rainbow-man

God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality: My Review of Part One

Why our fundamental values support, rather than oppose, equality for sexual minorities.

-Jay Michaelson
Introductory text for Part One of his book
God vs. Gay?: The Religious Case for Equality

I would suggest that you read the book “God vs. Gay by Jay Michaelson.” He’s a Jew and does a great job of exegeting the Hebrew scriptures.

-from a post on Facebook

Michaelson’s book is divided into two parts. Part One derives some basic principles from the Bible, such as love, fairness, compassion, and justice, to create a framework by which one can integrate people in “loving same-sex relationships” into the overarching intent if not the actual narrative of the Bible. Part Two is more about the “nuts and bolts” of the Biblical passages that speak of homosexuality, particularly those that appear to prohibit or condemn homosexual practices.

Today, I’m reviewing Part One.

First of all, I commend Mr. Michaelson as a writer. He’s clear, concise, easy to access, and even entertaining. If I were reading his book with an uncritical eye and had no particular viewpoint on the issues involved, I could see myself becoming convinced by him within about the first thirty pages or so of his book. I definitely can see those people who already possess attitudes like his or who tend to be sympathetic to the matters he raises being convinced pretty much right away. After all, who could possibly be against caring for vulnerable and injured human beings and standing up for the underdog?

On the other hand, to paint the proper portrait of the Bible establishing principles that support and even demand that same-sex partners in loving relationships belong in the Church and be accepted by Christianity (and also by Judaism), requires that he read and interpret Biblical passages from the broadest possible perspective.

Loneliness. “It is not good for the human being to be alone,” God says in Genesis 2:18. In context, this is a shocking pronouncement. Six times God has remarked how good everything is: light, heaven and earth, stars, plants, animals — all of these things are “good.” The entirety of creation is “very good.” Yet suddenly something is not good. Suddenly, God realizes there is something within the world as we find it that is insufficient, something all of us experience in our own lives and strive to transcend: the existential condition of being alone.

-Michaelson, p.5
Chapter 1: “It is not good for a person to be alone”

Michaelson’s treatment of scriptural quotes follows a pattern throughout the chapters in Part One of his book in that they are read from an overly broad viewpoint and often given an unusual or unique interpretation. After all, can God really be surprised? Did He not plan to form a counterpart for Adam from the very beginning? All of the created animals were created male and female. Were not human beings planned to be male and female as well? It seems rather odd that God should create Havah (Eve) as an afterthought and more odd still that, from Michaelson’s point of view, Eve, except for the part having to do with procreation, could easily have been replaced with a male. It’s a terrific stretch to say, as Michaelson seems to, that Genesis presupposes homosexual humanity.

What some folks don’t understand about the closet is that it’s not just a set of walls around sexual behavior. It’s a net of lies that affects absolutely everything in one’s life: how you dress, who you befriend, how you walk, how you talk. And how you love. How can anyone build authentic relationships under such conditions? And if you’re religious, how can you be honest with yourself and your God if you maintain so many lies, so many walls running right through the center of your soul?

-ibid, p.7

Jay Michaelson
Jay Michaelson

This is the other argument Part One presents. It’s not based on the Bible particularly but rather on the presentation of pain, isolation, and loneliness and the desire for companionship and community, including religious community.

On top of that, Michaelson declares “Sexual diversity is real” (p.10), and accesses some scientific evidence to establish that it is natural and normal for various creatures in the animal kingdom and for human beings to display said-diversity, inferring that since sexual diversity is (supposedly) in-born, it must be an intended creation of God’s and thus part of God’s plan for human beings.

However, this requires a tremendously skewed view of the Biblical text along with infusing popular opinion and modern progressive values on sexuality, both as it was considered in the ancient world and today, in order to come to this conclusion.

But he may have shot himself in the foot by stating the following (p.11):

…as I have remarked already, our current sexual categories are of relatively recent coinage.

It seems rather strange that all of recorded human history just “missed” this “coinage” and that “loving same-sex relationships” haven’t, in some sense, been the norm across all cultures across all time, but the terms and concepts associated with the modern LGBTQ community are only decades old (if that, in some cases). While, as Michaelson says, we have visual and textual evidence of homosexual practices in our history, their function, purpose, and meaning is hidden from us, or if not hidden, at odds with the current conceptualization of same-sex relationships being completely comparable to opposite-sex relationships.

But if Genesis is any guide, and if our conscience is any guide, then we must see that having people in love with one another, building homes and perhaps families together, is religiously preferable to its absence.

-ibid, p.12

Except I cannot derive this from anything in Genesis unless I read the chapter in the broadest and most allegorical sense. Certainly no literal or semi-literal reading of the text renders such a meaning, and no accepted exegetical praxis can automatically come to the conclusion Michaelson presents in his above-quoted words.

I could condense the next two chapters into the following statements and quotes.

What about Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians? Love demands that we read them narrowly, just as we read narrowly the commandments to stone rebellious children to death, or to sell people into slavery. They are already marginal texts — homosexuality never appears in the teachings of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, and love does not erase them. But it does limit them.

-ibid, p.27
Chapter 3: “Love your neighbor as yourself”

oppressionThere are exegetical and logical errors in the quote above but it communicates Michaelson’s understanding of how to read the Bible and find acceptance of LGBTQ people in the community of faith. Here’s one more:

One New Testament scholar has written that “any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable.” This is a crucial point. If we approach “the question of homosexuality” as a legal, academic, or hermeneutical enterprise, we will get nowhere religiously. All the arguments work, and the anti-gay ones are just as clever as the pro-gay. No — to be responsible members of a faith tradition, we must first open our hearts, allow them to be broken by the heartrending stories of gays who have suffered from exclusion, plague, and self-loathing, and uplifted by inspiring stories of integration, love, and celebration.

-ibid, pp.28-29

I suppose I should add:

“All you need is love.”

-Lennon-McCartney (1967)

Sorry if that last bit sounded cynical, but Michaelson isn’t saying anything different from what I’ve read before. You’d think he’d want to bring out the “big guns” in the very beginning of his book to “hook” his doubting audience and cause them (us, me) to believe that the Bible has been so grossly misinterpreted due to cultural prejudice against gays that the “truth” has been hidden until now.

Unfortunately, he throws exegesis right out the window or at least replaces the complex matrix of interpretive methods we apply to the Bible with “all you need is love.”

If God doesn’t want people to suffer and we, as believers, don’t want to be unjust and cause needless suffering, then we must allow ourselves “to be broken by the heartrending stories of gays who have suffered from exclusion, plague, and self-loathing, and uplifted by inspiring stories of integration, love, and celebration.”

I’m sorry. I don’t want to be mean, cruel, and unfair, but the only thing Michaelson has established for me so far is that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the Bible and how gay people experience their own identity and sexuality.

Chapter 3 ends with:

No religious tradition tells us to close our eyes, harden our hearts, and steel ourselves against the demands of love. Though it may occasionally offer us shelter in an uncertain world, rigidity of spirit is not the way to salvation. On the contrary, our diverse religious traditions demand that we be compassionate, loving, and caring toward others, even others whom we may not understand. The Golden Rule demands reciprocity and compassion, and basic equality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; give them the same privileges, civilly and religiously, that you would want for yourself. These are core religious principles, found over and over again in the Bible and in thousands of years of religious teaching. Compassion demands that we inquire into the lives of gay people, and discover if the “other” is like us or not. Look for the truth, and you will find it, indeed, it will find you.

-ibid, p.29

BibleAs I said, Michaelson is a very talented, clever, and convincing writer. He also takes some general principles one can glean from the Bible and applies them to an arena that no Biblical scholar, saint, or tzaddik would have done at any point in the past. Where in the classic Christian commentaries or the judgments of the Talmudic sages is God’s intent expressed in the same manner as Michaelson’s? I can feel him attempting to tug at my heartstrings, but when I look back into the Bible or even into the secular historical record, I don’t find “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or “loving same-sex monogamous relationships” written anywhere on any of their pages.

Then, starting in Chapter 4: “By the word of God were the heavens made,” Michaelson throws something new into the mix.

Homosexuality is normal. The sentence is simple, honest, and supported by science — and yet, to many religious people it may seem surprising, even blasphemous, at first. Yet sexual diversity is part of the fabric of nature, and if we believe that fabric to have been woven by God, then it is part of the mind of God as well. Same-sex behaviors are found in over one hundred species, from apes to elephants, guppies to macaques. Put in stark religious terms, sexual diversity is part of God’s plan.

-ibid, p.30

If it weren’t so tragically wrong that paragraph would be almost laughable. According to this “logic,” if something, anything exists in the world, it must be part of God’s plan and part of the “mind of God.” Really? What else exists in our broken and damaged world? War, rape, child abuse, robbery, prostitution, birth defects, divorce, death. Did God intend all of that when He created the universe?

No.

Our world became broken the first time a human being disobeyed a commandment from God, and it’s been broken ever since. In Christianity, it’s called “Original Sin”. Judaism has no such concept, but it does have Tikkun Olam, or “Repairing the World.” The idea is that the world is imperfect and requires that people participate in its perfection. It is accompanied by the idea that only the Messiah will be able to complete the task of fully perfecting the world, even though each and every one of us has a part in the “repair job”.

Either way you slice it, the world we live in isn’t the world God intended. It’s the world we created by human disobedience and human ego. You cannot say that God intended everything that is “natural” because death and suffering are natural, and are also the result of people, not God. Yes, God permits it, but only because we’ve earned it. We’ve got free will. We can screw up a free lunch. Thus Michaelson’s argument of “if it’s natural, it’s part of God’s plan” is dead wrong.

Dennis Prager in his article Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality paints human nature with very different brush strokes:

It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man’s life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.

Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.

Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager

Prager attributes Judaism and God’s insistence on monogamous male-female romantic/erotic relationships with the creation and sustainment of Western civilization. We don’t often think of heterosexual monogamous marriage as “revolutionary” but compared to what all of the pagan cultures before and after the establishment of Judaism and Christianity were practicing, it certainly was.

From Prager’s perspective, what is natural is actually contrary to rather than in compliance with the plan of God for humanity.

More from Chapter 4 of Michaelson, p.33:

Still other scientists have observed that, in animal species close to our own, sexuality performs many functions other than reproduction. Bonobo apes, for example, engage in sexual behavior to build all kinds of relationships, to establish power, and, apparently, for fun.

That’s supposed to counter the Christian/conservative argument that sex is exclusively or primarily for reproduction. Of course, most of us won’t argue that sex is also “fun,” but did God intend for us to imitate Bonobo apes? Sex to establish power is often called rape. In the Roman culture of time of the apostles, male Roman citizens would participate in same-sex sex, but only as the “penetrator” in order to establish power and control. Only non-citizens and slaves were to be the “receivers” of the “contact” with the Roman males.

Yes, sex can be used to establish all sorts of relationships as science and history testify, but this can hardly be mixed into God’s intent for human intimacy. Michaelson scrambles science and religion in a way that looks like a hot pan full of “failed omelet.”

Michaelson’s reliance on science includes results of various studies but what he fails to mention is that given the current political and social bias toward support of normalizing the LGBTQ community in western culture, no one is going to fund any scientific research that could even potentially come up with a result other than the desired one (that is, desired by social progressives). No scientific funding will ever be provided to discover why a small percentage (about 3 to 5 percent, although Michaelson says the figure could go as high as 10 percent) of the general human population is gay, including the possibility that this is not a “normal” and expected variance in human sexuality.

On page 40, Michaelson compares the diversity of human (and animal) sexuality to the differences in the colors of flowers. Just as God created flowers of different colors, He created people with different sexualities, which seems to be an extremely loose and dubious comparison.

In Chapter 5: “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” a Biblical statement prohibiting lying under oath in a legal proceeding, Michaelson grossly generalizes the scripture to being “in the closet,” a state in which all gay people must lie about every aspect of his/her life. Basically, being in the closet violates the word of God and “coming out” upholds being a “true witness”.

In the Jewish tradition, there’s a concept called “chillul hashem” — the profanation of God’s name. Anytime a religious person does something odious and it becomes public, it’s a chillul hashem: rabbis committing adultery, religious Jews convicted of bribery, and so on. Having spent a decade of my adult life in the closet, and a decade out of it, and having spent many years witnessing the effects of religiously justified hatred of gay people, I feel certain in my heart that the anti-gay distortion of religion is a great chillul hashem.

-ibid, p.43

It’s an interesting piece of logic. If lying or deceit is a desecration of God’s Name and truth sanctifies God’s Name, and if coming out of the closet is telling the truth, then “coming out” sanctifies God’s Name. Moreover, religious traditions that have historically contributed to the “bludgeoning, burning, and torturing of gay people, literally and figuratively for centuries” is a desecration of God’s Name.

Michaelson paints the reader into a corner, or he tries to, such that if the reader, for any reason whatsoever, is not completely supportive of the LGBTQ community being normalized within the local church and synagogue, then they are automatically committing “chillul hashem,” whether that is actually true from God’s point of view or not.

justiceDon’t get me wrong, I’m hardly supporting the “demonization” of gay people and certainly not contributing to verbal and physical harassment and injury of people based on sexual orientation, but I don’t think that the only other possible alternative is unconditional acceptance of all gay people everywhere into the ekklesia of Messiah without so much as a “by your leave.”

In most states, gay people can be fired from their jobs or denied housing because of their sexual orientation.

-ibid, p.48
Chapter 6: “Justice — justice you shall pursue”

True as far as it goes, but what does that have to do with religion and God? Well, as a principle, and especially in denominations and religious movements that emphasize social justice, it’s a call for Christians and Jews to support LGBTQ equal rights by advocating changes in the political arena, locally, statewide, and nationally.

Michaelson builds one concept upon the other so that, if the reader is convinced by his arguments up to this point, then as a kind and good person and a person of faith, they must take the next step and vote with their conscience, which means voting in support of all pro-gay initiatives.

After all, aren’t we to “love the stranger and not oppress him” (see Lev. 19:34)? Except the “stranger” or “ger” being referenced in that passage of scripture is the non-Israelite who, along with the widow and orphan, did not have an affiliation to a tribe and thus had few if any rights in Israelite society. It is a specific legal status that no longer exists as Israel is no longer tribal, and thus cannot be applied as Michaelson is doing.

He does make a good point on page 50 that, if we shun gays based on the Bible, why don’t we also shun people who are divorced for any reason other than marital infidelity (see Matt. 5:32)? It is true that Christians tend to treat “homosexual sin” differently than any other kind of sin. It would be better to be a convicted murder, have done your time, come out of prison and go to church than to be openly gay.

But having reached the end of Part One of Michaelson’s book, I hope you can see my problem with it. This author’s arguments are hardly iron clad and in fact, most of them are ephemeral and gossamer. Does this mean I hate gay people and want them to suffer? No, of course not. However, compassion does not presuppose unconditional acceptance of gays into the covenant community nor ignoring the fact that, even if Michaelson can possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the Bible (and thus God) never, ever condemns homosexual erotic activity, he may never be able to establish that the Bible directly supports marriage equality, at least beyond “establishing” some exceptionally broad principles from various scriptures taken very far out of their original contexts.

I’ll write my review of Part Two once I’ve finished reading Michaelson’s book.

Addendum: I know from reading Michaelson’s book that like most (or all) other gays and most of their “allies,” he strongly opposes what has been called “reparative therapy” also called “conversion therapy,” which is designed to assist a homosexual individual change his/her sexual orientation to heterosexuality. This therapy is considered by the LGBTQ community to be at best useless and at worst torturous, shaming, and potentially lethal (driving some gay people undergoing the therapy to attempt suicide). I can’t argue against their perspectives and the apparent negative effects this treatment has had on numerous gay people, but then again, if sexual orientation can never be changed, what do I do with people like this one?

Also, in anticipation of Michaelson’s arguments in Part Two of his book, I’m saving a link to my previous blog post Leviticus, Homosexuality, and Abominations here.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality: My Review of Part One”

  1. During the conversation a few days ago here I did not know that
    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2014/10/17/october-17-2014-transgenders-theology/24400/ this had been on the previous Sunday. I watched it yesterday. I’d say it’s unfortunate the image the video is stuck on when not playing is from a fictional show (although I think the person is truly what the character is sexually); what I found more meaningful were the stories of everyday people. Notice that you can click for the transcript below the screen.

    A book is mentioned, and I have bought the book (for ninety-nine cents, not a tangible paper form of it). I’ve also started (barely) the book. I was surprised to see mention of MJ scholarship (among other), contributing. I didn’t recognize the attribution and haven’t looked up names.The author (not Messianic) is Tia Michelle Pesando.

  2. While bisexuality and homosexuality can be debated as forms of identity or sexual disorders (and these states were removed from the list of formal psychiatric diagnoses decades ago), transsexual individuals have an authentic diagnostic category: gender identity dysphoria. The very concept is only about twenty-five years old, so one wonders how it was experienced/treated in the years and centuries before that.

    It seems very little is known and true cases are rare (though they seem to be mentioned with greatly increasing frequency in popular news and social media lately), but oddly enough, instead of treating the sense of feeling of being in the wrong body through psychological means, the treatment of choice is to change their bodies to more closely fit their internally perceived identity. This has gone so far as States, principally California, passing laws that allow children who identify as the opposite gender to use the “preferred” public restrooms at school, so a person born male but who identifies and dresses as female, can legally use the girl’s restroom and gym locker room at public schools.

    Michaelson’s book doesn’t address transsexuals, so my review won’t either, but I believe how we perceive this small group of people has been “affected” by the gay and lesbian rights movement, quite possibly to the detriment of transsexual people, and particularly children who are diagnosed, some as young as five years of age, as transsexuals.

  3. “…quite possibly to the detriment of transsexual people….”

    I agree.

    However, sometimes people who are treated (in society or by their parents, etc., or even doctors surrounding their birth) in ways that don’t fit their real identity (including genetics) struggle with homosexual issues when their issues might not be exactly that. [Parents may or might not know, and the individual may or might not know. Certainly, genetic composition has not always been known.] And the outer presentation, while it has been around (apparenly in more ways than one — mixed genitalia as well as genitalia representing one aspect of the genes and not the other for these people), has not been addressed squarely until recently. (Yet some surgery has occurred peri-birth, not only recently).

    And, as you said, people who [don’t have genetic matters to deal with or discover but] have personality-body conflicts seem to be treated (in therapy) as candidates for drastic action:

    “….oddly enough, instead of treating the sense of feeling…[/]being in the wrong body through psychological means, the treatment of choice is to change their bodies….”

    I haven’t read the book you’re reading, but I think there is “something to be said for” thoughts relating to chapter five. And that would be the case for both, people who maybe would benefit from genetic testing as well as people who are struggling otherwise.

  4. “…compassion does not presuppose unconditional acceptance of gays into the covenant community…”

    This is spot-on.

    We discussed the issue of homosexual marriage briefly today in Sunday school and everyone agreed that it’s ridiculous to expect people who aren’t following Christ to adhere to His way. But it’s equally ridiculous, as you rightly point out, to expect the covenant community to throw out the sexual ethics so clearly stated in Scripture.

    We can’t have Jesus’ way and our own way. It doesn’t work.

  5. I think that a possible cause for the higher sensitivity towards the sin of homosexuality vs the sin of murder, for example. Is that today there seems to be a aggressive movement to brain wash the next generation via the education system. There also is the case in point of changing the definition of marriage, the blacklisting of businesses who support the traditional view of marriage and the attack on the church to force their ministers to perform same sex marriages. Personally I have no problem with homosexuals except for some of the reasons I listed above. I believe that if people want a religion that excepts the homosexual lifestyle, they should make one up or find one that already does. Instead of trying to change the current religions by altering the definition of marriage, what the bible says and who G-d is. Once someone does change these things about a religion, I don’t think we should call it Judaism or Christianity anymore. To give a parallel example from somewhere else. The government can get this concept right when it comes to discerning whether a beverage is orange drink or orange juice, but they can’t seem to get it right when it comes to marriage.

  6. I do think, James, that a lot of (most of so far) the author’s writing [which you have summarized] is lacking in sense — from logic to acceptability (even if not in style points). I also think we have to ask ourselves what really does God want [as you’ve been seeking] from “the in crowd” — not only from “Gay People” — say at church or when considering Thanksgiving dinner?

    There might be a difference between performing marriages and welcoming married same-sex couples. We are going to be seeing (as there already are) families like this with children. There might not be anything in the book about that, but do we keep the whole family away because of the parents? And, in accord with the acknowledged best food for thought in the book (not sure in relation to which chapter), if so, then are we prepared to keep whole families away where said family began AS an affair (adultery)? Do we even ask?

    And if a man left his wife and child/ren for another woman or for no apparent reason or made life unbearable for his earlier wife (leading to separation or divorce), do we ask if he is supporting the dedicated mothering choices she would have wanted to make had he not left? How about supporting her, in the long run, being able to train or educate to work a reasonable occupation to live on after that — as he has bounced on what she was suppose to be able to rest in? Oh, and do we just believe whatever he says?

  7. Marleen, as Troy said above, a lot of our response to the LGBTQ community has to do with feeling as if their priorities and imperatives are, so to speak, being shoved down our throats. In his book, Michaelson says gays don’t want special rights, just equal rights, but apparently in order to achieve that goal, they (LGBTQ individual advocates and advocate groups) have to keep pummeling us over news and social media, attempting to influence civil and governmental organizations as well as the general citizenry. The Church is one of those organizations and if we attempt, for whatever reason, to resist their message, we are labeled “homophobic,” which I guess is the worst thing to be in today’s world.

    Troy, actually there are plenty of liberal churches and synagogues that welcome gay couples and all other LGBTQ people with open arms, so technically, they don’t have to change a thing let alone create anything new. And yet, that’s not enough. Michaelson and others have to somehow convince *all* Christian churches and branches of Judaism that the Bible provides evidence “proving” same-sex inclusion into the ranks of those religions. I’m over halfway through the book now, including Michaelson’s treatment of the various “anti-gay” parts of scripture, and he hasn’t become any more convincing.

  8. That’s true. I wonder when the first church or synagogue decided that this type of lifestyle is biblically acceptable. There seems to be more of a push for it to be excepted across the board these days.
    I share a lot of the same frustrations as yourself James. I also share your sentiment that we still should show kindness to them and not hate i.e. A: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING. My definition of hate may be different than what society’s definition of hate is on this topic because it seems that hate is rather being defined as anyone who supports the traditional view of marriage and doesn’t agree with same sex marriage. So, it appears there is another word that is having its definition modified today.
    There is a video out just recently of a gentlemen in the Dallas airport showing real hatred towards a homosexual and it ended up escalating into a violent confrontation and then the man was taken down. My heart broke as I watched it. Both for the victim and the aggressor. This is the kind of hatred that needs to be eradicated, not the hatred that is defined as someone who holds to a different standard then oneself.

  9. There’s a lot of pummeling from many directions (not just from homosexuals) in news and social media and more. As I’ve pointed out (and been agreed with on before [by PL]), homosexuality was already not acceptable in the general population before politicians started making it one of their calling cards; the whole thing has backfired. Not only that, we’ve had people arguing for centuries to let them off on other matters; they just call it Christian to get away with stuff — but not that. Kinda not sure why you’re annoyed with someone who shows less understanding in a past blog topic and then professorial with someone who does show it in this one. I think I will take a lesson from the last crack at this [ https://mymorningmeditations.com/2014/10/21/what-does-god-want-from-gay-people/#comments ], where you indicated a person is probably better off not responding.

  10. I find it interesting that people are finally recognizing the issue of identity in the problem of what I would like to call Gender Bending, although the choices involved are generally not made in their adult years, but in formative years, even if only realized as an adult.

    A dear friend of mine was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder called Borderline Personality Disorder. She is brilliant, well read, a sincere Believer in Yeshua, a generally nice and relatively kind person with a lot of normal faults who walks the walk, but her entire life (I have her permission to speak about all of this) has been a tortured struggle to find out who she was as a person, as opposed to who other people wanted her to be. The pattern of her life was as follows:

    Age 0-6 – reluctantly and minimally cared for by her mother (who was herself depressed, and the daughter of a dangerously unstable mother); rejected by an older brother at the moment of coming into the family, and a cool if responsible father.
    Age 7 – Sexually molested by a thirteen year old male neighbour due to direct negligence during a family/neighbor gathering.
    Age 9-19 – a graduated but extensive introduction to all matters sexual, negation of sense of self, depression, anxiety, etc., the works.
    Age 20 – gang raped, date raped.
    Age 21 – Became a sexual hunter of the opposite sex…much as men do in their young years.
    Age 25 – Became avoidant of all sexual activity outside a rare relationship.
    Age 28 – Married, happily for 11 of 13 years…then divorced on discovery of adultery.
    Age 40 to present – Single and without sexual partners, and not wanting any.

    In it all, there was a deep craving for love and recognition as a person. Fortunately, Yeshua filled the gap, but not after some 42 years of rather tortured existence.

    The point? She was easily introduced to bi-sexual Ideas and multi-sexual activities, both in her mind, and her body, by force and by deliberately gradualized exposure. She is not completely free of it all…there are evidently some memories that are harder to forget than others, but she isn’t tormented by it either.

    She finds that the same sex attraction that she cannot escape entirely is only the pictures in her mind, rather than any liking for or interest in a female person. In fact, she has never had any sexual contact with a real female person. Yet for a long time she considered herself to be bi-sexual simply due to her appreciation of the female forms of others as an element of her sexuality. She wasn’t ever into porn, but with regular movies and TV who needs it?

    She was trained to be a non-person by the incidents of her early life, and then deliberately led towards inappropriate sexuality by the time she was 12.

    I do not doubt that most of the Gender Bent people wish to believe that they were made the way they are by G-d.

    G-d was not involved…people were, and for some at so young an age, they cannot discern when their gender transformation occurred.

  11. Rey or ….que52 shared this link {and subsequent link}:
    http://www.hasidicuniversity.org/index.php?page=hu_theocracy/mitzvah_profile.php?mitzvah=-350

    Commandment Profile:

    -350) No homosexual relations

    Required

    Death penalty

    For a man not to have intercourse with another man. Relations between two women are not considered true intercourse, and thus female homosexuality would not be enforced with capital punishment under this commandment. Nevertheless, lesbianism is a violation of the rules against immodesty (see commandment -353), and is therefore also forbidden.

    Adultery Commandments {LINK}
    http://www.hasidicuniversity.org/index.php?page=hu_theocracy/th05_adultery.htm

    5. Commandments Against Immoral Relations
    (32 commandments)

    Biblical:
    +212)

    To have multiple children

    +213)

    To marry a woman

    +214)

    For a groom to rejoice with his wife for one year

    – 52)

    No intermarriage between Jews and gentiles

    – 262)

    Not to withhold food, clothing, or intercourse from one’s wife

    – 311)

    Not to send a groom to duties away from home in his 1st year of marriage

    – 330)

    No relations with one’s mother

    – 331)

    No relations with one’s father’s wife

    – 332)

    No relations with one’s sister

    – 333)

    No relations with one’s father’s daughter

    – 334)

    No relations with one’s son’s daughter

    – 335)

    No relations with one’s daughter’s daughter

    – 336)

    No relations with one’s daughter

    – 337)

    No relations with a woman and with her daughter

    – 338)

    No relations with a woman and with her son’s daughter

    – 339)

    No relations with a woman and with her daughter’s daughter

    – 340)

    No relations with one’s father’s sister

    – 341)

    No relations with one’s mother’s sister

    – 342)

    No relations with the wife of one’s father’s brother

    – 343)

    No relations with the wife of one’s son

    – 344)

    No relations with the wife of one’s brother

    – 345)

    No relations with the sister of one’s wife

    – 346)

    No relations with a woman in her monthly period

    – 347)

    No adultery with a married woman

    – 348)

    For a man not to have relations with an animal

    – 349)

    For a woman not to have relations with an animal

    – 350)

    No homosexual relations

    – 351)

    No homosexual relations with one’s father

    – 352)

    No homosexual relations with the brother of one’s father

    – 353)

    No immodest contact that draws close to forbidden relations

    – 355)

    Not to have intercourse outside of formal marriage

    – 356)

    Not to remarry one’s divorced wife after she has remarried

    ******************************************************************
    Although this site says homosexuality calls for the death penalty — in other words, that it is a capital crime — and ….que52 said it carries the death penalty, this is INCORRECT and dangerous to say (unless, at the very least, we can get society to stop calling or classifying lesbians as homosexual — which isn’t going to happen). This is why, rather, I think we should stop using a catch-all word (or any equivalent), as if it is what the Bible is talking about, which doesn’t fit. Secondly, we should not say that homosexuality is what the problem was in Sodom; if homosexuality includes lesbians, an honest heart should alert our careful communication. [Thirdly, in later prophecy looking back at Sodom, the “sin of Sodom” is identified as something in the heart toward the poor/weak/vulnerable.]

    No one — I hope — is saying that, all across the world, men who perform [somewhat differentiated from “inflict” by force or demand or any implication of threat, however minor the threat, said or unsaid] what is often called sodomy should be put to death. It is arguable that putting them to death has historical precedent upheld by the Bible in Israel and applicable today, and Rey is probably correct to say Jewish people living in Israel are risking their hold on that land by not enforcing this law and it’s attached penalty — THERE. If it is ever to apply on the whole of the earth, that’d be during or after the millennium. And in this rest of the world, even forced sodomy should not carry the death penalty (as abusive as I think the act of sodomy is even when not coerced) unless all rape does as well.

    I appreciate what Questor has shared. Molestation of minors or dependent/trapped people would appropriately be included as well as rape, and more.

  12. Although I went, yesterday, to a linked (by someone from here) video of a rabbi who indicated putting people to death in the Torah meant putting the sin or way of thinking to death by convincing say Cananites to be ger (and it is an interesting thought), I haven’t found that to be the going understanding at this site (mymorningmeditations). I think it is rather accepted that Israelites were indeed to slaughter the deeply disgusting society they encountered in that place.

    I think it’s also understood that the Bible portrays sodomy as icky like eating buzzards is icky, although it doesn’t give the death penalty for eating scavenger birds but does give the death penalty for sodomy as it gives the death penalty for murder and adultery. [And it is arguable the death penalty is, contrary to the values of other dominating societies that saw status in the penetrator, a shaming of the perpetrator especially, who behaves “as with” a woman.]

    While the rabbi I mentioned also says the Torah was written by ger, not Jews (and, again, it’s an interesting thought), I see the Torah as Jewish. Thus, I am perplexed in more than one way by an exchange that occurred in a time frame that included this current meditation (above, by James).

    [The following is the ending of a post, followed by the next
    post in a thread/meditation called
    WHAT DOES GOD WANT FROM GAY PEOPLE?.]
    ….GOD’s view of the issue. As society (and it seems even many professing Christians) become more accepting of homosexuality the less homosexuals will see their behaviour as sinful and will be less willing to be freed from their sin.

    @James
    OCTOBER 22, 2014 AT 3:46 PM
    Well, that’s one way to look at it, and certainly it could even be true, but it requires dismissing any given gay person as a “type” and as a “sin” rather than a human being. What motivation does anyone have to repent of their sins if Christians as the keepers of the keys to Heaven, point accusing fingers at those we disdain and cry out “unclean”? Would it violate some Biblical commandment to relate to a gay person as a person rather than a thing?

    @Onesimus
    OCTOBER 22, 2014 AT 4:04 PM
    Murderers are human beings too – but should we be accepting of their murdering in case we alienate them and remove their motivation to repent?

    Why should homosexuality be treated any differently from any other sin? Maybe we should also look at ways to welcome unrepentant murderers, thieves, rapists, paedophiles (who also probably claim they were been born with their particular “sexual orientation”) without addressing their sin?

    What motivation IS there to repent if there’s no understanding that repentance is required?

    And who said anything about disdaining sinners?

    ….

    @James, then, at six PM responded thus:
    [Quoting James] Onesimus said:

    Murderers are human beings too – but should we be accepting of their murdering in case we alienate them and remove their motivation to repent?

    Wow. Sexual orientation vs. capital crime. I guess I understand your viewpoint about gay people. Thanks for stopping by.

    [End my quoting James]

    James subsequently (8:15 PM) decided to commit to his annoyance with Onesimus, comparing him to those who have dehumanized Jews as gay people have been dehumanized, like James thinks the word fetuses dehumanizes (not that Onesimus had said anything about fetuses). Kinda seems like James “shoving” his viewpoint down Onesimus’ throat (if no one else’s — except as an example, not unlike the anti-homophobia tactics alluded to and inexplicably decried in this thread, like maybe that was a different James).

    Onesimus was soon (under another meditation) accused AGAIN of anti-Semitic views, plus not being peaceful — and told to go away. James’s dropping by comment [not being just anybody’s comment], per views/conversation on gay people, turned out to be a warning… as it had stunningly seemed. I would like to recommend adherence to the words of Jesus who said to go get things right with your brother before going to talk with God (or to leave your offering, something like that). I think we should admit (rather than only demand another admit) that we all struggle with what the Bible says and what we do now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s