9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

(Home-My Story).......
Stories......................

True, Tragic and Unnecessary Gay Youth Suicide

(Espaol)

PART 2 - Page 8 of 34
New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity
Confusing Long-term Homosexual Monogamy with the Sexual
Exploitation of Kids, Adult Male Prostitution & Male on Male Rape
Could Paul Have Been Mistaken?
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Could The Biblical Eunuch Include Today's Homosexual?

Romans 1:18-32
The following passage from Romans 1:18-32 is undoubtedly the most
important statement of homosexuality in the entire Bible. It occurs in
the Christian New Testament, so unlike Leviticus, no one can dismiss it
as part of the "Old" Testament. And it is long and detailed, so unlike
the other two references in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (see below), no one can claim it is a mere
passing comment.
But precisely because this passage is long, it
provides a lot of material for analysis, and more and more surely as the
evidence mounts, this analysis shows that this text has been
misunderstood and misused.
Here is the text of Romans 1-18-32. Only verses 26 and 27 are clear
references to homogenital acts; female homogenital acts in verse 26,
and male homogenital acts in verse 27.
Romans 1:18-32 - 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their
wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is
plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever since the
creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible
though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he
has made. So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew God,
they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became
futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the
glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being
or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24Therefore

God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,

to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

1/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

26For

this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their

women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the
same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women,
were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed
shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due
penalty for their error.
28And

since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up
to a base mind and to things that should not be done. 29They were
filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of
envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers,
God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious
toward parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32They know
God's decree, that those who do such things deserve to die - yet they
not only do them but even applaud those who practice them. (NRSV)

Idolatry and Sexual Selfishness - Gary Lynn's Viewpoint, Right

Upfront About Romans 1:18-32
To me, in Romans 1:18-32, Paul is specifically talking about idolatry
and how this idolatry is expressed in sexual selfishness which shows
itself in lustful same-sex acts by both males and females. L. R. Holben
argues and I agree "that Paul cannot be addressing the situation of
present-day homosexuals, in particular Christian homosexuals, who are
not idolaters. Furthermore, Paul's emphasis on the lustful nature of the
passions he describes, while clearly speaking to promiscuous, abusive
and dehumanizing homosexual expression in both his age and our own,
is held to be entirely inapplicable to loving, committed, consensual
relationships between gays or lesbians, the nature of whose
partnerships clearly has nothing in common with . . the forms of sexual
expression being condemned." (1) Loving, committed and consensual
relationships between gays or lesbians are not based on selfishness
whereas all the promiscuous sexual acts by males and females Paul
talked about in verses 26 and 27 are indeed founded on selfishness
where the other person is turned into a thing, an object to be
exploited, to be used and abused for their own pleasure. And we are
reminded that almost all sin is grounded in selfishness and egotism examples: lying, stealing, murder and adultery. Love that is the real
thing, where one partner loves his or her partner more than himself or
herself, can never be selfish or wrong. To read more about beautiful
logic of love click Here.

lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

2/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

How Can The Sexual Exploitation of Children, Adult Male

Prostitution
or Male on Male Rape Be Compared to Homosexual Monogamy?
Now remember that the above verses in Romans that referred to samesex sexual behavior were authored by the Apostle Paul and he was
concerned about the influence of the pagan cultures that existed
throughout the Roman Empire where new Gentile Christians lived. He
was concerned about the male-on-male sexual activities explicitly
associated with idol worship as mentioned on page 7 and with people
(both men and women-Romans 1:26, 27) who, in an unbridled search
for pleasure as a result of their idolatry, broke away from their "natural"
heterosexual sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous and
lustful sex with anyone, male or female, child or teenager available.
Also remember that up until the word homosexual was invented in the
mid to late 19th Century, it was understood that everyone was a
heterosexual. According to L. William Countryman in Dirt, Greed &
Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for
Today, the ancient world "lacked even a behavior-based category for
people who showed a fixed preference for partners of the same sex."
And it is apparent that Paul was only familiar with the 5 male-on-male
sexual relations that existed at the time, the ones I listed on page 4.
It is clear that he was very much in opposition to or against these
specific sexual practices, which amounted to a large extent to
pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world where
successful older men would take boys into their homes as concubines,
lovers, and sexual slaves or look for them on the streets as
prostitutes. On that list is also adult male prostitution and male on
male rape. We can all agree that these sexual practices are abhorrent
and sinful. But it is not clear and completely illogical that he would be
against something that did not exist - two people of the same sex
living in a committed, monogamous, loving relationship. Paul had no
concept of these kind of relationships between two men or two women.
This reasoning is in line with the idea that authorial limits must be
considered when one is translating any given text with integrity.
According to L. R. Holben (paraphrasing), this means that we need to
ask ourselves what the author intended to communicate in a particular
text. It means that we cannot generally take a biblical text to mean
more than its own author understood it to mean. Therefore since
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

3/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

long-term monogamous homosexual relationships were unknown in

Biblical times we can only assume that Paul was referring to the five
known types of male-on-male sexual practices of that era.
As United Methodist biblical scholar Walter Wink puts it, Paul had no
concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his
world." And as Baptist Minister, Oliver "Buzz" Thomas writes in his
article "When Religion Loses Its Credibility" in USAToday "it completely
distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical
context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children, [adult male prostitution or
male on male rape]) to contemporary situations between two
monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is
condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual
fidelity is not." (By the way, Romans 1:26 is the only biblical mention
of female-on-female sex)

Could Paul Have Been Mistaken?

Was.

Well Yes, Actually, He

. .Paul's whole argument when he uses the words "natural" and

"unnatural" in this passage [verses 26 and 27] reflects his lack of
awareness that some people's "natures," that is to say, their internal,
spontaneous affectional [romantic] and sexual responses, are same-sex
directed. Since the apostle assumed, along with the rest of his
Jewish subculture, that everybody is "by nature" heterosexual, and
that homosexual acts and desires therefore always represent a
deliberate choice to act "against" the integrity of one's internal
selfhood, . . . . what Paul is really condemning here is deliberate,
conscious perversity. As a result, Romans I has nothing at all to say
about men and women whose "natures" are truly homosexual. All Paul
knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. To
repeat, since he had no awareness of the existence of a homosexual
orientation which is both unchosen and immutable, nor any models for
responsible, loving, committed homosexual relationships, we must
conclude that Paul was simply mistaken in his blanket condemnation
of all homosexual acts (just as, for different reasons, he was mistaken
in his tacit acceptance of slavery and his exclusion of women from
leadership in the church.) So
he cannot be condemned for that
ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

4/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

own. (2) To base the church's principled objections to homosexuality

and homosexuals on the basis of Paul's imperfect knowledge is itself
unprincipled, and indeed quite beside all of the heroic points that Paul
intends to make in Romans 1. (3)
And again according to L. R. Holben (paraphrasing) this reasoning is in
line with the idea that limits are imposed upon the biblical authors and
editors by the fact that they were of necessity men of their particular
time and culture; it has to do with the question of whether (and, if so,
to what degree) that fact affected their understanding of the truth
revealed to them or the conclusions (sometimes erroneous) they drew
from it. Yes, I believe that the Holy Scriptures are indeed inspired
by God, but only through the limitations of the human condition which
we have to take into account as we read them. Click HERE to read
More. No, I do not believe that every part, every word of the Bible is
the Word of God in and of itselfirrespective of context. That is
called proof-texting which I deal with on Page 16.
Continuing with the above line of thought, it has been suggested that
(since what is at issue here is a deliberate violation of the structures of
one's personality and innate sexual orientation) this [Romans 1:18-32]
passage could even support an argument that it would be wrong for a
true homosexual to attempt to function as, or change into, a
heterosexual. (2) Click Here and Here to read my thoughts on the
whole ex-gay fraud.

Another Reason Paul Was Mistaken

I also argue that Paul was mistaken about same-sex sexual relations
because it was based on his belief in the literal return of Jesus during
his lifetime or the lifetime of his contemporaries. In Mark 9:1 (New
Living Translation): Jesus went on to say, "I assure you that some of
you standing here right now will not die before you see the Kingdom of
God arrive in great power!" And Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-19
(New Living Translation) 13And now, dear brothers and sisters, we want
you to know what will happen to the believers who have died so you
will not grieve like people who have no hope. 14For since we believe
that Jesus died and was raised to life again, we also believe that when
Jesus returns, God will bring back with him the believers who have
died. 15We tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living
when the Lord returns will not meet him ahead of those who have died.
16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of
God. First, the Christians who have died will rise from their graves.
17Then, together with them, we who are still alive and remain on
the earth will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Then we will be with the Lord forever. 18 So encourage each other
with these words.
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

5/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

According to Linda J. Patterson in her book, Hate Thy Neighbor-How the

Bible is Misused to Condemn Homosexuality: Paul's belief of the
imminent return of Jesus may have influenced his views regarding
passion, sex, and marriage. For example, at one point during his
ministry, Paul received an inquiry from the church in Corinth regarding
whether it is appropriate for a man to "touch a woman." (3a)
Apparently, there were some ascetics in the church who believed that
following Jesus requires self-denial, and that Christians should
therefore forego sex. (3b) Paul responds by indicating that sex is only
acceptable between a husband and wife, and that they should provide
each other their "conjugal rights." (3c) Far from encouraging marriage,
however, Paul indicates that only people who are "aflame with passion"
and incapable of exercising "self-control" should consider marriage.
(3d) Believing that "the appointed time has grown short," and "the
present form of this world is passing away," (3e) Paul counsels the
Christians at Corinth to forego sex in order to focus on the affairs of
the Lord in the last days. In other words, Paul appears to have
frowned upon all sex, and he believed that it was a distraction for the
faithful that should be avoided in favor of his perceived ideal of
celibacy.
Patterson continues: It was bad enough for Paul that husbands and
wives wanted to have sex together, but at least heterosexual
intercourse involved the functions of procreation and preservation of
the active/passive gender roles which reflected men as "the image and
reflection of God" and women as the "reflection of man." (3f) Perhaps
Paul thought that sexual relations which fell outside of these
limitations were "unnatural" and "degrading" because such relations
were motivated by passion alone. Instead of seeing passion as a
potentially positive force that should be celebrated and enjoyed, Paul
viewed it as a negative urge that should be suppressed. (3g) Indeed,
he once lamented that "I know that nothing good dwells within me,
that is, in my flesh." (3h) A romantic man Paul was not!
So, "like the Stoics, Paul would have been opposed to any kind of sex
engaged in purely for pleasure. And he saw no reason to bring children
into a world that was soon coming to an end. Hence he saw no need
for sex - period." (4) [Stoics were members of a school of philosophy
who believe that the wise man should be free from passion, unmoved
by joy or grief and submissive to natural law]

John J. McNeill in "The Church and the Homosexual" Arrives

At The Same Above Conclusions

lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

6/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

. . . . .strictly speaking neither the Bible

nor Christian tradition knew anything of
homosexuality as such; both were
concerned solely with the commission of
homosexual acts. Homosexuality is not,
as commonly supposed, a kind of
conduct, but a psychological condition. It
is important to understand that the
genuine
homosexual
condition-or
inversion, as it is often termed-is
something for which the subject can in
no way be held responsible. In itself it is
morally neutral. Like the condition of
heterosexuality, however, it tends to find
expression in specific sexual acts; and
such acts are subject to moral judgment.
We must distinguish, then, between the
invert and the pervert. The pervert is not
a genuine homosexual; rather, he is a
heterosexual
who
engages
in
homosexual practices, or a homosexual
who engages in heterosexual practices. This distinction between the
condition of inversion and the behavior of perversion is indispensable
for a correct interpretation of biblical and traditional sources.
The real moral problem of homosexuality has to do with judging the
moral value of sexual activity between genuine homosexuals who seek
to express their love for one another in a sexual gesture. Scripture can
be understood as clearly and explicitly condemning true homosexual
activity only if it can be interpreted as condemning the activity of a
true invert. To such situations, however, it can hardly be said that the
Bible addresses itself, since the condition of inversion with all its
special problems was quite unknown at the, time. On the contrary,
there is ample evidence that in most instances where Scripture deals
with homosexuality the author probably had in mind what today we
would call perversion, namely, the indulgence in homosexual activity
on the part of those who were by nature heterosexually inclined.
(McNeill, John J., "The Church and the Homosexual", Boston, Beacon Press, 1976, 1985,
1988,1993, pages 41-42)

The Authority of Scripture

Should Gays and Lesbians Be Defined Primarily by Their Sexual
Inclinations?
Peter J. Gomes in his inspiring book, The Good Book-Reading The Bible
With Mind and Heart, lays out a solid case for what I'm trying to say
and more on this page [But he says it a whole lot better, ha-ha]:
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

7/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

. . . . In an article in Christianity Today, "Why Is This Important?"

Stanton L. Jones gives three reasons [for not changing the
Conservative Christian Churches' position on homosexuality],
"First, the church's historically high view of the authority of
scripture is threatened by efforts at revising the church's position
on homosexuality. His second reason is that if homosexuals are
defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is
contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity. The
third and most critical reason, however is this: "We can only
change our position on homosexuality by changing our
fundamental stance on biblical authority, by changing our core
view of sexuality, and by changing the meaning and character of
Christ's call on our lives."
The first of Jones's objections, that the authority of scripture is
challenged by a revision of the church's position on
homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the
authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by
the revision of the church's position on women, Jews, and
slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account the fact that,
high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about
homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the
contemporary church's debates about homosexuality or address
itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality. It should
also be noted that it is not homosexuals who define
themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case
that persons opposed to homosexuality [who] define it and
homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms. Finally, of course,
what Jones sees as a "problem" is in fact the only intellectually
and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our
positions on homosexuality if that position is based upon a
prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental
stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute;
that is a form of Protestant idolatry. [Note from Gary Lynn: I
understand this to mean that it is a form of idolatry to consider
the imperfect Bible of more importance than the perfect Holy
Spirit, i.e. God] Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to
change, and must, and the "meaning and character of Christ's call
on our lives" thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a
dynamic and inclusive gospel.
What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as
conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say,
but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these
people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to
their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of
which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the
prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and
icon. Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend
their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than
concede that their self-serving reading of that scripture might
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

8/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires
it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can
presently afford to be.
The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality
in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live
out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as
any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was
prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation.
These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals,
and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a
cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much
prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic
Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety
and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem,"
of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it. (5)
Sacred Biblical Scripture Was Found Not to Apply in Paul and
Peter's Day - Acts 10
A good winding up of all this is found in L. R. Holben's, What Christians
Think about Homosexuality - Six Representative Viewpoints, where he
writes:
"If . . [the above] bald-faced assertion(s) [That Paul was in fact
mistaken in his blanket condemnation of all homosexual acts]
seems heretical to more conservative sensibilities, we would remind
their fellow Christians of Peter's rooftop vision relating to the
conversion of the centurion Cornelius and his family (Acts 10). The
"conservative" view among faithful Jews of the time, buttressed by
strong biblical evidence and consistent tradition, was that Jews
could have no intimate dealings with Gentiles. But God's purpose
was greater even than Scripture or the traditions of the
household of faith.
In imagery that can only have seemed
extraordinarily shocking to Peter (just as shocking as it would be to
many conservative Christians today to consider, for example,
affirming the moral legitimacy of a loving, committed, monogamous
gay union), God showed Peter a sheet writhing with non-kosher
animals and instructed him to "kill and eat." When Peter protested
that he had never in his entire life eaten anything unclean (as, it is
important to note, the Scriptures themselves had defined
"unclean"), God's shattering answer was: 'What God has made
clean, you must not call profane.' Every Gentile Christian today is
welcomed into the fellowship of the church only because Peter's
response was to reach beyond biblical literalism to a new and wider
inclusivity. In so doing, he was implicitly judging the divinely
mandated traditions of his people, expressed through their sacred
Scriptures, as insufficient for the all-embracing purpose of God's
love. We can do no less, it is argued, for God's beloved gay and
lesbian people." (6)
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

9/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

1 Timothy 1:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10 - pornoi, arsenokoitai, and andrapodistai (9)
For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for
people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who
consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or
mother or commit other murders. (10) The law is for people who are
sexually
immoral
(pornoi),
or
who
practice
homosexuality
(arsenokoitai), or are slave traders (andrapodistai), liars, promise
breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome
teaching (New Living Translation)
Gary Lynn's Analysis: Now that we've dealt with the meaning of
arsenokoitai (click Here to go to my review of this word), the meaning
of the other 2 Greek words falls fairly well into place.
According to
Robin Scroggs in The New Testament and Homosexuality on page 120121, pornoi, arsenokoitai, and andrapodistai should be translated
to mean male prostitutes [primarily adolescent boys], males who lie
(with them) and slave-dealers (who procure them). . . . I thus draw the
conclusion that the 3 item vice list in 1 Timothy is not condemnatory of
homosexuality in general, not even pederasty in general, but that
specific form of pederasty which consisted of the enslaving of boys or
youths for sexual purposes, and the use of these boys by adult
males.

Could The Biblical Eunuch Include

Today's Homosexual?
In The Church and the Homosexual, John J. McNeill, brings up this
serious possibility that in fact, the Eunuchs mentioned in the Bible
include modern day homosexuals. Read what he says:
[The New Testament presents a new] attitude concerning human
sexuality [nowhere] more evident than in the account of the
baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles
(8:26-39). The Lucan author had as his purpose to depict the
work of the Holy Spirit in the formation of the first Christian
community and how that community differed from its predecessor
[The Israelite Community of the Old Testament]. He stresses
that people who were considered outcasts by Israel for various
reasons were to be included in the new community. The first
group are the Samaritans. The second group, symbolized by the
eunuch, are those who for sexual reasons were excluded from the
Old Testament community. "No one who has had his testicles
crushed or his penis cut off shall marry into the Lord's
Community" (Deut. 23:1) However, In Isaiah 56:3-8 there is an
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

10/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

explicit prophecy that with the coming

establishment of the new covenant,
formerly excluded from the community
special place in the Lord's house and an

of the Messiah and the

the eunuch, who was
of God, will be given a
immortal value:

3Let

not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
"The Lord will surely separate me from his people"; and let not
the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." 4For thus says the
Lord: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the
things that please me and hold fast my covenant, 5I will give
in my house and within my walls a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters; I will give them an
everlasting name which shall not be cut off. . . . . 7these I will
bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house
of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be
accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of
prayer for all peoples. 8Thus says the Lord God, who gathers
the outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to him besides
those already gathered." (RSV 1957)
The application of this prophecy to the homosexual can be
defended, because the term "eunuch" in the New Testament is
used not only in its literal sense - i.e., those who have been
physically castrated - but also in a symbolic sense for all those
who for various reasons do not marry and bear children. For
example, in Matthew 19:12, Jesus, discussing marriage and
divorce, says to his apostles: "There are eunuchs who have been
so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made
eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
(RSV 1957) (7) . . . In [the above verse] Jesus makes it quite
clear that the term eunuch applies to all those who are sexually
different and who, for whatever reason, do not procreate. (8)
The first category in [Matthew 19:12] - those eunuchs who have
been so from birth - is the closest description we have in the
Bible of what we understand today as a homosexual. It should
come as no surprise, then, that the first group of outcasts of
Israel that the Holy Spirit includes within the new covenant
community is symbolized by the Ethiopian eunuch. It is the
Spirit who takes the initiative by leading Philip to the encounter
with the Ethiopian eunuch of the Court of Candace. The eunuch
believes in Christ as the Messiah and receives baptism and the
Spirit and rides on into history "full of joy." The symbolism of
the passage is quite obvious. The Holy Spirit takes the initiative
in leading the New Christian community to include among its
members those who were excluded for sexual reasons from the
Old Testament community. (6) [The prophecy in Isaiah 56:3-8]
is being fulfilled today within the gay Christian movement. (8)
For more information on Eunuchs from Birth or Born Eunuchs click
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

11/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

Here.
Moving right along, there are, no doubt, many modern people who
engage in lustful and abusive homosexual sex. As has been indicated in
the above scriptures, someone who began with a clear heterosexual
orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay or
lesbian sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures,
then those Biblical passages would apply to those people (News
reports and anecdotal stories show that most men who molest/rape
boys fall into this category-yes they are heterosexuals not
homosexuals). But this is not the experience of the vast majority of
gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.
Consider Tyler's story:
From the time Tyler was a very young man his main desire was to
do God's will. He was raised by missionary parents, and at the
age of five he acknowledged his need for God and prayed for
Jesus to come into his heart. He didn't understand exactly what
that meant, but he always tried to live a life that glorified God.
In high school, his friends thought of him as different because his
faith in God and in the teachings of his church did not allow him
to drink and dance. When a girl asked him to the high school
prom, he went, but he made sure they started the date by
praying together. Unlike the people condemned in Romans 1:1832, Tyler acknowledged, glorified, and worshipped God. For him,
spiritual pursuits were much more important than earthly
pleasures.
However, by the time Tyler decided to go to a Christian college,
he was already having feelings of attraction toward men and
knew he was not attracted to women. He believed at the time
that these feelings were wrong, so he suppressed his natural
attractions and told himself he must be asexual or celibate. And,
when he finally acknowledged his attraction to men during his
fourth year of college, it was not during a search for unbounded
sexual pleasure or in the context of pagan worship rituals. It was
during a night of intense prayer when he was questioning
whether he should try to pursue a relationship with a female
friend which might be very unfair to her. During that time of
prayer, Tyler was strongly impressed that he needed, instead, to
deal with his innate attraction to men.
For Tyler, a Christian child of missionaries, his first reaction was
to seek spiritual advice. He immediately went to a trusted
professor and soon began therapy with one of the counselors at
his Christian school. For the next several years, he continued to
remain celibate as he wrestled with Scripture and with his
church's teachings, trying to find out how he should live as a gay
man. He tried always to live a life free of covetousness, malice,
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

12/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

envy, strife, and pride. And, even when Tyler came to the
conclusion that Scripture affirmed him as an innately gay
individual, his respect for the teaching of his parents and his love
of God convinced him to remain a virgin until meeting his spouse
and partner for life, Robert. (9)
Thousands of other gay people could tell similar stories of struggling
with their same-sex attractions while diligently serving God. These are
not idolaters, people who hated God and pursued their own desire for
new and greater sexual thrills. These are lovers of God who,
nevertheless, have been attracted to people of the same sex from early
in life. They are innate or natural homosexuals.

Click Here for What Parents of Gay and Lesbian Teens need to Know about
Suicide - What Are The Warning Signs?
................

Footnotes:
(1) Holben, L. R. What Christians Think about Homosexuality - Six Representative
Viewpoints, North Richland Hills, Texas, BIBAL Press, 1999, pages 167 -168.
(2) Ibid., pages 168-169.
(3) Gomes, Peter J., The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, San
Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998, page 158.
Footnotes from page 55 and 56, Patterson, Linda J., "Hate Thy Neighbor-How the
Bible is Misused to Condemn Homosexuality", Pennsylvania, Infinity
Publishing.com, 2009
(3a) I Corinthians 7:1 (Patterson's Footnote 121)
(3b) Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues, Second Edition,
Revised (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), 33. (Patterson's Footnote 122)
(3c) I Corinthians 7:3-7 (Patterson's Footnote 123)
(3d) I Corinthians 7:8-9, I Corinthians 7:26-38 Again, Paul's views appear to have been
based in large part upon his belief that Jesus would return imminently to raise his
followers to heaven and judge nonbelievers. In this regard, Paul claims that "the
appointed time has grown short," and that "the present form of this world is passing
away." (See Patterson's Footnote 124)
(3e) I Corinthians 7:29, 31. (Patterson's Footnote 125)
(3f) According to most Jews in Paul's day, [a]ny union formed in the knowledge that no
procreation could result. . . . . constitutes sexual passion for its own sake, little more
than unbridled lust void of societal responsibility. No longer contributing to populating
the earth, such passion demonstrates disregard for the preservation of the human race.
Moreover, passion of this sort, exercised beyond nature's and society's control, could
only have destructive effects. Concern for the sanctity of male 'seed' was also at
issue. Philo, and others, reasoned that since sexual stimulation of the male results in
ejaculated semen, and since too this seed must have been given by God for a purpose,
sexual stimulation must have as its divine purpose the release of seeds for procreation.
Moreover, since only fertile women could provide 'the deep-soiled and fruitful fields'
capable of sustaining the growth of the seed, all unions that did not have procreation in
view were forbidden. (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 164.) Unlike other
Jews of his day, Paul shows little interest in procreation in sexual coupling. This may
have been due to his belief that the coming of the kingdom of God was imminent, and
that populating the earth was no longer important. . . . . . . . see page 141 and 142 for
more details of this long footnote (Patterson's Footnote 126 - Patterson, Linda J., "Hate
Thy Neighbor-How the Bible is Misused to Condemn Homosexuality", Pennsylvania, Infinity
Publishing.com, 2009)
(3g) In addition to the "degrading passions," mentioned by Paul in Romans 1:26, and the
lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

13/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

negative view of passion he expresses in I Corinthians 7, Paul also condemns passion in

the following passages: Galatians 5:24, I Thessalonians 4:3-5 and Romans 13:11-14
(Patterson's Footnote 127)
(3h) Romans 7:18 (Patterson's Footnote 128)
(4) Horner, Tom, "Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times", Philadelphia,
The Westminister Press, 1978, page 106.
(5) Gomes, Peter J., The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, San
Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998, pages 161-162.
(6) Holben, L. R. What Christians Think about Homosexuality - Six Representative
Viewpoints, North Richland Hills, Texas, BIBAL Press, 1999, pages 169 -170.
(7) McNeill, John J., "The Church and the Homosexual", Boston, Beacon Press, 1976,
1985, 1988,1993, pages 63-65.
(8) Ibid., page 213.
(9) Miner Jeff, John Tyler Connoley, The Children are Free, Indianapolis, Indiana, Jesus
Metropolitan Community Church, 2002. Based on the story on pages 14, 15, and 16.

GOD MADE ME THIS WAY

A Gay Teen Short Story

by Grant Bentley
Church is so confusing for Zack. His new pastor preaches
nothing but hate and condemnation of gays and lesbians, but no
matter how carefully he reads his Bible, he cant find where it
says God hates him. Will things change when Zach's boyfriend
Billy suggests that they all go to his church instead? Click Here
or on the icon to read the story.

Click for Page 9 - Homosexuals Are Like Anybody Else

-

Click below to go to:

The Anti-Gay Religious Right's Really Cruel and Idiotic
Argument
Their Message to a Gay Person is: Be alone. Live alone. Die
alone.

Click for Homosexuality Is Neither A Choice Nor A Sin - Table Of

Contents
Click for Gary Lynn's Home Page

lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

14/15

9/13/12

New Testament Teachings Regarding Same-Sex Sexual Activity-Homosexuality is Not a Choice

lakeweedatarrowhead.net/8newtest.htm

15/15