Did Apostle Paul actually accepted Christian homosexuals?

Maybe yes, just was able to share this as so many other stuff have been happening here in Jamaica as you may have realised by the posts. In November 2011 this news came and also  a book (photo below) with accompanying YOUTUBE videos to explain the legal paradox and the supposed unsolved Romans text on homosexuality. 

For the last 2,000 years, Christians have been taught to believe that Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality. But a new discovery documents that he deliberately acknowledged that it does not prevent anyone from entering heaven. This discovery by internationally acclaimed cryptographer Michael Wood removes the final barrier to full societal acceptance of gays and lesbians.


“Michael Wood’s discovery is remarkable because it solves a colossal paradox regarding Paul’s Greek that has baffled scholars for 2,000 years,” says Dr. William Berg, former professor of Greek and Roman Classics at Stanford University, UCLA, and other academic institutions.


Paul’s only unequivocal reference to homosexuality is found within Romans 1:18-3:20, a Biblical passage that has mystified scholars for two millennia. “The interpretation of Romans 1:18-3:20 has been notoriously difficult for almost every commentator,” Richard Longenecker, a distinguished New Testament scholar, writes in his book ‘Studies in Paul.’ “Earlier interpreters such as Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and Erasmus wrestled with this issue and it continues to plague commentators today.”’


The passage is riddled with paradoxes. It says that “only the doers of the law will be vindicated by God,” and “by the works of the law no one will be vindicated.” The passage also mysteriously separates idolatrous, homosexual, orgy fests from transgressions worthy of spiritual death. “In finding the definitive solution to Paul’s legal paradox, I inadvertently discovered why he separated the idolatrous, same-sex orgies from the things he considered worthy of spiritual death,” said Wood.


Dr. Berg has spent many months examining the linguistic and historical basis of what he describes as Wood’s “remarkable” discovery. “Michael Wood reveals to the public a well-kept secret, namely that the apostle Paul, like the rest of his contemporaries, divided the commands of the Jewish law into two groups demarcated by Leviticus 19:18—‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the commandments based on loving your neighbor were ‘Justices of the Torah.’ Those not based on Leviticus 19:18 were ‘Jobs of the Torah.’” Dr. Berg explained.


Wood’s solution is definitive, elegant, and verifiable. Romans 2:13-26 teaches: Only the doers of the ‘Justices of the Torah’ will be vindicated before God. Romans 3:20 says, “By the ‘Jobs of the Torah’ no one will be vindicated.” Not only is there no contradiction, but the two teachings have always been simple restatements of each other; the “Great Paradox” is no paradox at all! MORE


meanwhile

Monumental Cryptography Discovery Reveals Homosexuality Not Forbidden in Bible

Apparently Paul’s paradoxes laid out in the book of Romans in the Bible have plagued theologians and historians for thousands of years. A classic argument against cultural permissiveness toward homosexuality stems from Romans, in which Paul appears to say homosexuals need not apply for an all-inclusive pass to Heaven – because they will be denied.


But Wood’s discovery has turned the entire scripture upside down, and it appears that the Bible has had a welcome mat out for the gays all along.


“Michael Wood’s discovery is remarkable because it solves a colossal paradox regarding Paul’s Greek that has baffled scholars for 2,000 years,” says Dr. William Berg, who taught Greek and Roman Classics at Stanford University.


Paul’s only unequivocal reference to homosexuality is found within Romans 1:18-3:20, a Biblical passage that has mystified scholars for two millennia. “The interpretation of Romans1:18-3:20 has been notoriously difficult for almost every commentator,” Richard Longenecker, the Distinguished New Testament Scholar at Wheaton College, writes in his book Studies in Paul. “Earlier interpreters such as Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and Erasmus wrestled with this issue and it continues to plague commentators today.”


The passage is riddled with paradoxes. It says that “only the doers of the law will be vindicated by God,” and “by the works of the law no one will be vindicated.” The passage also mysteriously separates idolatrous, homosexual orgy fests from transgressions worthy of spiritual death. “In finding the definitive solution to Paul’s legal paradox, I inadvertently discovered why he separated the idolatrous, same-sex orgies from the things he considered worthy of spiritual death,” said Wood.


Wood’s solution is definitive, elegant, and verifiable. Romans 2:13-26 teaches: Only the doers of the “Justices of the Torah” will be vindicated before God. Romans 3:20 says, “By the ‘Jobs of the Torah’ no one will be vindicated.” Not only is there no contradiction, but the two teachings have always been simple restatements of each other; the “Great Paradox” is no paradox at all!


This legal solution fully explains Paul’s treatment of homosexuality. Paul’s passage excludes idolatrous, homosexual orgy fests from things which he considered worthy of spiritual death, things such as “bad-mouthing others,” “deceiving,” and “inflicting pain.” Those engaged in idolatrous, homosexual orgies weren’t violating the Justices. (They weren’t violating the precept “Love your neighbor as yourself.”) Therefore, Paul was obliged to separate this from his list of things which did violate the Justices.


The finding is significant because it documents that Paul purposefully separated the same-sex acts; it was a conscious, deliberate decision consistent with the rest of the passage. In fact, it was demanded by the rest of the passage. The resolution of the paradox empirically proves that Paul’s view on homosexuality was very different from what Christians had thought for 2,000 years.


Although Romans 1 contains the only unequivocal reference to homosexuality, anti-homosexual statements have been introduced into other passages in newer versions of the English Bible. As for these modern changes to the Biblical text: “Michael Wood has gone the extra mile in being faithful to Paul’s Greek,” said Dr. Berg. “He shows, time and again, that the words traditionally mistranslated as ‘homosexual,’ ‘effeminate,’ ‘impure,’ and so forth, are really targeting selfish, unloving, unjust activity and have nothing to do with sexual orientation. He shows that once again Paul was condemning those who violate the Justices of the Torah, and nothing more.”

the book can be had at AMAZON

Could you kindly deliver this letter to Mr Mullings ........ from an Average, Straight, Christian, Labourite.

Here is an interesting piece that has been making the rounds in social networking pages and groups, this is not new in terms of a response to the Leviticusal rebuttals from the church on homosexuality normally leaving out the other abominations and dishonestly zooming in on the same sex reference while also leaving out the historical context the book was written. In light of the Bible totting MP Clive Mullings at a recent JLP function. See for more on that here with the Sodom trope:

Mullings slams Simpson Miller over buggery law review plan
'No nation that seeks to move away from God's words can succeed'

If sin is sin then why is homosexuality made to be a greater sin than others? 

And since we have no record of Jesus himself condemning homosexuality are we sure that it is a sin in certain contexts?

Have a read of the piece and arrive at your own conclusion.

Dear Mr Mullings,

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your speech, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, 

I simply remind them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Haitians, but not Cubans. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Cubans?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness
- Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states
he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the Police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there'degrees'of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/ polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yours Truly,

The Average, 

Straight, 

Christian, 

Labourite.
**COPIED**

ENDS

Raymond Pryce ridiculed by JLP supporters on the strength on the queen of Jamaica comment made by Mrs Simpson Miller during the leaderhsip debate recently. 

What little LGBT support for the JLP has been dwindling fast and with photos like that above just by observation since the pronouncements by Daryl Vaz on Adam on Steve, also mayor of Kingston and candidate for West Kingston taking Bruce Golding's place also joined the fray and the recipient of this letter enclosed Clive Mullings also joined in. Very serious thinking is missing though in regards to the proposed conscience vote, while Mrs Simpson Miller may have our interest at heart on the face of it I continue to say there is method to madness and a conscience vote may very well put a complete stop to the agitation on LGBT rights etc. Of course the JLP has been attempting to capitalize on the stance taken by Mrs Miller, will it lead to a victory for them? Here is a video remix of both leader comments and a digitally voiced commentator suggesting a theocratic stance in governance:

also see: Has PNP received financing from gay community?- Vaz says JLP confident of securing 34-38 seats in Dec 29 poll


Mullings slams Simpson Miller over buggery law review plan - 'No nation that seeks to move away from God's words can succeed'


from Mark Wignall: PNP to review buggery law when?

‘Idiot plan that!’ - Many Jamaicans against Buggery Law review ...............

Peace and tolerance

H

"Kill Gays" Jimmy Swaggart and knowing fruits ....

So as the strong criticisms delivered recently by Liberty Advocate on fallen from grace and one time the biggest televangelist on international television Jimmy Swaggart makes the rounds the critics have been weighing in. Lest we forget he stumbled pretty badly with the case of the prostitute and the hotel room which saw him loose his grip on the multi million dollar commercialized Christianity industry only at the time surpassed by Oral Roberts ministries, even I used to listen to him on local television here in Jamaica with one of my favourite singers the on his team leading the worship sessions.

Then in 2004 on his comeback trail as America loves when a fallen persona returns he committed the ultimate infraction during a sermon where he said “I'm trying to find the correct name for it...this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men.” Then he added, “I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I’m gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” Swaggart apparently got a positive response from the congregation. (photo from sermon above)

What is also disturbing is how much money these preachers make on the grounds of collecting offerings and preaching hate in some instances. According to a recent documentary For The Bible Tells Me So some preachers who are described as biblical literalists while being capitalists make hundreds of millions of dollars a charge that has not been refuted to date. The Sodom and Gomorrah story is used to continue the hate against same gender loving people while failing to read bible within it's context and original culture or using selective reading picking out what works and ignoring or discarding what doesn't.

Swaggart now has a new ministry named SonLife and is one of the fastest growing commercial christian entities out there now. Liberty Advocate has been very strong in their criticisms such as

Note, it is possible for men to have a great name for piety, and yet to be workers of iniquity; and those that are so will receive the greater damnation.


Judging Jimmy Swaggart: Evil Fruits

Irrefutably, God’s Law gives us the authority and duty to judge sinners in the church, including false preachers. So, let’s look at some of Swaggart’s evil fruits…

1. Adultery

But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:28

Swaggart committed acts of adultery by a-whoring after pornography and prostitutes and refuses to repent. In 1985, before his fall, Swaggart wrote Rape of a Nation openly condemning pornography. O ye hypocrite!

Why does Swaggart idolize Dake who confessed to sexual sin with young girls?

4. Wickedness

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which
commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:29, 32

While Swaggart was committing adultery with whores, he hypocritically pointed his finger at Marvin Gorman and Jim Bakker condemning and exposing their adultery. He did this with malice and mischief in his evil heart, not to bring them to repentance. Gorman and Bakker were ministry rivals. So, Swaggart methodically set out to destroy his competition.

Read the rest HERE

plus

In regards to the killing gay comment Swaggart said he has jokingly used the expression "killing someone and telling God he died" thousands of times, about all sorts of people. He said the expression is figurative and not meant to harm.

"It's a humorous statement that doesn't mean anything. You can't lie to God -- it's ridiculous," Swaggart told The Associated Press. "If it's an insult, I certainly didn't think it was, but if they are offended, then I certainly offer an apology."

To joke about something as serious as this knowing how literal persons take action against same gender loving people is grossly irresponsible. Yet these are the persons who hold positions of leadership in religion, can the blind lead the blind?

Peace and tolerance

H

Sharing the Light: Is There a Chance that Jesus Was Gay? ..................

Sharing the Light: Would Jesus Like LBGT People Today?

Sharing the Light is an Internet talk show where Reverends Durrell Watkins, Robert Griffin, Michael Diaz, and others discuss theological questions of interest to our community.

Interesting discussion but of course as was said we need to be careful not to bring twenty first century thinking to first century living.

Listen carefully please before dismissing or defending your point of view.

Peace and tolerance

H

Sharing the Light: Is There a Chance that Jesus Was Gay?

Bibliolatry

contributed by Rev David Eck

Here's a new word for you: Bibliolatry [bib-lee'-all-a-tree]. Try to say that three times fast in a row! According to the dictionary, bibliolatry is "an excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible." It is a synthesis of the words "Bible" and "idolatry" which pretty much gives you a sense of what the word is about.

Bibliolatry is Bible worship where the Word is held in higher regard than the "Word made Flesh." It's mantra is "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." This is an over simplistic and dangerous statement since all of those who chant it don't follow everything that is in the Bible word for word.

I have yet to meet a true Biblical literalist. If I did I would run for me life, not only because they would advocate the death penalty for me since I'm homosexual, but if they followed God's word literally it would also mean they were in favor of slavery, polygamy, stoning adulterers and a host of other Biblical laws too numerous to mention that no one in their right mind would follow today.

If we're going to get anywhere in the Church of Jesus Christ we need to move beyond our infantile obsession with literalism. Let's face it, Jesus did not speak Elizabethan English. He spoke Aramaic. His words were then translated into Greek by the gospel writers and then copied over many centuries until, finally, they made their way into English. During this time scores of manuscripts were produced that contain a number of contradictions and inconsistencies. Some of these contradictions are minor. Others are major variants.

If we remain stuck clinging to the literal Word, we will exhaust ourselves trying to reconcile these inconsistencies. If, instead, we view the Bible as a sign post that points beyond itself to the Living Christ, then we free ourselves from following the letter of the law and can focus on its spirit. Granted literalism is appealing because it's simple. However, faith is never simple. It is complicated, challenging and life-altering. I would not have it, or my Bible, any other way.

What About Love?: Why Judge Walker's Proposition 8 Ruling Is Theologically Correct

Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D..Theologian, seminary professor, and ordained minister

Much ink will be spilled over the next few days -- and, most likely, over the next few years -- about the legal correctness of Judge Vaughn Walker's Proposition 8 ruling. That ruling struck down the referendum passed in 2008 that stripped same-sex couples in California of their existing civil right to marry under state law.

I will leave the discussion of the technical legal issues to others. Instead, I want to focus on the theological correctness of Judge Walker's ruling. Despite the angry protests of many anti-gay Christian groups, I believe that Judge Walker's ruling is actually rooted in a profound theological truth articulated by St. Paul in Romans 13: "the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."

In other words, Judge Walker's Proposition 8 ruling is theologically correct because it recognizes that same-sex marriage is all about love. The ruling notes that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are in loving relationships. One couple, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, have been together for 10 years and are raising four children together. The other couple, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, have been together for nine years.

Judge Walker describes the connection between same-sex marriage and love in several places. First, he notes that "marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States." Second, he notes that the "standardized measures" of love "do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex." Third, he notes that same-sex love and intimacy are in fact "well-documented in human history."

By contrast, anti-gay religious opponents of same-sex marriage fail to recognize that same-sex marriage is ultimately about love. Hiding behind their motherhood-and-apple-pie rhetoric that marriage between a man and a woman is the "bedrock of society" (as the once-polygamous Mormon Church stated) or "civilization's longstanding public policy" (as the pedophile-sheltering Catholic Church stated), these opponents have a bizarre theological obsession with needing to legitimize sexual pleasure through biological procreation alone.

In my view, the obsession that anti-gay Christians have with the mechanics of sexual acts (that is, tab A can only be inserted into slot B) without any regard to the loving quality of the underlying relationships -- whether homosexual or heterosexual -- is profoundly wrong from a theological, ethical, and biblical perspective. For example, the Bible refers to same-sex acts six times. However, it refers to love nearly 800 times. What do you think is more important from God's perspective?

Ironically, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) responded to Judge Walker's ruling in a most uncharitable and unloving way. In its press release (which incorrectly described Judge Walker as a "Circuit Court Judge"), NOM accused the federal district court judge of conducting the trial in a "biased way," and it called the plaintiffs' lawyers -- Ted Olson and David Boies -- "egomaniacal." In a separate statement, NOM tried to distance itself from an individual who had attended a recent NOM marriage rally in Indianapolis and who held a sign with a picture of two nooses that quoted Leviticus 20:13 and implied that the "solution" for same-sex marriage was executing gay people.

NOM also released a statement by Bishop Harry Jackson, the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Washington, D.C., who called the ruling a "travesty of justice." Bishop Jackson said that Judge Walker's comparison between racism and marriage was a "slur" and "particularly offensive" to those who "remember the reality of Jim Crow." Sadly, however, Bishop Jackson failed to acknowledge the incredible pain and suffering experienced by numerous faithful lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) African Americans and other LGBT people of color who are rejected and treated as pariahs by their own pastors and religious leaders.

It is disturbing to me that anti-gay Christians so easily forget that love is at the very heart of the gospel message. The Bible tells us that God is love (1 John 4). Jesus teaches that the two great commandments are to love God with all of one's heart, soul, and mind; and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22). Jesus gave his disciples a new commandment at the Last Supper -- to love each other as Jesus loved them (John 15). According to St. Paul, the greatest virtue is love (1 Corinthians 13) and nothing will ever separate us from the love of God (Romans 8). And, as noted above, anyone who loves another person has fulfilled the law (Romans 13).

Even St. Augustine of Hippo, who is not exactly known for his progressive views about sexual ethics, wrote in his seventh homily on the First Letter of St. John that dilige et quod vis fac, or "love, and do what you will." In other words, love one another and you cannot do wrong in the sight of God.

Same-sex marriage is all about love. Recently, my husband Michael and I celebrated 19 years together. We've lived through blizzards, earthquakes, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan. We've celebrated births of nieces and nephews, and we've mourned the deaths of family members. We've been through career changes, aging parents, and both economic joys and challenges. We've moved from one coast to another and back again. We've experienced for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer. And yet, after nearly two decades together, we still can't marry each other in the vast majority of states simply because one of us is not the "right" sex.

As Judge Walker's Proposition 8 ruling winds its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, there will be lots of debate about legal concepts like equal protection and the proper standards of judicial review. But for me, it all boils down to a simple theological truth expressed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13: Love is the greatest virtue of all. In fact, love trumps even faith and hope! Or, for those who prefer the secular version, "Love conquers all." And that's why, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Judge Walker's ruling is theologically correct.

The Real Threat to the Family (The Gay Pastor)

I'm getting really irritated with the ludicrous arguments people continue to use in condemning homosexuality and gay marriage as an affront to the family, and as a force that will eventually destroy the family unit in society. These arguments are stupid on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.

First of all, let me deal with the extremes. Are there extremists amongst the advocates of gay marriage who are anti-establishment to the point of opposing the family unit altogether? Absolutely. They see it as a vestige of an outdated social construct, the intent of which is to hold people captive to relationships that were never chosen, to authorities that haven't necessarily earned the right to power (vis-a-vis mothers and fathers).

Now, the truth is that this is a ridiculous perspective. In fact, I don't believe that most of these extremists actually believe the foolishness they spout. To the contrary, I think they do long for a family unit, and that it is their history of hurt and disappointment that has led to their surface-level opposition to this universal structure that is inherent to our very nature as human beings--the family.

But, even if some of them truly do hate the family unit, who cares?!?! Are you going to tell me that a few kooks on our side actually characterize the vast majority of gay people and allies? Who in their right mind believes that we actually want to destroy the family? To the contrary, the very fact that we advocate gay marriage proves that we honor the family unit and desire, with all of our hearts, to have families of our own! What moron can't understand this?

I'm in the process of reading Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, by Thomas E. Schmidt, and I've gotta tell you, his perception of the so-called gay agenda is as uninformed and bigoted as they come. I started out reading with a certain respect for the author because in chapter 1, he made it a point to talk about the error of highlighting extreme points of view on either side and using them as an argument against the other side. I thought, Well finally, a reasonable critic. But, as I continued to read, that's exactly what this man is doing--taking extreme views and pointing them out as the intention of the gay community in relation to society.

Schmidt says, "...the homosexual population continues to rely on the procreative population for familial support, patterns of relationship and of course the production of more homosexuals. It is as if someone's spleen had declared its independence, departed through an incision in the abdomen, and then periodically returned, leechlike, to draw nourishment from the same body. Are the critics spleenophobic, or is this misplaced organ living in a dream world?"

What the hell?!?! Yeah, that's the antigay version of compassion for you. First, they claim that we're out to turn straight people gay, but then they turn around and say that we're dependent upon the straight population for the production of more homosexuals. Hmmm... Sounds to me like he almost believes that people are born gay!

And then we get to the word "leechlike". We're leeching from the family structure that we supposedly hate. We hate the fact that we have mothers and fathers. We hate the fact that we have siblings; yet, we leech off of their love, and off of the unchosen relationships that we detest so much. Oh my God!

Who exactly is living in a dream world--gay people who don't have a problem with family and even want families of their own, or antigay people (some of whom are, themselves, gay), who can't resist from caricaturing the gay community as "the evil, big-nosed Jews who are intent on either ruling the world or destroying it!" Too bad we don't have another Hitler around to exterminate these familial leeches before they suck all of the life out of the family unit.

I just don't understand the logic. We hate the family so much that we want our own families? We hate fathers and mothers so much that we want to adopt children and provide them with loving fathers or loving mothers that will support and care for them? Why can't Schmidt and those like him understand that it's not the family we hate. It's the notion that their version of the family (one father and one mother) is the only possible one that can exist, to the exclusion of same-sex families or single-parent families.

But, then again, at least the Bible is on their side, right? Wrong! In both the Old and New Testaments, the family unit took multiple forms. There were units with one father and one mother (vis-à-vis the Adam and Eve paradigm), multiple mothers in a single family unit (vis-à-vis the Jacob, Leah, and Rachel paradigm, not to mention the concubines Bilhah and Zilpah), and even single-parent households, like Mary, after the death of her husband, Joseph. Even polygamy is affirmed by the fact that only bishops and deacons were commanded to be the husband of one wife, while nothing whatsoever was ever commanded of the rest of the Christian population!

Obviously, Genesis 1-2 isn't as indicative of the divine perspective on marriage as our opponents so monotonously claim--that is, unless you read it in isolation from the rest of the Bible and force commands upon all humankind where none exist in the text. Yet we're the ones who are accused of twisting Scripture.

And what about the famous argument that children need a mother and a father? On its surface, this argument is an affront to the many families that were forced to endure with a single parent, either as a result of abandonment or widowhood. Should we teach single parents that it is their Christian duty to get remarried as soon as possible, so as to recreate the structure that God requires of all legitimate families; or, on the other hand, is there some measure of grace that extends to people who may not meet the biblical ideal because of the circumstances involved?

And what exactly is this biblical ideal? Antigay Christians require a model of one man and one woman; but I've already demonstrated that Scripture, itself, doesn't contain such a rule. I would argue that the ideal has nothing to do with a person's sex, and more to do with a person's support structure. With two parents in the home, the weight of child-rearing and provision doesn't fall squarely upon one person's shoulders. Partnership is demonstrated in its best light by two people working together to provide a stable home environment, a stable social structure in which to raise children.

But, isn't it important for children to have the parental perspective of both a man and a woman? Isn't that a pertinent part of their childhood development? I don't believe that it is. The social construct of gender (man and woman) is not universal or enduring. Even since biblical times, the role of the man as provider and head of the household, and of the woman as housekeeper and helper to the husband, has morphed into a more equalized partnership in which both people contribute in all aspects of a healthy family environment. Some may claim that this is unbiblical, but if you ask me, it's a more accurate representation of the fact that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Truly, society has finally caught up with the perspective that God has always held of the divisions between man and woman--that there is no division at all! Wasn't that the pre-Fall intent, after all?

Besides, the argument always circles back to single-parent homes. Is the fact that single-parent homes have a greater chance of producing children who wind up troubled in adolescence and even later in life indicative of a need for a male and a female in the home; or is it, rather, indicative of the need of two adult figures to be present to help share the burden of child-rearing? I argue that it's the latter--that the sex of the people don't matter... It's a matter of quantity--is there someone there to help shoulder the burden? Is there someone there to help reinforce the authority of the other parent? Is there someone there to help provide a supervisory presence to children, ensuring that they aren't required to raise themselves while a single parent works his/her butt off trying to keep a roof over everyone's head?

Same-sex couples are every bit as capable of providing a stable home environment to children. In fact, one needn't theorize about it. There are plenty of living examples of such homes right now. We need only consider the development of these children.

It has been my experience that the only downside to such homes is the pressure brought to bear on children in the school system because they come from households with same-sex parents. Some claim that such bullying proves how heartless it is for parents to raise their children in same-sex households. But, it's interesting how they never consider how heartless it is for bigots to instill their antigay sentiments into yet another generation of children. It's obvious that these bully children got their cruel attitudes from somewhere; yet nobody ever calls their parents on the carpet to account for the fact that they've taught their children--explicitly or by antipathy--that it's okay to treat people in such ways. No, it's the same-sex parents who are at fault. Unbelievable!

Gay people are not the threat to the family unit. I'll tell you what the threat is. The threat is the Church's misguided efforts to oppose same-sex marriage, or same-sex adoptions. The threat is the fact that the Church is expending all of its time, energy, and resources fighting families that don't look like them, rather than trying to strengthen the crumbling families that already exist in their own local congregations. No, they're too busy picketing same-sex marriages, rather than divorce courts. They're too busy stopping families from existing, rather than preventing those that exist from falling apart.

Gay people don't hate the family. Gay people aren't out to destroy the family. We affirm family every day in the process of coming out so that our loved ones can have the chance to know and love us for who we are, as we know and love them. We affirm family every day in our pleas for the right to have families of our own. We affirm family every day by striving for the right to marry the person of our choosing. We affirm family every day by our desire to have children (via surrogacy) and/or to adopt children into our families, providing them with stable environments in which to be nurtured and to grow.

Oh no, my friends, we aren't the threat to the family. The antigay wing of the Church is!

Is Jesus relevant for LGBT People? + more

Sharing the Light is an Internet talk show where Reverends Durrell Watkins, Robert Griffin, and others discuss theological questions of interest




Baptist Minister Rev. Peter Gomes discusses why he believes Jesus would have supported the idea of gay marriage.

"What did Jesus preach?" asks Harvard pastor Peter J. Gomes, who believes that excessive focus on the Bible and doctrines about Jesus have led the Christian church astray.

To recover the transformative power of the gospel - "the good news" - Gomes says we must go beyond the Bible and rediscover how to live out Jesus's original revolutionary message of hope.

With eloquence and insight, using examples from ancient times as well as modern pop culture, Gomes shows us why the good news is every bit as relevant today as it was when first preached - Grace Cathedral

The Reverend Professor Peter J. Gomes is an American Baptist minister ordained to the Christian Ministry by The First Baptist Church of Plymouth, Massachusetts. Since 1970 he has served in The Memorial Church, Harvard University; and since 1974 as Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in The Memorial Church.

His most recent work, The Scandalous Gospel of Jesus, includes extensive commentary and observation on the interrelations of Church and State throughout history and particularly in recent US history.

Alan Jones, Ph.D., has been dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco since 1985. Jones was formerly the director of the Center for Christian Spirituality and Stephen F. Bayne Professor of Ascetical Theology at General Theological Seminary in New York City. Born and educated in England, Jones was also on the staff of Trinity Institute of Wall Street's Trinity Church. He became a citizen of the United States in 1975.Jones is the author of several books, most notably, Soul Making, The Desert Way of Spirituality, Passion for Pilgrimage and most recently, The Soul's Journey: Exploring the Three Passages of the Spiritual Life with Dante as a Guide.

Jamaica: Commonwealth of Hate says South Florida Gay News

In November 2004, the international watchdog group Human Rights Watch issued a devastating report that cited Jamaica as the most virulently anti-gay bigoted nation in the Western Hemisphere.



The report, aptly and grimly titled “Hated to Death,” exposed the pervasive homophobia that both drives and permeates the former British crown colony – including the country’s popular culture, law enforcement apparatus, and much of its health care system.



That bias has for generations put at further risk some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens; setting up barriers both external and internal to seeking medical care, and in the process making it extremely difficult to acquire condoms and other items that would help LGBT persons combat the spread of STDs.



The island’s prevailing attitudes have made their mark across the region. “As Jamaica goes, so goes the Caribbean,” says The Reverend Robert Griffin, Director of Religious Education and Christian Social Action at MCC Sunshine Cathedral in Fort Lauderdale.



Griffin says, too, that the local pop culture only fans the flames of bigotry, homophobia and violence.



“When it comes to gays and lesbians, ‘if you see one, kill one’ is the conventional wisdom you hear coming from the ‘dancehall’ crowd,” Griffin says, referring to the Jamaican genre of popular music.



A version of reggae, dancehall also includes sometimes vicious lyrics that sound off on politics and religion.



Dancehall music has been criticized by international groups for its violent and often homophobic lyrics.



Among the more outspoken anti-gay dancehall artists is Buju Banton, a Kingston-born musician arrested in Tamarac last December by the DEA on charges he tried to sell five kilos of cocaine to undercover agents.



Banton, whose trial in Tampa is scheduled to begin June 21, came under fire from human rights groups because of the lyrics to his song “Boom Bye Bye,” released in 1988 when he was 15 years old.



They include references of distaste towards same-sex intimacy and the threat of violence. (“Two man hitch up on an rub up on, an lay down inna bed; Hug up on another anna feel up [the] leg: [instead] fi[nd] an [auto]matic an[d] [an] Uzi instead.”)



Although a teenager when he recorded the song, Banton has never renounced it and has pointedly refused to sign the Reggae Compassionate Act, a musicians’ pledge to refrain from performing homophobic songs or making homophobic statements.



Under Jamaican law, homosexuality is a crime punishable by ten years of hard labor. Victims of gay-bashing cannot go to the police for fear of official abuse, assault and arrest.



Gays and lesbians who are taken to the hospital following a hate crime often face the added ordeal of openly-hostile hospital staff: badly hurt victims of gay-bashing have been insulted by doctors and nurses and made to wait as much as 24 hours for treatment.



Amnesty International reports that LGBT persons have been “beaten, cut, burned, raped and shot on account of their sexuality.” The organization further confirms that Jamaican authorities, instead of assisting victims, are often themselves guilty of homophobic “violence and torture.”



Since 1997, Amnesty International has documented the murders of 35 LGBT Jamaicans, and since 2008 it has catalogued more than 30 incidents of anti-gay mob violence.



Sadly, much has failed to change in the more than five years since the release of “Hated to Death.” In the Spring of 2010, the data still suggests that the AIDS epidemic may be deepening in Jamaica and that unprotected sex is far more common than hoped.



On April 7, leaders from the international movement of the Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) participated in the first public HIV/AIDS march in Montego Bay, Jamaica.



The Walk for Tolerance was sponsored by Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, the largest and oldest Jamaican non-profit organization providing support services to persons with HIV and AIDS.



The Caribbean, including Jamaica, has the second-highest HIV infection rate in the world, behind sub-Saharan Africa.



The United Nations estimates that 25,000 Jamaicans are infected with HIV; a significant number do not know that they have the virus.



The goal of the public walk was to engender goodwill, support and tolerance for persons living with HIV and AIDS. The march drew 150 participants, and was hailed as a historic first for the Montego Bay community.



Among the participants were Rev. Nancy Wilson, Presiding Elder and Moderator of MCC, along with Rev. Pat. Bumgardner, who chairs the church’s Global Justice Team, and Fort Lauderdale-based Griffin, who serves additionally as Staff Pastor for Sunshine Cathedral Jamaica and MCC Liaison to Jamaica.



Wilson landed in Jamaica fresh off the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast chat-and-chew with President Barack Obama. Having spoken privately with the American chief executive prior to her departure, Wilson arrived in the British Commonwealth nation with the afterglow of the Presidential Presence.



“The members and adherents of Metropolitan Community Churches stand in solidarity with all persons with HIV and AIDS,” said Wilson.



“Jesus stood with those who were marginalized and rejected by their societies. Jesus loved those who had been made to feel like outcasts; Jesus welcomed such, embraced them, loved them and cared for them. Those who would be Jesus’ followers today must show God’s same extravagant love,” she added.



Griffin notes the importance of gaining the support of members of government and media, and of identifying straight allies, of all political persuasions.



“We want to influence the culture in a positive way without threatening all the good that Jamaica has to offer,” Griffin adds.

-ENDS-



my two cents:

Old news, old facts as covered so many other publications, places, this blog and on GLBTQ Jamaica or is it just another attempt at damage control for JASL following the image problem they have now acquired following the Walk for Tolerance or gay march whatever you want to call it?

Where are the real advocacy issues in this piece when two homeless MSMs are in the hospital suffering from an attack late last month where they were chopped for allegedly soliciting sexual favours from men in public or the lesbian sister who was raped in April as well.

We need more than just old alarms raised overseas now while one can appreciate the need to highlight the issues.

Peace & Tolerance

H

Sharing the Light: Danger for Gays in Jamaica, Nigeria, and Uganda

Sharing the Light is an Internet talk show where Reverends Durrell Watkins, Robert Griffin, and others discuss theological questions of interest to our community.

In this episode of Sharing the Light, Sunshine Cathedrals Senior Pastor Durrell Watkins speaks with Director of Media and Justice Ministry Robert Griffin. We invite you to watch for an enlightening conversation on Sharing the Light.

Robert Griffin discusses the situation as he sees it on Jamaicas homophobic situation and religion inclusive of the governments attitude.

Mob violence is also looked at with the police response

HIV issues

Christianity and homosexuality are addressed as well

Nigeria and Uganda are also looked at

Religious homophobia is examined where religious leaders are deemed as dehumanising homosexuals

The American conservative imports in Africa are briefly touched

see also
Sharing The Light: The Danger of The Closet

The Walk for Tolerance ...... scenes and more

the ambulance parked nearby to assist just in case the heat got too much for the participants

Interpride representative taking shots of the walk

poignant message

Esteemed MCC Reverends Nancy L. Wilson and Robert Griffin

the flagggggggg

A success ...... yesssssss!

The Walk for Tolerance (April 7, 2010) as launched by Jamaica AIDS Support for Life (JASL) and The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) group from Florida and the Jamaica Youth Advocacy Network (JYAN) went on unimpeded that is of course until the media got hold on footage and photos of the actual walk then questions are now being raised by many public commentators as to the genuine nature of the walk. Was it really for HIV/AIDS issues as they say or was a gay agenda involved? One radio personality asked. Of note TVJ television Jamaica reported that members of the gay community participated in a Walk for Tolerance and the footage clearly highlighted the LGBT elements of the event pointing out the openly lesbian MCC leader Nancy L. Wilson and Reverend Robert Griffin . Other international LGBT groups were also present namely Interpride, the International Association of GLBTI Pride Coordinators. www.interpride.org, Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition CVC, Sunshine Cathedral Jamaica (all three chapters, the parent church being MCC in Florida) and Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG). I was invited but had prior commitments so I was unable to attend but from the looks of it the balanced reports and exclusive photos I have received it seemed to have gone over well.

The Chairman of Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, Mr. Ian McKnight was interviewed on Nationwide FM radio afterwards where he was quizzed as to the real reasons for the walk, the hosts Owner and manager of Nationwide Radio Cliff Hughes and one Ealon Parkinson pressed the Chair if the walk were a guise to push the envelope of the gay agenda without saying it in so many words, Mr. McKnight responded by saying it was a mix of faith based groups and civil society with representatives from the Ministry of Health pushing for the need for tolerance for persons living with HIV/AIDS and other minority groups affected by same . The reason why Montego Bay was chosen for the march he said was to highlight the higher instances of infection rates in that side of the country than elsewhere and to tackle the issue of discrimination towards persons living with HIV. I am not so sure he was able to diffuse the perception that there was a strong gay agenda intertwined in yesterday’s exercise as one commentator on another radio station remarked at the large gay coloured flag that was present in the march as told to him and the tone of the signage used by the participants. Several newscasts also used language to the effect that openly gay persons marched in Montego Bay.

When asked if another such march would take place Mr. McKnight was careful to contextualise the reason for it to happen, he said that with the high rates on infection within the transactional and commercial sex groupings in the tourist areas they (JASL and possibly others) would target a similar area on the north coast, that sounds to me like Ocho Rios where JASL also has an office that serves the public including GLBTQ people through GLABCOM (Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Community Outreach).

Whether the organizations in question will be able to host another such walk is unclear as this one came in quietly through the back door and surprised even members of the GLBTQ community who were not told of the walk until they saw it on television or on the internet. The down side to this is that many feel the groups involved are too selective about whom they want to have in these activities and in a way they feel left out of the loop. I am sure the press is not going to let this one slide so easily as JASL already has a reputation over its head but with this successful walk they are going to be scrutinised much more from now on whenever they launch any other public education drives or similar activities.

Tents were set up by an area after the walk from the Montego Bay shopping centre to the dump up beach where a mini conference was held with HIV testing and talks conducted.

Let’s watch the aftermath of this one folks.

Peace and tolerance

H