Centurion and His Servant (pais)

[inca nitta]

I got a question for Donny and everybody; do you remember the story of healing of centurion's servant, described in the book of Luke 7, so do you think it is possible that the centurion and the servant (who in Greek original is described as pais, which in the historical context means a boy, or a concubine, a very special attendant, a chamberservant) were in a sexual relationship? I know that during the Roman empire times, military commanders were forbidden to marry and instead they had young boys in their service with whom they, on occasion, were having sex.

[Zerbie]

Hi Inca,

I know that is a hypothesis that many people consider. It appears plausible. I don't know how likely it is - for that, I leave it to those who know something about the culture and history we are talking about. All I know is that the possibility has been mentioned. From this vantage point, I think we can never know one way or the other, and can only speak about plausibility.

[inca nitta]

I personally think that centurion and his servant have had sexual relations, considering the fact, that it was a common practice back then. Why would he be any different?

Speaking of history and culture, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_rome#Empire

As Greek attitudes gradually became accepted in Rome during the late Republic and early Empire, however, a new form of same-sex relations emerged that was quite different from homosexuality in ancient Greece, but owed much to it. As men, particularly the pater familias, wielded complete authority in Roman society, the Roman experience of same-sex relations is often characterized by master/slave-style interactions. Slaves still were considered legitimate sexual partners, often if not always regardless of their wishes. In short, an adult Roman citizen male could acceptably penetrate (whether a male or a female) but not be penetrated - catamite was commonly used as a slander.

imho, this sounds closely related to the centurion's servant.

[keltic63]

I moved this over here in a separate thread. I think this deserves its own discussion and I want to keep things on track in the other thread (the one in the Foyer)

[Steven E. Webster]

I got a question for Donny and everybody; do you remember the story of healing of centurion's servant, described in the book of John, so do you think it is possible that the centurion and the servant (who in Greek original is described as pais, which in the historical context means a boy, or a concubine, a very special attendant, a chamberservant) were in a sexual relationship? I know that during the Roman empire times, military commanders were forbidden to marry and instead they had young boys in their service with whom they, on occasion, were having sex.

I believe the story you refer to is not in John, but is in Matthew and Luke (and also NOT in Mark). John seems to have similar story (a healing at a distance) but it involves not a Centurian, but a synagogue ruler, and not a slave, but a son. It's been suggested that John changed the story to remove any suggestion of homoerotic overtones from the original story.

I support your speculations, but agree also with Zerbie that they are only speculations--we just can't know for sure. It is important to point out that the Centurion considered this slave to be very "dear" to him. The term "boy" does not necessarily mean that this slave was what we'd consider a minor.

What Romans thought were appropriate sexual roles between masters and slaves did not necessarily mean that those were the actual sexual roles that were played out behind closed doors. I would like to think that the relationship was loving and mutual, and not one of exploitation. In the story it seems that the Centurion cared deeply for his "boy."

I recommend Theodore Jennings book, "The Man that Jesus Loved" as a scholarly study of homoeroticism in the New Testament. I'm pretty certain that Jennings discusses the topic of the Centurion and his slave in that book.

It is good, correct and important, in my view, that we LGBT people be able to see ourselves in the Scriptures.

Steven Webster

[inca nitta]

I moved this over here in a separate thread. I think this deserves its own discussion and I want to keep things on track in the other thread (the one in the Foyer)


Fine Keltic.

But I still would like our friend Donny to come and comment on this. I really would like to know what he thinks about this.

And Steven Webster:

Yes, you are right, the story of the centurion and his servant (pais) is being told in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. I confused it with the story of a Samaritan woman, that one is in John. My apologies.

But still the word describing a servant is still "pais" in all 3 books, as far as I know.

[Alecto]

So, I tend to stay out of Biblical discussions, because I"m not entirely knowledgeable (we've got a lot of folks here a lot more qualified than I) and it also doesn't really apply to me too much, cause...it's not my Scripture. That said, it would seem to me that if this is a common enough practice, then it probably doesn't matter. That is to say, Jesus would be every bit as kind and compassionate to the people involved regardless of the status of their relationship. If it mattered, they would have specified, right (again, given the banality of those relationships being sexual)?

[BenL]

What is notable in the story of the centurion and his slave, in my opinion, is that Jesus, once again, chose people from the margins of his society to teach about faith. Roman centurions were no strangers to first century Palestine, but to the Jews they were not only Gentiles but represented the power of the oppressor and, as such, were officially hated. But faith is faith, and Jesus did not shrink from acknowledging it in anyone, even those whom the Jews considered their enemies. We can take some comfort from the fact that the centurion and his slave might have been lovers, but the Gospel doesn't emphasize that. Instead, the story is about faith and love lifted up to the status of miracle. As others suggest, the men's relationship is plausible but not central to the story.

[Pablo Rafael]

What is notable in the story of the centurion and his slave, in my opinion, is that Jesus, once again, chose people from the margins of his society to teach about faith.

Reading through the Gospels that point becomes abundantly clear. Almost all the people Jesus reached out to were the marginalized members of society. Being a marginalized member of society myself it is a great encouragement to me that Jesus didn't focus his ministry on the "respectable" people at the top. The love of God really is for ALL.

[keltic63]

I just finished reading What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak. It was an easy read. It talks about the Centurion and the Pais, and why the evidence is so strong that the pais was the centurion's male lover. It also spoke of Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, but then, in this edition, brought forth new examples for discussion! Careful reading, or translating of the Book of Daniel could indicate that Daniel found favor, or received "devoted love" from the "palace master" or "chief eunuch". It may explain why Daniel's career at the court of Nebuchadnezzar went so well.
The book also included new information that David may have been having an affair with Saul, using evidence about how the Hebrew language doe not include vowels, and so certain passages could mean entirely different things when you account for all various combinations of vowels. In particular question is 1 Samuel 16:21 "David came to Saul and stood before him" could mean, with just one vowel change making the verb reflexive, "had an erection before him." Other verses, treated in the same manner, could support such an interpretation.

[Steven E. Webster]

Fine Keltic.

And Steven Webster:

Yes, you are right, the story of the centurion and his servant (pais) is being told in Matthew 8, Mark 15, and Luke 7. I confused it with the story of a Samaritan woman, that one is in John. My apologies.

But still the word describing a servant is still "pais" in all 3 books, as far as I know.

Nope--as I said before the story is NOT found in Mark. Let's be more careful!

Also, to be precise, Matthew and Luke use both the words "slave" ("doulos") and "boy" ("pais") to refer to the sick person in question. (I've just now consulted my Greek New Testament again.) It may be that these two words are synonymous. In other words, slaves may generally have been referred to as "boys." (I know some executive types who refer to gray-haired ladies working in the office as "girls." Some perfectly awful Republican politician recently referred to Barack Obama, a man in his forties, as "that boy".) That this Centurion's servant is referred to as "boy" is not unquestionable evidence of the servant's age.

It's been a while since I read Helminiak. Keltic, can you tell me which edition of his book you've read?--I know he's updated it. Anyway, I am very friendly to the possibility that the Centurion and his slave were lovers. It may well be that it was shame about both their gentile status and their "irregular" relationship that caused the Centurion to insist that he was unworthy to have Jesus come under his roof. (Maybe not, being gentile was enough).

Steven Webster

[jewelsangel]

I just finished reading What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak. It was an easy read. It talks about the Centurion and the Pais, and why the evidence is so strong that the pais was the centurion's male lover. It also spoke of Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, but then, in this edition, brought forth new examples for discussion! Careful reading, or translating of the Book of Daniel could indicate that Daniel found favor, or received "devoted love" from the "palace master" or "chief eunuch". It may explain why Daniel's career at the court of Nebuchadnezzar went so well.
The book also included new information that David may have been having an affair with Saul, using evidence about how the Hebrew language doe not include vowels, and so certain passages could mean entirely different things when you account for all various combinations of vowels. In particular question is 1 Samuel 16:21 "David came to Saul and stood before him" could mean, with just one vowel change making the verb reflexive, "had an erection before him." Other verses, treated in the same manner, could support such an interpretation.


I have often questioned whether Daniel was homosexual or not. God told me a long time ago he would make me like Daniel (reminder - I am a woman). I took that only to mean that I'd be a prophet of some sort to some type of official, but in trying to understand who Daniel really was, the Book of Daniel doesn't mention any relationship he had (not that I remember - it's been a while).

[keltic63]

Nope--as I said before the story is NOT found in Mark. Let's be more careful!

Also, to be precise, Matthew and Luke use both the words "slave" ("doulos") and "boy" ("pais") to refer to the sick person in question. (I've just now consulted my Greek New Testament again.) It may be that these two words are synonymous. In other words, slaves may generally have been referred to as "boys." (I know some executive types who refer to gray-haired ladies working in the office as "girls." Some perfectly awful Republican politician recently referred to Barack Obama, a man in his forties, as "that boy".) That this Centurion's servant is referred to as "boy" is not unquestionable evidence of the servant's age.

It's been a while since I read Helminiak. Keltic, can you tell me which edition of his book you've read?--I know he's updated it. Anyway, I am very friendly to the possibility that the Centurion and his slave were lovers. It may well be that it was shame about both their gentile status and their "irregular" relationship that caused the Centurion to insist that he was unworthy to have Jesus come under his roof. (Maybe not, being gentile was enough).

Steven Webster

Millennium Edition, Eighth Printing, September 2007 it's paperback and about $12.00 on Amazon. do we have it here on the Soulforce book site?

[Matt Algren]

I'm never terribly excited when people start theorizing and hypothesizing about what may or may not have been homosexual relationships in the Bible. The most obvious ones (like David and Jonathan) I understand, but when you start speculating based on smokey wisps of evidence... I guess I just feel like it's unnecessary. The proof is pretty straightforward without going through confusing and questionable rabbit warrens.

Were the centurian and his servant lovers? I dunno. It just doesn't seem important enough to inject into the conversation.

[Donny]

I just finished reading What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak. It was an easy read.

And the perfect place to assert that "the Bible" no way condones, supports or encourages God's followers to engage in same-gender sexuality. So it is not fear-based, nor is it phobic to oppose engaging in same-gender sexual behavior.

It talks about the Centurion and the Pais, and why the evidence is so strong that the pais was the centurion's male lover.

A slave to his master. Hardly a place to validate same-gender commited relationships are for believers. Also, the pederastic (not pedophilia) implication is dealt with as inappropriate by Paul TO the Roman Christians. I see the healing of the boy (pais) AND the Roman slave owner as in keeping with the New testament teachings on "born-again."

It also spoke of Jonathan and David,

Both men that married a woman. Or, in the case of David, many women for many reasons. The most famous out of pure (what we call today) heterosexual lust. But the language of the relationship of David and jonathan can also be seen as one of intense and bonded friendship. Even being greater than the love of women. We see this often in soldiers and athletes.

Ruth and Naomi, but then, in this edition, brought forth new examples for discussion!

A mother in law to her daughter in law. Naomi showed herself to be a Torah observant Israelite. Ruth married a man. "In context."

Careful reading, or translating of the Book of Daniel could indicate that Daniel found favor, or received "devoted love" from the "palace master" or "chief eunuch". It may explain why Daniel's career at the court of Nebuchadnezzar went so well.

Danieal literally "went to his death" FOR his devotion to Torah. And we're talking about "just" the food laws and not praying to false gods. His reward was salvation from the lions by direct action of God. No way would Daniel break the Levitical "law" on the prohibition of a man lying with man as with a woman. Keeping to "in context" once again. All you have left is again, a slave being violated by his master. Rape and not relationship. Hardly a foundation for GLBT acceptance within the Church.

The book also included new information that David may have been having an affair with Saul, using evidence about how the Hebrew language doe not include vowels, and so certain passages could mean entirely different things when you account for all various combinations of vowels.

And using the law of context (David as a inappropriately used servant as Saul observed Torah) and consequences, the Kingship was taken from Saul and given to David.

In particular question is 1 Samuel 16:21 "David came to Saul and stood before him" could mean, with just one vowel change making the verb reflexive, "had an erection before him." Other verses, treated in the same manner, could support such an interpretation.

There are no vowles in Hebrew. So, with the introduction of an alternate word, you can blaspheme the context of the narrative as well. Saul gave his daughter to David as his wife. Certainly "in context" Saul wouldn't have given a gay man a woman, or a man he was sexually active with. And seeing that the Israelites were well aware of same-gender sexuality, the text should be quite open about the subject. The Bible is hardly guitly of covering up sexual behavior. Ask Onan.

[Donny]

I'm never terribly excited when people start theorizing and hypothesizing about what may or may not have been homosexual relationships in the Bible. The most obvious ones (like David and Jonathan) I understand, but when you start speculating based on smokey wisps of evidence... I guess I just feel like it's unnecessary. The proof is pretty straightforward without going through confusing and questionable rabbit warrens.

Were the centurian and his servant lovers? I dunno. It just doesn't seem important enough to inject into the conversation.

And this is the type of perspective that makes you welcome in any "conservative" Church I know. And, as a musician, I've been in many.

We Christians that oppose condoning same-gender sexual behavior are not all that bad.

[Donny]

I got a question for Donny and everybody; do you remember the story of healing of centurion's servant, described in the book of Luke 7, so do you think it is possible that the centurion and the servant (who in Greek original is described as pais, which in the historical context means a boy, or a concubine, a very special attendant, a chamberservant) were in a sexual relationship?

Well I must say I am stunned to be asked to join in a conversation "out" in the open. Thank you.

In keeping with the times, it is very possible that the boy was a slave. As a slave, he could or would have been treated any way that his owner/master wanted to. This still has nothing to do with sanctioning and/or condoing same-gender sexual behavior "in the Church." It may even be carried to eliminating it. It appears the Roman had great faith in Christ Jesus. I could argue that he was healed of his sexual propensities (if he even had any inappropriate ones) along with the slaves illness.

I know that during the Roman empire times, military commanders were forbidden to marry and instead they had young boys in their service with whom they, on occasion, were having sex.

This would have been the strong dominating the weak. Not a good example for self-chosen and committed same-gender unions. I don't like always using Paul on the modern-day gay issue (Peter and Jude are just as appropriate to use), but his letter to the Roman Christians was pretty graphic and leaves no support for people to do as the Romans did once they became Christians.

[Matt Algren]

And this is the type of perspective that makes you welcome in any "conservative" Church I know. And, as a musician, I've been in many.

We Christians that oppose condoning same-gender sexual behavior are not all that bad.
Don't ever put me in the same category as you. EVER.

Besides, I like people with weiners. I'm totally not allowed in your church.

[Donny]

Don't ever put me in the same category as you. EVER.

Besides, I like people with weiners. I'm totally not allowed in your church.

I love weiners too. And if I can get them for free at a picnic or barbeque that's great. I prefer Oscar Meyer turkey weiners with only mustard. I don't like weiners boiled though.

Why wouldn't you be allowed in my Church? We don't alter the Gospel for anyone and hold fast to the truth. You've quoted some of it very accurately in another thread and know that everyone is welcomed to hear and accept the Gospel. And I don't put YOU in the same category as me, I am a sinner and repent often. You seem to be someone who doesn't sin. Good for you. That's the way John preaches it!!!! I wish I was stronger but what I want to do I don't do, and what I don't want to do, I sometimes do anyway. Thank God for the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness.

[keltic63]

And, as a musician, I've been in many.



hmmm, tell us more, please.

[Donny]

hmmm, tell us more, please.

I see this present darkness getting worse for the Church. "The world" (the western world) is siding with GLBT's and accusing the Church of not only intolerance, but, meting out to homosexuals some kind of violence. The Church is becoming close to illegal. I would like to stand and say you live as you see fit and we'll live as we see fit. There are irreconciable differences between the theologies of GLBT's and orthodox Christians. This should be a liveable situation. No different than Mormons and Christians.

I have never seen a mean and nasty Christian in any Church or music festival I've attended or played at in over ten years. I am here to challenge Soulforce on its accusation and charge against we Christians that refuse to support homosexuality as somehow being hateful and violent. I have not seen such animosity towards Christians from anyone except Muslims and some progressive secular-atheists towards Christians, as I have from the GLBT community.

What you say and what you do, are important matters in the Church.

Taking this thread subject as an example, the Roman in question is being called a pederast BY GLBT's theologically. I have been slammed for asserting this very thing be leveled at Gays. There is no supporting scripture for supporting the theology of gay marriage and non-"heterosexual" sex to be supported and promoted "in" the Church, just as pederasty is also unacceptable for Christians to engage in. My position is based on sound history and exegesis. That is not calling all GBLT's pederasts or pedophiles. Yet, I am "labeled" as hateful and bigoted.

I seek to challenge and defend the accusations of Mel White and Soulforce that are leveled against me personally, and agianst the subject of the Church in general.

By the way, I like Contemporary Christian music and anything Sade performs. Yeah, yeah I know. I do repent. And I'll do it agian tomorrow.

[andrewlittle]

hmmm, tell us more, please.

You too, Steve? Let's see - we have a self-described AofG member who is flaming in his ant-gay rhetoric, but spends an inordinate amount of time on a gay website. Add to that he is a "church musician" amd, well, we all know what that means.

Move over, Ted Haggard.

[keltic63]

You too, Steve? Let's see - we have a self-described AofG member who is flaming in his ant-gay rhetoric, but spends an inordinate amount of time on a gay website. Add to that he is a "church musician" amd, well, we all know what that means.

Move over, Ted Haggard.

and what I hear is anger and jealousy that he's tried to live a straight life all these years, and now, the gays are barging in and being accepted. in other words, he's played by "the rules" and now those who are living the life he wishes he could have are getting the good seats.

Reminds me of some parables Jesus told.

[andrewlittle]

and what I hear is anger and jealousy that he's tried to live a straight life all these years, and now, the gays are barging in and being accepted. in other words, he's played by "the rules" and now those who are living the life he wishes he could have are getting the good seats.

Reminds me of some parables Jesus told.

Oh, yeah, the other son, eh? Envy. An interesting thought. Of course, if that was it, he's be back frequently and furiously trying to prove he's the good boy - the one that deserves the fatted calf all along - and trying to convince the prodigal one to get out and stay out of the family house.

Good thing that's not happening - I'd get suspicious.

[Donny]

You are all absolutely fascinating. If anyone challnges your charges, he/she is either a secret member at heart or a hateful bigot. You've failed to prove any support for homosexuality from the ONLY source and context you can "for Christians." You appeal to emotionalism or secularism. You have so many angles covered its like a tar pit trying to negotiate your traps. I'm satisfied that "The Church" can survive the GLBT challange to alter it. It will never happen. Now I see first hand what its all about. It's not about tolerance or acceptance, it's all GLBT about rule and authority. The rumors are true. Now I know why the need to shake off even the dust.

[Zerbie]

I wish I was stronger but what I want to do I don't do, and what I don't want to do, I sometimes do anyway.

This statement touches me. I am sorry. Donny, we can, with some effort, experience these inner conflicts less and less often.





The Church is becoming close to illegal.

The day some "They" tries to do that, you will see me standing with you in its defense.
You will be surprised, unless by then you have understood that it is that basic human freedom to determine our inner lives without oppression by others that has me standing with my LGBT community.




I have never seen a mean and nasty Christian in any Church or music festival I've attended or played at in over ten years.

WOW!
I can still hardly believe it when I meet christians who are kind.:(



You too, Steve? Let's see - we have a self-described AofG member who is flaming in his ant-gay rhetoric, but spends an inordinate amount of time on a gay website. Add to that he is a "church musician" amd, well, we all know what that means.

Move over, Ted Haggard.

and what I hear is anger and jealousy that he's tried to live a straight life all these years, and now, the gays are barging in and being accepted. in other words, he's played by "the rules" and now those who are living the life he wishes he could have are getting the good seats.
.

Gentlemen, I do not know if your surmise that Donny is a closeted homosexual man is correct or not. That may be. I too have remarked that he has spent an entire weekend here with us - something draws him back here for hours at a time. It could be that he is homosexual and denies his feelings. Or maybe it could be that he has a background somewhat like Andy's. We don't know. I have been wondering about it, too.

In the event that he is a homosexual man who fights to deny his feelings, I certainly hope we don't respond by belittling the struggle he may be in. I hope to see his diseased anti-gay rhetoric go away -- he offends every value I hold dearest with nearly every post he makes -- but I have no desire to make light in any way of the damaging effects of self-condemnation and a lifetime in the closet, if that's in fact what this is. More for the sake of those who may lurk here than for Donny, I hope we will remain an open and loving resource so that those who are closeted will feel able to reach out to us in times of crisis.

[andrewlittle]

Point well taken, Zerbie.

My apologies, Donny.

[Rick336]

Donny,

You are delusional. Your beliefs are totally irrational because they aren't based on anything that even resembles facts. There is no trustworthy evidence to back up anything you say.


Rick

[andrewlittle]

Hey Donny, if you want to reply to me, by all means do so publicly. Do not, however, attempt to strike up a dialogue with me through private messaging - I am not interested. Thank you, Andy

[Donny]

Donny,

You are delusional. Your beliefs are totally irrational because they aren't based on anything that even resembles facts. There is no trustworthy evidence to back up anything you say.


Rick

Here is proof that my beliefs are founded on solid facts: blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/05/tolerance-gay-marriage-religio.html

I was here to get you to stop your war on Christians. It's odd that you think my doing so was a membership drive. I was just "contending for the faith." From the piece (url) referenced:

"In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.
In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies.


The key thing here is not that state legislatures are granting marriage to same-sex couples. It's that the courts are finding that it's a constitutional right. Sooner or later, I believe, the US Supreme Court, thanks to its reasoning in Casey and Lawrence, will affirm the constitutional right to same-sex marriage when it receives a case. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions that live by their religion's traditional teachings on marriage are to be seen by the law as no better than stone-cold racists. And then the lid will come off."

[Steven E. Webster]

Here is proof that my beliefs are founded on solid facts: blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/05/tolerance-gay-marriage-religio.html

I was here to get you to stop your war on Christians. It's odd that you think my doing so was a membership drive. I was just "contending for the faith."

When will so-called "Christians" stop their war on gay people? You know, Donny, it's a losing battle. The more that you and your so-called "Christian" allies attack LGBT people, the more you expose to the world your desire to be legal and governmental bullies. People are rejecting that kind of religion.

So-called "Christians" have no right to enlist the power of the government to enforce their notions of "real" marriage and their desire to demonstrate to the world that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. When this question does finally come to the U.S. Supreme Court, you will lose, because you deserve to lose.

But really, no one loses when our government ensures equality for all. We all gain by favoring justice for all. You may not feel that way if you believe that "Christians" are entitled to lord it over everyone else---but that is wrong---Christ did not teach us to lord it over others.

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Here is proof that my beliefs are founded on solid facts: deleted

I was here to get you to stop your war on Christians. It's odd that you think my doing so was a membership drive. I was just "contending for the faith." From the piece (url) referenced:

"In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.

Okay! We'll start with the Methodist institution that IS NOT part of the United Methodist Church or any other Methodist church, for that matter. No church owns the pavillion, nor is the organzation that does own organized as a religious institution - it is organized and registered as a secular non-profit. Because of this, the organization has received not just tax breaks, but other government grants and funds for improvements and the like, based on its status as a community resource.

It is a non-profit organization that has in its by-laws that board members be United Methodist members, but that it the only tip of the hat to religion. It routinely allows its space to be used for all kinds of things - many of them weddings, but many of them totally non-religious in nature. It is because it secular and NOT a church, and that its receives public funds, that it violated the law.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.
Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

From the YMCA website:
America’s 2,663 YMCAs serve more than 20.2 million people each year, uniting men, women and children of all ages, races, faiths, backgrounds, abilities and income levels. At the heart of community life across America, mission-driven YMCAs are a place to belong and to live the values that guide and unite our members: caring, honesty, respect and responsibility.

The YMCA, having long ago dropped the Young Men's Christian Association name, is a secular organization organized for community improvement. Its funding includes major amounts from all levels of government. It is not a church, or church affiliated entity. Des Moines also has a non-discrimination law that includes sex orientation and includes the definition of "family". Most areas outside Des Moines do not. Since the YMCA accepted funding from the city, it had to certify that it had non-discriminatory policies for all the same classes as the city, which it did. The rejection of family membership was against the city code but, more importantly, was in conflict with the certification provided by the YMCA for city funding.

Neither of these examples speak to the issue of CHURCH.

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies.
This is prognostication based on fear-mongering. Churches are, and have long been, allowed to restrict employment to those who line up with their doctrines. The courts DO NOT get involved in matters governed by doctrine. Saying that churches "will face" an "avalanche" of litigation ignores the history of the law with regard to churches - and is, at best, deceptive.

Now, with regard to religious institutions - what is the nature of the institution? Is a church? Then, no problem. Is it an entity with religious affiliations, but which operates as a secular non-profit so it can receive government funding? Then, yes, it will be subject to the same scrutiny as other non-profits. You want the money - you play by the rules.

The key thing here is not that state legislatures are granting marriage to same-sex couples. It's that the courts are finding that it's a constitutional right. Sooner or later, I believe, the US Supreme Court, thanks to its reasoning in Casey and Lawrence, will affirm the constitutional right to same-sex marriage when it receives a case. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions that live by their religion's traditional teachings on marriage are to be seen by the law as no better than stone-cold racists. And then the lid will come off."
What has made the US somewhat special in its governance is that little thing known as the "balance of power" that was drafted into the constitution. You've reaped the benefits of that balance for as long as you've resided here. The unique role of the courts, among others, is to make sure that people who do not make up a large voting block do not suffer from legistlation that is deemed to the advantage of the majority.

Again, entities organized and recognized as churches - this includes any entity organized as a house of worsip - are exempted from many of the laws governing employment.

Marriage is a secular institution in this country. Marriage is governed by the laws of the state. No religious involvement is needed for marriage to occur, and no government entity can force a church to marry anyone. The fact that different religious doctrines that speak to who they will and won't marry has no bearing on the right to marry, since it is not necessary for a church to be involved.

You're arguments here are smoke and mirrors - with little or any facts.

[Matt Algren]

Here is proof that my beliefs are founded on solid facts: deleted url

I was here to get you to stop your war on Christians. It's odd that you think my doing so was a membership drive. I was just "contending for the faith." From the piece (url) referenced:
<snip>
Andrew already ravaged the rest of the post, so I'll leave it alone. (Note to self: Don't. Cross. Andrew.)

But I will point out that you're making the mistake (again) of thinking that this is Gays vs. Christians. Several have said it, but I'll repeat it again: We're already in the church. Gay Christians are a healthy reality, not a nightmarish theoretical.

And if you still think that anybody here believes that you have a great friendship with someone who has teh gay, you've got another thing coming. If he exists (which I don't think he does), he isn't that great a friend, because you don't share your little "OMG THE CHURCH IS BEING ATTACKED!" ideas with him.

[matthewspeed]

I have something to say on all of this.

Donny obviously attends a conservative christian church. Did I read correctly that he attends an Assemblies of God denomination? In that denomination and other more charasmatic/evangelical churches, people rely on the scriptures AND the holy spirit revealing more truth and expaning the understanding of scriptures. Many have visions and prophetic words. Many claim to hear Gods still voice speaking to them, giving them further understanding of particular scriptures as it applies to a believers life. These "words of wisdom" as they are sometimes called, are told to the congregation and then the believers rejoice at the further knowledge that the Holy Spirit has revealed.

I have experienced this many times and witnessed this type of activity. What was considered basic knowlege of the scriptures is then expounded on and you then have a "Wow" experience. A new truth is revealed.

Well, this has happened to many gay christians. I have heard many testimonials of gay/lesbian individuals in the church who have struggled and prayed for years for deliverance from their homosexuality. I myself have went through years of christian counseling, ex-gay therapy, prayer, etc... attempting to find peace with God during my same sex struggles.

But then the Holy Spirit comes and speaks softly to the gay or lesbian struggling and tells him or her that he or she is fully accepted and to fight is not necessary. Many have found a miraculous freedom and have had a re-birth as a gay or lesbian christian. Is this a counterfeit? How can it be, when these GLBT people seek with their whole heart to find their place with God. The bible says "Seek and ye shall find." Many have sought with tears, praying, reading the scriptures, and then "BOOM!" God meets them and reveals that they are fine and loved as GLBT people.

When you are seeking God honestly, and this truth is revealed, how can you discount this? There is obviously something we, as christians, are missing from the scriptures.

We have denominations claiming that a "rapture" will take place and give scriptures to back this up. There is no such thing as a rapture that is spoke of in the bible. That is a new Western concept. The original church had no belief in such a thing. BUT the Holy Spirit has revealed this supposedly and now many in the evangelical/charasmatic denominations hold this as biblical truth. Many say that if you do not believe this, you are taking away from the scriptures and repentence is needed.

So, when evangelicals say we are in sin and there are no scriptures to back our GLBT persuations, I can find many other strong held beliefs within the evangelical setting, that have no ounce of scripture to back them up.

Before condenming christians start claiming that our lives are counterfeit, they need to check their own held beliefs and search the scriptures for their own conterfeit beliefs.

[keltic63]

one other thing comes to mind in Donny's demands for "proof" and that is the following example:

Cats are not mentioned in the Bible. They are mentioned once in the Deuterocanonical books, in Baruch 6. So for the Bible that most of us use, cats are not mentioned at all. Based on this information, or lack of it, does this mean that we should begin ridding the earth of cats? Cat haters would be so happy to hear this because they could use this bit of info to support their hatred of cats.

Donny claims (like many other christians) that the Bible does indeed speak of homosexuality. Yet, we know because of sound scholarship, reasoning, CONTEXT (not only of the words themselves, but of the culture and intended audience) and authentic translation, that there are only 5 or so places where same sex activity is mentioned, and none of it refers to women. Because Donny and his kind have already pre-judged, he sees the lack of information on loving gay and lesbian relationships, coupled with Jesus affirmation of straight relationships as being a condemnation of God's gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender children. The world is flat, despite what the NASA pictures from outer space show. (at least to me, that's what it sounds like when Donny posts something here. )

[Daniel]

But then the Holy Spirit comes and speaks softly to the gay or lesbian struggling and tells him or her that he or she is fully accepted and to fight is not necessary. Many have found a miraculous freedom and have had a re-birth as a gay or lesbian christian. Is this a counterfeit? How can it be, when these GLBT people seek with their whole heart to find their place with God. The bible says "Seek and ye shall find." Many have sought with tears, praying, reading the scriptures, and then "BOOM!" God meets them and reveals that they are fine and loved as GLBT people.

When you are seeking God honestly, and this truth is revealed, how can you discount this? There is obviously something we, as christians, are missing from the scriptures.

We have denominations claiming that a "rapture" will take place and give scriptures to back this up. There is no such thing as a rapture that is spoke of in the bible. That is a new Western concept. The original church had no belief in such a thing. BUT the Holy Spirit has revealed this supposedly and now many in the evangelical/charasmatic denominations hold this as biblical truth. Many say that if you do not believe this, you are taking away from the scriptures and repentence is needed.

So, when evangelicals say we are in sin and there are no scriptures to back our GLBT persuations, I can find many other strong held beliefs within the evangelical setting, that have no ounce of scripture to back them up.

Before condenming christians start claiming that our lives are counterfeit, they need to check their own held beliefs and search the scriptures for their own conterfeit beliefs.

You words make me remember my AG days. And how right you are. There are counterfeit beliefs aplenty! What good sense you make.

The theology of the Rapture has, theologically speaking, nothing to support it, and is, as you say, a Western concept. And if anything, I often sardonically note that those who believe this notion don't believe enough! If they did, they would stop buying health insurance, drive cars, would sell their houses, and repair to hill tops and wait for the arrival of Jesus. But do they do this? No. Instead they worry themselves with what other people do in the privacy of their homes and in their ignorance and self-imposed blindness forget the commandment to love. What do they love instead? Their own self-righteousness.

Many are the gay musicians who serve in these conservative churches- who stay silent, offering their gifts and their love- day in and day out. But for them to come out, they are suddenly persona non grata.

How terrible, and how selfish for the church to take the gifts of so many and yet deny the very selfhood of those who serve.

[matthewspeed]

How terrible, and how selfish for the church to take the gifts of so many and yet deny the very selfhood of those who serve.


I remember a "prophet" came to speak at this charasmatic church I was attending about 6 or 7 years ago. Our pastors son and his wife gave birth to a child that was born with a severe disorder. The child was near death, in the hospital. This "prophet" spoke to the congregation as he received a "prophecy" straight from the mouth of God. It was one of those "Thus say it the Lord" affirmations. He had said that the child would survive and God would raise him up and he would be a powerful witness of Jesus Christ in the world and that the national news would be reporting of his miraculous healing.

Well, what do you think happened?? The baby died. When anyone would attempt to question the validity of this so called "prophet" of God, the church leaders changed thier tune and said that God meant something else and the prophecy is to be interpreted differently. All kinds of rediculous justifications were explained.

From what I understand, a prophet that gets a direct quote from God, and if the prophecy does not come to pass, he/she is considered a false prophet. That is according to scripture. He was never repromanded in anyway. He is still considered a mouth piece from God to this day, as far as I know. His name happens to be Kim Clement.(not sure if any on this forum has heard of him) I say his name, because I believe in exposing false prophets. In the scriptures, false teachers and false prophets were to be exposed. I believe, in the old testament, a false prophet's life was taken.

Just an example of using Gods gifts to manipulate and control, not to mention, brainwash.

[tdogg]

You are all absolutely fascinating. If anyone challnges your charges, he/she is either a secret member at heart or a hateful bigot. You've failed to prove any support for homosexuality from the ONLY source and context you can "for Christians." You appeal to emotionalism or secularism. You have so many angles covered its like a tar pit trying to negotiate your traps. I'm satisfied that "The Church" can survive the GLBT challange to alter it. It will never happen. Now I see first hand what its all about. It's not about tolerance or acceptance, it's all GLBT about rule and authority. The rumors are true. Now I know why the need to shake off even the dust.

Wow, this is pretty rude Donny. However, I'm interested in addressing one thing in this post - I'm assuming you consider the "ONLY source and context you can 'for Christians'" as being the bible? So, you don't place any importance on prayer? On a personal relationship with God? On Jesus' teachings? Only on what you read in the particular translation of what is called the Bible? Can you confirm?

Then, if that is the case, isn't it in effect worshiping a bunch of pages of text created by humans? If that's the case, isn't that going against everything taught by Jesus? Seems so.

I hold the scriptures to be relevant, taken along with prayer and meditation to let God reveal to me what it would mean to me, in my life. Practical application is necessary or those mere words are meaningless.

God also reveals through visions and revelations. I know, I've had them. I've been told through them by God that my Christian ministry is to my GLBT family. To be an example of Jesus' love that is extended to all, not just straight white males attending A of G buildings every Sunday. That to me is worth more than any words sitting between leather covers and edged in gold. Direct connect is the very best of source and context.

OF course, I fully expect you to 1) ignore my post or 2) state that what was revealed to me cannot possibly be from God because I am gay and that means I cannot possibly be Christian. At least, according to the first book of Donny.