What the Bible really says...

...about Homosexuality, by Daniel A. Helminiak Ph.D.

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B005BTQEQ4

Anyone read this book? Opinions?

Several customer reviews and a brief summary are at the Amazon site

Originally posted by JS357
...about Homosexuality, by Daniel A. Helminiak Ph.D.

http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Really-About-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B005BTQEQ4

Anyone read this book? Opinions?

Several customer reviews and a brief summary are at the Amazon site

A Catholic priest's opinion on homosexuality ?
I seriously doubt that's worth reading except for humor... 😀

Originally posted by Rajk999
A Catholic priest's opinion on homosexuality ?
I seriously doubt that's worth reading except for humor... 😀

Here is a line from Library Journal at the Amazon site:

While cautioning against viewing biblical teaching as "the last word on sexual ethics," he stresses the need for accurate understanding of what the biblical "facts" are and concludes that "the Bible supplies no real basis for the condemnation of homosexuality."

unquote.

Originally posted by Rajk999
A Catholic priest's opinion on homosexuality ?
I seriously doubt that's worth reading except for humor... 😀

Is this one of those Catholic priests that believes it is okay to sexually molest young boys?

Originally posted by JS357
Here is a line from Library Journal at the Amazon site:

While cautioning against viewing biblical teaching as "the last word on sexual ethics," he stresses the need for accurate understanding of what the biblical "facts" are and concludes that "the Bible supplies no real basis for the condemnation of homosexuality."

unquote.

Mr. PhD should take that advice for himself... ie to understand the Bible factual teaching on homosexuality. Its condemned .. end of story.

Clearly the guy has an axe to grind.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is this one of those Catholic priests that believes it is okay to sexually molest young boys?

Possibly.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Possibly.

Well I guess you guys should high five now. Nice kill.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Mr. PhD should take that advice for himself... ie to understand the Bible factual teaching on homosexuality. Its condemned .. end of story.

Clearly the guy has an axe to grind.

I understand that it is condemned but not why that is the end of the story. Which story does it end?

The notion that people choose to be homosexual has been thoroughly debunked so we are told to condemn people on the basis of the way they were born and for what is indeed in their very nature. That's pretty bothering. It's not clear for example what should therefore be the approach to teenagers becoming very aware of their sexuality. Being told that sex is sinful is psychologically very damaging for everyone (it certainly has not worked out well for Catholic priests as others gloatingly remind us) but for homosexuals they are being told that they are naturally sinful, inherently sinful. Quite a big message to communicate.

So why then is there such a strong message coming out here about the Bible and homosexuality? After all, many Christiians are perfectly content to update their morality without relying on Leviticus. Maybe because what passes for christianity in parts of the US especially is instead a concealed political agenda and whatever the objections to this reference ( I am aware of Godwin's Law about not mentioning the Nazis for example - very interesting in this context) it bears a striking resemblance to the programme of the Fascists less than a century ago, who started out indeed by attacking homosexuals.

Originally posted by finnegan
I understand that it is condemned but not why that is the end of the story. Which story does it end?

The notion that people choose to be homosexual has been thoroughly debunked so we are told to condemn people on the basis of the way they were born and for what is indeed in their very nature. That's pretty bothering. It's not clear for example what shou ...[text shortened]... mme of the Fascists less than a century ago, who started out indeed by attacking homosexuals.

Homophobia is rife in the world, yes, even among 1930s Germany. The Fascists attacked homosexuals first because the public at large could get behind that and they approved, lending them an initial support they could use as a springboard for their true agenda.

"I don't want to be seen as supporting homosexuals because then people might think I'm homosexual." Kind of a primal fear that seems to me most of the basis of the rampant homophobia in society.

Originally posted by finnegan
I understand that it is condemned but not why that is the end of the story. Which story does it end?

The notion that people choose to be homosexual has been thoroughly debunked so we are told to condemn people on the basis of the way they were born and for what is indeed in their very nature. That's pretty bothering. It's not clear for example what shou ...[text shortened]... mme of the Fascists less than a century ago, who started out indeed by attacking homosexuals.

The notion that people choose to be homosexual has been thoroughly debunked so we are told to condemn people on the basis of the way they were born and for what is indeed in their very nature. That's pretty bothering. It's not clear for example what should therefore be the approach to teenagers becoming very aware of their sexuality.

It is besides the point whether one was born as a homosexual or one was not, as far as the Gospel of Christ is concerned. This is because Christ taught that everyman must be born again.

1.) To the man who was born heterosexual, Jesus says "You must be born again".

2.) To the man who claims he was born homosexual, Jesus likewise says "You must be born again."

However we were born the first time, it is necessary in Christ's teaching that we all be re-born.

Fifty years ago Homosexuality was listed in psychiatry books as a mental illness for the purpose of human treatment, not for condemnation. Today it is no longer written in the clinical books as a mental illness. Today some Phds. have persuaded most modern folks that it is a state one is born with.

But fifty years ago the Gospel still said "You must be born again."

That the populace attitude has changed, whether for the right or the wrong, Christ's words remain the same. We all must be born again. How you were born naturally the first time has never made any difference since Christ spoke those words.

Both the heterosexual and the homosexual need regeneration - to be spiritually born from God by receiving Christ.

My point in this post is that it is irrelevant to God's kingdom how you were born the first time. That is because the Son of God said "Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born anew." (John 3:7)

You must be born by having God Himself implanted into the deepest part of your spiritual being, your human spirit - "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (v.6)

To be "born again" is to have the Triune God - the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit compounded into your very being as a seed of eternal life.

The Bible does not demand that you go off and on your own power be a "good person". Much less it requires you to be fixated on any particular human weakness, tendency, or sinful behavior. It teaches that we all need a new life. The new life is our first life with the resurrected Jesus actually implanted into our being through a second birth.

www.regenerated.net

And we need to be born again not just because we are bad. We need to be born again because we are natural. We need God's life in Christ grafted into our natural life in a real supernatural re-birth.

Originally posted by finnegan
I understand that it is condemned but not why that is the end of the story. Which story does it end?

The notion that people choose to be homosexual has been thoroughly debunked so we are told to condemn people on the basis of the way they were born and for what is indeed in their very nature. That's pretty bothering. It's not clear for example what shou mme of the Fascists less than a century ago, who started out indeed by attacking homosexuals.

First I did not attack homosexuals. Simply saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality is not an attack on anyone.

Second, it makes no difference how anyone was born. It has also been proven by the same method that people are born with a predisposition to steal, kill, commit adultery, overeat, drink alcohol in excess. However that does not make stealing, killing, adultery, glutony, alcoholism right.

Its a simple matter .. what is considered sinful in the Bible has nothing to do with what science has discovered.

Its not rocket science.

Originally posted by Rajk999
First I did not attack homosexuals. Simply saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality is not an attack on anyone.

Second, it makes no difference how anyone was born. It has also been proved by the same method that people are born with a predisposition to steal, kill, commit adultery, overeat, drink alcohol in excess. However that does not make stealing ...[text shortened]... nful in the Bible has nothing to do with what science has discovered.

Its not rocket science.

You are all missing the point and have derailed this thread. The book discusses the Bible. It presents the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It's apparent that you all disagree with this, but apparently no one has read the book or seen the reasons it presents for its POV.

Originally posted by JS357
You are all missing the point and have derailed this thread. The book discusses the Bible. It presents the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It's apparent that you all disagree with this, but apparently no one has read the book or seen the reasons it presents for its POV.

"What the Bible really says ..." encourages me to write about what it really says about morality in Christ's New Testament teaching. No ?

I did not mean to derail the thread. But if we talk about what the Bible really says, it really says that even the very highly moral person, (Nicodemus), must be "born again".

Originally posted by JS357
You are all missing the point and have derailed this thread. The book discusses the Bible. It presents the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It's apparent that you all disagree with this, but apparently no one has read the book or seen the reasons it presents for its POV.

I know what the Bible says. I read the reviews in the link you provided.

My conclusion as stated .. the writer has an axe to grind and in my opinion presents a biased view.

Eg .. one review says .. Most of the points Dr. Helminiak makes are nothing new to anyone who has seriously looked into the subject. The Sodom story in Gen. 19:1-29 is really about the abuse of strangers ..

God destroys an entire city because they abused strangers?

Utter nonsense ! Not even worth arguing about.

That book is for desperate people grasping at straws and seeking justification for an act considered to be sinful in the Bible.

Originally posted by JS357
You are all missing the point and have derailed this thread. The book discusses the Bible. It presents the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It's apparent that you all disagree with this, but apparently no one has read the book or seen the reasons it presents for its POV.

Jesus spoke about sex in relation to men and women marrying. Marriage between a man and a woman was the only accepted sexual conduct. He took a hard line on people staying commited, and if they were to divorce, not to remarry. He even admitted that it was a hard saying, and perhaps the hardest of his ministry.

Having said that, he in no way addresses homosexuality. From my vantage point, it is plain as to why. During that time it was accepted that homosexual conduct was an abomination as spoken about in the OT, so there was no real reason to discuss it. It would be like bringing up the fact that the sky is not green. Why would you do such a thing when everyone seems to accept it is blue?

People also don't seem to grasp the importance of having offspring. Jewish men and women have felt compelled to "be fruitful and multifply" since the Mosaic command to do so. In addition, people survived via a strong family unit, and not a nanny state. As a result, people back then saw those who could not have children as be cursed in a way. So not only would homosexuals fall under this curse, they would have the added condemnation of the Mosaic tradition regarding their behavior.

I suppose one could argue that things have changed since modern times, hence these outdated views have also disappeared, but to say that from a NT view that homosexual behavoir was "OK" I think is absurd.