidance on any one issue, but to bring us the timeless Spirit of Understanding and Wisdom with which to resolve any one issue (Jn 15:26), regardless of times, places, and circumstances, to achieve and assure ourselves of everlasting life and inclusion in the Kingdom of God. He came to set the example for this, and did not wish us to follow His individual example literally, something which is impossible for us, but to follow the Spirit of His example, the Spirit of His Life. He stressed repeatedly that what was important was not His life then (Jn 16:7), which He was giving up for our sakes, but the guidance which the Comforter or Holy Spirit which He would send to us would bring us after His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension (Jn 14:16-18). This guidance, and the example set by Christ on how He applied it in His time, place and circumstance should be our guiding Light.
Our guiding Light on the issue of homosexuality and gays in our time, place, and circumstance should be "how would Jesus the Christ resolve this issue were He living in these times?" What would be His approach? His wisdom on the matter? His judgment on the issue at hand?
Were we to focus this Light on the present issue of homosexual unions, we might see our way out of our current dilemmas about this issue.
I can imagine that Jesus the Christ would consider that "gay" homosexuals ARE sons and daughters of God, and are capable of harboring love for each other, and wherever there is love, there God is, and He Blesses it. He would consider that those gay homosexuals who wish to marry are expressing their desires and intentions of a spiritual commitment to love each other, and are expressing a desire to responsibly and legally live together in the sanctity of Matrimony. Given these present circumstances, Jesus the Christ would not oppose this . . . I imagine that were He living in our times, He would be a rebellious pastor, officiating in gay marriage ceremonies. To be sure, He would not hesitate to consider both homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity a sin, and gay homosexual marriages as the encouragement of a conduct and condition away from that sin. I imagine He would not see same-sex marriages to be a threat to heterosexual marriages, but rather that the loss of love in the latter would be their greatest threat . . .
As a point of historical fact, same sex marriages were promoted, sanctioned, and carried out openly by the world's Christian religions between the 4th and 12th centuries:
History offers us a clear lesson, and that is, that by contemplating it and reaching the unavoidable conclusions which it offers, advanced knowledge will win the day, as it did in the cases of the Abolition of Slavery, Civil Rights for Blacks, the use of Alcohol and Drugs, Abortion, the Civil Rights of Women, and the Women's Movement. As the new Millennium starts, Christianity will begin to undergo radical changes as a reaction to its present deteriorated state in America. More sober, modern, intelligent, and younger enlightened minds, inspired by the Spirit of God and of His Son, Jesus the Christ, will offer adherents to Christianity a new and more liberating form of Christianity, one which will be universally irresistible in its approach and stand in stark contrast to the primitive, tribal, and bizarre aspects of the old Hebrew Religion of the Old Testament, and of the current deteriorated "Christianity" in America.
We are indeed close to the End of this Earth Age, and revolutionary changes are in store for Christianity, which will involve the Second Advent of the Christ as the Son of Man, not as a reincarnation of Jesus the Christ as the Son of God, but in a different incarnation involving a totally different human being (Lk 9:26, Lk 17:30, Jn 3:13).
The Leaders of the present Apostate Christian "Churches" in America will not receive these developments peaceably, neither will the present Jewish people, and both will become victims of the primitive backwardness of their mind-sets, just as it happened before. History does repeat itself, mainly because such primitive, backwards mind-sets repeat their mistakes. Just as it happened with Jesus the Christ and the Jewish Nation then, with Gandhi and the British Empire, with Martin Luther and the Catholic Church, with Martin Luther King Jr. and the Racist South, and with Nelson Mandela and the apartheid white-supremacist South African society, such backwards and reactionary primitive mind-sets will not really comprehend or understand what will be going on, and will be swept away in the Flood to come . . .
Food for thought
"He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say,
It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day:
for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern
the face of the sky; but
CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?" (Mt 16:2-3)
Send Mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org