Out of the Closet and Into the Light

Love in Action under investigation again

2005-07-14T19:50:00.000-07:00

WVLT VOLUNTEER TV Knoxville, TN

Things that make you go hmmm.

Sabbatical

2005-06-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

As many of you know I'm a soldier in the military. My division is preparing for deployment to Iraq and I have been extremely busy with that and another major project.

I regret that I've not had a lot of time lately to post to this blog. Unfortunately it's not going to get much better any time soon.

Please pray that my division and myself return safely and in one piece.

I will try to post when I can, but I wanted to explain what I've been up to, and why I haven't been responding to comments or posting.

'Gender-bending' chemicals found to 'feminise' boys

2005-05-30T02:06:00.000-07:00

New Scientist Breaking News

This is shocking information and may suggest the environment has way more to do with development then anyone ever imagined.

I mean, the very plastic bottle nipples are made of can interfere with testosterone in baby boys?

“If you see this, you’re very likely to see every other aspect of masculinisation changed too,” says Fred vom Saal, professor of reproductive biology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, US.

I wonder what other aspects of masculinisation Saal may be talking about.

Gay and Straight Men React Differently to Sexual Odors

2005-05-09T20:57:00.000-07:00

NYTimes.com

I'm not sure of the significance of this "discovery" except that it only proves gay men are aroused by the same smells straight women are.

Science continues to make the case that homosexuality is not a choice. But I still believe the behavior is.

But any reasonable person would ask, what kind of God allows someone to be homosexual and then forbids them from exercising their sexuality?

If you are looking for an easy answer... I suggest you look else where. I don't know. Logically I'd say except for the scripture that speaks against sex outside of marriage, and the few scriptures that speak against homosexuality, God probably doesn't really care. But my spirit says otherwise.

I spoke with my ex today. I have such chemistry with that one. I miss his friendship more every time we speak. I probably shouldn't speak with him, but we live states away and there's less than zero chance we'll ever get back together.

But why not? What's the big deal?

Live alone. That's what I gotta do to be right in the eyes of the Church.

I could really care less about the eyes of the Church though. I guess that's not what's motivating me. What is motivating me? Well, circumstance for one thing.

I'm in the Army, about to deploy to Iraq... I'm spent for the next 16 months.

But there are gay guys in the military. I could date one of them. Eh... but I haven't met anyone I like enough.

I don't know.

I'm rambling now.

I guess I'm just not date-able. None of the relationships I've been in have lasted past the six month mark.

I wonder if I'm really destined to be alone intimately.

Awkward Moment

2005-05-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

I was driving home from a friends house today and something interesting happened.

As I approached an intersection with a red light I noticed four or five men at the corner. One guy had a bull horn talking... very loudly... about Jesus. The other guys were holding signs that read, "Jesus Saves" and "Repent".

At first I was uncomfortable. What do I do? Look? Don't look? Nod? Scream, "Amen!"?

This was a busy intersection. There were a lot of stopped cars waiting at the red light.

It was pretty uncomfortable.

But then I realized. This was good. Being uncomfortable because of Christ is a good thing.

I began to nod. I looked. And I thought about how cool it was to know that I'm with these guys.

That's what it's all about.

The Gay Church 5

2005-04-30T09:00:00.000-07:00

Page 11

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Read the chapters

1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful list of depraved human behavior. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual" does not mean homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!

Again, the English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term homo, "the same" and a Latin term sexualis, "sex". No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We don't know what it means. It is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

"Soft" does not mean effeminate." The word translated for "effeminate" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers to those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or stability."

Page 12

This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay people. It has turned many gay men and women against the Bible, which holds for them as for all people the good news of God's Love in Christ.

Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other tree; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn gays and lesbians.

Reference material used for this pamphlet:
Reverent Buddy Truluck, "Homosexuality, not a sickness not a sin"
Dr. Daniel Helminiak, "Homosexuality and the Bible"

(Let's look at this.)

First instruction is to read the chapter. We'll start with 1 Corinthians 6

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 discusses law suits among believers. How it is better to be cheated or be wronged then to bring a law suit against another Christian to judges who have no standing in the Church.

This is off the topic but still interesting. 1 Corinthians 6:3 says, "Do you not know that we will judge angels?" Maybe this is some insight into what our purpose in Heaven will be. I'm just speculating. I mean what good is paradise without some kind of purpose?

Here's some meat and potatoes.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners (1), practicing homosexuals (2), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1) This term is sometimes rendered "effeminate," although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior.

BDAG 613 s.v. malakov" 2 ...

(This is citing Bauer, W. A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Revised and edited by F. W. Danker. Chicago and London; University of Chicago Press, 2000)

BDAG 613 s.v. malakov" 2 has pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship. L&N 88.281 states,...

(This is citing Louw, Hohannes P ., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988)

...the passive male partner in homosexual intercoursehomosexual. As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse. See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase male prostitutes for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean males who sell their services to women, while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation passive homosexual partners has been used here.

6) On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth...

(This is citing Bauer, W. A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Revised and edited by F. W. Danker. Chicago and London; University of Chicago Press, 2000)

..." states, a male who engages in sexual activity with a of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opposite malakov"1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. L&N 88.280 states, ...

(This is citing Louw, Hohannes P ., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon fo the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988)

...a male partner in homosexual intercoursehomosexual.It is possible that ajrsenokoivth" in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov", the passive male partner. Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification practicing was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

(Moving right along...)

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

"All things are lawful for me" - but not everything is beneficial. "All things are lawful for me" - but I will not be controlled by anything. "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both." (1) The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Now God indeed raised the Lord and he will raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is on body with her? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But the on united with the Lord is one spirit with him. Flee sexual immorality! "Every sin a person commits is outside of the body" - but the immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

1) "Both this [stomach] and these [foods]." (I thought this was interesting because it implies we wont eat in heaven. Jewish tradition says Angels don't eat or sleep. But Christ said - at the last supper - we would eat again... at His Fathers table. Curious but off the subject - sorry.

Now lets look at 1 Timothy 1.

1 Timothy 1:1-2 is a greeting from Paul to Timothy.

1 Timothy 1:3 - 7

As I urged you when I was leaving for Macedonia, stay on in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to spread false teachings, nor to occupy themselves with myths and interminable genealogies. Such things promote useless speculations rather than God's redemptive plan that operates by faith. But the aim or our instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have strayed from these and turned away to empty discussion. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently.

1 Timothy 1:8 - 10

But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals (1), kidnappers, liars, perjurers - in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.

1) On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" states,...

(This is citing Bauer, W. A Greek - English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Revised and edited by F. W. Danker. Chicago and London; University of Chicago Press, 2000)

... a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opposite malakov"1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. L&N 88.280 states,...

(This is citing Louw, Hohannes P ., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon fo the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988)

... a male partner in homosexual intercoursehomosexual.It is possible that ajrsenokoivth" in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov", the passive male partner (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification practicing was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.

(Back to Timothy...)

1 Timothy 1:12 - 17

I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, and our Lord's grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus. This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - and am the worst of them! But here is why I was treated with mercy: so that in me as the worst Christ Jesus could demonstrate his utmost patience, as an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life. No to the eternal king immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.

1 Timothy 1:18 - 20

I put this charge before you, Timothy my child, in keeping with the prophecies once spoken about you, in order that with such encouragement you may fight the good fight. To do this you must hold firmly to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

I typed all of Timothy because I think the end has an important point that applies to all sinners. But let's get to what the pamphlet says.

It says "homosexual" does not mean what 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy says "homosexual" means. Nor does "effeminate". But if you look at the meaning of the Greek work ajrsenokoivth and malakov, it's pretty clear these words not only mean homosexual but differentiate between "top" and "bottom".

I simply can't understand the argument the pamphlet makes. That "homo" means the same, and sexualis means sex and that no Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation... yet the Greek word used in the original Bible manuscript actually meant passive homosexual and dominant homosexual. My question is what words did they use before that time?

The translator note in my Bible says...

A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase male prostitutes for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean males who sell their services to women, while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship.

The context of the word is in reference to homosexuality.

But the author of the pamphlet would have us believe that malakoiv and ajrsenokoivth are grossly misinterpreted and actually mean a male prostitute who sells sexual favors to women, and one who is soft, lacking backbone.

The pamphlet says the Greek word malakoiv is means "soft" in reference to clothing in

Matthew 11:8

What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes are in the homes of kings!

and...

and Luke 7:25

What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy (1) clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury are in kings courts!

1) or soft see L&N 79.100 (This is citing Louw, Hohannes P ., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon fo the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988)

And means "illness" in...

Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of disease and sickness among the people.

Matthew 9:35

Then Jesus went throughout all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and sickness.

(So the pamphlet would have us believe the infirmed will not inherit the Kingdom of God as opposed to practicing homosexuals?)

You can take what the Bible says at face value. I think God would have us dive in deep to understand what the Word is really teaching. But you can also take the Bible and make it say something that better suits your life. But what ever you do, make sure you bring it before God, and that your heart feels confirmation about you think the word says.

I believe God has a definite idea about homosexuality. For me, it's communicated clearly in the New Testament and the Old. But I am human, subject to error. I can not tell you how to live your life or should I judge you for not having the same ideas as me.

But the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy 1 both have interesting points. The body is for God - not sex, and Christ came for all... even the worst of the worst.

The Gay Church 4

2005-04-22T16:50:00.000-07:00

Page 7 continued...

Romans 1:26-27
Read the chapter

This entire chapter refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.

Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jew, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro-choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on and on.

The theme of the first three chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom for all who believe."

Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Page 8

Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. These verses also contain some words used only by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers.

Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship. "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Adrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay of Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood his letter better than we do.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament.

"passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wind, drugs, and music.

Page 9

We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27; because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that it was evil, since God also "acted against nature."

"Committing indecent acts" in 1:27 needs special attention too. The King James Version translates it as "working that which is unseemly". The Greek word is askemonsunun and is formed of the word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in I Corinthians 12:23 referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary and receive honor. I Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love does not behave "indecently."

The word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 21:1 into Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but he did not define the term.

Page 10

Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways himself.

If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation.

Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all-inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

(Okay. Lets look at this.)

This will take some time because there is a lot to cover.

The first instruction the pamphlet makes is to read the entire chapter (Romans 1) and see that Paul is talking about the idolatrous religious practices which were common in that time.

Romans 1:1-7 is basically Paul greeting "all those loved by God in Rome"

Romans 1:8-15 is basically Paul saying he's been praying for the Romans for some time and has longed to visit and preach there but has not been able to do so.

Romans 1:16-17 starts to get meaty and expresses (according the pamphlet) the first three chapters of Romans.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, "The righteous by faith will live."

The next paragraph in the pamphlet somewhat confuses me. It refers to Galatians 3:28 saying Paul's gospel is inclusive.

Galatians 3:28 says...

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female - for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul is talking to the Galatians (who were Gentiles) who seemed to be deviating from the faith. They were focusing on works and not faith... specifically the law. Probably the Jewish law (like circumcision or diet) which conflicted with their own customs.

Galatians 3:28 and the whole point of Galatians 3 is that we are justified and united and adopted into the family of God... by faith in Jesus Christ.

I think that is something everyone on each side of the gay/ex-gay movement needs to remember.

Who am I to say the lady who prays at the gay Church, "Thanks for this Church God, because I am accepted here", who am I to say the lady does not have faith in God? I am no one to say that.

It is God who searches mens' hearts and minds, and I think everyone on both sides of this argument have to remember that. But alas... were debating the morality of homosexuality.

I think there's something to be said for someone who loves God, has faith in God, prays to God, accepts Jesus as His son, yet believes there is nothing wrong with their sexual orientation. I'm not describing myself... but I know there are people out there who fit that bill. Jesus will judge that person... as He will judge me. I'm not the judge nor is any one else.

Okay... back to the topic at hand.

The faith of the Galatians stumbled on works and that is the context of Galatians 3:28.

If it applies to what's in Romans, it applies to those who love God.

The next paragraph goes straight to Romans 1:26-27... but I want to look at the scripture in between first so we are completely clear on context.

Romans 1:18-25

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes - his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

(Paul is clearly talking about people who are ungodly and unrighteous because they knew God but did not glorify him as God or give him thanks. They exchanged God for an image resembling mortal human beings, birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

Paul is talking about idolatry.

The pamphlet says Paul is denunciating idol worship.

So we agree on this point. But there is something here that is not mentioned.

They "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings". Speaking as one who struggles with homosexuality, I lust after the male form... an image resembling a perfect - hot - guy.

The same can be said of a straight person who is sex crazed... lusting after the human form.

Could homosexuality be a form of idol worship? To answer that I must ask myself one question. What is more important... my homosexuality, or God?

If God told me not to act on my homosexual feelings... would I obey him?

If I would obey him than the answer of homosexual idolatry would be answered to say that no... it is not an idol I hold before God.

Actually this is really the meat and potatoes of my (personal) struggle. I feel like God is asking me to disobey my natural attraction to men and follow him. The question is will I follow. The answer thus far has been to try... poorly at times (I might add).

If I say my homosexuality is more important than God, and even if he asks me to try and deny myself I wont, then my homosexuality indeed becomes an idol before God and indeed applies to this passage. )

Romans 1:24-25
Therefore God gave them over (1) in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor (2) their bodies among themselves (3). They (4) exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation (5) rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

1) Possible an allusion to Ps 81:12

Psalms 81:12 (God speaking of the Israelites)
I gave them over to their stubborn desires; They did what seemed right to them.

2) The genitive articular infinitive (touatimazesthai, "to dishonor") has been taken as A) an infinitive of purpose; B) an infinitive of result; or C) an epexegetical (i.e., explanatory) infinitive, expanding the precious clause.

3) "among them"

4) "who" The relative prououn was converted to a personal pronoun and , because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

5) or "creature, created things."

The pamphlet makes the point that this is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, and as I said I agree with that... but again I pose the question... when does homosexuality become an idol we hold before God? It's when we say that our homosexuality is too important to us... it means too much to us... that even if God asked us to denounce it for a lifestyle we wouldn't. That's when.

The more important question is this.

Is God asking me what is more important... Him or homosexuality?

The pamphlet suggests that those on the "gay is wrong" side of the argument misinterpret what Paul is saying... that he's only talking about idolaters.

I agree Paul is talking about idolators. And while idolatry is not something we in today's society think we do all that much of, I say it's practiced just as much today as it was back then... if not more.

Just what constitutes idol worship? As I said twice before... (to me) it's when you put something... anything before God. But let me think a little out side the box.

Someone who would sit in front of a box for hours and hours while clearing their mind except for what vibes they got from the box... would that be idol worship? Cause I spend a lot of time (and so does the rest of America) in front of the TV. In fact... when I skip Church... I'm either watching TV or farting around on the computer.

What about those who put more faith in their bank accounts then they do God?

Or food. How many hours a day do you spend thinking about eating?

Porn.

Holy porno Batman! I struggle with this one. I think it's safe to assume God does not want us filling our minds with images (or videos) of people having hardcore sex. And yet I still struggle with it.

Alcohol... drugs... the list can go on and on.

idolatry is everywhere in today's world and everybody worships something. The difference between today and yesterday is we're not dancing around Golden calves... but we still worship images all the same.

The question keeps coming back to this. Is homosexuality an idol?

I can't answer that for you. But I can for myself.

The pamphlet makes a relentless attack on specific words of the next few verses in an attempt to prove that Paul is not referring to gay people.

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for the unnatural ones (1), and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women (2) and were inflamed in their passions (3) for one another. Men (4) committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1) "for their females exchanged the natural function for that which is contrary to nature." The term crh'si" (crhsi") has the force of "sexual relations" here.

2) "likewise so also the males abandoning the natural function of the female."

3) "burned with intense desire"

4) "another, men committing... and receiving." continuing the description of their deeds. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

The pamphlet says these verses contain words used only by Paul. Uuuh... yea. It contains words used by Paul.

It further says this passage is very difficult to translate, that Paul is describing a form of idolatry that only Paul's audience (at that time) would have understood.

But this is strictly an interpretation... in my opinion a bad one.

In order to submit to homosexuality as being blessed by God... ordained by God... condoned by God... you must go against nature.

What exactly does that mean?

Each sex, male and female, needs the other in order to procreate. This is very basic stuff. This is natural. The survival of the species depends on this natural combination of gender.

To go against that, is the essence of homosexuality.

That's not to say this does not appeal to some people. Me being one of them. But I have to admit, simple biology says God intended men to be with women. If he intended it another way, we would be genderless... able to pair up with any other genderless being.

But then why do women really turn me off? Why do men really turn me on? Is it because I've got it in my head that God's natural was are offensive and I prefer to be an abomination before Him by burning in dishonorable passions?

Answering these questions are not easy. But the Bible does say all men are born dead in their sin

Romans 5:12
So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned.

But Christ says we are to deny our natural selves.

Luke 9:23
Then he said to them all, "If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me."

This act of denying ourselves comes about by being born again.

Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, "Unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God." He goes on to say in 3:5, "Unless a person is born of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of Spirit is spirit."

Some might say I'm a hypocrite. Here I am denouncing homosexuality... something I had no choice in... something that is very natural to me and has been since childhood. But Christ says I am to deny myself, take up my cross, and follow Christ. (Luke 9:23, Matthew 16:24, & Mark 8:34)

So if I'm a hypocrite... I am one so for the kingdom of heaven and because Christ tells me to.

The pamphlet says there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth at the time... the most prominent were fertility cults. I think it's making the argument that the homosexual acts Paul speaks of were religious fertility practices... not consensual gay sex which is what we are discussing now.

And while this may be the case, though I cannot say, nor am I able to verify the history the pamphlet mentions, what Paul says still applies to life today. If it didn't, Paul would have said so. He was a well spoken, highly educated, man of God. The pamphlet even points out how well spoken he was. If God condoned homosexuality, why does Paul come so harshly against homosexuals who worship idols and participate in fertility rituals without making a clause for the good kind of gays?

I just think there's so much scripture that goes against it... even with in depth interpretation... it's much harder to say homosexuality is okay than it is to say homosexuality is not okay.

But even if homosexuality is not okay, even if it's a sin, God gave us an answer for sin and it's Christ Jesus.

What I'm about to say will probably be upsetting for some people to read but I believe it to be the truth.

I think a practicing homosexual can still make it to heaven.

Depending on your definition of "practicing" I may be considered a practicing homosexual.

One makes it to heaven through repentance and a personal relationship with Christ. Not heterosexuality... or any sexuality for that matter.

The pamphlet says the word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3.

Acts 1:3
To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God.

There is a side note on the word suffering... which is not a translator note... meaning the word means suffering but goes on to say, "After his suffering is a reference to Jesus' crucifixion and the abuse which preceded it." It does not say anything about "passion".

So I can't prove or disprove what the pamphlet says.

But I still thinks it's argument is flawed. No other questionable lifestyle seeks so passionately affirmation from God then does homosexuality. The Gay Church is evidence of that.

I don't need God to tell me my sexuality is okay. I look at the abuse Christ suffered... His "passion" as the pamphlet describes it... and I think to myself... if He can endure that for my sake... I can endure what ever He asks for His... even if it's not to be one "inflamed" in my own passion.

This point is hard to argue because it's not lining up with what I have in my Bible and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe I'm not seeing things correctly.

It further says "Passions" probably means a frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs, and music.

But if you go by that argument, that "passion" describes the suffering Christ endured... are we to think Jesus was frenzied in the head brought on by wine, drugs, and music when he was crucified on the cross?

Of course not. Jesus was of sound mind when he was crucified, saving mankind by his obedience unto God even unto death.

The pamphlet says we do not know the meaning of the word "burn" in Romans 1:27 because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else and it's origin is uncertain.

I feel like this is a cop out. I guess we are to totally throw out it's clear meaning because Paul only uses the word once and it's origin is "uncertain"?

There is a danger in dismissing what the Bible says simply because there's no way to explain it to mean something else.

In the same paragraph the pamphlet says the term "against nature" is also strange because the exact term was used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles along with the Jews in the family of God.

Let's take a look at that scripture.

Romans 11:21-24

For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God - harshness toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And even they - if they do not continue in their unbelief - will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree?

I'm thinking the term contrary to nature is what the pamphlet is talking about.

What I need is a Lexicon... a book that goes into great detail about the original words that make up the Bible. They are expensive and it's pretty clear the writers of this pamphlet had access to one.

In any event, Paul is talking figuratively... likening God's inclusion of Gentiles into His family to the grafting of an olive tree.

In Romans 1 Paul is talking literally about what men were doing with men and women doing with women.

I don't think God inclusion of Gentiles into His family can correctly be compared to homosexuality... even if both issues are considered against nature... not that I consider God accepting Gentiles to be against nature... but grafting of different kinds of branches into an olive tree... that could be described as going against nature.

Next the pamphlet tackles the phrase "committing indecent acts". My Bible uses the term dishonorable passions and does not elaborate. The pamphlet says the Greek word is askemonsunun and is formed from the word for "outer appearance" with the negative particle.

I looked up askemonsunun in the Greek to English translator and the Ancient Greek to English translator with no luck. It pulled nothing up both times.

But if I'm to subscribe to what the pamphlet says, (which is that askemonsunun speaks of the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not ordinarily seen or known in public) I have to ask myself what the heck was Paul really talking about?

Paul was well educated. If the pamphlet is right, what Paul says in 1:27 makes no grammatical sense what so ever.

This is another example of the authors negating the words with analytical mumbo jumbo.

Next the pamphlet discusses in great detail the word indencency and makes the argument, indecency is the word Paul, a well spoken highly educated Pharisee, should have used if he were arguing that homosexual behavior was wrong in the eyes of God.

The pamphlet says nowhere did Paul condemn or mention romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex who love each other. Nor did he comment on sexual orientation.

I'll buy the orientation argument. No - Paul does not come out and discuss sexual orientation as we understand it today.

But to say Paul doesn't mention romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same sex is absurd. Yes he does. That's what he's talking about in Romans 1:26-27... the very passages we are discussing now.

The final paragraph of this section quotes Romans 2:1

Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.

Indeed there is danger in judgment. Jesus spoke against it and Paul is speaking against it here.

I hope I've made it clear that my purpose in this is not to judge anyone, but rather judge the morality of homosexuality, and the argument the gay Church is making to justify their doctrine.

One scripture that keeps coming into my head is this.

Romans 14:1-4

Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

This scripture is most relevant regarding these issues which we discuss.

Who are you to pass judgment on another's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls.

So to those who are offended by the gay Church... I say get over it. They will personally stand before God as will you. Let God be God and you be you.

In my walk with God, I'm constantly learning new things. I cannot be expected to grasp spiritual concepts in a time frame that is not inline with my own personal walk with God through Jesus Christ.

I think we should focus more on the concrete details of the Gospel, i.e. Christ being the son of God, crucified on the cross, and rose again, and less on the divisive details of sexuality.

Ultimately Jesus will judge us. He will not judge you based on my walk.

I probably wont go back to this Church. But that doesn't mean what they do there is any less important to God than what they do at some other Church elsewhere.

The Gay Church 3

2005-04-19T16:13:00.000-07:00

Page 4 continued...

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Read chapters 18-20

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is a hypocritical selective use of certain Scriptures against gay and lesbian people. Hardly nobody tries to keep the laws of Leviticus.

In Leviticus 11:1-12 all unclean animals are forbidden as food including rabbits, pigs and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams and others that are called an "abomination."

Page 5

Leviticus 20:25 demands that you are to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between the unclean and clean birds; and you shall not make yourself and abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground. You can eat some locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and demands that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing.

Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them. Why do you think that most people don't know about them? Could it be that it is near impossible to explain why only homosexuals are to keep these laws? Or is it because those who profess that these two scriptures used against the gay community are not what they say they are?

Leviticus 23 gives detailed instructions concerning complete rest on the Sabbath day and demands animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing garments made from two kinds of material mixed together.

Page 6

Leviticus 19:27 demands that you shall not round off the sidegrowth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard. The next verse forbids tattoo marks on yourself. Most people do not even know these laws are in the Bible and are demanded EQUALLY from ALL people.

Lets read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourself... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye... You hypocrite!"

Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18) Jesus used Leviticus to teach love.

Many teachers use Leviticus and other writings in the Bible to condemn, humiliate and destroy people. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned sexual orientation.

In Mark 7:18-23, Jesus chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual understanding. The religious leaders had condemned Jesus and his disciples because they did not wash and eat according to the Law.

A lot of Paul's letters are difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a phone conversation.
Page 7

Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians 2:8-23. Read those verses.

Many people have answered the argument that most of the abominations in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared unclean. If you follow that logic, you would have to declare that anything that is unhealthy to be an abomination.

We know that cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fat food and many other things are unhealthy, so why aren't that abomination to God and condemned by the Bible literalists? The reason is simple. The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in light of the facts.

(Let's look at this.)

This is not the first time the book of Leviticus has been discussed within the words of this blog.

How does a Christian today make sense of what is in this historical book? I say this scratching my head because I'm really drawing a blank.

I think the pamphlet has a good point when it says, "The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is a hypocritical selective use of certain Scriptures against gay and lesbian people."

Another interesting point the pamphlet makes is this. "Most people do not even know these laws are in the Bible and are demanded Equally from ALL people."

Equally from ALL people... under the old covenant.

I believe the Old Testament law was God setting His people apart from other nations. To us much it is none sense. But to them I'm sure the drastic rules clearly set the Israelites apart.

Also, this law was given to Moses directly from God. Is it so purposterous to think God may not like shrimp?

Truth is though I eat shrimp all the time and I don't consider it a sin.

Paul makes it pretty clear though the New Covenant sets us free from "traditional law" which forbids eating certain food. And the pamphlet points that out when it says to read...

Colosians 2:8-23
Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ.

(I think the pamphlet is implying this scripture proves Paul rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus but I don't see that... at least not here. I think Paul is saying to watch out for human traditions which contradict Christ and teachings from false prophets and leaders.)

2:9 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. In him you also were circumcised - not, however with a circumcision performed by human hands but by the removal of the fleshly body that is through the circumcision done by Christ. Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in power of God who raised him from the dead.

(I still fail to see how this relates to Leviticus... am I off here? I'm not defending Leviticus here... I'm just saying I don't see how this is Paul's rejection of Leviticus.)

2:13 And even though you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he nevertheless made you alive with him, having forgiven all your transgressions. He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of feast, new moon, or Sabbath days - these are only the shadow of the things to come but the reality is Christ!

(Okay I can see how one might thing think this negates Leviticus because Paul says not to "let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of feast, new moon, or Sabbath days."

I think it's interesting Paul mentions food, circumcision, and the Sabbath in a way which seem to contradict what is in Leviticus, but when he mentions homosexuality (in Romans 1) it appears to affirm what Leviticus says about homosexuality.)

2:18 let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels pass judgment on you. That person goes on at great lengths about what he has supposedly seen, but he is puffed up with empty notions by his fleshly mind. He has not held fast to the head from whom the whole body supported and knit together through its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God. If you have died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world why do you submit to them as though you lived in the world?

(Elemental spirits... this is the second time Paul mentions them and my Bible gives three possible explanations.

1) the material elements which comprise the physical world... things like carbon and nitrogen.

2) the elementary teaching of the world

3) the elemental spirits of the world... this had to do with spirits which played a role in Gnostic thought... such that spirits controlled the physical world on God's authority and permission

My Bible says 1 is the least likely making 2 or 3 the likely meaning. Paul is saying this is not of Christ.

2:21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" These are all destined to perish with use founded as they are on human commands and teachings.

(Leviticus, however, is scriptural... not a human tradition or teachings)

2:23 Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body - a wisdom with no true value they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.

(If I am to agree to the pamphlets argument that Paul rejects Levitcal law, then am I to agree that following it results in "fleshly indulgence"? Am I misinterpreting things here?

I hope I'm not trying to be a Biblical philosopher here... I'm trying to feel this pamphlet out. Nor is it my goal to prove the pamphlet wrong. I believe of all the "clobber passages", this one has the strongest argument for their message. Levitical law is not the law we as Christians are under today.

But I don't think Paul negates Leviticus in Colossians as the pamphlet suggests.

One last thing before I end for the night. The pamphlet says, "Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned sexual orientation."

I'm not sure this is correct. I've spent the past hour looking for a particular scripture that addresses one who cannot marry. I'm not sure if it's Jesus or Paul who mentions it... but I can't find the scripture. If anyone knows what I'm talking about please post what scripture it is as it's driving me nuts. I think many people think it's talking about eunuchs but I took it as someone with a sexual orientation that prevented marriage.

In any event, it's extremely important to remember Levitical law is part of the Old Covenant that no one could live up to. It certainly is unfair to hold homosexuals to Leviticus, and not the rest of the Christian community.

So on this point of the pamphlet I am in agreement.

The Gay Church 2

2005-04-18T18:33:00.000-07:00

Page 3

The six "clobber passages"

There are six passages in the Bible that are used to condemn homosexuality. Let's look at those six passages and see what they really mean.

Genesis 19:5
Read the chapter

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." NIV

Some versions of the Bible interpret this passage as "Bring them out so we may know them."

The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in the Old Testament. To "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as many Hebrew words are. In this passage, the word was used to express the request of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever way were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected. Lot himself was an alien to them.

This "strange request" by the people of Sodom prompted Lot to offer his two daughters to them. If these men of Sodom were homosexual, why would Lot offer his daughters? Because the men of Sodom were no homosexuals. Lot was trying to appease the crowd with his two daughters so they would not hurt or kill his guests.

Page 4

Twisting the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance or rejection of Gays and Lesbians. Instead of offering hospitality to Lot's guests, the men were intent on knowing who they were so they could decide what to do with them. Should they drive them away or kill them?

The story of Sodom clearly teaches that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they do not know or understand receive God's punishment.

(Lets look at this.)

First let me say the version of the Bible I read from is called the New English Translation or NET Bible. Check it out here.

I love it because, unlike the King James or NIV, it is an original translation directly from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Scrolls. Specifically, it has translator notes. When ever there is a word in the Scripture that requires expanded interpretation there is a little number by the word accompanied by a note at the bottom of the page.

When I started reading a contemporary original translation with expanded explanations of specific words in the Bible, reading the Word took on a whole new light for me.

I highly recommend this version to anyone who will listen.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Here's what I have in my Bible.

Genesis 19:4

Before they could lie down to sleep (1), all the men-both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom-surrounded the house. 19:5 They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex (2) with them" 19:6 Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. 19:7 He said, "No, my brothers! Don't act so wickedly(3)! 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with(4) a man, Let me bring them out to you , and you can do to them whatever you please(5). Only don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection(6) of my roof(7)" 19:9 "Our of our way!" they cried and This man came to live here as a foreigner(8) and now he dates to judge us(9)! We'll do more harm(10) to you than to them!" They kept pressing in on Lot until they were close enough to break down the door.

Translator Notes

1) The verb sakab means "to lie down; to recline," that is, "to go to bed." Here what appears to be an imperfect is a preterite after the adverb terem. The nuance of potential (perfect) fits well.

2) The Hebrew verb yada, "to know" is used here in the sense of "to lie with" or "to have sex with" (as in Gen 4:1). That this is indeed the meaning is clear from Lot's warning that they not do so wickedly, and his willingness to give them his daughters instead.

Gen 4:1
Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the Lord did!"

There is a side note: The sin of the men of Sodom is debated. The fact that the sin involved a sexual act preclude an association of the sin with inhospitality as is sometimes asserted. The text at a minimum condemns forced sexual intercourse, i.e., rape. Other considerations, though, point to a condemnation of homosexual acts more generally. The narrator emphasized the fact that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with men: They demand that Lot release the angelic messengers (seen as men) to them for sex, and when Lot offers his daughters as a substitute they refuse them and attempt to take the angelic messengers by force. In addition the wider context of the Pentateuch condemns homosexual acts as sin. Thus a reading of this text within its narrative context, both immediate and broad, condemns not only the attempted rape but also the attempted homosexual act.

3) "may my brothers not act wickedly."

4) "who have not known." Here this expression is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

5) "according to what is good in your eyes"

6) "shadow"

7) This chapter portrays Lot as a hypocrite. He is well aware of the way the men live in his city and is apparently comfortable in the midst of it. But when confronted by the angels, he finally draws the line. But he is nevertheless willing to sacrifice his daughters' virginity to protect his guests. His opposition to the crowds leads to his rejection as a foreigner by those with whom he had chosen to live. The on who attempted to rescue his visitors ends up having to be rescued by them.

8) "to live as a resident alien."

9) "and he has judged, judging." The infinitive absolute follows the finite verbal form for emphasis. This emphasis is reflected in the translation by the phrase "dares to judge."

10) The verb "to do wickedly is repeated here. It appears that whatever "wickedness" the men of Sodom had intended to do to Lot's visitors - probably nothing short of homosexual rape - they were now ready to inflict on Lot.

Now you see what I see when I really study something in my Bible.

I think it's pretty clear, even without analyzing much of what is said, the men of Sodom wanted more than just "to know" these men.

First of all, if all they wanted was to know them, wouldn't the Angels let them selves be known? I mean if they were sent from God and these Sodomites wanted to know what they were all about why wouldn't the angels just say, "Hey, we were sent by the one true God to get Lot."?

They wouldn't say that because there was an immediate threat. These men were wicked. There were no women... the scripture makes that pretty clear... these men had an agenda and it wasn't murder as the pamphlet would like us to believe.

What the scripture says makes sense to me. These men were driven by lust and the angels were attractive... I dare say they were hot.

In those days when the angels took on physical bodies they had to have been really attractive.

Genesis 6:1 When mankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.

The sons of God were angels, fallen angels to be certain, and they took wives for themselves... from any they chose. The women (sons of man) didn't choose... the angels did.

How is this? My personal theory is that humans have one ultimate downfall... one weakness that can almost always be exploited and it is sexual in nature. I may be in left field here but I think the physical bodies these angels took on were so hot, the women would not... or could not... refuse.

This led to the angelic/human half breeds called the Nephilim... which (I believe) was Satan's second attempt to destroy mankind (the first being in the garden)... an attack by genetic pollution, and the flood which ultimately cleaned the human gene pool and restored humanity as God intended it.

(Sorry to divert here with my thoughts.)

In summation, the men of Sodom wanted one thing. Pure unadulterated gay sex. If what they wanted wasn't sexual in nature Lot, a man who knew, lived with, and ate with the men of this city, would not have offered his daughters in a sexual way to these men.

I don't believe there is any other way to interpret the scripture.

The Gay Church

2005-04-17T17:30:00.000-07:00

I went to a new Church today. My friend Josh told me about it. He found it on the internet when looking for a Church that accepts homosexuals.

All my life I've steered clear of this kind of Church. I've always felt homosexuality was not part of God's plan for me, and a Church that condones it isn't really submitting to God.

So if Josh would have told me his Church was a "gay" Church, I probably would have thankfully declined the invitation. But it was sold as a Church that accepts anyone... including gay people... so I thought I'd check it out.

There were a total of nine people there (including myself) so it wasn't possible to get lost in the crowd... something I'm sort of looking for in my next Church.

Immediately Josh gave me this pamphlet entitled "Christianity and Sexuality... What Does God Really Say About Homosexuality?" and I began to read it. I'll go into the pamphlet a little more more later.

We arrived 30 minutes before the service so we sat in on the little prayer meeting. I have to say I felt a little odd hearing Josh ask for prayer for his partner. But something that people kept saying in their prayers was, "God thank you for this Church, where I am accepted, and I feel comfortable."

I mean I heard that over and over. It made an impression on me.

As service began I got nervous as I noticed the sacraments on the table. All sorts of questions went through my mind... like should I take communion? Would it be a sin?

We worshiped with the help of a CD player and an overhead projector. I sung along and was paying attention to if I'd feel the chills or not. I did... but only for a quick second... which isn't unusual.

But I looked at the others as they worshiped and I noticed... these people were sincere in their worship. They were worshiping in truth and spirit... at least as far as I could tell.

The message was scattered. The guy giving the message went into Hebrews, then to Philippians, then to Revelation and honestly I couldn't tell you what the message was about. The guy sounded like a typical preacher... his inflection going to and fro. He made reference once to his boy friend... whom he loved very much.

Then we did Communion.

I decided it was okay because my heart was right and in the end that's what matters most... what's in our heart... personally... before God.

I couldn't get over how I was supposed to feel about the place. It was distracting.

And now I'm still left a little bit bewildered.

Now lets go back to the pamphlet. For the next week or so I want to dissect this pamphlet and offer it up for discussion. If you have an opinion about what is said, I'd really like to encourage you to share. I'm not saying what is said is right or wrong but I would like to at least explore it's morality in this forum.

Here goes...

Page 1

Interpreting the word Homosexual

Our understanding of sexual orientation as we know it today did not exist 50 years ago, much less when Jesus walked the earth. Only in 1973 did the medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize homosexuality as an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime.

Bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for homosexual. Old Testament Hebrew is a very primitive language. It is the first step beyond picture writing and is the first alphabetic language.

It originally consisted of only consonants with no vowels written in the text. The Hebrew language had only about a 30,000 word vocabulary. Modern English as over 300,000 words.

One Hebrew word could be used in dozens of different ways, and the meaning was determined by the context. Each word was made up of a 3 letters of the alphabet and usually expressed some form of activity or action.

It is impossible to translate most Hebrew words exactly into modern English. Scholars come as close as they can and do a lot of guessing.

New Testament Greek was much more complex than Hebrew. Greek has a 250,000 word vocabulary and a variety of words developed to express shades of meaning and degrees of feeling.

Page 2

Greek had four different words for love. Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English. The Greek used in the New Testament is different from classical or modern Greek. For many years, some scholars thought that New Testament Greek was a special language created by the Holy Spirit.

Then, in the late nineteenth century, a collection of manuscripts was discovered from the time of the New Testament. These documents were bills of sale, personal letters, business and news reports that were written in exactly the same kind of Greek that the Bible used.

For the first time, Bible scholars knew and could study the kind of 'everyday' Greek called Koine Greek that was used in the New Testament.

The King James Version was translated in 1611, long before the oldest manuscripts were discovered.

The word homosexual is made up of Greek homo, meaning "the same", and Latin sexualis, from which the English word "sex", is deprived. The word "homosexual" has been in use to refer to people who have sex with others of the same gender for only about 100 years. According to the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "homosexual" as an adjective was first used in 1892 and as a noun in 1902. The word "homophobia" was first used in 1969. As you can see, the translation of any Bible word as "homosexual" is a mistake.

(This is all I'm going to discuss today)

I just don't buy this idea that each Old Testament mention of homosexuals couldn't have been valid simply because there was no word in the original verbiage of the manuscript that described today's homosexual.

All that being said, I think about this woman who during prayer today, heartfully thanked God for a Church she was accepted in... a Church that didn't condemn her.

Maybe it's okay be not be right about one thing. I mean most Churches are wrong about something.

I think the Catholics are wrong for addressing the priests as "father" and praying to Peter and Mary. Does that mean I think Catholics are going to hell? No.

I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to live an unrepentant homosexual life. I'm not sure this Church promotes that. My concern is they intelectualize the Word to mean something it doesn't mean. To make it say something it doesn't.

And that's what I see in the first two pages of this pamphlet.

Spiritual Hotdog

2005-04-15T16:55:00.000-07:00

Last week was the first time in a while I went to Sunday Church. The message was about being spiritually hungry.

Have you ever been starving 15 minutes before dinner? Your mom is like, "Just wait." and you're like, "I need something now!" as you devour a cold hot dog.

That's how the minister described spiritual hunger. You just need some spirituality... right this second. I get that way sometimes... physically and spiritually. (And yes, I've got some cheese hotdogs sittin' in the fridge.)

Hot dogs are good for a quick fix when your physically starved.

But what's the equivalent of a hotdog when your spiritually starved?

I'll be driving down the road and I'll just miss God. I'll feel this feeling like I need Him... need more of Him right then and there.

I make a mental note to be sure and read my Bible and pray that night and usually do.

But I wonder if experiencing that feeling, that spiritual hunger, that holy neediness, I wonder if that's an indication that I'm not feeding myself correctly (spiritually speaking).

But actually, I feel like I've been making some progress. Since I deleted my gay.com account months ago I haven't chatted online... which is a good thing. I also haven't looked at porn in almost two weeks... which isn't saying that much (I know) but that doesn't mean it's been easy... it hasn't.

I don't know.

I definitely want God to see me putting forth effort. But why do I get these bouts of spiritual hunger? I guess other people experience the same thing... or else the preacher wouldn't have mentioned it this past Sunday.

So what do you do to fix it?

Part of me sort of likes it... this realization that I need God... I need Him close.

You can't miss what you never had and I guess the feeling is evidence of Him in my life.

Grateful To Be Alive

2005-04-13T17:45:00.000-07:00

I had this thought today... a sort of self actualization type thing. How amazing it is to be alive! Something made me realize what an awesome opportunity I have to wake up each day and experience life.

And you! If you can read and contemplate what I'm saying... you are alive too! You have a wonderful opportunity to experience life and that's really a miracle.

Just think, if you were never born, you'd never know it, and neither would anyone else cause you simply wouldn't have ever graced earth with your presence.

God created the world in which I live, He created the body that I have (through creation or evolution... or both... who cares?!).

Maybe finding out a dear friend of mine has HIV has me thinking in the clouds a little. In any event I'm grateful to be alive. I'm grateful for my friends and totally grateful for God making it a point to show Himself to me.

HIV

2005-04-09T17:56:00.000-07:00

My ex-boy friend, a close friend of mine, someone I care for deeply, someone I consider to be family, called me today with devastating news.

He probably is HIV positive.

For years he's lived dangerously. Truthfully I thought he may be one of those one in one hundred white males who are immune to HIV infection. All that being said, it still hurts very much to know someone I truly care for, someone I love, is probably going to get sick.

I wonder how God feels about AIDS.

I've heard it said AIDS is God's punishment for the abominate lifestyle a homosexual leads.

I've also heard it said God doesn't punish but there are consequences for our sinful decisions.

But I've read in the Bible otherwise. God reprimands those he loves.

If this is a punishment, it's a punishment for me as much as it is my friend. I can't bear the thought of him going through the rest of his life stigmatized and dying such a horrible death.

Life is dangerous. I could have been hit by a semi in my tiny Toyota driving home this afternoon.

I hate it. I hate death. I hate suffering, pain, and sickness. I'm so fed up with this world and I'd like nothing more than to throw in the towel, fold up the game of life and put it in the closet.

I'm so sad. I'm so deeply sad.

I'd rather go through this myself then watch someone I love face AIDS.

I've been praying since I heard. "Please let this be some mistake. Let that two percent chance the initial test is wrong be applicable here. Please God please."

What is the appropriate way to handle this information? Who do you get angry at? How are you supposed to feel?

I can't fathom a life without my dear friend in it. I talk to him at least once or twice a week... many times more than that. A friendship almost ten years old.

Interaction

2005-04-06T14:42:00.000-07:00

I don't get sick very often... once every other year or so... and hopefully I'm through the worst of diagnosis mono.

On the bright side of things I'm off of work for the rest of the week but to tell you the truth... I'm going stir crazy.

I have a few interesting things to write about.

I saw the movie Constantine this past weekend. If you're not into gory demon ridden Keanu Reeves Matrix wanna-be type movies... I wouldn't suggest seeing it.

But the movie actually affected me spiritually. Satan and Gabriel the Archangel were two characters in the movie.

I always like movies that delve into the spiritual realm... even if it's fiction, when they pull characters from the Bible I always get interested.

Piercing the Darkness by Frank E. Peretti was a great book that told those kinds of stories.

Anyhow... one thing Gabriel said to Contstantine that was just soooo cool was this.

He/she... (I couldn't tell if Gabriel was a boy or a girl and I wonder if angels even have different genders)... Gabriel says to Contstantine, "All man has to do is simply repent to be welcomed into the bosom of the father. It's unfair."

Gabriel was disgruntled and had gone to "the other side" I guess.

It got me thinking about angels, humans, satan, and our place in this universe... a subject which fascinates me.

A third of the angels fell along with satan. Some are locked in Hades as we speak for leaving their place in the heavens and having sex with human women. Jesus's atonement does not apply to them. Nor to any other angelic being for that matter.

Think I'm on crack?

Jude 1:6 You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness locked up for the judgment of the great Day. 1:7 So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

Funny I was in Jude right when I saw this movie.

Okay so how has this helped me spiritually?

What Gabriel said in the movie was dead on right. All man must do... all I must do is repent to be welcomed into my Fathers kingdom.

And I don't want to go down like those angels.

So I've again renewed my commitment to give up porn... an addiction I truly struggle with. I haven't looked at it since I saw the movie Saturday. I'm gonna put the porno-meter back up.

Pray for me... that I stick to it this time.

Next interesting thing is this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I love it when God speaks. It's amazing. It gives me strength and motivates me spiritually.

A good friend of my mom's recently was diagnosed with colon cancer.

When I first met this lady I didn't trust or like her very much. But with time she grew on me. Anyhow, two months after her diagnosis, she was in the hospital in critical condition.

My grandmother died of cancer so I am somewhat familiar with the process. It took seven years for the cancer to kill my grandma so I was pretty surprised to see Denese nearing death only two months after her initial diagnosis.

When my mom called me to tell me how sick Denese was she told me to pray because her situation was not getting better.

I left work that day because I myself was feeling pretty sick. I left work around 10:30ish.

On my way home my mind went to Denese and I prayed.

I told God that it looked like Denese was going to die... like God's mind was already made up that He was going to take her. I told that I understood we were put on this earth to interact with God... and what point is it for me to pray for Denese if He had already made up His mind to take her from this earth. I challenged God, to show himself in this situation by making her better. I told Him just like that.

Sometimes I get on these tangents when I pray.

My mind goes elsewhere and I my attention goes with it.

Last night I went to visit my mom and the dog. She said the most interesting thing to me. She was telling me about Denese... how right there before their eyes Denese just turned a corner and started getting better. It was the weirdest thing she ever saw.

Then I got to thinking... so I asked, "Mom, do you remember about what time that happened?"

She thought and then replied, "Around 11 in the morning."

It takes me approximately 45 minutes to get home from work. I prayed this prayer when I was almost home.

I believe the exact minute I challenged God to act... He did! I don't care if it was a coincidence or not. She is better and they are talking about sending her home.

I love it when God interacts. There's nothing like it. Nothing.

Anger

2005-03-28T16:46:00.000-08:00

I saw something on Good Morning America today that gave me some much needed insight into the subject of forgiveness... something I thought I mastered years ago.

I'm still not sure I know what forgiveness truly is but after seeing this story I think I may be on the right track.

It was about this woman who was talking about how close she was with her daughter. That as she grew into a young adult the mother could see her becoming spiritual and how much the daughter meant to her. It was so evident that this mother loved her daughter with everything in her.

One day the daughter was raped and murdered.

Through months of investigation it was discovered the young girls music teacher committed this unspeakable crime. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

The mother said she was consumed with anger and carried it around everywhere she went. It enveloped her. It drove a wedge between her and her other children. It was ruining her life.

What she said really struck a cord with me. I carry anger around with me. It consumes me. I can be trying to go to sleep at night and my mind can wonder to the subject of my father or this guy at work and I can work myself into a heart attack almost.

My dilemma has been how do I forgive? What does it mean? Specifically what about the grief? Does forgiving mean to abandon the feelings about the consequences of what happened? How can I do that? How can I look past the fact that my father was never there? That my mother is now half dead having spent her youth raising three kids on $6.50 and hour?

How can I forgive the guy at work when he continues to sabotage me at every turn? Even when my attempts to befriend him, which seem to work face to face, are clearly ineffective. If I'm to forgive seventy times seven times, am I to make myself a floor mat?

I clearly don't have all the answers. But something this woman said made the issue much easier to approach... at least from my human perspective.

She said she had to forgive this man if she was to continue on this earth.

She said she went to the prison, met with the man face to face, and hugged him. He hugged her back and they both cried.

Okay... that takes guts but here's the kicker.

She continues to visit her daughters grave. She said that she still feels grief, that just because she forgives this man doesn't mean the grief goes away. The grief is a journey and will always be there. But someday she will see her daughter again.

Just because you forgive someone doesn't mean the grief goes away.

I needed to hear that.

You think Christ remembers his crucifixion and doesn't remember the grief. When I concentrate on the cross... I mean really focus on what God and Christ did... the grief can be overwhelming.

The consequences of actions often carry with it strong emotions. Even though many times these are negative emotions I don't think God wants us to forget them or negate them. But it's the anger we hold because of the consequences that we must let go of.

I think the key to forgiveness is releasing the anger.

As I realized this... letting go fo the anger... or forgiveness became impossible. I'm so angry with this guy at work. I'm so angry with my father. Furious... enraged... livid.

I thought, "Lord, how can I forgive? How can I let go of the Anger?"

It dawned on me, the first step of forgiveness may be to ask God for the forgiveness. Not ask God to forgive the person, or to forgive me, but asking God to give me the forgiveness that I can give it to my father. That I can give it to this guy at work.

I thought forgiveness was something I did. It turns out it's something I need to ask God for.

All this time I thought forgiveness was a verb. Turns out it's a noun.

Easter

2005-03-27T09:11:00.000-08:00

Can you imagine what was going through the minds of the disciples this time 2000 years ago? How exciting! It's exciting now!

I'm sure I'd experience some disbelief along with the others. I mean, when your alive, and you ponder all the generations that lived before you, what makes my generation so special that God would send the Messiah, the Messiah spoken of by prophecy, to my generation?

My grandmother told me once that she couldn't understand the disbelief of the disciples when they had Jesus right there with them.

Faith is an amazing force. Even faith absent of of God... towards other beliefs is powerful. It influences behavior. Like the faith atheists have, it dictates their actions. Or the faith one has when flipping a light switch.

By raising Christ's crucified body God has given us, the believer, hope... no more than hope... evidence... of God's existence and promise.

How exciting!

God, I thank You for Your son. I thank You for Your love. Please forgive my egocentric existence and help me focus on You more as You gave everything for me... for Your people... to one day live in harmony with You.

I need prayer.

2005-03-25T19:59:00.000-08:00

I sure wish I didn't have to work Sunday. I want to go to Church so bad. So so bad.

I'm having such a hard time with this situation at work. I just heard of more crap this guy is telling people about me at work. He really has it out for me.

I'm supposed to just ignore it?

My friends think I'm nuts for not playing my card. I think I'm nuts.

Where is God in this? I myself have been walking a piss poor walk spiritually the last few weeks, now all the sudden I'm going to do the right thing?

This has got to come to a stop. I can't live like this.

I need God to act fast.

Please pray for me.

Cool...

2005-03-25T06:34:00.000-08:00

I just came across something kind of cool.

I was reading my Bible, the chapter of 1 Peter 3, and I came across this scripture.

1 Peter 3:9

Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but instead bless others because you were called to inherit a blessing.

Cool hu? I just said that yesterday... the part about evil for evil. I guess this is God telling me I'm on the right track.

Peace... I Think

2005-03-24T19:08:00.000-08:00

My mind is fixed on what happened at work today.

I've gotten so mixed up in the wrong crowd, the wrong activities, the wrong behaviors, and now I'm naturally experiencing the downside of it all.

I need to get back in Church, back in the Word, back in the right activities, and things will shape up.

I've turned this whole situation over to God. In so doing, I'm rededicating myself to His will.

It sucks that my whole world has to come crashing in on me to take note of my extreme need for His love and protection. But what ever it takes I guess.

In my line of work, back stabbing is common place. This situation, is nothing. Someone said I do drugs. Big whoop.

Unfortunately my anger is almost uncontrollable. I was so close to calling Immigration today. I pulled up information on the internet, had the INS phone number, his address... I had the destruction of this a-hole's life as he now knows it in my hands.

But something stopped me. I felt like it was wrong. Like I was reacting. Like I hadn't consulted God and I really needed to... that if I didn't... things might get worse.

I had this thought as I left the restaurant tonight, that I would trust that everything would be fine, and I'll live life accordingly. I don't know why but that was comforting to me.

Amendment

2005-03-24T15:48:00.000-08:00

I just called my mom. Thank God for mothers. She prayed with me on the phone.

I'm going to commit this situation in to God's hands.

Repaying evil with evil is not right and I wont do it.

I was wrong to do what I did in the first place.

I feel like this whole situation is either punishment or consequences for going where I know not to go... physically and otherwise. Now I can respond by seeking God or calling INS.

I'll seek God.

Now I just wait.

Revenge

2005-03-24T15:04:00.000-08:00

This situation at work has gotten out of hand.

I'm not sure if I have shared this previously or not but here goes.

Several of the guys I work with are gay. Not something anyone really wants to talk about as we all are in the Army.

One of the guys and myself really don't get along.

I say it's because I'm getting promoted and he's not (though he's been to Iraq and been in twice as long as me) but I'm sure he'd disagree.

Many months ago, while at the club, I took some X. Yea, I know... shame shame.

When things were friendlier between me and this guy I shared that dirty little secret with him. We told each other a lot of stuff actually.

Best dirt I have on him is the fact that his wife, who pays him $5000.00 every year for the marriage, is only married to him for citizenship. They don't live together and haven't for years.

Anyhow, to make a long story short, my boss comes to me today and tells me this guy is telling people in the office that I do X!

WTF???

Would it be evil of me to call INS and dump my dirt on him?

I can think of a lot of reasons other than the fact that he's trying stab me in the back a week before the promotion board to call INS.

1) It's illegal
2) A serious national security risk
3) He's ripping off the government (your tax dollars and mine) by receiving dependency pay from the army
4) He's crapping on the institute of marriage

The list goes on and on.

In any event his vindictiveness has got to stop. I'm not one for revenge so this anger I'm feeling is a bit unnatural for me.

Yes, I know, I should not have done what I did months ago. It wont come out on a drug test now so I'm not that worried.

But for him to stoop this low... I'm dumbfounded.

This isn't the only thing he's done to upset me at work but it sure is the most disturbing.

I'm going to wait until tomorrow before I make my decision but I am this close >< to returning the favor.

I need to cool off.

Back Burner

2005-03-24T10:20:00.000-08:00

I've been swamped with work and moving as of late. I think I've found a place to stay... cheap... but far away from work. The guy seems nice enough. He's also in the Army.

He's holding the room for some guy in France who hasn't sent any money and will accept a check from me on Monday (assuming the French guy fails to "show him the money").

I'll be so happy when life resumes back to normal.

I had a dream about Rick the other night. Rick is my biological father. I don't really remember what happened. But I know it's my brain telling me I need to deal with this.

I guess I should be happy things are so hectic as to avoid that back burner situation.

Where the Heart Is

2005-03-22T04:24:00.000-08:00

I'm in the process of moving. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the lady I was going to move in with changed her mind and now I must find something pretty quick.

Finding a place to live is no small task... especialy when you are trying to rent a room from someone. I'll be deploying sometime in the fall and I'd just like to get everything squared away for that.

My mom is moving in with one of her friends.

Not to offend anyone, but the issue of my sexuality is of paramount concern. The lady I was going to move in with was so enamored with the fact that I'm not straight that (I tell you no lie) she wanted to kiss all the time (just mamma peckers) and touch my butt. I guess her reasoning was because I was not straight this behavior was okay.

Of course I felt uncomfortable and was not too disappointed when she reconsidered.

Some might argue that I keep the issue of sexuality to myself. After all I have no plans of shacking up with anyone or living a wild gay lifestyle... and those are valid points.

But my rebuttal to that is this. I don't typically keep my spirituality secret. It's a part of who I am. As is my sexuality. A detail about myself I prefer to share with those I'm close with and especially someone I'm sharing a home with.

It's a matter of comfort.

I like people to know, I'm gay but I don't think it's God's will I live a gay lifestyle. As much as people may hate to hear me say that, in my heart that's the meat and potatoes of who I am.

So I looked at a room yesterday. The guy was Christian but that was the only thing going for him. The room was furnished with run down furniture and the place was very very small. It's very cheap and close to work. But I can't see myself staying there. Even for free.

Another place significantly farther away is much nicer. Hard wood floors, master bathroom, the guy (according to roommates.com) is okay with a guy (gay or straight) and all the utilities are included. 150 more than this other place but again we're talkin quality of life here.

I'm gonna check it out today.

Pray that I make the right decision.

Out of the Box

2005-03-20T07:28:00.000-08:00

Vomit.

What a colorful word.

I think that's what I've been doing lately. In a literary sense I mean. I've been writing a lot as of late. Blame it on a renewed interest in blogging or a falling away of many of my gay friends.

Don't' get excited... this falling away has not been my doing... or maybe it has depending on how you look at it. Almost every single relationship I have here in this po dunk town has experienced some kind of conflict.

The gay guy at work loathes me. We've had a few conflicts because of work related stuff... which results in personal hang ups and now I'm totally ignored by this guy.

I'm serious, I can think of five people who this has happened to. Actually I can think of a sixth non gay person named Cathy.

I usually wasn't up to anything worth while with any of these people but still.

Anyhow, if there's a problem, I guess after six people, it should be with me. Some kind of character defect.

In any event, I miss my real friends. Being in the Army takes that away from you. I guess you can make other friends... but that's not working out for me.

I long for the days when I can kick it back in my home town. When I can put this whole Army experience behind me. Not that the Army is bad in of itself, just the surroundings.

There are a million Church's over there too.

Sometimes I wear these glasses that only see things my way. I think I need to step out of the box and look at things differently. I feel like that's what my problem is.

Rush... revised

2005-03-18T16:45:00.000-08:00

I think I believe God can see into the future. I wonder if he dictates the future. I mean as far as this age is concerned. I know in the end he will set things straight, but even then will he dictate where the future of that age will go?

During the times of Noah, I God actually experienced regret over creating man kind.

Now we all know how about how He fixed that one and swore He would never send a flood on that scale ever again. (Funny what people think of these days when you mention rainbows.) But that's one example of him dictating the future of mankind.

He certainly interacts... right? I mean my faith is that he does today, but a quick look in the Bible show that God has been interacting with mankind from day one.

I wonder if it's not so much time travel as it is sight travel. Maybe God just looks into the future to figure out what He's going to do today.

I'd like to think God knew 9/11 was coming before it did. After all, He's God. Would it be unreasonable to assume God was sitting at the Table with Osama and the Al Qaida crew? Or at least saw the devastation that just a few hours away?

I wonder.

I'd like to think God was busy in the lives of those who lost loved ones well before 9/11.

In other less philosophical news...

I had dinner with my mom last night. We discussed my father. I told her about the emotions I'm having and some possible outcomes.

I realized though at some point me and my father will talk.

Thinking about it now I may just tell my brother to have him call me.

What a hard phone call that would be to make!

He knows I'm unhappy with him. My brother told him that and that I wanted no contact with him.

For him, knowing that would make placing the initial phone call to me... difficult. Even if I tell my brother to tell him to call.

Just a thought.

I'm not going to rush into anything.