The Bible

I firmly believe that sexual orientation has nothing to do with any religion, and calling it "sinful" is just an excuse by some very narrow-minded people to justify their hatred, violence, prejudice and bigotry against gay, lesbian and bisexual youth. This hopefully puts to rest the arguments coming from conservatives that homosexuality is a "sin".

So many lives have been adversely affected by rampant homophobia. It has been fueled unfortunately by a very vocal misguided few, who seem intent on representing the Gospel of Grace with condemnation. Parents have been separated from their children, brothers from their brothers, wives from husbands.... and yet despite the tragedy of these broken relationships, broken hearts and sometimes the loss of life altogether, self-righteous hatred and disgust toward homosexuals continues. Surely the healing of all this brokenness lies not in hatred, but in love. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Jesus did not stop there, but went on to say, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned..."

A myth has grown up around the issue of homosexuality that for centuries has kept God's people in bondage to condemning and being condemned. But the message of grace is clearly "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death." Those who believe in Jesus have been released from the continuous cycle of sin and its consequence, death. Now, we are free to love one another with the love of Christ, no strings attached. As Paul stated it, now we must "keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery......" We have been set free to "through love serve one another." Those who have understood this, regardless of which side of the issue they stand on, have taken an important step toward embracing the true meaning of "GRACE", (God's unmerited favor to all); freely receiving it themselves and sharing it with every person along the way. Because of this, God causes the to "reign in life" through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17).

The Bible has long been used by society to discriminate against, and persecute gays and lesbians. Careful study, however, reveals that while the Bible does condemn homosexual and heterosexual cult prostitution, it says nothing about loving committed homosexual relationships. Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, which leads many to believe it was not one of his main concerns.

Unfortunately, many passages from the Bible are often taken out of context, or interpreted without consideration for the cultural aspects associated with the time period in which they were written. To emphasize this point, consider the following sentence: "He was such a neat man." In order to understand the writers meaning, you must consider the time period in which it was written. If this sentence were written in the 1900's it would be assumed that the word "neat", was a reference to the man's tidiness. If it were written in 1996, however, the word "neat" could be interpreted to mean both tidy, or the presence of admirable qualities.

Many versions of the Bible exist. Each reflects the limited scientific knowledge, personal beliefs of its translators, and the social beliefs of the time period in which it was translated. Personal biases, and societies prejudices have unavoidably distorted the Bible's many translations. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to find a current word that accurately defines the Hebrew or Greek term in question. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the mistranslation of some of the more ambiguous text contained in the Bible. The following is a summary of the common passages used to falsely condemn homosexuals.

There are no homosexuals in the Bible.
Ruth and Naomi were no lesbians. David and Jonathan weren't gay. Neither were Jesus and John, the men of Sodom, cult prostitutes, slave boys and their masters, nor call boys and their customers.

"The issues about Homosexuality are very complex and are not understood by most members of the Christian Church," according to Bernard Ramm of The American Baptist Seminary of the West. This evangelical authority on biblical interpretation says that, "To them, it is a vile form of sexual perversion condemned in both the Old and New Testaments." But as Calvin Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar Marten H. Woudstra says: "There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to Homosexuality as we understand it today" and as SMU New Testament scholar Victor Paul Fumish says: "There is no text on homosexual orientation in the Bible." Says Robin Scroggs of Union Seminary: "Biblical judgments against Homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used . . . not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved. . . .

No single New Testament author considers [Homosexuality] important enough to write his own sentence about it." Evangelical theologian Helmut Thielicke states: "Homosexuality . . . can be discussed at all only in the framework of that freedom which is given to us by the insight that even the New Testament does not provide us with an evident, normative dictum with regard to this question. Even the kind of question which we have arrived at . . . must for purely historical reasons be alien to the New Testament."

Ideas and understandings of sexuality have changed greatly over the centuries. People in biblical times did not share our knowledge of customs of sexuality; we do not share their experience. In those days there was no romantic dating as we know it today; marriages were arranged by fathers. The ancients, as MlT's David Halperin notes: "conceived of 'sexuality' in non-sexual terms: What was fundamental to their experience of sex was not anything _we_ would regard as essentially sexual: rather, it was something essentially social --- namely, the modality of power relations that informed and structured the sexual act." In the ancient world, sex was "not intrinsically relational or collaborative in character; it is, further, a deeply polarizing experience: It serves to divide, to classify, and to distribute its participants into distinct and radically dissimilar categories. Sex possesses this valence, apparently because it is conceived to center essentially on, and to define itself around, an asymmetrical gesture, that of the penetration of the body of one person by the body, and, specifically, by the phallus of another.

The proper targets of [a citizen's] sexual desire include, specifically, women, boys, foreigners, and slaves --- all of them persons who do not enjoy the same legal and political rights and privileges that he does." In studies of sex in history, Stanford classics professor John Winkler warns against "reading contemporary concerns and politics into texts and artifacts removed from their social context." This, of course, is a basic principle of biblical hermeneutics. In spite of all of this, some preachers continue to use certain Bible verses to clobber lesbians and gay men today. Let's take a closer look at these texts.

The Bible is an empty closet. It has nothing specific to say about Homosexuality as such. But the Bible has plenty to say about God's grace to all people and God's call to justice and mercy. Jesus summarized God's law in these words of scripture: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind . . . [and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39).

The basis of the research contained in this pamphlet and all the conclusions and positions taken herein have at their center the understanding that the Bible is the Word of God and in its original format is without error. It was written by inspired men, appointed and anointed by God for that purpose. It reveals the character of God, the almighty creator of everything that is; who through his only Son, Jesus, redeemed the lost creation from sin that had separated mankind from their creator. He gave them new life through regeneration and renewal (new birth) by the Holy Spirit.

The biblical approach is inductive by method. This eliminates a great deal of assumption and traditional teaching. Every attempt not to bring pre- conceived ideas and beliefs which can only prejudice our understanding of the Scriptures has been made. In the belief that through objectively letting the Scriptures speak for themselves through their original languages, we can reach the truth of these issues. The English translations are at best "translations" where often meanings of words are sometimes lost or changed because the original text is not clearly understood or there is no comparable word in English to describe the Hebrew or Greek expression. In some translations, traditional points of view are perpetuated with a seeming disregard for the clear text in the original language. With these rules of interpretation, this study attempts to discover what the Bible (God's Word) is and is not saying about the subject of homosexuality.

The researchers and editors of this study are fundamental interpreters of the Scriptures and conservative in their point of view using the most orthodox references and scholarly commentaries. Primarily, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament were used for the objective basis of this study. Other scholarly works are referenced and noted throughout the study.

The Bible itself combined with these other writings form the basis of the hope that is within us. Subjectively, we have the witness of the Holy Spirit, who Jesus clearly taught would lead us into all truth. On him we rely heavily and we pray that all who want to come to a knowledge of the truth will lean on the witness of the Spirit himself without whose counsel none of us could know any truth about God.

Many people carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the city of Sodom because of homosexuality. A careful look however, reveals that this is unlikely.

Two angels were sent to Sodom by God, where Lot, Abraham's nephew, persuades the divine travelers to stay in his home. It is important to note that travelers depended on the kindness of strangers. Ancient hospitality codes required people to offer food, shelter and protection to people who were traveling. Without these codes travel would have been difficult, if not impossible.

After the Angels ate and were preparing for bed, all of the people of Sodom converged on Lots home, demanding that the angels come out so that the towns people might know(rape) them. In an effort to protect his guests, Lot denies the angry mob access to the angels, but offers his two virgin daughters instead. This suggests Lot knew his neighbors to be heterosexual. The townspeople refuse, and charge at Lot in an attempt to gain access to the angels. At this point the angels pull Lot back inside the house, and render the angry crowd blind so they can not find the door. The angels then warn Lot to gather his family and leave the city because it will soon be destroyed.

Much confusion over this passage has to do with the phrase to know them. The Hebrew word yadha (to know) has several different meanings throughout the Bible. In most cases it means to "have thorough knowledge of." In many cases it means "to check the credentials of", and in some cases may mean to "have sex with". In this case, however, it is clear that the townspeople wanted to harm the strangers, and because of ancient hospitaliy codes, Lot felt compelled to protect his guests. The townspeople wanted to perform an act of violence by raping the angels, a grave violation of ancient hospitality codes.

Homosexual rape was not uncommon. Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. The men in these armies were not homosexual, they were heterosexuals performing an act of violence. Never in any culture has more than a minority of the population been homosexual, and it is unlikely that all of the men in these armies or all the men of Sodom were gay.

Unfortunately, some people have focused on rape as a sexual act, rather than an act of violence, and have missed the point completely. The reason for Sodom's destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned, nor is it mentioned in any other passage of Scripture which refers to the account of Sodom.

The traditional explanation for the supernatural destruction of the ancient cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, has been God's displeasure and wrath against the sin of homosexuality. The tradition points to the "men of the city" who surrounded the house where two visitors had come to stay with Lot, Abraham's nephew. These visitors being supposedly men, were actually angels sent by God to guide Lot and his family safely out of the city. By this traditional view, the men surrounding the house had come to have "sexual relations" with the visitors. For this, God poured out fire and brimstone to destroy this repulsive and contemptible sin. Even now, the understood sin of Sodom, handed down to us through this traditional teaching, has taken the name "sodomy".

Until recent archaeological discoveries were made, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was viewed by the scientific community with some skepticism. The area of their location was evidently fertile and the people who lived there, enjoyed a prosperity not shared by the surrounding areas which were evidently primarily desert wasteland. Under these circumstances, it is easy to understand how the people of the cities of the plain could become greedy isolationists, always suspicious of strangers. The world community of the time would have been small and had been unified until the division of languages at the tower of Babel. Travel between cities was very treacherous and most of the time, hotels were not available. Hospitality extended to sojourners was an established institution in the community of man. But the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, with all their abundance and wealth, were inhospitable toward others less fortunate. There is strong biblical evidence that this is why God destroyed them.

If homosexuality is the clear reason for God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorroah, why doesn't the writer of Genesis state it clearly as such. The prophet Ezekial indicates a clear reason in the sixteenth chapter of his prophetic word, verses 49-50:

This passage says nothing about sexual acts of any kind as the reason for the destruction, but does specifically outline arrogance and a lack of concern for the needs of others as the reason. The passage clearly teaches that inhospitable acts were the key reasons for God's judgment.

Many would say that the "detestable" things mentioned in the passage referred to sexual sins including homosexuality which is an abomination to God. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that are particularly detestable to God:

No where here do we see condemnation of sexual sin of any kind, much less homosexuality. This is not to say that homosexual acts were not occurring in Sodom or that they were acceptable to God. The incident outside Lot's house (Genesis 19:1-10) does show that the intentions of those gathered around the house were to have sexual relations with the "angels" supposed to be men. A loving act, however, was not intended, but in this case rape. This kind of treatment was not uncommon in ancient civilizations are a demonstrative way of showing power over enemies. By itself, this was not the reason for the destruction of Sodom, since the Lord had already determined to destroy the city prior to the angels' visitation (Genesis 18).

In Jude 7, the writer says that the people had gone after "strange flesh". Some believe that this is referring to homosexuality. The translation "strange flesh" is from the Greek words heteros sarx (#2087 and #4561) meaning "different flesh". Had the writer wanted to refer to homosexual acts, it would have made more sense to use terms homos sarx (#3676 and #4571) meaning "same flesh". The Old Testament Pseudopigrapha suggests an alternative rendering of this verse might be that Jude was stating that "just like the wicked angels, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah left their first grace and gave themselves to idolatrous prostitution and the violent treatment of other people, so they have become and example by suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Jesus commented on the sin of Sodom indirectly (Matthew 10:14-15) when he gave his disciples instructions concerning their proper response to inhospitable acts toward them. He stated that "if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust of your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Though it is not stated directly, the inference by contrast is clear: Jesus says that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of inhospitable acts.

The traditional interpretation of this story largely stems from the unfortunate translation of the word enoshe (#582) in Genesis 19:4. Most versions say "men".

The Hebrew word enoshe is not gender specific but indicates mortals or people. The word esh (#376) would have been used to mean "man" or eshal (#802) to mean "woman" if gender specific terminology was meant. This mistranslation gives the impression that just the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and the further impression that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. The word enoshe is used in Genesis 17:23 with the word zechar (#2145) meaning "male" demonstrates this point. The King James Version states it this way:

The question arises, what other kind of men are there but males? Abraham was selecting the males from among all the "people" on his household for circumcision. The more modern translations corrected Genesis 17:23 to indicate people (or in this case household), but for some reason did not make the same correction in Genesis 19:6.

The intentions of the people surrounding Lot's house were to rape the visitors. Most people regard rape as an act of violence rather than a sexual act. As it would be illogical to condemn all heterosexual sexual acts because some people acted abusively, it is also illogical to bring condemnation to all homosexual acts when only some acted irresponsibly.

Women in the culture of the Old Testament were treated as property; to be used as their owners saw fit. Men, on the other hand, were to be given respect. Sexual violence against a man by another man was an all too common demonstration of dominance over another. Its purpose was to take away the dignity of the subdued; to humiliate the man through forced anal intercourse. This was carried out by men who were not necessarily homosexuals themselves. Compare with Judges 19.

Prostitutes were a common part of the religious fertility rituals in ancient times and no doubt were prevalent in Sodom and Gomorrah. A word used by many today to condemn homosexuals is the word Sodomite. Many use this term as a reference to those who lived in Sodom and supposing them to be homosexuals, have used this word synonymously with homosexual as a negative slam. The word, however, does not appear in the story of the destruction of Sodom and is used only four times in the entire Bible. It is the word kawdashe (#6945) and refers to male temple cult prostitutes. Usually, as in Deuteronomy 23:17, their counter parts, kedayshaw (#6948), the female temple cult prostitutes are also mentioned. These are not homosexuals. They are prostitutes who were active in the worship of the pagan fertility gods and goddesses of ancient Palestine, according to Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. The word sodomite originated from the King James Version, but only in reference to these temple cult prostitutes. Later versions must have picked up the homosexual connotation from the traditional understanding and interpretation of what the sin of Sodom was, and has since been used to condemn homosexuality.

These mis-interpretations and the refusal by some biblical scholars to denounce such obvious mis-translations appear to be an attempt to keep homosexuality under control. When faced with the evidence, many have turned a deaf ear and not given serious consideration to the possibility that the traditional interpretation may in fact be in error. This tradition is so strong, those having a different interpretation are often ostracized for their non-conformity. Standing for the truth on this issue could mean professional suicide for clerics looking for recognition and acceptance; and those in the spotlight already, are fearful of losing face and will not speak out either.

Is there no one who will stand up for the truth no matter what it appears to be? One thing is for sure, the truth will be the truth no matter how anyone might try to cover it up.

Perhaps the two most widely abused verses used to condemn homosexuality come from Leviticus.

First of all, the Holiness Code of Leviticus was written primarily as a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Christians today are not bound by the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. (Galatians 3:22-25) If Christians today insist on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus.

The Holiness Code also endorses polygamy and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath. Obviously, it is unfair to use these passages to condemn homosexuality, while ignoring the fact that most Christians do not follow the rest of the rules and rituals outlined in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

It should also be noted that the word abomination was translated from the Hebrew word toevah and means something found detestable by God because it is unclean, disloyal, or unjust. The term abomination is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution. (Ezekiel) Given toevah's strong association with cult prostitution it is unlikely that this passage applies to loving responsible homosexual relationships.

In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

Genesis 1:27
"God created people in His own image. In the image of God he created them; He created male and female."

This text celebrates God's deliberate and equal creation of persons who are male and persons who are female. Such a sense of equal creation was not typical in the ancient world. According to Eastern Baptist Seminary professor Douglas J. Miller: "Crude natural law ideas are . . . read into . . . the early chapters of Genesis....This view [supports] the 'physicalist' ethical model upon which heterosexism is built....This view of creation is based upon the obvious anachronism of reading 13th century definitions of nature into ancient Hebrew texts." Those who use Genesis 1:27 against homosexuals should note Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28 in which he is emphatic that there is now no theological significance to the heterosexual pair "male and female." According to evangelical Pauline scholar F. F. Bruce: "Paul states the basic principle here; if restrictions on it are found elsewhere . . . they are to be understood in relation to Galatians 3:28, and not vice versa."

TOP OF THE PAGE

Genesis 19:18-20
The story of Sodom and Lot's duty of hospitality to his guests.

According to evangelical Bible scholar William Brownlee: "'sodomy' (so-called) in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless; and the oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis 19:1-9." Yale's John Boswell notes that "Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places [in the Bible] but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as Homo- sexuality." Listen to the prophet Ezekiel (16:48-49) on the sin of Sodom: "As I live, says the Lord God, . . . This was the sin of your sister city of Sodom: she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in my eyes." (Cf. Matthew 10:15) The men of Sodom tried to dominate the strangers at Lot's house by subjecting them to sexual abuse. Such attempted gang-rape is about humiliation and violence, not same-sex affection.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
"You shall not lie with men as with woman: it is abomination."

"Abomination" (TO'EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not about a moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (chapters 17 - 26) proscribes men "lying the lyings of women." Such mixing of sex roles was thought to be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual distinctions (cf. Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). The Fundamentalist Journal admits that this Code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleaness" and concludes: "We are not bound by these commands today."

Leviticus 18:22 (20:13)
"There shall be no female cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor a male cult prostitute of the sons of Israel."

These terms, KEDESHA and KADESH, literally mean "holy" or "sacred." There is no Hebrew derivative of the word "Sodom" in this passage; the King James Bible supplied it erroneously. The Hebrew words here are references to the "holy" female and eunuch priest-prostitutes of the Canaanite fertility cults, of which Israel was to have no part. Moreover, Louisville Presbyterian Seminary Bible scholar George R. Edwards notes that "No prophet uses the noun for male cult prostitute or discusses the activity such a person pursued. The prophets, in fact, are as silent on the subject of homosexual acts as is the whole tradition of the New Testament teaching of Jesus. This is," he says, "a very significant silence."

Romans 1:26-27
Pagan "women exchange natural use for unnatural and also the [pagan] men, leaving the natural use of women, lust in their desire for each other, males working shame with males, and receiving within themselves the penalty of their error."

Furnish gives us perspective in turning to the writings of Paul. "Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct," says Furnish, "his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church.... For Paul neither homosexual practice nor heterosexual promiscuity nor any other specific vice is identified as such with 'sin.' In his view the fundamental sin from which all particular evils derive is idolatry, worshiping what is created rather than the Creator, be that a wooden idol, an ideology, a religious system, or some particular moral code." In Romans 1, Paul is ridiculing pagan religious rebellion, saying that the pagans knew God but worshiped idols instead of God. To build his case, which he'll turn against judgmental Jews in chapter 2 --- he refers to typical practices of the fertility cults involving sex among priestesses and between men and eunuch prostitutes such as served Aphrodite at Corinth, from where he was writing this letter to the Romans. Their self-castration rites resulted in a bodily "penalty." Catherine Krueger comments in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that "Men wore veils and long hair as signs of their dedication to the god, while women used the unveiling and shorn hair to indicate their devotion. Men masqueraded as women, and in a rare vase painting from Corinth a woman is dressed in satyr pants equipped with the male organ. Thus she dances before Dionysus, a deity who had been raised as a girl and was himself called male-female and 'sham man.'"

Krueger continues: "The sex exchange that characterized the cults of such great goddesses as Cybele [Aphrodite, Ishtar, etc.] the Syrian goddess, and Artemis of Ephesus was more grisly. Males voluntarily castrated themselves and assumed women's garments. A relief from Rome shows a high priest of Cybele. The castrated priest wears veil, necklaces, earrings and feminine dress. He is considered to have exchanged his sexual identity and to have become a she-priest." As such, these religious prostitutes would engage in same-sex orgies in the pagan temples all along the coasts of Paul's missionary journeys. "Paul's conception of Homosexuality," as Thielicke points out, "was one which was affected by the intellectual atmosphere surrounding the struggle with Greek paganism." Says Scroggs: "The illustrations are secondary to [Paul's] basic theological structure" (Cf 3:22b-23, Paul's own summary), and Furnish adds: "homosexual practice as such is not the topic under discussion." Doesn't what Paul says in the beginning of Romans better describe these pagan orgies he meant to ridicule than it does the mutual love and support in the domestic life of lesbian and gay male couples today?

There are two words which appear to have been mistranslated. Malakee (effeminate) which appears in 1 Corinthians, and arsenokeeteh (abusers of themselves with mankind) which appears in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

The Greek term malakee is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender. It wasn't until 1946 that malakee was given a sexual connotation when it was translated to mean "sexual perverts" in the Revised Standard Version.

The second term arsenokeeteh literally means "male-active-bed". Unfortunately, arsenokeeteh has been interpreted by some to mean homosexual. The term arsenokeeteh is obscure, as evidenced by the variety of interpretations it has been assigned throughout history (including "people with infamous habits", and "child molesters"). If Paul was addressing male homosexuality why did he choose such an obscure word when there were Greek words that were more commonly used to describe homosexual behavior? Given Paul's concern with temple prostitution, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that "male-active-bed" was a reference to the male cult prostitution that was prevalent in Greco-Roman culture at that time?

While this document hopes to prove to it readers that beyond a shadow of any doubt, God has made diversity in his creation including homosexual people, no amount of "logical" argument will convince those who have already made up their mind. It is, therefore, the prayer of the editor that each reader prayerfully investigate the contents herein; waiting on the Lord. It is the Holy Spirit who will reveal the loving character and nature of the Father to those who seek him with their whole heart.

While in our flesh we are prone to argumentation in convincing those who would disagree with our position (whatever it may be). We affirm, however, that the truth will never be discovered through argument, but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Conversation about these matters can be helpful to some, but let us discuss the issues in a dialogue subject to the control of the Spirit; a demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit.

John Boswell "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (University of Chicago, 1980);

George R. Edwards "Gay/Lesbian Liberation : A Biblical Perspective" (Pilgrim, 1984);

David M. Halperin, John J. Winkler, Froma I. Zeitlin (Eds.) "Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World" (Princeton, 1989);

David M. Halperin "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love" (Routledge, 1990);

Donald J. Miller and Robert E. Romanelli, "Heterosexism and the Golden Rule," Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1 (4) 1991;

John J. Winkler "The Constraints of Desire. The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece" (Routledge, 1990).