The problem with the modern world, if we can be simple-minded for a moment, is that we don't understand it. And what is most perplexing, paradoxically, is our own human nature. None of our front line reporters or big city editors diminish in the least the incomprehensibility of man's inhumanity to man or his inability, on average, to lead a truly fulfilling life. The reasons for this intractability are not obvious. Human nature is, after all, a subject most of us are closer to than, say, nuclear reactor technology, and hopefully a bit less complicated too. Anyone who begins to live the examined life learns soon enough that familiarity and understanding are not synonymous, of course, and that sometimes the only way to make sense of a subject is to step away from it so as to escape the seductions of its surface (Dean Hannotte's 1986 Introduction to Homosexuality: The Psychology of the Creative Process [1971] by Paul Rosenfels)

Since the dawn of the post-modern era, the assimilation of homosexuality as part and parcel of Christianity has been a bitter pill to swallow by some religious denominations. The Catholic Church and some of its sister churches have slam-dunked on homosexuality vitriolically with outrageous statements and implications ranging from insane to its being evil. The Vatican’s official position condemns homosexuality as an objective moral disorder, and a 1992 Vatican statement called discrimination against gays not unjust.  The Baptist Faith and Message statement adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000, in Article XV, equates “homosexuality” with “sexual immorality.”  A 1992 SBC Executive Committee resolution stated: God regards homosexuality as a gross perversion and unquestioned sin. Isn’t it weird to see how some of us believe we can think for God?

The reason flashed to the forefront of their arguments is that the Bible, God’s revealed words, condemns homosexuality. They seem to be caught up in their own" logic" because they stubbornly shy away from some of the deep-seated faith of the Bible which is, in itself, hardly an authoritative book. Rev. Dr. Walter Wink avers that sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. He likens the blow black of this issue on homosexuality unto the church as the slave trade manifested itself fiftyyears ago. Dr. W. Wink clearly acknowledges the fact that when issues of homosexuality are raised in the church and in other arenas of discussion, most people obviously refer to the Bible for guidance, and we find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?

It is broadly accredited unto a multitude of historical archives that over the century’s people cloaked themselves in alignment with the precepts of the Bible to do awful things. The Bible has been misused, altered, distorted imprecisely, to defend gory crusades and hear-rending inquisitions. These precepts have been used ardently to support slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non-Christian people of faith; to shore up Hitler's Third Reich and the Holocaust; to oppose hypothesis and analysis as produced by medical science; to censure interracial marriage; to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku Klux Klan. Shakespeare clearly stated it rightly when he said: Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

Some adamant persons will go further to deny this fact and advance beliefs by saying that the inspirations and revelations of the Bible are profound and reflective. They catapult their palpable yet superficial opinions, arguments and reasons of the Bible,saying it is of divine inspiration by God…(sorry to say, for this is such a reverberated mistake that sonorously continues to infest the fragile minds of those who critically, yet desperately, seek insightful reasoning to the latter statement) which could be correctly re-stated to be defined as an unauthoritative book of collective scriptural manuscripts, written by inspired men (sinfullike you and me) with reflective revelations from (as opposed to by) God. (Let us not forget that inspiration is gotten from someone or something that gives you ideas for doing something, as defined by the Cambridge Advanced Learner Dictionary) . Inspiration means that God inspired the human authors to write what they wrote, so the Bible is God's unassailable word to man.

In the 16th century, John Selden was interested in two words carved in marble in an ancient church in Rome: "Scrutamini Scripturas," which means search the Scriptures. "These two words," Seldon said, "have undone the world."His confirmation was true, for poor and premature exploitation of biblical scriptures has soaked the planet in blood and tears and caused lives to hang in balance.

Erroneously, Selden would be considered, to an extent, wide of the mark of his own statement because those people who misuse the Bible could be criticicized for not probing into the Scriptures. It is simple; just situate an apposite text that seems to support their prejudice. By so doing they increase the time they spend on quoting (and misquoting) that text. The result is that these non-thinking people merely repeat what they have read. They hardly do any analyzing or thinking.

It is complete paradox and, at the same time, very aching and distressingto see such ardent religious advocators continue to use the Bible as their billboard and placard to present their ideas againstagainst homosexuality. An ideal example is the technique employed to certain Bible verses to vilify and condemn homosexuality and homosexuals. For a very long time some gays and lesbians have felt and continue to feel mortified to say, “I am a Christian.” This feeling and situation seems to be insane at most times.Could it ever be for real?

In July 1999, two brothers, Mathew and Tyler Williams murdered gay couple, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder in their home in Sacramento, California.Mathew’s mom was stunned at her son’s reply while on a visit to the CountyJail; she questioned her son about how he could perform such an irrational act, and her son faithfully retorted: I had to obey God’s law rather than man’s law. I did not want to do this. I felt I was supposed to. I have to follow higher law…I just plan to defend myself from the scriptures.

On September 22, 2000, Ronald E. Gay, 55 years old, was vexed because his last name was a call for ridicule. He walked into the Back Street Café in Roanoke, Virginia, a jamboree joint for lesbians and gays just a few miles from Lynchburg. Filled with convincing evidence that God's Word was in assuring connivance with his heartbreaking plan of action, Mr. Gay shouted, "I am a Christian soldier, working for my Lord." Declaring that "Jesus does not want these people in his heaven," he shot seven innocent gay and lesbian people, killing one man, Danny Overstreet, and wounding six others who still suffer from their physical and psychological wounds.

What about this happy young man called Mark B. who had willingly accepted his sexual orientation "until he became a Christian" but after coming across a text which said that he couldn't be both a Christian and a gay man, he committed suicide and wrote this suicide memo to God: "I just don't know how else to fix this."

"In olden days -- not so very olden either -- this practice was painted as the blackest of all possible sins. Anyone who practiced it was pretty sure of hell. Our grandfathers, including our medical grandfathers, if they did not avoid all reference to it, taught that it was not only a dreadful sin, but that also it had physical and mental consequence which were terrible; these consequences being regarded as the just punishment of God for human wickedness. It was said that the victim of this habit invariably brought disease upon himself and that if he did not speedily check it he would go mad...The only hope of cure held out was said to lie in the exercise of the victim's will assisted by religious exercises of prayer and Bible reading."[Leslie Weatherhead, "The Mastery of Sex through Psychology and Religion,"1931]

I have no problem with the Bible; nor do I condemn the Bible. If there is a problem with beliefs, principles, laws and customs on this planet it is because we exist- yes, we, human beings. If there is a problem, it is because of the false manoeuvring and religious spin doctoring these beliefs and principles which were decreed.,

Bruce Lowe in his letter to Louise ( ), clearly states that the concept of a homosexual nature first appeared in print in Europe in 1869 and in the United States in 1889. Jerry Maneker chips in, in affirmation to Lowe’s statement when he says; the word "homosexual" never appears in any biblical manuscript, as it was a word coined in the late 19th Century and first appeared in an English Bible translation, the Revised Standard Version, in 1946.

Prolonging his argument further Lowe says: no Bible writer knew of homosexuality, so no Bible writer could have said anything about it.  The Bible writer is always talking about the only kind of people he knew anything about, the only kind anyone knew about for another 19 centuries; today we would call them heterosexual.  In statements in the Bible about same-gender sex, the writer is saying that when two of these (heterosexual) people have same-gender sex, they are lustful and sinful.  We believe the Bible and we believe that.  There cannot be anything in the Bible that says anything about (unknown) homosexuality or homosexual people or acts by gay or lesbian persons.  Many writers point this out, but alas, homophobics are not reading.

Bernard Ramm of The American Baptist Seminary of the West asserts that, the issues about homosexuality are very complex and are not understood by most members of the Christian church. Some Christian authorities say that homosexuality is a vile and despicable form of sexual parody condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

Calvin Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar Marten H. Woudstra says:  there is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today. SMU New Testament scholar Victor Paul Furnish lengthens this argument by saying that; there is no 'text on homosexual orientation in the Bible.  Robin Scroggs of Union Seminary concludes this contention by saying that:  Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate.  They should no longer be used ... not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved. ... No single New Testament author considers [homosexuality] important enough to write his own sentence about it.  Evangelical theologan Helmut Thielicke states:  Homosexuality... can be discussed at all only in the framework of that freedom which is given to us by the insight that even the New Testament does not provide us with an evident, normative dictum with regard to this question.  Even the kind of question which we have arrived at ... must for purely historical reasons be alien to the New Testament.

As earlier mentioned, the key issue that sparks the debate on this seemingly intractable subject is how anti-gay disciples misconstrue the interpretation of texts in the Bible. In this case, we are often tempted to ask the following questions:

1)Should the Bible be taken literally given the present day meaning for words?

2)Should we associate the meaning of the words to the time they were written or know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek?

3)To who were those words addressed? Do we try to understand the historical context in which those words were written?

4)What were the cultural laws and customs of that time?

Overlooking some of these considerations poses a risk of delusion, miscomprehension and misapprehension about a reasonable meaning of the writing. Let us not be mistaken .The Bible,which isfilled with revelation from God to inspire,changes not the original purpose and meanings of the words present in it. The significance of words in the A.Ds and B.Cs till present date might mean different things to different people, especially the authors of the words at that time.

For instance, take the verse: it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God(Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25). Atthat time in Jerusalem, the gate at the city wall was very low and narrow. Due to this deformed nature of the gate, ifa caravan had to pass through that gate, the camels had to be unpacked, led through the gate hunkering down, and then reloaded inside the city wall. That gate was called "the eye of the needle." So, what was Jesus saying?

Jerry Maneker points out that Biblical theory must always trump biblical practice! The biblical faith is the Gospel, the Good News, of God's grace (unmerited favour) to us that we appropriate through our faith in Him. (Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:8-9) Quoting from Peter J. Gomes’s book, The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart, Maneker avows that when we read any passage of the Bible we must try to discern what it says, what it means, the subtext, the context, what we bring to the text, and what we take out of the text. Much of the mind-set and many of the words that appear in Scripture don't mean what we think they mean from our perspective. The meanings and circumstances are subject to change.

We can infer from Maneker and Lowe that when reading the Bible, in a bid to understand the words that were written, regardless of their translation from their original languages, there are two basic approaches, the literal or the histo-critical interpretation. The literal reading maintains the text simply for what it says and presents an argument to us by claiming not to be interpreting the text but merely to be reading it as it stands. But the historical-critical approach is completely different. It is imperative in that a text means whatever it meant to the people who wrote it as of that time, less they could procrastinate, anticipate or pre-deduce what meanings are of these times. Therefore in declaring what a biblical text teaches us today, one must first have to understand the text in its original situation and then apply the meaning to the present situation. It is interesting to note that most Christians will use the histo-critical method on some verses they find problematic in their present culture, but they often ignore it in other verses which they then use to justify condemnation of certain groups of people.

In this light, therefore, we are confronted with two versions which avow that the Bible was written by Godly- inspired men and that this very Bible is ‘without error.' Without prejudice, we could say that the authors were gifted, liberal, original and creative, bounded by cultural laws and customs, and above all, God-fearing. This means that God was expressing divine wisdom to a certain humanity and culture. Consequently, this implies that trying to comprehend what God intended to say means trying to figure out what those human authors intended to say, for it was inspired by God.

Given the latter as an apparent premise, without rushing into hasty conclusions, we could wrap up for the mean time by saying that both the literal and the histo-critical approaches cleave to the fact that the Bible is God's word, inspired and inerrant. But these two brothers in arms do differ on what is exactly God's word... the actual words on the page or the intended "meaning" of the words or the original texts in which subsequent language the manuscripts were written and then translated?This is why today people can arrive at different meanings for any text they consider. Now it is popularity and a band wagon effect that decides what the Bible means. This has been true if you look at the various revisions of the Bible over time.

Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:1-11 has become the paramount retaliating textual weapon used by anti-gay proliferators to silence the morality of homosexuality. Rev. Dr .Wink refers to this passage as the attempted gang rape in Sodom. Homosexuality has never been mentioned as the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sorry to say, but no gay is a descendant from Sodom or Gomorrah (laughs) that city has been buried beneath the Dead Sea centuries ago.

According to evangelical Bible scholar William Brownlee: sodomy (so-called) is basically oppression of the weak and helpless, and the oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis 19:1-9.” In the words of Dr Wink, ‘that was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. Yale's John Boswell notes that "Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places [in the Bible] but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality."

In Ezekiel 16:49-49: This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They rejected even God's messengers. Also see Isaiah 1:10-17, Jeremiah 23:14, in reference to Sodom. The sins listed in those places are injustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies, and encouraging evildoers. The sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality, period. Other texts include:

-Leviticus 18:22 (20:13) "You shall not lie with men as with women. It is abomination.”… "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Rev. Mel White, the co-founder of Soulforce, after profound research into Hebrew and Greek writings, explains that the holiness code in Leviticus dates back to 3,000 years ago. It includes many of the archaic sexual laws. In addition to this it rules out round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting one'sfortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!) Therefore, according to Rev. White, the holiness code is a list of behaviors that people of faith find offensive in a certain place and time. In this case, the code was written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

"Abomination" (TO'EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not about a moral or ethical issue. Rev. Dr. Wink presents us with some historical analysis by saying that “the Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder.” For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why these sexual practices were considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times? The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child.

The Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

-Deuteronomy 23:17-18, "There shall be no female cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel nor a male cult prostitute of the sons of Israel." These terms, KEDESHA and KADESH, literally mean "holy" or "sacred."  There is no Hebrew derivative of the word "Sodom" in this passage; , since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite." The Hebrew words here are references to the "holy" female and eunuch priest-prostitutes of the Canaanite fertility cults, of which Israel was to have no part. Moreover, Louisville Presbyterian Seminary Bible scholar George R. Edwards notes that 'No prophet uses the noun for male cult prostitute or discusses the activity such a person pursued. 

-Romans 1:26-27, Pagan "women exchange natural use for unnatural and also the [pagan] men, leaving the natural use of women, lust in their desire for each other, males working shame with males, and receiving within themselves the penalty of their error." Furnish gives us a perspective by turning to the writings of Paul.  "Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct," says Furnish, "his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. ... For Paul, neither homosexual practice nor heterosexual promiscuity nor any other specific vice is identified as such with 'sin.' In his view the fundamental sin from which all particular evils derive is idolatry, worshipping what is created rather than the Creator, be that a wooden idol an ideology, a religious system, or some particular moral code."

Let's go back 2,000 years and try to understand why. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean.

In Romans 1, Paul is ridiculing pagan religious rebellion, saying that the pagans knew God but worshipped idols instead of God. On his journey Paul saw great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) -- all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.

Catherine Kroeger comments in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that 'Men wore veils and long hair as signs of their dedication to the god, while women used the unveiling and shorn hair to indicate their devotion.  Men masqueraded as women, and in a rare vase painting from Corinth a woman is dressed in satyr pants equipped with the male organ.  Thus she dances before Dionysos, a deity who had been raised as a girl and was himself called male-female and 'sham man."'  Kroeger continues:  "the sex exchange that characterized the cults of such great goddesses as Cybele [Aphrodite, Ishtar, etc.] the Syrian goddess and Artemis of Ephesus were more grisly.  Males voluntarily castrated themselves and assumed women's garments. 

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

A friend of mine in Florida calls this debate obfuscatory. He lamented bitterly to me saying that, what irritates him most was the catalogue of lies promulgated by some Christians by referring to the Bible's attitude toward it. He writes: There are two kinds of lies. One is a lie of commission in which one actively commits a lie. An example is I stole my friend's money, but I told him I did not steal it. Then there is another kind of lie, and that is a lie of omission, in which one knowingly withholds part or all of the truth. Ads on TV are especially good at this as is the whole world of business. Part of the truth is withheld about their products. And Christians when they discuss homosexuality and the bible are very good at committing what I call lies of omission.
Why should the church and other anti gay whistle blowers create religious ‘conundrums’ when it is obvious in Genesis 1:27, that God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created them; He created male and female. This implies that, our faith says, God created us. He knows our temperaments, our personalities, our talents, gifts, strength and weakness, our thoughts, our ways, our deeds- he knows our total heart. Can we therefore say that God was completely ignorant about the fact that some people are homosexual? Let us stray a bit; if we are told that God is aware and knows our immediate plans and actions, wouldn’t he know that homosexuals were to be part of human evolution on this planet?

After the presentation of a holistic analysis to this damaging problem, we can therefore evidently concur that these destructive problems keep recurring and are ever in use because some persons can’t comprehend that there is no Biblical sex ethic. The Bible vividly displays an assortment of sexual mores especially pertaining to a certain custom, some of which have been altered over years of biblical records.Today,we come to realize that the litany of the forbidden practices in theBible are still presentin many contemporary traditions and customs of today, and many that it allows, we prohibit. Here are a few examples:

·In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, the Bible commands that a bride who is immediately discovered that she is still a virgin be stoned to death.

·In Deuteronomy 22:22, the bible commands that adulterers be stoned to death

·In Mark 10:1-12, divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

·IN Leviticus 18:19, forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

·IN Mark 12:18-27, it says if a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

Do you agree with these teachings of the Bible about sex? I leave it for you to judge with reason. The litany goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

Rev. Dr. Mel quietly concludes that instead of selecting one item from an ancient Jewish holiness code and using it to condemn sexual or gender minorities, let's talk together about setting sexual standards that please God -- standards appropriate for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, standards based on loving concern, health, and wholeness for ourselves and for others.

The Church and its anti gay acolytes are called upon to accede to these inspired lessons that are clearly dissipated without fear of eviction; if not pay sporadic attention to it:

1We all are created in the image and likeness of God, as the Bible tells us (Gen. 1:27), ‘we,’ that includes all homosexual persons.  Who can fathom the ramifications of being created in the image of God! 

2Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality; however, He had much to say about issues of the heart and morality.

3Rev. Dr. Mel White in one of his Books, What the Bible Says and Does Not Say about Homosexuality clearly states that the Bible is a book about God---- not a book about human sexuality.The Bible is the story of God's love for the world and the people of the world. It tells the history of God's love at work rescuing, renewing, and empowering humankind. It was never intended to be a book about human sexuality.

4Sexual orientation is part of everyone's nature.  It cannot be changed.  It is not a choice. Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays. McNeill believes: “A general consideration of scriptural data concerning sexual behavior leads to only one certain conclusion: those sexual relations can be justified morally which are a true expression of human love.  The call of the Gospel is not one of conforming passively to biological givens; rather, that call is to transform and humanize the natural order through the power to love.”Theologian James B. Nelson’s concept: “I believe that our best biblical scholarship reaches Walter Wink’s conclusion: ‘There is no biblical sex ethic. 

5The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period. Jesus is not impressed with externals, He looks into the heart. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.

6Homosexuality is not Immoral: Peter Gomes, Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard, says, “The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community, and its abuse of scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable.”All ethicists tell us morality is only in persons. Only people are moral or immoral, not spoken words, not actions – only the people behind the words or actions have morality or immorality. We often say some action is wrong, but that is figurative; literally it is the person who is wrong.  If someone takes a gun, points it and pulls its trigger that is an act.  Any morality is in the intent of the gun-handler.  It could be murder, self-defense, target practice, putting a suffering animal to sleep, etc.  It is not the act, it is the mind behind it that God judges.  When the Bible talks about evil, it is talking about persons, not acts. We need to understand clearly: No act performed by anyone is moral or immoral in itself.   That is, no act performed by a homosexual is immoral.  It is simply an act, nothing else.  God is looking on the heart of the person.  "People honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." (Mark 7:6)

7Homosexual men and women are being sinned against by our churches.  Like our society, our churches need to change.  What the church is doing to its own lesbian and gay young people is unforgivable. These men and women grow up knowing about God and afterwards they are infested with funny ideologies that homosexuality is a sin that God hates gays, and that hell is a better resting haven for them.  Then some soon discover their gay orientation in later stage or periods in life and become confronted with their religion and their sexual orientation.  One young man spoke for thousands: "It terrified me to think that God made me just to hate me and send me to hell."  [Dear God!  How long?  How long?]Our churches need to realize that they are acting against God’s words for they are suppose to be the most comfortable haven for gays and lesbians from the insufferable burdens they bear constantly.  But when the world believes that churches despise and condemn homosexuals, those who hate them find encouragement. Our churches are so terribly wrong about homosexuality, just as they were in the sixties about segregation and 150 years ago about slavery. The down-to-earth philosopher Josh Billings’ said, “The longer I live the more I find it necessary to reexamine those things about which I was once most certain.”  I think the church has a lot of reexamining to do.

8The nature of the gay man or lesbian woman should not be thought of in sexual terms.  Why should you have a sporadic thought of what a gay man or lesbian woman is doing in bed with his/her partner?Shouldn’t you be labeled as being weirdly and perversely minded than I? When homosexuality or homosexual is mentioned in any arena or forum, it is rather unfortunate that anti gay persons often focus on sex. According to Bruce Lowe, to do so is to miss the point of the larger context of the relationship.  It is to dehumanize and depersonalize gays and lesbians, caricaturing them only in terms of their sexual activities rather than seeing them as whole persons with lives that include more than sex. Gays and Lesbians are worth much more than sex. In his letter to Louise, Bruce Lowe explains to her that: Louise, people will never think clearly about homosexuals until they think of them as being normal people, just as they think of left-handed people as being normal.  Sadly, “homosexuality” to too many people means “sex perversion.”  For example, “homosexual act,” and “practicing homosexual” and "homosexual lifestyle" are rather common expressions; all mean “sex” in the mind of the one using the expression.  What a perversion in that very common thinking!   A homosexual act is a gay man shaving or a lesbian fixing her breakfast or any of a thousand other acts they perform each day.  A homosexual's interests and activities do not differ from those of others.  Gay men and lesbian women are normal people.  The fact that millions of them walk among us without our knowing their orientation would seem to be conclusive on this point. They are people like us with the same needs and concerns, problems and failures and successes and sorrows and joys that we have.Siker says a good analogy for our thinking about lesbians and gays is in the way the first Jewish Christians related to the Gentiles.  Jews considered Gentiles as unclean, polluted, idolatrous, and sinful—the same revulsion many church people feel for homosexual people.  Before Gentiles could be accepted as Christians, many Christian Jews thought they must first repent of being Gentiles, become Jews and obey Jewish laws such as Sabbath-keeping and kosher food; then they could become Christians.  Today, unfortunately, the gay and the lesbian are often asked to repent of being homosexual before being accepted.  Like the Gentiles, they do not need to repent of their God-created nature; they just need to be accepted the same way everyone else is.

Sagacious Will Campbell observed that we Baptists have apologized to Blacks for our treatment of them in history.  Then he said, “some day we’ll apologize for what we are doing to gay and lesbian Christians and non-Christians.  But not yet, for we ride the waves of culture.”Christians and Christian churches ride the waves of culture!  Surely angels weep!

Pastor Paul Duke has this to say:

Whose fault is this?  It's the fault of us all.  It's the fault of any of us who make jokes about gay people, who insult them with the use of demeaning names.  It's the fault of us who are silent when others do these things or when they publish lies about what homosexuality is.  And it's the fault of us who don't provide a safe place and a caring response to those of homosexual orientation.  Who knows how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost—to violence, to suicide, to drugs, to promiscuity, to AIDS, to shattered self-esteem, to life forever outside the doors of the church—because we have participated in or by silence colluded with the demeaning and the ostracizing of homosexual people.  In this respect there is blood on the hands of the church.  And that's what has driven me more than anything else to talk with you as I am doing.  I have had a vision of Christ at the judgment asking, “Why were you silent?”  Why has the church abandoned these children of God to despair and to death?  When people are lost and dying by the millions you don't pontificate about sexual morality. You reach out to them, and you give them a safe place, and you listen, you talk, you love with the love of Christ.

Does the church need a scale of preference in order get their priorities straight? We need to reach a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. Logically thinking about this, it seems absurd to compromise on an issue which is obvious. But what is utterly clear is that we are supposed to love one another, we all who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiably agree to disagree. We should learn from Christ who identified himself with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. This is enough proof that God sides with the powerless and that he liberates the oppressed. Given this supernal compassion from our creator, no matter what stance we take on gays, the gospel’s essence to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unquestionably clear.

"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but let us resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." (Romans 14:13-14)