Conservtive Evangelical Bishop quotes Jesus as he backs same-sex relationships

A senior bishop appears to have performed a complete U-turn by suggesting the Bible might sanction same-sex relationships. Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Reverend James Jones, claims in a new book that the bond between Jesus and John the Disciple, as well between David and Jonathan, are possible examples of close relationships between two men.

[Reverend Steve Russell]

Having a close friendship with another man and having a homosexual relationship are two vastly different things. God says that a man laying with another man as he does with a woman is an abomination and God doesn't change. To suggest that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with John is a slap in the face to our Lord and Saviour.

I'll pray that God will open this man's eyes to the fact that Satan is whispering in his ear and that, sadly, he is listening.

[bookguybaltmd]

Reverend Steve Russell wrote:

God says that a man laying with another man as he does with a woman is an abomination and God doesn't change.

I think you need to pony up with some citations for that assertion. I should warn you, I have never been able to find anything in the actual bible (as opposed to a false "translation" with anti-homosexual text inserted in the early 20th century) that substantiates what you are saying here.

For example, the conservative bishop of liverpool seems to disagree....

[Jose]

Hey dip wit bookguybaltmd,
In the beginning God created male and female, Adam and Eve, and He sanctioned the two in marriage! The two shall become one! One man and one woman.
Whats so hard to understand? Satan is also very good at twisting scripture, Hey maybe Satan's gay too! Well then maybe you oughtta have a go with him as well?
Have fun in hell...

[Ye Olde Fart]

Jose wrote:

Hey dip wit bookguybaltmd,
In the beginning God created male and female, Adam and Eve, and He sanctioned the two in marriage! The two shall become one! One man and one woman.
Whats so hard to understand? Satan is also very good at twisting scripture, Hey maybe Satan's gay too! Well then maybe you oughtta have a go with him as well?
Have fun in hell...

What a totally nasty reply!
Did you get this way from reading the Bible?

[SouthBear]

Reverend Steve Russell wrote:

God says that a man laying with another man as he does with a woman is an abomination and God doesn't change.

So, if God doesn't change, does that mean that He still believes that genocide is acceptable just like he did when He told the Hebrews to go into Canaan and destroy the Canaanites? If God doesn't change, does that mean that He still believes women are to subjugated to their husbands that they don't have any say in choosing? And if God doesn't change, that that mean that He still believes that slavery is an acceptable institution just like He did in the good olde days when Paul spoke for Him? If God doesn't change, and He thinks genocide, slavery, and one-sided marriages are good - but thinks I'm a bad person because of something that I didn't choose - then the God I have worshipped all my life on the basis of Love has taken my praise under false pretenses. That doesn't speak well of God.

[Budinsf]

God doesn't change. However, time changes and man's interpretation of the Bible changes. Many chapters of the Old Testament had instructions that were written for the Israelites. Most of them are not for today. If they were, Christians would not be eating unclean meat and would be following all the other instructions. But, many people today choose which instructions they want to follow and which ones they don't want to follow. Usually, the ones Christians want to insist people follow are the instructions like the one that say men should not lay with other men. For some reason, Christians don't want to obey all of the other instructions.

Also, the New Testament has several instructions that heterosexual Christians like to ignore, but insist Christians should follow the ones about homosexuality. For example, divorce is popular now and even Christians get divorced. Also, Paul states that women should not have leadership positions in church and should keep quiet and allow the men to lead churches, but there are women pastors and women as trustees and board members.

Adam and Eve had a relationship because that was the only way to start the human race. But, that doesn't mean that a relationship between 2 men is wrong now.

Times have changed. God hasn't.

[Seeks Truth]

Jose wrote:

Hey dip wit bookguybaltmd,
In the beginning God created male and female, Adam and Eve, and He sanctioned the two in marriage! The two shall become one! One man and one woman.
Whats so hard to understand? Satan is also very good at twisting scripture, Hey maybe Satan's gay too! Well then maybe you oughtta have a go with him as well?
Have fun in hell...

Jose, Bookguybaltmd seems to have been studying the history of the bible as well as the bible itself. Maybe you should do the same.

[William]

There is a world of difference between a "God" and a "book".

Only the truly brainwashed can read a character in a book saying something and pretend that it wasn't a human author that wrote the words down for that character to say.

When you hear with your own ears God say anything and I can hear it with my own ears too, then we'll all know you aren't childishly believing in fairy tales.

How do you know that God has any connection with your book? "The Bible tells me so" is a song for children, not evidence for proving an adult discussion.

[TEXASGRANDMA]

I would not want to be in the Bishops shoes when he faces God.

[Reverend Steve Russell]

bookguybaltmd wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you need to pony up with some citations for that assertion. I should warn you, I have never been able to find anything in the actual bible (as opposed to a false "translation" with anti-homosexual text inserted in the early 20th century) that substantiates what you are saying here.
For example, the conservative bishop of liverpool seems to disagree....

How about Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." God did not create sex as recreation, He created it for procreation.

I would also question just how "conservative" this Liverpool bishop really is.

[rbird]

If Leviticus is cited as proof, then use all of it, not just the part you like. No more pork or shellfish for you; read ALL of it. If you're Jewish, it might be important to you because it was directed to those people at that time in history. One of the stupid characteristics of 'religious' people is that they want to pick and chose which Bible references they wish to use.

[bookguybaltmd]

Reverend Steve Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
How about Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." God did not create sex as recreation, He created it for procreation.

On this one, our fellow poster is quite right. You see, the section of the bible you are referencing actually is part of the so called "Holiness code." It was that part of the bible in which the anchient hebrews distinguished themselves from other tribes in that area. "Abomination" (TO'EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean (or simly, un-hebrew), such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not about a moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (chapters 17-26) proscribes men "lying the lyings of women." Such mixing of sex roles was thought to be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual distinctions (cf. Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). Even the Fundamentalist Journal admits that this Code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleaness" and concludes: "We are not bound by these commands today."

[bookguybaltmd]

Reverend Steve Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
How about Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." God did not create sex as recreation, He created it for procreation.

The questions we should ask are,“What does this really say, and what is the context of this law?” Leviticus is the book of the law. It contains everything from commandments for men not to shave the edges of their beards; orders not to have intercourse during menstruation; not to harvest different crops in the same field; as well as strict dietary laws. The Holiness Code, as it is called, was written to distinguish the Hebrews, morally and ritually, from the Babylonians and Canaanites. They are often referred to as the purity laws. As revealed through Christ, the fulfillment of the law is truly love. Rape, stealing, hating, etc. are immoral because they are not in line with the Law of Love, which Christ frames so perfectly when questioned about the law. Is a committed homosexual relationship in violation of this law? We could become like the Pharisees and Sadducees trying to pick apart this law forever, but if we look closely, Christ’s life truly reveals the Spirit of the Law. Surely this is what Paul meant when he wrote,“But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit”(RSV Romans 7:4-6).

[bookguybaltmd]

rbird wrote:

If Leviticus is cited as proof, then use all of it, not just the part you like. No more pork or shellfish for you; read ALL of it. If you're Jewish, it might be important to you because it was directed to those people at that time in history. One of the stupid characteristics of 'religious' people is that they want to pick and chose which Bible references they wish to use.

Thanks Rbird. Good post!

[bookguybaltmd]

Reverend Steve Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
How about Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." God did not create sex as recreation, He created it for procreation.

the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty. Nowhere does the Bible talk about a loving and committed homosexual relationship. The only thing the authors of the Bible knew about homosexuality was that which they saw expressed in the pagan worship of Baal, the temple prostitution, et cetera. To use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments?“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”(RSV Mat. 22:36-40)

[John]

bookguybaltmd wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you need to pony up with some citations for that assertion. I should warn you, I have never been able to find anything in the actual bible (as opposed to a false "translation" with anti-homosexual text inserted in the early 20th century) that substantiates what you are saying here.
For example, the conservative bishop of liverpool seems to disagree....

Point 2 first, you don't judge God by man's actions, even a bishop or whatever.

Point 1
Your assertion that you can't find anything in the bible refuting homosexuality is bogus. Even setting aside the new testament references, the old testament has ample statement to the wrongness of such actions:

Gen 19:5-8, Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13.

The bible doesn't just mention this sin in passing, it specifically condemns it in both testaments on numerous occasions. So there is little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Jude 7, 1Tim 9-10, 1Cor 6:9,Rom 1:26-27

You think this is a 4000 year misunderstanding? I'd say you've got an agenda.

[John]

bookguybaltmd wrote:

<quoted text>
Do we truly understand the greatest commandments?“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”(RSV Mat. 22:36-40)

If you are indicating that God is all love, you misread and misinterpert the scripture. God's love certainly is deeper that man's understanding and exceeds man's comprehension. But God has other attributes, and justice is one.

As God rested on the 7th day to create the concept of rest (you don't believe He was tired, do you?) He also provided the other laws to demonstrate his will in how man should live.

Any corruption that is repeatedly denounced thoughout time, as homosexuality is, is obviously man's direct disobedience of God's law, and a continual rejection of God by unsaved mankind.

God certainly loves mankind in that he provided a redemption from his sin for those who will repent and accept the gift that the grace of God offers. But to acquire the redemption and the gift requires submission to God's will, something a homosexual, in his sin, cannot accomplish.

The commandments you quote are for such believers, and we strive to love our God as required. We also pursue God's wishes, including the love of our fellow man in the attitude of caring and wishing him only the best for his life. This does not mean we love the world's sin, but rather attempt to bring our fellow man into their own acceptance of God's will and justification in God's eyes.

[bookguybaltmd]

John wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are indicating that God is love, you misread and misinterpert the scripture.

You seem to be saying that god is not love? WOW! That's not a Christian concept as I understand Christianity....

As for the rest of your post.... Where do you see a condemnation of Homosexuality in christ's teaching??? I thought I (and others) had covered and corrected a good bit of that mis-interpretation (most of it deliberate for a peculiar political purpose) of scripture.

Scripture does not really have much of anything to say about homosexuality. Furthermore, we have come to see that homosexual sex within a marriage can fulfill one of the divine ends of sex (i.e. the unitive), and that such a marriage also fits within the traditional Christian understanding of the sacrament of marriage.

We accept that it is true that we are not only spiritual and mental beings, but also physical and sexual beings. Does it make sense then that a large percent of God’s children should live in denial of a fundamental part of who they are? Should these people be forced to live without the affection and intimacy that comes with committed partnership?

We need to embrace and support this group of people, not despite scripture and tradition, but BECAUSE of scripture and tradition. We need to open the doors of the church setting aside our own human prejudices, so that we can truly live according to the law that Christ taught us.

Isn't that what it means to be a christian? That we are followers of christ?

I am very proud of the Anglican church in the US because it is one of the leaders in opening the doors of the church to all of god's children.

[bookguybaltmd]

John wrote:

<quoted text>
You think this is a 4000 year misunderstanding?

Well, unfortunately, I think it is pretty clearly not a misunderstanding, dating from only the last hundred years or so, that was a deliberate misinterpretation of scripture intended to be used for malicious political purposes (the opression and scapegoating of a small and relatively defenseless monority).

[Budinsf]

Many people insist on taking the King James and some other translations of the Bible, literally. But, when they do this, they should also take everything else in both the Old and New Testament literally. But, they like to take verses that they think deal with homosexuality literally. Nobody has ever given me a good explanation why Christians don't follow all of the other laws of Leviticus. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but he strongly condemned divorce and he also said that a divorced person must not marry. Christians divorce and Christian pastors perform marriage ceremonies of divorced people. Why is this OK now although Jesus said is wasn't? Paul also said that women should not have leadership positions in the church. But, women do. So, aren't churches who do have women pastors and women leaders, disobeying God? These are just a few examples.

I suspect that people's condemnation of homosexuality is more based on personal prejudices than on the Bible. People criticize homosexuals but ignore passages that pertain to heterosexuals. Maybe hypocrites could be the word to describe people who do this. Jesus also said something about casting stones and not noticing the plank you have in your own eye.