Kathy,

Thank you for bringing this matter "out of the closet."

A very wise man that I used to know, who happened to live a homosexual lifestyle at one point in his life, said there is no scale of sin. None are higher, or lower than others; all sin is equal in the eyes of God because it all separates us from Him. I have known many gay people in my life and they have all been wonderful people. By the way, none were chld molesters and none were drawn toward abnormally younger partners.  They were all hard working people trying to get through life just like the rest of us. 

I'm with you and will chose to define my life in terms of love, not hate.

Blessings,

Melinda 

Kathy, I couldn't agree with you more.  We've become so adept at communicating by framing and spinning, but so mindless when it comes to personally understanding and digging into the real issues at heart.  My answers to your questions would be too humorous to post.. thank you for shedding light on that.  

And wasn't there something about orphans and widows... ?

God is the Judge not man love one another as God loved us

God Bless you all Amen 

Melinda, Carebear, Bestemor and Mstovall, thank you for your supportive responses!  It takes courage to stand up against the crowd, even, perhaps especially, when that crowd is claiming to represent Christianity. 

Voice, Dennis, mstovall, and Dave, I can appreciate your thoughtfulness.  You are so right that this is a complex issue, not a black and white one, and your desire to examine it from all sides is, imo, a sign of your spiritual maturity.  Although I presented in this blog only one side, I did so in response to a side we are all familiar with.  Had I written this blog to gay people or to gay activists, the blog would read quite differently.

Let's examine a few specific responses:  Melinda mentions that there is no hierarchy of sin, meaning if we have sinned we are lost without Jesus' grace.  Dennis similarly makes mention of his own sin.  I suspect we are all in agreement here, at least in words.  But does that translate into our personal beliefs on the homosexual issue, or do we automatically fall into a different set of memorized responses?  If we truly believe that there is no hierarchy of sin, and that we have all sinned, then why do we continue to place all homosexual people outside of Christianity.  Are we "other sinners" outside Christianity?  If homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive, are not also lying and Christianity, and lustful thoughts and Christianity mutually exclusive?  Is it reasonable that Christians have made homosexuality the unpardonable sin?  Google "gay" and "Christian" together, and see what comes up.

Voice, I always enjoy our discussions, as I have the greatest respect for your opinions, whether they are exactly like mine or not.  I appreciate and understand your personal questions, and you are right that we agree on how to treat homosexuals.  You said "I have known some individuals who were evil and lurking to find "young flesh". I also have known individuals who have happily left the lifestyle as well as some who continue in it happily."  I suspect we both have known some heterosexuals that fit all these categories as well, haven't we?  Surely, promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is outside of God's plan for us, but homosexuality doesn't exclusively own promiscuity, and not all homosexuals are promiscuous.

Dave mentioned the need to "draw the line" somewhere.  We have all used that term, and I am not arguing against the statement.  However, let's examine it for a second.  We know that God draws lines.  That's a given.  As Rimosmob reminded us, we will each stand alone before Him for judgment, and He will have lines.  But when we "draw the line," what does that look like?  Do we draw lines that exclude people from God's grace?  That exclude them from our churches?  That build hierarchies of which sins are greater than others?  (I do believe some sins are greater than others, btw, as long as we are living here on earth, although from God's perspective any sin equally separates us from Him.)  My questions here are not specifically to Dave, but to anyone who can respond.  What does it look like when we "draw the line"?

Mrs. Annette, I cannot tell from your comment what your position is on this issue, but your comment is very well stated:  "God, Help us all!"  Regardless of our convictions on any issue, ALL of us are in equal need of God's mercy, loving kindness, and grace!

Thank you all for such a respectful discussion.     

Excellent point Kathy.  I have to wonder why so many Christians consider it their job to conform the world to Christ's image.  When I was deluded enough to do this, I was only trying to force people around me to conform to my distorted view of what I thought Christ's image was (which I found out was totally off base - thanks Jesus).

I wrote this song because of this sort of issue. Let me know if you would rather I not post it, and I can repost my above statement.

We Could

Could we change the World we live in,
Through politic means?
Have every vote be Church approved,
And live corruption free.
Can’t you see?
Oh can’t you see?

Could we change how people live,
Enforce morality?
Make every thought and word and deed,
Match our propriety?
Can’t you see?
Oh can’t you see?

Chorus:
Our God is great, He's got a plan, to bring His love to every one.
The kind of love that changes you, that sets the captives free.
God please take this heart of mine, fill it with Your love divine.
Use this broken heart to share Your love to all I see.

Could we change our Church’s culture
To what it “should” be?
Ev’ry word, in proper style,
Sung so righteously!
Can’t you see?
Oh can’t you see?

Chorus

Could we just let our God heal us,
Truly set us free?
We’d show His love to ev’ryone
As Christ meant it to be!
Can you see?
Oh can you see?

Chorus

Copyright Jess Stuart 2007

Great Blog  all I can say AMEN to you and GOD BLESS YOU!

Dear Kathy,

I live in California and I'm not familiar with this group.  They don't talk like any church I know.  It's a big state, of course.  Thank you very much for this blog.

This morning I was listening to NPR and heard an editorial about how much progress the US has made in the area of tolerance.  For example, 50 years ago it would be unthinkable to vote for a black candidate, a woman candidate or even an Italian-American.  Jews and Catholics also were pretty thoroughly left out of the process.

I hope this web site can be a place to build tolerance and understanding. 

Off topic slightly from the original issue (homosexuality as a key issue in a national election), but you asked, Kathy. "Are the terms "homosexual" and "lost soul" interchangeable?" Certainly not, and I'm sure 99% here would agree. But my sense is, most homosexual people voluntarily continue to engage in a certain behavior that the Bible uses strong words against. This behavior repulses many people. So in order to avoid the strange looks, or to be around others who condone/accept/embrace this behavior, many openly homosexual people either bypass churches altogether or go to churches that accept the behavior as ok.

I do not see all homosexual people as victims. They are often portrayed in the media as such, but they are not. There is an organized effort to redefine "normal" sexual behavior in the US right now, and the victim portrayal seems to be part of the strategy.

Recently some friends of mine invited a homosexual man to their men's Bible study, in an effort to reach out. On his third visit the homosexual man brought a "friend", and the two behaved very affectionately towards one another at the meeting -- holding hands, running hands through each other's hair, leaning on ea other, hand on the other's thigh, etc. After the meeting, they were told that although they are welcome to continue coming, they must refrain from that sort of behavior. Was this the proper course of action? I think so, but most homosexual people would probably say they were treated unfairly. What do you think?

Add one more complicating factor. The host of the Bible study has two young children. Does he have a right to shape what his children learn as "normal" sexual behavior/roles?

This comment has gotten very long already, so I won't go into my own efforts to befriend our homosexual neighbors as people who are loved by their Creator. If confronted, I will gently and lovingly stand for holiness, a different standard of behavior than what the world sees as acceptable. But God doesn't seek to change the behavior before he changes the person either.

Howdy Mike, about the Bible study situation: if I was running a co-ed Bible study, and a couple was petting each other, I'd ask them to refrain.

Everyone is responsible for the affect their behavior has on others (within reason of course).  Concerning this couple: if they are coming to a Bible study, expecting them to respect the sensitivities of the people who are there isn't out of line at all.  Frankly, I'm not sure the other men at the study were treated fairly by this couple.

I'm not a father, but my Dad was.  The question isn't about rights, but about responsibilities.  I think it's a father's responsibility to provide an environment conducive to the development of the child.  What that environment looks like is the father's decision.  He only answers to God for that decision.

I made one mistake, I misspelled truthfulness.  Thank you for your response Kathy.  I was surprised about what the Holy Spirit had me right.  I have never written about politics in that way.

I don't speak or write German.  I could not memorize so much at my age, not enough room in my brain for even remembering the genders of the nouns.  I came to Germany hoping to experience a 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, Ephesians 5 marriage finally.  Dolo has been a nurse in Germany since 1969 and her mother owns two apartment buildings, so it was easier for me to move than for them to come to the USA.  My last home was in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  I did live in Texas for 6 years from 1979-1985.  I didn't even learn Texanese.  I did Christian curriculum development work there.  Now I am able to do fulltime Great Commission ministry via the Internet. 

I am very concerned about how fast USA is worsening, even in current Christianity.  Europe has a lot of serious problems too, but I believe God holds the USA more accountable because how the USA was created to be a Christian nation of freedom and peace and much compassion.  So many are hoping that the politicians and the religious leaders will help make the needed changes to stop wars and economic and health problems.  I sometimes wonder how can God be so patient with humankind?  I believe that the Age of Grace will soon be ended for all.  But so many people don't seem ready for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  He is coming back for a purified bride, and most of the sanctification needs to be done before.  So we need all need to become more Christ-like and better ambassadors of God for sharing God's wonderful truths as much as we can and exhort individuals when Holy Spirit urged.  We need to live Proverbs 3:5-6 much more often because the Holy Spirit is a perfect teacher and guide.

.

Paul, Yes, Jesus was a man of compassion and forgiveness.

Hi Wyatt!  Although not all Christians define morality equally, none of us would disagree with its importance, and all of us would hope for a president with a good moral compass.  The point I was making in this blog, however, is that the president of the U.S. has some much heavier issues to deal with than certain pet issues like homosexuality and abortion.  (And the widespread disagreement on such issues is not divided along the lines of moral and immoral voters.) 

I know that given 2 equal candidates except for the abortion issue, you would choose the one against abortion; but assuming that the pastor of your church is a morally upright man in your eyes, would you vote for him as president, having no experience in national and international diplomacy, or would you choose a more politically astute and internationally respected candidate who has an opposite view on abortion?

This blog really is not about abortion, or even homosexuality, but since we're here, here's my pet peeve in the abortion debate (as with so many other debates):  the terminology.  "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are such ambiguous terms.  Poll 1000 people randomly:  1) Are you against life?  2)  Are you against being able to make choices?  Would anyone say yes to either of these?  Propaganda.  Biased political speak.  (I understand that the two sides are actually approaching the issue from completely different angles:  one believing that abortion is equal to murder, and the other believing a person has a right to decide without government coercion whether she will give birth.)  In my lifetime I am certain we will never all agree on this one, but I hope we as Christians will learn to play nicely together and stop all the name calling and accusations.  Good comment, Joel!  You always get me stirred up!   :)

Kathy - I have been away for a while finding my house (spring cleaning at Christmas).  :-)

There are a lot of good thoughts already shared above.  It took me quite a while to chew on all of it.  I agree that we shouldn't use homosexuality to be the main determination for choosing the candidate.  I do think that this information can help to understand the candidate more.  For example, if the candidate is trying to be shown as one way in public and another way in private, this type of information can help us to know their character.

We shouldn't be too hard on some of the campaign promises since they might not understand the whole issue or something else happens.  In President Wilson's defence, the Germans started the submarine warfare and sinking non-military vessels, he had to respond.  IMHO

I don't think picking a leader necessarily is black and white.   I don't think it is soley his/her qualifications nor her moral bias.  We tend to look on the outside when it comes to lifestyle, moral issues, strength, etc.  I do tend to agree with you that I would lean toward the qualifications over a one-issue stance on abortion or homosexuality.  

Consider Samuel walking down the line of Jesse's sons to choose the next king of Israel.  Samuel was impressed with the impressive strength and stature (as I would have been).  Yet Samuel listened to God saying "no, he is not the one" until they brought the unlikely candidate David.  Another thing that comes to mind is Peter is who Jesus chose to be the leader of the early church.  He also was an unlikely candidate in the peoples eyes.  Look at Peter's resume as a common fisherman, he denied his Lord in time of need.

What am I saying?  Good question.  I do agree that going by someone elses lists can be dangerous.  As far as this election goes, I pray that we will listen to what God is leading us to do and not walk in lock step with the leader of "our group" what ever that may be.  

As far as the church goes, it saddens me that we are the only ones that have experienced Grace.  We have forgotten what we have been saved from and somehow think we deserve the Grace we were freely given.  If the people we are dealing with are not redeemed, what are we doing trying to fix the outside before God fixes the inside??  I think the term "White-washed Tombs" is a good one here.

Sorry, I am rambling.  All of these thoughts are exploding and my fingers are not able to keep up.  Good to read all of this.  Have a great new year!!  Your brother in Christ, Brent 

Gene and Brent, Amen!  Amen!  Amen!  Your two comments combined are the perfect sequel to what I was trying to say in this blog!  I could have said all you said, but you said it better!  "We need to be making selections based on what the person is capable of doing and if they are capable of supporting the needs of the country." (Gene)   "I don't think picking a leader necessarily is black and white.   I don't think it is soley his/her qualifications nor her moral bias . . . As far as the church goes, it saddens me that we are the only ones that have experienced Grace." (Brent)  And btw, I totally agree with you about Woodrow Wilson.  Campaign promises are often empty from the start, but in many cases as I believe was his, the promise was sincere, but circumstances changed, and he had to make a new choice.  (I attended Woodrow's 151st birthday party a few days ago.)

Pastor Tim, I have missed you lately! Welcome back! You said "I agree that the church needs to be more compassionate towards homosexuals in the sense of reaching out to them." How do you picture this? What do you believe the church should ideally do when a homosexual comes through the doors and before? (Not just a question for Pastor Tim, but for anyone.) Your question is a big one, and you know me well enough to know I rarely see issues in black and white. I do not claim to have all the answers about homosexuality, but I do believe that homosexuality is a much more complex issue than most Christians see. I do not believe homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a choice. Therefore, no, I do not believe that orientation itself is a sin, although all of us, regardless of orientation, can choose behaviors that are sinful. Promiscuity for example. Violent or forced sexual activity. Sexual activity with a child. There is much I do not understand, Pastor Tim, but as always I challenge myself and others to read materials that present the opposite views from our own, to grow in understanding and wisdom. So often we read and listen only from within our own denominational camps, and thus believe that all other opinions are unchristian, when actually they, combined with our own views, might give us a fuller picture of the truth. See my blog I Can’t Stop Talking Long Enough To Hear You. 

Joel, I respect you as a man who knows what he believes and what is important to him, I appreciate the balance you add to my blog discussions, and I'm happy to call you a brother!

Kathy,

    The only person that addresses liberty in a real way in this election is the one most feared...Ron Paul. You and I both know that. If we are interested, if you are interested in protection of civil liberties, he is the only one that treats the constitution as anything other than tissue paper. Period. 

To all:  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone

Francine, thanks for sharing your thoughts.  You are right that the universality of sin is not a license to disobedience.  Love for God includes a deep desire to serve and please Him.

Kathy - Thanks for those kind words.  You asked what the church should do with homosexuals.  The simplistic answer given is to hate the sin and love the sinner.  Practially that is a tougher deal.  We sometimes look at the sinner as the enemy.  We (I) often forget that our battle is not against flesh and blood.  It is easy to see the sinner as the enemy since we can see him/her with our own eyes. 

So what does this mean to me?  First I think we need to not reject someone who is caught up in homosexuality but encourage them, listen (not pausing to speak, really listen) to them, pray with/for them.  If they are redeemed, encourage them in the faith.  If they are not redeemed, we can focus on their need for a saviour and then allow the Holy Spirit to clean up them from the  inside out.

Sorry this is off the original topic.  The bottom line with me is that I must listen, consider, pray for my vote as well as my interaction with those struggling with homosexuality.  How is that to tie it into the topic?  :-)

Thanks for another interesting topic.  Your brother in Christ, Brent 

I think Kathy that one of the reasons that the issue remains a hot button issue is that it is far easier to vilify than it is to understand. The "spectre of homosexuality" is an easy thing to trot out. Interestingly enough, the same language that is used in the arguments against homosexuals are identical to those that were used in times past for lepers and Jews (i.e. they are promiscuous, their condition is a result of sin, they are after your children). Sadly the language has not changed.

That type of polemical facade is much harder to keep in place when one personally knows the person being vilified. Would the individual parishioner call his beloved RCIA director depraved if he knew that she had just bought a house with her partner of ten years? Would the choir refuse to lift up their voices to God because their music minister is a gay man? If both cases, I think the answer would be no. The parish would realize that through the ecclesial praxis of these people they are manifesting the innate truth of the Catechism when it says: “Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case.” If people are able to witness all of the good which gay and lesbian people do in their congregations, they are far less likely to support the rhetoric of the magisterium in such matters.. Gay and lesbian Christians should remind themselves daily of the word of Jesus when he said: “Let your light so shine before others, that they may see your good works and give glory to your creator who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16)

Hi, all.  We did get sidetracked and I'm not voting for president on this issue.  I want to reply to Pastor Tim's good question.  BTW I read in his blog that he's a fellow Star Trek fan. 

Pastor Tim brought up a question whether homosexual orientation is a choice. As I understand things, it's not a choice for almost 10% of people.  That information is from the American Psychological Association, and it's a pretty recent statement (within the last 15 years). The Catholic church, of which I'm a member, has also made a statement to that effect.

You asked if there is anything in the Bible that says this, and no I can't think of anything specific.  One text I find helpful is Peter's vision in Acts 10 - which I interpret to mean that we as Christians can expect to be challenged to accept an ever greater diversity of people and customs.

 In order to determine what God has purified, you can use the test in Galatians 5:22-23.  Do the people you're dealing with show these marks of grace?

 I would just like to comment that there are some churches out there that not only think it's ok to allow homosexuals to be homosexuals and just forgive or overlook their sin, but they are not leading a life of sin and they have every right to have a church to come and worship God without fear of judgement.
  I am a member of Trinity United Church of Christ and we are an open and affirming church. We believe God loves all people.
My personal belief is homosexuality is NOT a choice if it were we all would be able to recall the day we decided what sex we had decided to be attracted to. No one would choose to be picked on, hated, beaten and judged if they had the choice.
  I also would much rather see a child adopted by a gay loving couple than left in a home where they will never feel the love of parents. I also think a couple, gay or straight, who decide to commit themselves to a loving relationship should all be able to have the same advantages of straight married couples. Advantages from tax breaks to being able to decide health-care rights to where and how their assets should be divided upon ones death.
  Bottom line here is if God is love and He loves His children then who are we to judge how and who He will Love.
  God bless you all.
    Bob

Once we are able to realize that homosexuality is not a choice (which is a difficult jump, despite the evidence, for those who have long been taught otherwise), can we then ask all the millions of homosexual people to live celibately forever?  Could you live up to that?  Did not Paul even say for husbands and wives not to deny each other for long periods of time (1 Cor. 6:5)?  Certainly there are a few people, both heterosexual and homosexual who personally choose celibacy, but when celibacy is mandated, the sexuality is sure to come out in some form or other.  Have we not seen this within the Catholic priesthood, even among men who have made a vow of celibacy and probably were very sincere when they did so?  Sexuality, especially in men, is a powerful force, that will likely come out in some perverse manner (possibly threatening our families!) if not allowed to be expressed more naturally.  Can we refuse to allow homosexuals a committed relationship, and then wonder that they should be so promiscuous?  If a productive member of society has a personal relationship with one lifetime partner just as those of us who are free to marry, who among us will throw the first stone? 

This is a difficult social issue for many Christians, because we can all quote the abomination passages and repeat the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" cliches, but just as the slavery and women passages do not fit today's society, nor do these.  The Biblical books were written in very different cultures in an area of the world that even today treats women and children as property, sometimes even for sell and trade.  We all write within the cultures and the understandings that are ours.  If you have traveled to other countries, you will better understand this.  If you read and study these issues apart from just what is written by other Christians, you will better understand.  This is an issue on which the church will one day repent, maybe not in my lifetime, but hopefully in the lifetime of some of you who are reading  this.  

The sad part of how we use the Scripture is that we are so selective.  We can all quote a verse or two that condemns homosexuality, but we have no idea what else is condemned in Scripture.  Should we seek out all the uncircumcized?  They have broken God's covenant and shall be put off from His people (Gen. 17:14).  Should we line up all who have ever  done any work on the Sabbath?  They shall be put to death.  (Ex. 31:14-15).  Do you know someone who claims to have an earthly father?  (Matt.23:9)  Do you know anyone who eats fat or blood, or rabbit or pork, or ostrich?  (Lev. 11:6-14)  Do you know of anyone who has touched a woman within 7 days of menstruation?  (Lev. 15)  Or worse, had sexual relations with her during that time?  (Lev. 20:18)  Should we seek all those who have sown two kinds of seed in one field, or worn a garment made with two types of material?  (Deut. 22:9-11)  Shall we condemn those who round off their hair at their temples or mar the edges of their beard?  And all those with tatoos?  (Lev. 19: 27-28)  Has your child ever talked back to you?  Should we put him to death?  (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 21:18-20)  Should we go back to comdemning all who are divorced?  (Mark 10:2-12)  Do you know any women who wear braids or gold or pearls, or expensive clothing?  (1 Tim. 2:9-15)  Shall we seek out all the women who were not virgins when they married and stone them to death?  (Deut. 22:13-21)  Should we inquire whether a man's testicles are crushed or cut off before allowing him to enter the church?  (Deut. 23:1)  Can I stop now? 

If somehow we have survived this partial list, Mark 16:17-18 might condemn the rest of us:  Jesus' last words before He ascended, describing how to recognize those who believe:  they will cast out demons, speak in tongues, pick up serpents, drink poison and be unhurt, and heal the sick.  I am condemned.  And though I am not repentant on this issue, as I don't think He has called me to begin handling snakes and drinking poison, although I see it in the Scriptures, I am eternally grateful for His mercy, love, and grace, which has changed and covered me.  He has taken my punishment, and has merely asked that I forgive others as He has forgiven me.  This parable speaks poignantly to this issue:

Francine, the account you shared of the Wed. night service was inspiring. It is exhilarating to witness God redeem and transform a life, from living for themselves to living for him first, then others!!!

Behavior is a choice. I think that scripture is clear on that...

Jonathan, the eldest son of Saul, is immediately struck with David on their first meeting, "And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam. 18:1).
That same day, "Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul"
 (1 Sam. 18:3).
Jonathan removes and offers David the rich garments he is wearing, and shares with him his worldly possessions: "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Sam. 18:4).

The people of Israel openly accept David and sing of his praises, so much so that it draws the jealousy of Saul (1 Sam. 18:5-9).
Saul tries repeatedly to kill David, but is each time unsuccessful, and David's reputation only grows with each attempt (1 Sam. 18:24-25).
To get rid of David, Saul decides to offer him a daughter in marriage, requesting a hundred enemy foreskins in lieu of a dowry - hoping David will be killed trying. David however returns with a trophy of two hundred foreskins and Saul has to fulfill his end of the bargain.

Learning of one of Saul's murder attempts, Jonathan warns David to hide because he "delighted much in David" (1 Sam. 19:1-2).
David is forced to flee more of Saul's attempts to kill him (1 Sam. 19:1-20:1).
In a moment when they find themselves alone together, David says to Jonathan, "Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes." (1 Sam. 20:3).

"Then said Jonathan unto David, 'Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee' ... [and] Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies.' And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul” (1 Sam. 20:4,1 Sam. 20:16-17).

David agrees to hide, until Jonathan can confront his father and ascertain whether it is safe for David to stay (1 Sam. 20:18-22).
 Jonathan approaches his father to plead David's cause: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, 'Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness'" (1 Sam. 20:30).

Jonathan is so grieved that he does not eat for days (1 Sam. 20:34).
 He goes to David at his hiding place to tell him that it is unsafe for him and he must leave. "David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city." (1 Sam. 20:41-42).

Saul continues to pursue David (1 Sam. 21-23:14
David and Jonathan renew their covenant together (1 Sam. 23:15-18)
Eventually Saul and David reconcile (1 Sam. 24:16-22).
When Jonathan is slain on Mt. Gilboa by the Philistines (1 Sam. 31:2),
David laments his death saying, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2 Sam. 1:26).

So says the Bible. So apparently, according to the Word, same-sex unions (or to you the term in the text, covenants) are Biblically based.

In fact,therelationship between these two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving heterosexual relationships ('ahavah)
Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other. Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David. With love being the only justification given for these extravagnet actions.

Though sex is never explicitly depicted, much of the Bible's sexual terminology is shrouded in euphemism. Numerous passages allude to a physically intimate relationship between the two men: Jonathan's disrobing, his "delighting much" in David, and the kissing before their departure. Saul accuses Jonathan of "confusing the nakedness of his mother" with David; the nakedness of one's parents is a common Biblical sexual allusion (e.g. Lev. 18:6-19; Lev. 20:11,Lev. 20:17-21; Ezek. 16:36-37; Ezek 23:10; Hab. 2:15; etc.).

(Thnks to Wikipedia and the Book "When David Loved Jonathan" For much of this.)




P.S. Two of the earliest known paired saints, Sergius and Bacchus, were lovers..

Kathy, I believe that these were done by Brother Robert Lentz, OFM.

They are contemparary icons.Probably done within the last decade or so. I think the medium used is oil on wood.The words just say their names in Greek, and in the case of Sergius and Bacchus, also Arabic. As to their place, in churches, or private worship spaces. I have a copy of Sergius and Bacchus on my icon wall.

But, I will post a pic of a very old icon of Sergius and Bacchus. 

This is an encaustic panel painting on gesso on sycamore wood showing SS. Sergius and Bacchus. Provenance is perhaps Syria, 7th c.  It was orignally in St. Catherine's Monastery in Egypt (the oldest continously funtioning monastery in the world), in now resides in the national art museum in Kiev.

This icon  depicts what in a standard Roman icon is a marriage. Notice the torques (necklaces) around the necks of the saints. These were frequently exchanged in place of rings. Also not that Christ stands in the position that in the traditional marriage icon is the place of the pronubus ("the best man")

t shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Kathy, you already have decided on Huckabee when you admit you don't know much about hijm.  Not that you should or should not vote for him.  I would hope you find out the facts on all those running for office before you would write anyone off.  After all, haven't we talked about following the facts where they lead us in spite of our biases and first impressions?

I am not trying to convince you to vote for any certain person, I just hope you carefully and prayerfully learn as much about each as you consider who to vote for.  Of course I might have misinterpreted your comment and if so, forgive me.

Grace & Peace, your brother in Christ, Brent 

Kathy, thanks for taking my question so graciously.  You always do whether we agree or not and I am thankful we can explore different topics without trying to "fix" each other.  :-)

The reason for the comment is when you discount a candidate as you don't think he will be a player before you have scrutinized him/her.  We all have our biases and there are some on both sides that I wouldn't want to consider either.  All I say is we should follow the facts and pray though them.  I just sensed you didn't even want to consider Huckabee from your response.  Perhaps you have enough information to know you don't want to consider him at this time.  I just reacted since you said you didn't have any information.  After all, I have enough information on certain candidates to not consider them as well.

As far as the qualifications for the office of President/leader of the nation, I don't think he has to be the one who knows the most Bible verses or who can Praise God the most in public.  To me the biggest qualifiications are similar as was for Samuel in choosing David.  Bottom line is learn about them and then vote as the Spirit leads.  God puts the leaders of the world in power and do I trust God with my future?  

Sorry for writing such a book.  I appreciate your responses as always.  Thanks and God Bless you this week.  Your brother in Christ, Brent