Pastor Bob Botsford

I watched Pastor Bob Botsford today on Larry King Live. Larry had Jennifer Knapp on, a singer who won Dove Awards for a rock song and as a new artist of the year back in 1999.

Pastor Bob did an excellent job of speaking the truth with love. It was not received that way, but Pastor Bob stood unflinchingly by his faith, judging the sin and loving the sinner.

If I’m ever in San Diego, I’m going to his church at Horizon Christian Fellowship.

43 thoughts on “Pastor Bob Botsford

  1. I also watched the Larry King show with Pastor Bob and Ted Haggard. I appreciate the stand that Pastor Bob took and using the Word of God to show giving up one’s life is required to salvation. I have watched Ted H. for some time since his ‘fall’, and am more convinced than ever that he is a reprobate that can not speak the truth. I am very dissappointed in his ‘new’ doctrine. I would commend Pastor Bob for unwaivering faith to speak the truth in the presence of such darkness. I will continue to be praying for each one of the guests as well as Larry King himself.


  2. If the two greatest commandments are loving God and loving neighbor as self, the separation of sheep and goats in Matthew 25 is over how you treated others, and salvation is by grace not works, how is it that we get to make homosexuality the one sin that can separate a person from the love and acceptance of God. The same book that condemns homosexuality as an abomination unto the Lord also says eating shellfish (shrimp anyone?) is an abomination unto the Lord. Human sexuality is complex but what the Biblical story is clear on is the call to love. Remember “if you do not forgive men their sins neither will your father forgive you.”


    • Jim, sin is sin and any sin separates us from God, which is a death sentence paid by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. We are not to judge one another, but we can judge the fruit. God is consistent in His Word when He blesses the union between a man and a woman and backs it up with the biological means to procreate. Homosexuality is by definition, a biological dead end, extinction. If one reads the Bible, it is clear that the God of Wisdom did not bless homosexuality in His Word. The common thread through the negative responses to Pastor Bob, is a failure to confess homosexuality as a sin. The three hardest words to say are, I was wrong. But, that is how we can be saved.


    • My brother, we must remember that faith in God’s wonderful grace is not a license to sin. I do not have the right to continue to live a sinful lifestyle whether it be hetero-or-homosexual. We cannot allow what people call tolerance to give us an excuse to ignore what God is seeking to do in our lives. It is not our way but His way.


      • Rodrick, I could not agree more. I am coming to the conclusion that many are embracing sin instead of repenting. God’s will is for us to repent, and turn away.


  3. Karen, I, too, was disappointed in Ted’s responses. As a former pastor and teacher, though, he’s certainly convicted of his own hypocrisy. He talked of God’s relationship with us in a truthful way but refused to discuss God’s judgement. If he doesn’t consider himself a teacher anymore, that’s a valid position to take, but if that’s the case, why is he on tv?


  4. Jim, that’s a complete twisting of scripture.

    Salvation is indeed by grace and not works, as you said. But nobody said homosexuality is the only sin that separates us, and Pastor Bob said the same. Adultery, addiction, cheating, stealing, idolatry – all separate us from the love of God, and none of us are worthy (Romans 3:23). But as Jesus said to the adulterous woman, “go and sin no more.” Embracing the sin is absolutely contrary to God’s will.

    And your comparison to shellfish was also addressed by Pastor Bob. Peter’s vision in Acts told us that we are free to eat whatever we want. Peter didn’t have any such vision regarding sexual immorality.

    Your definition of “love” doesn’t match Jesus’ statements on love and you fail to distinguish between types of love – brotherly love, sacrificial love, erotic love, serving love. We are to love one another, but not with the “pornea” erotic love. That is reserved specifically for a man and a woman in a covenant of marriage.

    And this has nothing to do with forgiveness – Jennifer Knapp has not sinned against me, and there is no wrong between us to forgive. Nor do I judge her – God alone will judge. But I am called to rebuke when I think the Word of God is being misused, which is the case here.

    God has given each of us a goal to live for Him, and when we do so, we please Him. He’s given us His Word to help us know when we please Him and when we don’t. Embracing any sin keeps us from experiencing a closer relationship to Him.


    • I like what u said Michael..The only thing that wasnt addressed was the fact that people that live in sin(any type) always talk about not judging them. BOB did a GREAT job on Larry King but I was on the edge of my seat waiting for him 2 quote this scripture, 1 Corinthians 5. It clearly states in verse 3 that Paul had already made a judgment about the sexual situation b4 being present & in verse 9 about keeping comapny w/ sexual immoral people. Further in the chapter verses 11-13 also states reasons not 2 associate yourselves w/ a brother or to even eat w/ them; fornicator or covetous,idolator or reviler or drunkard, or extortioner. He goes on 2 say in verse 12 “What have I 2 do w/ judging them also that are outside? Do not you judge them that are w/in?” Verse 13 “but them that are OUTSIDE GOD JUDGETH. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” This is not sayin 2 stop associating w/ every sexual immoral person otherwise we wouldnt have any friends, but 2 judge the BROTHERS your going to stay around & worship w/. Thats y in verse 6 it says a little leaven(sin) leaveneth the whole lump(can corrupt the whole congregation)…I know my writings a little off(its almost 2:30 am) but I think from reading the scripture given u guys can get the point. We can judge other brothers but w/ a righteous God Loving judgement & if we can’t get them 2 change then put them away from u b4 they corrupt the rest of the congregation. If Jenn wants 2 remain in that lifestyle thats on her but whatever happened 2 overcoming sin & not conforming 2 sin. She questions the translations but were they questioned b4 she realized she was gay?? Jenn part of being a part of this faith is accepting the good w/ the bad. We can rewrite it the way we think it should b but its not our way its GODs.


  5. I had seen Jennifer Knapp years ago in concert just before she left for Australia. I believe she as at least 40 to 50 pounds overweight. Now, she looked great, even though she was a little heavier. What I couldn’t understand was how someone (who struggled with weight issues, which she confirmed on CNN when Larry interviewed her) decides to talk about Pastor Bob’s dietary “issues” (in her mind) yet, she herself for a while, struggled with weight issues. I thought gluttony was a sin. After I watched that interview, I realized never judge anyone. I must have a picture of her at least 40 to 50 pounds overweight somewhere. I can’t understand how she could judge another person over dietary issues when she herself struggled with dietary issues. It just doesn’t make sense to me. And who the heck cares if someone eats shrimp or not? I don’t. I stick to the old testament diet, and still, I recognize that homosexuality is not in the will of God. I now see just how silly it is to judge others.


  6. would any one of you feel loved by the way this Bob acted? … c’mon people, some honesty here! And don’t come @ me w/ what’s sin and what’s not… listen to your gut and tell me who the people are that you give trust to in your life. Who are the people you feel loved by? And are there any people you disagree on issues w/ that you still love and feel loved by. Why?
    Not only dig your noses in scripture. Jesus Himself had feelings and had people He particularly liked… an not becoz of their knowledge of Scripture. Real Love, life long homework 4 this girl…


    • Esther, what you are describing isn’t love and it isn’t trust either. If I only trusted and received love from those who will tell me what I want to here, then I don’t understand trust or love. What you and many others seem to advocate is a kind of love everybody with a love of words and so forth but not really love someone enough to confront them when they are in the wrong. It’s like the parent that doesn’t want their kid to not like them so they never punish or discipline them. Loving your children is praising them and disciplining them. Loving others sometimes involves speaking the truth to them even when it’s not what they want to hear.


  7. We all know that the most serious spiritual problem today is reckless and unrestrained greed. Go home and look at how you live and be honest with yourself and say did you really need it or did you want it. If it’s not a need – it’s greed! 2.5 billion Christians in this world why aren’t they having a greater impact maybe it’s because they don’t truly follow the teachings of Christ and love.

    When Jesus told us not to judge He was telling us not to judge hypocritically, for in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Jesus warns against judging someone else for his sin when you yourself are sinning even worse. That is the kind of judging Jesus commanded us not to do.

    God creates homosexual animals so why wouldn’t he do the same with humans. Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied. According to Bagemihl, “the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept.” Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom. A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species. Homosexuality is best known from social species

    Satan has nothing to do with it except allow Christians to not accept God’s creation because of their misguided interpretations of the bible. Put the bible into perspective by doing research and understanding the time period it was written. A literal interpretation takes into account the historical context and that context determines the interpretation.

    There is evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. The APA even states human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

    Biblical inerrancy does not mean that we are to stop using our minds or accept what the Bible says blindly. We should always be open to changing an interpretation if the Spirit convicts and the evidence supports.


  8. As Bob told us, and it is so very true, not all ‘feelings’ are good. Some people have a feeling to kill, rape, steal. But, the Bible is the one way we can discern right from wrong feelings. Homosexuality is a sin, enough so that an entire city of sodom and gomorrah was buried with fire and brimstone. Bob, was truly humble and loving, just like Jesus, the lamb led to slaughter. Bob was being obedient to Christ and understands that he is a sinner and is saved by his faith in Christ AND his repentance of his sin. Jesus said to the adulteress, go and sin no more. Jennifer does not confess her sin, nor does she repent. The Bible says, many will cry Lord, Lord but He will say, I never knew you. If you want to know Him, you must die to your selfish feelings and let Him sit on the throne of your life. So simple, yet the proud can not comprehend. Be humble, be saved. God bless you with a revelation of the sin in your life and the desire to be saved by He who paid for your sin with His life.


  9. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4


  10. Why do Fundamentalists quote the Bible and say, “God said it, I believe it that settles it.” They assume that the meaning and interpretation of the Bible is simple but ignore the historical aspect of the Bible and its interpretation.

    Apart from a few passages, such as the Ten Commandments, the Bible does not claim to be dictated by God. The Bible portrays the complex interaction between God and humans over long periods of time. The interaction includes presence and absence, revelation and mystery on the part of God. It includes a process of learning and growth, punctuated by periods of regression.

    The writers of the Bible never tell us to turn off our brains. Instead they challenge us to think through the implications of faith in an unseen God who sides with slaves, refugees, immigrants, the poor, and the crucified.

    The scriptures, such as Roman’s, keep coming up with this issue. It’s amazing that something Paul was referencing in regards to pagan activities, prostitution can suddenly be used to reference modern day homosexuality. Paul was not making sweeping generalizations condemning any and all sex activity, when put into historical and religious context he was against idolatry. If Christians today would realize that homosexuality is a state of being and identity that God has given to some people then their lifestyle is not a willful disobedience to God’s laws and commandments. It’s who they are. There are some ministers, bishops and pastors from all different faiths who have come forward stating they accept homosexual Christians to their church and no longer see it as living in sin but other groups continue with their hatred The only thing homosexuals can continue to do is get the law on their side and take it one step at a time like the people born to slavery did. Fundamentalist Christians finally got the message regarding slavery let’s hope they can get the message on homosexuality too.


    • Sooo,,, because the bible only says a few times that it was written by God, then in reality it wasn’t? And we get a free pass to disregard the passages we dislike or don’t understand?

      You are right, God never tells us to turn off our brains. He does, however, tell us that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man. Either you believe the bible is the inerrant Word o God, or you don’t. If you do, you have a framework for belief. If you don’t, you have a very nice coffee table book.

      Your accusation of Christian slavery also shows a misunderstanding of the bible. Christianity was probably the greatest historical force in eliminating slavery. It’s true that some Christians felt otherwise, but they lost that moral argument. Paul’s letter to the slaves did not condone slavery; it gave instructions to slaves how to be the best and joyful men they could be in that position.

      Your position is at odds with my understanding of God’s word and how he regards sin – any sin – in our lives.


      • Based on how you are trying to twist what I wrote around I would lean more towards the don’t understand part of regarding your question.

        Even though some Christian abolitionists were a principal force in the abolition of slavery, the Bible sanctioned the use of regulated slavery in the Old Testament and whether or not the New Testament condemned or sanctioned slavery has been strongly disputed. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views. Slavery in different forms existed within Christianity for over 18 centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this remained well into the Middle Ages and beyond.

        My understanding of slavery was a remark on the conflict of views regarding it but in the end it became known as unjust in how people treated other human beings. And yes, some Christians changed their view so that it could come to an end. The same should happen now regarding homosexuality.

        The sin dilemma well that is the beauty of being filled with the holy spirit when reading the gospel, putting it into historical perspective to get the true meaning of what the writer was discussing. The gospel is one of compassion, restoration and mercy. The problem lies in our different interpretations of what is being discussed in regards to homosexuality. When you look at the gospel and what was happening during the different time periods it was specific to pagan rituals, prostitution, and cult worship. It was not pointing at the loving Christian homosexual of today. Every scripture you point at in the Bible has been disputed by other priest, pastors and bishops. So if you can truly claim you know the will of God and what was specifically intended by putting the gospel into literal context then by all means prove it.


      • I won’t claim that I know the will of God. I will claim that I seek the will of God, and not by disregarding the passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or Romans 1:26-28.

        I understand God wants me to seek Him, and not tell Him to be like I want Him to be. I don’t see how anybody can interpret those two scriptures any other way.


      • “Rom. 1:26 Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Rom. 1:27 Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.”

        Why this argument does not work towards homosexuality is because homosexuals of today do love each other and do have God in their hearts (they are not refusing it). So this text does not meet the criteria of a good argument as to why Christians find homosexuality wrong. Especially since during that time period sexual rituals were used as a form of worship which is what this text is referring to and that was part of a cult not true Christian worship. There are homosexuals today who are in committed relationships saved through Christ and that is the one part of this argument judgmental Christians are missing and why this text does not apply to them.

        Now the Cor. 6- 9 debate, here are various versions of it.

        “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (Gk. malakoi), sodomites (Gk. arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers — none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NRSV)”

        1 Corinthians 6:9-10
        Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
        10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

        Corinthians (ch 6:v 9-10): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God”

        Did you notice homosexuality is only called out in one version of it. You also have to notice that the world abuse is in this text so it does not apply to the loving married Christian homosexual couples of today. It has to be considered that God is showing us that homosexuality is not simply an act or acts of willful disobedience to God’s law and commandments, but it is a state of being. It is an identity that God has given to some of his children. It is who they are. There are instances of homosexual acts which should be condemned, just like there are instances of heterosexual acts which should be condemned. The part people are not getting is just because specific acts are called out does not mean the entire group should be condemned, that applies to race, women, heterosexual or homosexuals. It reasonable to believe that God created someone with an orientation toward the same sex, gave them the same drive of sexuality which is present in heterosexual persons. Some Christians today are trying to say they should absolutely repress and deny it? This not only defies reason, but is cruel, unfeeling and illogical–qualities foreign to God as we know him through Christ.


  11. I had responded to you in length Michael but it got deleted. I will say put Corinthians and Romans into historical perspective when you read that text. By the way which version of Corinthians are you referring too? The word homosexual in Corinthians in some version of the bible which shows the bias of the interpreter. I hope you realize you are referencing pagan sexual rituals and prostitution. Those are acts that should be condemned for either homosexuals or heterosexuals. You are using small amounts of text to condemn an entire group. You are also not recognizing there are saved loving homosexual couples today that were given their identities by God. It’s who they are. You can not condemn an entire group based on the sins of a few that would be dangerous.


    • It wasn’t deleted, it was in moderation.

      Your understanding of sin and God’s desire is seriously different than mine. You’ve used a paraphrase version to prove your point about Romans 1:26, and dismissed outright a translation that disagrees with you. You appear to be negotiating with me as opposed to seeking God’s will.

      Sin is sin, and we are all born with that propensity. Some to steal, some to lie, some with sexual urges. To say “God created them that way and therefore must be good.” When it comes to sin, God’s instructions are to flee, to resist, to turn away. I reject your argument that embracing the sin, any sin, is acceptable.

      Jesus said to the adulterous woman, “Go and sin no more.” He did not say, “I created you to commit adultery and it’s cruel to deny yourself. Go and satisfy your urges to sleep around.”


      • I am not negotiating. I know where I stand with God and only value the opinions of those that love me and I respect. I have a good understanding of sin. Sin is self-distancing from God; it is in the heart. Sin is about a person’s conscience than any particular action. What is scary is you seem to think you know what God’s will is exactly on this subject. You are unwilling to put the bible in historical perspective so you can continue justify your bias towards all homosexuals. Romans 1:27 mentions men having relations with men. But the terms used to describe them are “dishonorable” and “shameless.” These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul’s usage, different from the prevalent Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin (“unnatural”) would best be translated “atypical” or “beyond the ordinary.” So it bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in Romans 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (see Rm. 1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make the main point of his letter, that purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus.


  12. What is scary is you seem to think you know what God’s will is exactly on this subject.

    I already stated, “I won’t claim that I know the will of God.” Your interpretation of the written word is different than mine.

    so you can continue justify your bias towards all homosexuals.

    I have no bias toward homosexuals. I have a bias against sin in any form, including the sins in my own life.


  13. To help you understand my point of view.

    Question 1 – In your opinion, does God regard homosexuality as a sin?
    Question 2 – In your opinion, do the Scriptures object to homosexuality?

    Rev Dr William R Stayton (Baptist — minister, certified sexologist, associate professor of psychiatric and human behaviour, servant on faculty of LaSalle University’s graduate department of religious studies, holder of master of divinity from Andover Newtown Theological School and a Th.D. in psychology from Boston university):

    Q1: Absolutely not! There is nothing in the Bible or in my own theology that would lead me to believe that God regards homosexuality as sin. God is interested in our relationships with ourselves, others, the things in our lives, and with God (Matthew 23:36-40). There is nothing in the mind of God that could be against a loving, sexual relationship, freely entered into, without coercion, among sincere adults whether gay, bisexual or straight.
    Q2: There is nothing in the Bible regarding homosexual orientation. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with sexual orientation. It does speak out probably against gang rape, male prostitution for religious purposes, and pederasty (sex between an adult and youth). I lead bible study programs on this subject and am convinced that the Bible does not address the issue of a person’s sexual orientation.

    Bishop John S Spong (Episcopal — bishop, most published member of the Episcopal house of bishops, author to 11 books and 50 published articles, phi beta kappa graduate of UNC Chapel Hill, holds masters in divinity and an honorary doctorate in divinity from Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary, received honorary doctorate in divinity from St Paul’s College):

    Q1: Some argue that since homosexual behaviour is “unnatural” it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.
    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, “I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good’.” . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.
    Q2: There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city’s men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, “This is the word of the Lord”? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.
    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, “abomination”, the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.
    In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.
    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behaviour. But was Paul’s opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul’s other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul’s anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul’s thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul’s commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?
    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God’s destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).
    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    Bishop R Stewart Wood Jr (Episcopal — graduate of Dartmouth College, masters degree in counselling from Ball State University, masters and doctorate degrees in divinity from Virginia Theological Seminary):

    Q1: No. Our sexual orientation is a given, something we discover about ourselves — some might say “a gift from God”. How one relates to others — caring or exploiting — is the source of sin.
    Q2: I am aware of the concern for certain homosexual acts and see no addressing [in the Scriptures] of the condition or orientation.
    Q2: The Bible, in my opinion, is very clear in its objection to homosexuality.

    Rabbi Janet R Marder (Reformed Judaism — associate director for the Union of American Hebrew Congregations Pacific Southwest Council, graduate of University of California at Santa Cruz, co-chair of Nechama, an AIDS/HIV education program for the Jewish community):

    Q1: The God I worship endorses loving, committed, monogamous relationships, regardless of the gender of those involved.
    Q2: I believe that the Hebrew Bible strongly condemns homosexuality. While it is part of my tradition, I do not regard all Biblical laws as binding on me. The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is based on human ignorance, suspicion of those who are different, and an overwhelming concern for ensuring the survival of the people. Since the Bible regards homosexuality as a capital crime, it clearly assumes that homosexuality is a matter of free choice, a deliberate rebellion against God. We have learned from modern science that people do not choose to be gay or straight; hence it is neither logical nor moral to condemn those whose nature it is to be gay or lesbian.

    Rabbi Dr David Teutsch, PhD (Reconstructionist Judaism — executive vice president and director of contemporary civilizations at Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, holds bachelors in general studies from Harvard University and masters degree in Hebrew Letters from Hebrew Union College and PhD in social system science from the University of Pennsylvania):

    Q1: Homosexuality — as is true of heterosexuality — is a naturally occurring sexual orientation that can be expressed in more ethical and less ethical ways. In itself homosexual love making is not sinful.
    Q2: The Scriptural references to homosexuality make no comment on lesbianism. They object to male homosexuality on three grounds: cultic prostitution, unnaturalness, and “spilling seed” or Onanism. Homosexuality has been shown to be natural in animals and humans. Gay men today are not involved in cultic acts. And the spilling of seed through heterosexual, homosexual or masturbatory acts is not an issue for me. Thus I take this prohibition no more seriously than many others, such as that against lending money at interest, that do not make sense in the first place.

    Rabbi Marc H Wilson (Independent Traditional Judaism — holds bachelor degree in sociology from DePaul University and a bachelor degree in Hebrew Literature, holds a Hebrew Teacher and Principal license from Hebrew Theological College, columnist in nine newspapers and via one wire service):

    Q1: No, not so long as the behavior is:
    a) not obsessive (as would be true, likewise, of heterosexuality)
    b) responsible and safe (ditto as above)
    c) non-abusive (ditto as above)
    d) the manifestation of a loving, respectful relationship (Jewish Bible, Old Testament)
    Q2: [It was sin] only insofar as that at that [biblical] time homosexual behaviour was a manifestation of abusive sexual practices associated with idolatry and fertility cultism, and thus an “abomination” because of the association, not because of the intrinsic “relationship”. Also, because it was “unnatural”, that is non-procreative, understandably in the tribal times when procreation was of highest priority.

    Bishop Stanley E Olson (Lutheran — holds undergraduate degree from Wittenberg University, seminary trained at Luther-Northwestern Seminary, holds an honorary doctor of divinity from California Lutheran University):

    Q1/Q2: Biblical scholars are busy restudying the few verses which have often been regarded as anti-homosexual. One thing is clear, these few verses do not refer to homosexuality as we understand and use that term today. The Biblical texts do speak against sexual exploitation and rape whether committed by persons with a heterosexual or homosexual orientation. The great message of Scripture is of a God of unbounded love for the human family. If God has any preference at all, it is for “the least”, “the lost” and “the last”. God’s amazing grace, compassion and salvation is open to everyone. Jesus is very clear in placing his gospel beyond the limitations of churches and denominations. He says, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also. So that there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16). Here is a partial list of verses that has every right in being equally addressed to homosexual or heterosexual Christians: Galatians 3:27, John 3:16 , Romans 3:21-24, Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 10.

    Rev Dr George R Edwards, PhD (Presbyterian — professor emeritus of new testament theology at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, holds masters in divinity from LPTS and a PhD from Duke University, taught new testament theology studies at LPTS from 1958-1985, member of Society of Biblical Literature):

    Q1: God does not regard homosexuality as a sin any more than heterosexuality. Sin is lack of respect for God; it is a lack of love or respect for other persons. Whether gay or straight, therefore, one may sin against God or others. But God forgives us when we sin and strengthens us in resisting sin. We are led by God’s forgiving love to become more respectful and loving toward God and towards others, even those we don’t “like”.
    Q2: The Scriptures are very important because they teach us God’s love for all, gay or straight. But the Scriptures are old, thousands of years old, written even before the word “homosexual” existed. Same sex acts involving the genitals — we call these “homogenital” — seem in Scripture to be thought of as a result of idol worship. See, for example, Romans 1:18-27. Nor do the Scriptures seem to understand what we mean today by “sexual orientation”. Sexual acts which are injurious, disrespectful, or unloving toward the other person are wrong. So I believe that the Scriptures approve of homosexuality and even homogenital acts that are kind, generous, loving, and respectful of the other person, just as in the case of heterosexuality or heterogenital acts.

    Rev Harry L Holfelder (Presbyterian — chair of AIDS Interfaith Network of Baltimore and is senior pastor of local church, is active with the Maryland Interfaith Legislative Committee):

    Q1: No, I do not think that God regards homosexuality as a sin. I believe that one’s sexual preference is first and foremost a matter of biology (creation) and only secondarily a matter of choice (responsibility). Since I also believe that all God creates is good, I conclude that human sexuality (not a matter of choice for anyone) is good, whether that sexual expression be heterosexual or homosexual.
    Q2: A careful and sensitive reading of the Scriptures does not lead to the automatic conclusion that homosexuality is a sin. There are passages, especially in the “holiness literature” that suggests this conclusion. However, the overall message of Scripture in this matter is far more positive than negative. Biblically, the issue is the goodness of human sexuality and the use of that gift in covenant relationships. For me a more important question is that of the relationship of God in Christ to a human being. In this relationship I see no barriers, even sexual ones.

    Sister Mary Ann Ford (Roman Catholic — member of Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for 39 years, holds masters degree in mathematics and in pastoral ministry, has taught in mathematics and religious instruction in high schools and later colleges, chaplain of the Detroit chapter of Dignity for the past 15 years):

    Q1: Two truths are especially relevant in thinking this through. First we have a theological point. God, the one who has made all of creation, loves and cherishes all creatures without exception. Second, modern psychology shows us that homosexual orientation is set by age five or six. Most psychologists agree that it is not a matter of choice, whether orientation is inborn as some think or acquired very early as other say. How then could an all-loving God possibly violate Divine nature and regard homosexuals as “sinners”?
    Q2: Contemporary Biblical scholars are indicating that the idea of homosexual orientation was unknown to the writers of the Sacred Scripture. Certainly they had no knowledge of the Kinsey research which established the existence of a continuum along which all of us are somewhere between the end points of totally heterosexual through bisexuality to exclusively homosexual. Many of the oft-quoted “condemnatory passages” may assume that heterosexuals are acting out of their violation of their “nature”.
    There also is question as to whether words which appear in our English texts refer in some cases in the original languages not to homosexuals but male prostitutes which were used in pagan worship. Certainly, nowhere does the Bible legislate on the matter of loving sexual activity between consenting adults in committed relationships.

    Sister Jeannine Gramick, PhD (Roman Catholic — member of School Sisters of Notre Dame since 1960, holds PhD in education from University of Pennsylvania, was assistant professor of mathematics and education at the College of Notre Dame Maryland, conducts theological, sociological and ministerial workshops nationwide on the dimensions of homosexuality):

    Q1: God has created people with romantic and physical attractions to the same sex, as well as those with attractions to the opposite sex. Many, if not most, people, we are now discovering, have both kinds of attractions in varying degrees. All of these feelings are natural and are considered good and blessed by God. These feelings and attractions are not sinful. Most Catholic moral theologians now hold that homogenital behaviour, as well as heterogenital behaviour, is good and holy in God’s sight when it is an expression of a special and unique love which one person has for another. Both homosexual and heterosexual genital expression can be sinful if they are manipulative, dishonest, or unloving actions.
    Q2: When read at face value, the Scriptures have nothing positive to say about homogenital behaviour. However, most Christians do not interpret the Bible literally; they try to understand the Scriptures in their historical and cultural context and see what meaning the Scriptures have for us today.
    The Scriptures were written approximately 2000 or more years ago when there was no knowledge of constitutional homosexuality. The Scripture writers believed that all people were naturally heterosexual so that they viewed homosexuality activity as unnatural. Women today are pointing out that the inferiority of women expressed in the scriptures was a product of culture and the times in which the Bible was written; it should not be followed today, now that we are beginning to appreciate the natural and God-given equality of men and women.
    Similarly, as we know that homosexuality is just as natural and God-given as heterosexuality, we realize that the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were conditioned by the attitudes and beliefs about this form of sexual expression which were held by people without benefit of centuries of scientific knowledge and understanding.
    It is unfair of us to expect or impose a twentieth century mentality and understanding about equality of genders, races and sexual orientations on the Biblical writers. We must be able to distinguish the eternal truths the Bible is meant to convey from the cultural forms and attitudes expressed there.

    Rev C Robert Nugent (Roman Catholic — co-editor of “The Vatican and Homosexuality”, holds degrees from St Charles College, St Charles Theologate, a degree in library science from Villanova University and a Masters of Sacred Theology from Yale University Divinity School):

    Q1: I do not believe that God regards homosexuality as a “sin” if homosexuality means the psychosexual identity of lesbians or gay persons, which we know from contemporary scientific studies is within the boundaries of healthy, human psychological development, and which seems to be as natural for some people as heterosexuality is for others. If homosexuality means the emotional, intimate bonding in same-gender relationships of love and friendship, I believe that since God is love, where there is authentic love, God is present.
    Where god is present, there can be no sin. If homosexuality means same-gender erotic, physical expressions of union and pleasure, the possibility of personal sin exists in homosexuality — as it does in heterosexuality — depending on the interplay of three factors including the physical behaviour itself and its meaning for the person, the personal motives and intents of the person acting, and the individual and social consequences or results of the behaviour. For many people, sexual behaviour which is exploitative, coercive, manipulative, dishonest, selfish or destructive of human personhood is sinful; for all people “sin” means freely acting contrary to one’s deeply held moral or ethical convictions, whether these come from organized religion or a personally developed value system. In speaking of the “sinfulness” of same-gender genital expressions, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Washington say that “…no one except Almighty God can make certain judgments about the personal sinfulness of acts (The Prejudice Against Homosexuals and the Ministry of the Church, Washington State Catholic Conference, 1983).
    Q2: Catholicism uses four major sources for principles and guidance in ethical questions like homosexuality: scripture, tradition (theologians, church documents, official teachings, etc), reason, and human experience. All are used in conjunction with one another. Scripture is fundamental and primary authoritative Catholic source — but not the only source. Biblical witness is taken seriously, but not literally. An individual scriptural text must be understood in the larger context of the original language and culture, the various levels of meanings, and the texts’ applications to contemporary realities in light of the role of the community’s and its official leadership role in providing authoritative interpretations. Both Jewish and Christian scriptures do speak negatively of certain form of same-gender (generally male) sexual behaviour (not same-gender love), especially when associated with idol worship, lust, violence, degradation, prostitution, etc. Whether scriptures condemn all and every form of same-gender sexual expression in and of itself for all times, places and individuals is the topic of serious theological and Biblical discussion and debate.
    Same-gender expressions of responsible, faithful love in a covenanted relationship between two truly homosexually oriented people not gifted with celibacy is not something envisioned by scriptures. Whether this form of homosexuality violates biblical or anthropological principles of sexuality and personhood — especially in light of current scientific knowledge and human experience about the homosexual orientation — is a key issue facing the churches and religious groups today.

    Rev Dr William F Schulz, DD (Unitarian Universalist — president of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, a phi beta kappa graduate of Oberlin College, holds masters in philosophy from University of Chicago and doctorates in ministry and divinity from Meadville-Lombard Theological School, board&enspmember of numerous organizations including People For the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, author of numerous books and articles, appears on national radio programs and in nationally-distributed newspapers, listed in Who’s Who of America):

    Q1: I do not believe that God regards homosexuality as a sin. In the first place, of course, I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God who defines or delineates sinful behaviour. But even if I did, I cannot believe such a God would reject any of His/Her children on the basis of their affectional orientations. If He/She did, such a God would not be one to whom I would want to pay homage.
    Q2: While the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) certainly condemns what it refers to as sodomy, it also condemns a whole host of other practices (e.g., sleeping with a menstruating woman) which have long been accepted as reputable. Most of the Old Testament is surely not an appropriate resource from which to obtain guidance regarding contemporary ethics! Turning to the New Testament, we discover that Jesus has nothing whatsoever to say regarding homosexuality. Inasmuch as he frequently condemned others of whose behaviour he disapproved (e.g., the money-changers in the temple), it is significant that he makes no reference to homosexuals or their practices.

    Dr Karen Lebacqz, PhD (United Church of Christ — professor of Christian ethics at Pacific School of Religion, holds bachelor degree in Biblical history from Wellesley College and masters and PhD in religion and society from Harvard University, phi beta kappa member and past president of the Society of Christian Ethics):

    Q1: What God does regard as sin is oppression, injustice, persecution, disrespect for person. This sin, then, is homophobia, gay-bashing, discriminatory legislation toward lesbians and gays, refusal to include lesbian/gay/bisexual people into our churches and communities. To force any people, whether for reasons of race, age, or sexual orientation, into a “ghetto” — this is a sin.
    Q2: Yes and No. Yes, in the same sense that the Scriptures object to wearing clothes of different fabrics, eating pork or other kinds of meat, and women speaking in church. That is to say, the Scriptures are a human product which reflects the cultural limitations of their time. Thus, they speak negatively about a number of practices that are routinely accepted today, including certain sexual practices. Some of these sexual practices are engaged in by both heterosexually and homosexually oriented people.
    No, in the same sense that the Scriptures do not speak clearly to the phenomenon that we today call “homosexuality”. That is, Scripture speaks negatively about certain behaviours, most notably temple prostitution, not about basic orientation or about loving and committed gay/lesbian relationships. (A possible exception here is the praise of the relationship between David and Jonathan.)

    Rev Dr James B Nelson, PhD (United Church of Christ — professor of Christian ethics at the United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, holds bachelor degree from Macalester College and a bachelor and masters and PhD in divinity from Yale University, visiting scholar at Oxford and Cambridge Universities and visiting professor at numerous other institutions, consulting editor of “Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality”, honorary doctor of Sacred Theology from Dickinson University and award-winning educator for the United Church of Christ):

    Q1: I am convinced that our sexuality and our sexual orientations, whatever they may be, are a gift from God. Sexual sin does not reside in our orientations, but rather in expressing our sexuality in ways that harm, oppress, or use others for our own selfish gratification. When we express ourselves sexually in ways that are loving and just, faithful and responsible, then I am convinced that God celebrates our sexuality, whatever our orientation may be.
    Q2: The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.

    Rev Dr Professor John B Cobb Jr, PhD (United Methodist — recently retired from Ingraham Professor of Theology at the School of Theology at Claremont and an Avery Professor at Claremont Graduate School, holds masters and PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity school):
    Q1: Surely being attracted to persons of the same sex is not, as such, a sin. But of course how we act in our attractions, towards whichever sex, is often sinful. The ideal is to be responsible and faithful rather than self-indulgent. Unfortunately, society does not encourage responsible and faithful relations with persons of the same sex. That makes the situation of the homosexual very difficult.
    Q2: Certainly some of the Biblical writers objected to homosexual acts, but there is surprisingly little attention to this topic. The opposition of the church comes from other sources much more than from scripture. There are more scriptural reasons to oppose homophobia than to oppose homosexuality.

    Bishop Melvin Wheatley Jr (United Methodist — ordained elder of the United Methodist Church who retired in 1984 after 33 years as pastor and 12 years as bishop, honorary PFLAG director due to services to gay and lesbian people in the church):

    Q1: Of course not! The preponderance of evidence now available identifies homosexuality to be as natural a sexual orientation for a significant percentage of persons as heterosexuality is the natural sexual orientation for the majority of persons. Homosexuality is an authentic condition of being with which some persons are endowed (a gift from God, if you please), not an optional sexual lifestyle which they have willfully, whimsically or sinfully chosen. Certainly one’s sexuality — heterosexual or homosexual — may be acted out in behaviours that are sinful: brutal, exploitative, selfish, superficial. But just as surely, one’s homosexual orientation as well as another’s heterosexual orientation may be acted out in ways that are beautiful: tender, considerate, mutual, responsible, loyal, profound.
    Q2: The Scriptures at no point deal with homosexuality as an authentic sexual orientation, a given condition of being. The remarkably few Scriptural references to “homosexuality” deal rather with homosexual acts, not with homosexual orientation. Those acts are labeled as wrong out of the context of the times in which the writers wrote and perceived those acts to be either nonmasculine, idolatrous, exploitative, or pagan. The kind of relationships between two consenting adults of the same sex demonstrably abounding among us — relationships that are responsible and mutual, affirming and fulfilling — are not dealt with in the Scriptures. Dealing with those relational realities is one of the tasks we are about in our time


    • We won’t agree. I think your sources and logic are rubbish and are completely at odds with scripture. I could find just as many sources to cut-n-paste from that have an opposite viewpoint as you did, but it would be futile. Substitute “adultery” or “bestiality” in your cut-n-paste and it makes the same irrational point; i.e. if it feels good, God would sanction it. That is false. I believe sexual purity between a male husband and a female wife is the only union sanctified by God.


      • Yes, we probably will not agree and now you know why some churches are opening their doors and others are not.

        The last part of the discussion always tries to end on the one woman, one man argument. Adam and Eve were created for mutual companionship and procreation. The creation story is about the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Because the text says that God created a man and woman and “blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number…” some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are not blessed by God or, worse, are “unnatural” and go against “God’s law.” They read this interpretation into the text, even though the text is silent about all kinds of relationships that don’t lead to having children: couples who are unable to have children; couples who are too old to have children; couples who choose not to have children; people who are single. As Christians and as a society, we do not view childlessness as an immoral failure to fulfill God’s will. Such childlessness may be regarded as unfortunate, but the childless couple is not viewed as sinful or wrong for not having kept God’s commandment. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.

        Then look at other examples that do go against the one man one woman argument in the bible.

        There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible:
        Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.
        Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:
        Esau – 3 wives;
        Jacob: 2;
        Ashur: 2;
        Gideon: many;
        Elkanah: 2;
        David: many;
        Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;
        Rehaboam: 3;
        Abijah: 14.
        Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

        Or how about these types of marriages that we do not agree with today:

        Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word “levir,” which means “brother-in-law.” This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations.

        A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist.

        The point I am trying to make is there are many loving Christian homosexuals who are part of our society, it’s between them and God. Not us. Love thy neighbor.

        What will be interesting is when intelligent life is found in other parts of the universe what will happen to those who have limited interpretations of God’s ultimate power. You have to find it interesting the Vatican is finally acknowledging that possibility now because in the past they would put people to death for saying such a thing.

        I pray your judgmental attitude towards homosexuality will be filled with love for all.


      • My “judgemental” attitude is indeed filled with love for all. And I pray that those misled by tolerance do not find themselves on the wide path to destruction, led there by well-meaning people.


  14. Michael

    I couldn’t agree with you more.


    As I have read over these posts I can not help but see how you have taken scripture and twisted to suit your own desires.

    I also wonder how it is that when homosexuals are confronted they immediately assume that we (Christians) are homophobic and do not love. Remember it is the sin that we do not love not the sinner.

    I noticed that the Old Testement was only breifly referenced in regard to this issue so I will paste a small portion and a link to the main article and if you wish both of you can go and read it in context as there is too much to paste here.

    Explicit condemnation of same-gender sexual relations occurs in two Old Testament passages. Leviticus 18:22 reads, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 20:13 reads, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    The wording here is ambiguous with regard to rape or manipulation versus mutual consent; instead, the focus is on the act itself as a mutual defilement. Modern revisionists often dismiss these strong passages on the grounds that they are part of the Old Testament purity code and therefore irrelevant to a gospel that frees believers from the constraints of Jewish cultural taboos. But the surrounding verses, which involve such concerns as care for the poor and respect of property show that it is impossible to make a simplistic distinction between purity laws and permanent moral principles. The reaffirmation of sexually differentiated marriage in the New Testament, as noted above, suggests that this levitical condemnation of the violation of differentiation retains its force throughout the entire biblical period.

    As for Giselle I’m not sure what your point was about animals. We are not animals and when God made them He did not find any suitable for man.

    18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone ; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
    19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
    20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
    21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept ; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
    22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
    23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh ; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
    24 For THIS REASON A MAN shall leave his father and his mother, and be JOINED TO HIS WIFE; and they shall become one flesh.
    25 And the MAN and his WIFE were both naked and were not ashamed.

    Notice in verse 25 He does not say man and man or woman and women. He clearly says man and wife (woman)

    God made ALL things each with a specific purpose, and HE set man and animals apart. You can not compare the two. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

    I pray Alyssa that God will by His Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth and His will on this subject.

    Lovingly in Christ


  15. Lois – Thankfully, God knows what is in my heart so I am not worried at all! What Christians that hold onto their prejudices don’t get is that nowhere in the Bible are same-sex committed and loving relationships condemned.

    As for the old testament and Leviticus if you want to use that to hold onto your bias remember the other parts of the Code which: permits polygamy, prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period, bans tattoos, prohibits eating rare meat, bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles, prohibits cross-breeding livestock, bans sowing a field with mixed seed, prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood, requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

    Churches have abandoned the Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many still focus on those passages to try to validate their prejudice towards homosexuality. What is funny is you are trying to tell me I am twisting the text to fit my desires when in reality that is what you are doing.

    Lois as for the man and wife argument what you are not understanding is God is creating a family modeled after his own characteristics, but not all Godlike characteristics are found in one sex or gender, any more than they are found in one race. That’s what you are refusing to comprehend when reading that text it’s about creating a family, in love, believing in God through Christ.


  16. don’t get is that nowhere in the Bible are same-sex committed and loving relationships condemned.

    That is false.

    remember the other parts of the Code which…

    Leviticus law leads us to recognize our sin, which leads us to repentence. We are no longer bound by Leviticus Law as Jesus fulfilled the law. The New Testament, though, reinforces that sexual immorality is still offensive to God.

    Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior. It’s obvious to me that you know Jesus as your Savior, but to acknowledge Him as Lord requires obedience to His Word.


  17. Micheal I am not worried in the least. After I responded to Lois I asked God if I should continue with this discussion. About an hour later I get a call from a distant friend she just felt the need to call me to tell Jesus loves me and what ever I was doing I needed to continue to shine the light. So, I know I am on the right path with my journey with Christ. The journey I am on doesn’t necessarily mean it is meant for you or anyone else reading this. You will be shown the truth only when you are open to truly hearing it. You can continue to claim what is being said as false but that is because you refuse to put the bible into historical perspective to understand what the reader was truly trying to say.

    Peace be with you.

    I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.


  18. Here is an example as to why you need to put the text into historical context.

    For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural …

    English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: ‘This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.’ Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.

    It might also help to realize that the Catholic church even states to put the text into historical perspective.

    According to the official teaching body of the Catholic Church, Catholic readers of the Scripture have a positive duty to avoid certain sorts of what the authorities call ‘actualization’ of the texts, by which they mean reading ancient texts as referring in a straightforward way to modern realities.

    So keep this in mind next time you read Romans.

    For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

    These are exactly the sort of things that went on in and around pagan temples throughout the Mediterranean world in Paul’s time, as at the time of the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which goes into rather more detail than Paul does. These would include women dressing up as satyrs with large phalloi so that they could be the penetrators rather than the penetratees with their partners (and it was this travestying or exchanging of role, going against ‘farmyard logic’, rather than the gender of the partner which seems to have been what was regarded as going against type here). This is what Clement of Alexandria had to say on the subject:

    For that reason, births are infrequent among hyenas, because they sow their seed contrary to nature. … Such godless people ‘God has given over,’ the Apostle says, ‘to shameful lusts. For the women change their natural use to that which is against nature. … ‘ Yet nature has not allowed even the most sensual beasts to sexually misuse the passage made for excrement … .Blurring the natural order, men play the part of women, and women play the part of men, contrary to nature. … No passage is closed against evil lusts; and their sexuality is a public institution – they are roommates with indulgence.

    We have, you will not be surprised to hear, even more evidence from antiquity about the sort of things that the men got up to. Certainly there were cults like that of Cybele, Atys or Aphrodite, whose largest temple (rumoured to have as many as 1,000 temple prostitutes) was in Corinth where Paul probably wrote this letter, and whose cult had recently been introduced into Rome. This cult had a very strong cross-dressing element. Not only that, but the rites involved orgiastic frenzies in which men allowed themselves to be penetrated, and which culminated in some of those in the frenzy castrating themselves, and becoming eunuchs, and thus priests of Cybele, for whom, as was common with Mother Goddess cults, transcending gender was particularly important. Such castrated devotees, sometimes called ‘galli’, would wander around, as do the ‘hijra’ in modern India, as festal eunuchs assumed to have magic powers or prophetic gifts. The body of just such a castrated Roman eunuch priest with ornaments showing devotion to Cybele was recently uncovered by archaeologists in Northern England.


  19. Repent for what? Science and the A.P.A are slowly showing it’s not a choice.

    Controversy can’t obscure the facts,” according to Brian Mustanski, who has studied genetics and homosexuality. “It’s pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person’s sexual orientation.

    When it is finally proven that homosexuals are truly born this way will you still continue to say repent? Why is God creating homosexual animals? It’s been shown in 1500 species?

    Could it be the Christian community needs to be shown they have misplaced their beliefs through their judgmental attitudes towards others. That they lost their way in this greedy society we have become because they have forgotten the main teachings of Christ regarding the true meaning of love. Before you try, telling others to repent maybe you should ask yourself why you are passing judgment to begin with.


  20. People who steal are born that way. People who commit adultery are born that way. People with addictions, violent tendencies, weird fetishes are born that way.

    We are not animals. I disagree completely with your opinion. As I’ve told you before, the Christian community should embrace all sinners, for that is what we are. But our love for Jesus demands our obedience if He is Lord, and He calls us to turn away from our carnal human nature and follow him.

    We are called not to judge others, but we are called to use scripture to judge the sin (2 Timothy 3:16). Your opinion seems less based in scripture and more in secular opinion.


  21. “Your opinion seems less based in scripture and more in secular opinion”

    The same can be said of you. The faults you find in other people are the faults you have within yourself.


  22. To the best of my ability, my opinion is only based on scripture.

    I can see you are opinionated on the subject. I believe it is time to allow others to expess their opinions now. Should your comments not appear immediately, it is because they are held in moderation.


  23. This issue distracts Christians from our true work: sharing the good news of Christ. We all live the way and walk the path that God has set before us. With the Holy Spirit as our guide – we will reach our destination. Let’s pretend NOBODY knows for sure if homosexuality is a sin. If it’s not – we love homosexuals. If it is – we love homosexuals. It’s the same for them – they are called – in Christ to love heterosexuals! So let’s move on to our true “work” – sharing Christ, praying for His purposes, and moving away from this distraction of homosexuality.It is profound that we can become more like Him every day. The change and renewal offered in Christ – for our sins – is remarkable. We also must look for commonality that nourishes our faith. It’s interesting that Larry King’s questions were somewhat divisive. Why do this interview at all? We do not point out differences in others. If I am asked why i don’t drink – I become honest and say for ME, it is a stumbling block. Another issue, for ME, (if asked) I choose not to lie, because God has taught me this through his scripture. But I do not point out issues in other people…unless they are seeking my thoughts. This pastor Bob from San Diego was set up to look like he was pointing the finger and judging. But they asked him what he thought! He can’t lie. I am impressed that he answered. The Colorado preacher would not answer hard, specific questions.


  24. Linda, I agree with your message. However, we are also called to rebuke our brothers and sisters if we believe they are inaccurate with the scripture and we can be sure at the same time we are not hypocritical with our response.

    For non-believing homosexuals, I have no quarrel (though I believe they are missing out on their true purpose). To believing homosexuals who twist the scripture to justify their sin (or any sin, for that matter), I am compelled to disagree.


  25. The problem is some don’t agree that it is a sin. This pastor makes a good point.

    As clergy who care about our members’ lives and the hospitality of our community. We were saddened, then, to read responses saying Although such a statement clearly comes out of a deep conviction, we, too, have deeply held beliefs and we feel compelled by our faith to speak out. Being gay is not a sin. We have read widely, studied the Bible, been in many conversations with gay persons and their families and are convinced that being gay is not a choice a person makes, it is who a person is — much the same way that one’s eyes are brown or one is left-handed.

    We too love the Bible and base our lives on its teachings. At the same time we recognize that it contains many legal and ritual prescriptions that people today no longer accept. For example, we regularly wear clothes that have a variety of types of threads mixed together within them; few people would support stoning children for disobedience; and most people would not assume slavery as part of the social system, as Paul does. Our challenge is to discern what parts of the Bible will be our highest authority: the few verses that seem to reject gay people or the countless times the Scriptures exhort us to do justice and love our neighbor.
    A common thread runs through the scriptures of many faiths: the importance of mutual respect and the inherent worth of each person. In our work as ministers, we often counsel people who face discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some are bullied or harassed at school. Others face being fired. Some are beaten on the street and are afraid to go to the police for fear of further harassment.

    Such daily oppression takes a toll on a person. Hiding who you are may help you keep your job, but it also deadens a piece of one’s soul. Providing a home and caring for one’s family brings much satisfaction in life. All of us strive to achieve that good life and find that happiness. In contrast, living in fear for one’s economic security or even one’s safety undermines the goodness of life and destroys the possibility of happiness.

    We believe that people of faith have a responsibility to care for each other — body and soul. So our faith requires us not only to speak of human dignity but to work to ensure that every member of our community is treated fairly. Our concern is about people not living in fear anymore. It is about embracing family. It is about freedom and equality. It is about respect for difference.

    As clergy serving in your communities, we sincerely hope and pray that we can live together with respect.


  26. Hi just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the images aren’t loading properly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different browsers and both show the same results.


    • Thanks; I’ve been aware of the issue for some time, but I’m not sure how to fix it efficiently. I wrote a couple of thousand posts before moving to, and all the links broke during the move. If only I had been less prolific. 🙂 I fix them sort of on an ad-hoc basis.


  27. Bob Botsford is one of these guys with an extremely slick facade, but attend his church for any length of time, and you’ll see what a rigid controlling legalist he really is. This is reflected in the cultic environment that he’s created there resulting in a shocking level of spiritual abuse perpetrated by many of the devoted monsters who attend. If you go there, you damn well better not think for yourself and you damn well better not question anything that even suggests that you haven’t sipped the koolaid. For further reference see the calvarychapelabuse…..


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s