By Winnifred Actie
WARNING!!!
You must be 18 years and older to read this review.
Sensitive issues are being discussedherein.
If you can easily be offended by negative remarks about your religion, we suggest that you do not read this review.
There are discussions in this review that
you mayfind offensive and that you may
notnecessarilyagreewith thecontents
thereof;they may cause you to beupset.
Thecontents may prove to be harmful to an
untrainedmind who is grounded in religion.
We sincerely apologize for any and all
inconveniences.
5th Edition
April 2012
PUBLISHER:Paradise Books/Paradise
Research Team
1272 Broadway
Brooklyn, New York 11221
Table Of Content
Introduction…….………………,.………….iv
Chapter 1: Homosexual nature
Unchangeable….… 6
No psychological
difference exist
between homosexual and
heterosexualmen.” Gays
and Bisexuals do not
need to repent of their
‘God- created’ nature.
Chapter 2: Who were the gay and
bisexual Men and women
of the Bible?...... 12
Was Adam, the first Man,
Bi-sexual?
The woman extracted
from the man.
Man created in the image
of the Creator.
Chapter 3: Cities of Sodom &
Gomorra…..……………….22
Chapter 4: Learn from the Ant. Some
ants and otherinsects are
bi-sexual……….……….....25
Chapter 5: In what manner should a
man have sexual inter
course? Laws governing
sexual intercourse...... 30
Chapter 6: What is strange flesh?...... 36
Chapter 7: Sexual prohibitions as
applied todifferentGroups
…………………………………………..41
Chapter 8: Seemingly valid arguments
against gays and lesbians.
Some Female ants
reproduce without males
……………………………………...49
Chapter 9: Gay & bisexual men and
women of the Bible.
…………………………….……. 53
Chapter 10: David and Jonathan were.
lovers………………………………..57
Chapter 11: Ruth loved Naomi as Adam
loved Eve……..……………….….67
Chapter 12: The Centurion and his
beloved servant in
Matthew 8……… ……..………76
Chapter 13: Daniel and Ashpenaz……….81
Chapter 14: The Ethiopian Eunuch……..84
Chapter 15: Discrimination in the
Rough…………………………….93
Chapter 16: Summary…………………..97
INTRODUCTUION
This is a literal review of some of the most misunderstood books of the Bible, dealing withgays and bisexuals.
The author does not attempt to imply any figurative meaning; the passages quoted are dealt with literally, as seen in the eyes of a layperson.
This review contains some seemingly hidden biblical facts about gays and bisexuals men and women of the Bible, a subject we have shun time and time again.
In the wake of current events concerning homosexuality and bi-sexuality, controversial laws are being enacted to facilitate same-sex marriages, the latest being that of New York state in July of 2011.
The author believes this review to be timely, to coincide with current events.
The author takes a biblical stand in support of the gay/bi-sexual rights movement because most people whospeak against the movement use the Bible as one of their main lines of offense.
Preachers all over will be surprisedto read from their very own Bible, for the very first time, the undeniable scriptural facts in the matter of the gay/bi-sexual issue.
Those ‘big shot’ preachers who quickly jump and yell from their pulpits damning gays and bisexuals for their behaviors, claiming that the Bible condemns gays and bisexuals, will be shocked toknow that their jumping and yelling are all in vain.
The Bible offers support to the contrary to all the damnations coming from the pulpit against gays and bisexuals.
CHAPTER ONE
Homosexual Nature Is Unchangeable.
The concept of a homosexual and bisexual nature first appeared in print in Europe in 1869 and in the United States in 1889.
Because of heterosexual revulsion to same-gender sex, general acceptance of the concept has spread slowly. Freud, in the early twentieth century accepted homosexuality and bisexuality as natural and considered them unchangeable.The American Psychiatric Association (APA) officially recognized that it was natural, not a mental illness, in 1973.
The American Psychological Association followed with similar action two years later.
UCLA psychologist Evelyn Hooker conducted the “… very first investigation into whether or not homosexuality was an illness. She examined a population of ‘normal’ gay men—men who were not residents of mental hospitals, prisoners, or distressed patients in therapy [common subjects of study at that time], but ordinary people living ordinary, if closeted, lives. …
In 1956 Hooker presented her findings to the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association: that no psychological differences existed between homosexual and heterosexual men.”
Sexual orientation is part of everyone's nature. It cannot be changed.It is not a choice.Homosexuality is not an act; it is a nature.
By “nature” I mean that which is unchangeable about the way each of us has been created. By nature I am male –black – white or brown -skinned right-handed and heterosexual. One's sexual orientation, gay or straight, is part of a person’s nature, and it cannot be changed. Psychologists and psychiatrists have read and accepted this statement as a fact.
Down through history same-gender sex has been condemned by heterosexual people who will readily admit that man was created in the image and likeness of the Creator. Gen 1:27.
Advances in the human sciences the pastcentury have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some peopleare homosexual, a nature that is unchangeable.The homosexual person has no choice in the matter; It issexual-orientation by nature; It cannot be changed; It is not a choice.
Scientists do not know what causes homosexuality, just as they do not know what causes heterosexuality, but they are convinced that whatever the cause, the orientation is unchangeable. Homosexual people are homosexual by nature; it is never a choice for them.
It is unfortunate that heterosexual people often focus on sex when they think about homosexuals, but “to do sois to miss the point of the larger context of therelation-ship.
It is to dehumanize and depersonalize gays and lesbians, caricaturing them only in terms of their sexual activities rather than seeing them as whole persons with lives that include more than sex.”
The nature of the gay man or lesbian woman is just as normal as the nature of a heterosexual person and should not be thought of in sexual terms.
A gay man can fall in love only with another male; a lesbian woman can fall in love only with another female. What made me, a heterosexual man, fall in love with a woman? I can’t say; it is some intrinsic characteristic of mine. In homosexual people this characteristic works differently for some yet unknown reason, and the falling-in-love process is directed toward the same gender. But it is a true falling in love. A partnership isn’t a sexual thing for them any more than a marriage is for a heterosexual couple.While some homosexual persons are sexually lustful and promiscuous, the percentage is surely not greater than that ofheterosexual people who are such. The pornographic industry, estimated at up to one hundred billion dollars a year in America, is funded by heterosexual lust. That industry annually puts two thousand teenage girls into prostitution in the city of Dallas alone and imports up to 200,000 into the U.S.
Every fifteen minutes in America a heterosexual man rapes a woman (cases reported); homosexual men don’t rape women or kidnap young girls. If we think of a heterosexual man or woman and do not immediately think of sex, then when we think of a homosexual man or woman, we should not immediately think of sex. They are people like us with the same needs and concerns, problems and failures and successes and sorrows and joys that we have (plus lots of problems that we do not have).
A good analogy for our thinking about lesbians and gays is in the way the first Jewish Christians related to the Gentiles. Jews considered Gentiles as unclean, polluted, idolatrous, and sinful—the same revulsion many church people feel for homosexual people. Before Gentiles could be accepted as Christians, many Christian Jews thought they must first repent of being Gentiles, become Jews and obey Jewish laws such asSabbath-keeping and kosher food; then they could become Christians.
Today, unfortunately, gays and the lesbians are often asked to repent of being homosexual and lesbian before being accepted. Like the Gentiles, they do not need to repent oftheir ‘God’-created nature; they just need to be accepted the same way everyone else is.
If all are created in the image of the Creator, as the Bible tells us (Gen. 1:27), that includes all homosexual and bisexual persons. Who can fathom the ramifications of being created in the image of the Creator! What we can know is that,like everything else created by the Creator, it is great, extremely great. We have to believe that homosexuality and bisexuality are just as great as is heterosexuality.
One Gay man said, “The Creator finally showed me, that there was no need to answer that prayer I had prayed so many times to ‘make me not gay anymore.’ The Creator showed me he can't fix something that doesn't need to be fixed.”
The Bible, as we know it, is the sourceandfoundation of all religious teachings, both that of denominational organizations and universalfaithgroups.
Often times, an unsuspected mind, who does not
think logically, have to twist verses in the Bibleto
get to a desired point of understanding.
In most cases the answer to a question can be
founddisguised in the very same verse which
he/sheisreading.
Quite a few people, to include learned bible scholars,havestumbled on thequestion of whether or not the Bible sanctions homosexuality and bi-sexuality.
The answer to this question is YES.The Bible doessupport same gender relationships.
CHAPTER TWO
Who were the gay and bi-sexual Men
and women of the Bible?
Let’s take a closer look at certain characters in the Bible.
1)Adam…..Was he bi-sexual?.....yes, according to the Bible he was.
2)David and Jonathan 1 Samuel 18.
3)Ruth and Naomi. Ruth 1.
4)Daniel and Ashpenaz in Daniel 1.
5) The Centurion and his beloved servant inMatthew 8.
The Ethiopian Eunuch.
Read for yourself from the pages of your Bible.
Was Adam, the first Man, bi-sexual?....yes, according to the Bible he was.
Open your bible to Genesis 2 verse 7, Genesis chapter 2 verses 21 to 23, and Genesis Chapter 1 verse 27.
We sometimes find when we look at the Bible stories that people think they know what they say, but when we look more closely we sometimes find that the text is ambivalent.
In order for the reader to come to a logical under-standing of the Bible on this subject, the Bible has to be read as is; one should not attempt to add to or take away from what the Bible says.
No one has been authorized or ordained to
tell anyone what the Bible does and doesnot say. Let’s read and understandfor ourselves.
If taken literally the Bible is a very easy to understandbook.
We start to run into trouble with the Bible when we begin to assign figurative meanings to what itsays.
Here is the answer to a seemingly complex question: Does the Bible support homosexuality and bi-sexuality?
The answer to this question is found in the pages of the Bible, any version of the book will do. Genesis 2 :7
7) And the Creator formed man of the DUST of the ground, and breathedinto his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.
Gen. 1: 27
27) So the Creator created man in his ownImage. In the image of the Creator hecreated the man.Then he created extracted the woman from the man.
Now turn to Genesis chapter 2 verses 21 to 23.
21) And the Creator caused a deep sleep tofall on the man, and he slept. AndHe took flesh and bone from theman’sside and closed up the flesh inits place.
22) Then the flesh and bone which the Creator had taken from the man He made into a woman; and he brought her to the man.
23) And the man said; this is now bonefrom my bones and flesh from myflesh; she shall be called woman,because shewas taken out of man.
Reading from the verses above, is it safe tosay that the woman was literallyand biologically taken from the man?
Yes indeed, by all indications, the woman wastaken from the man.
Now we are posed with the question: Why didn’t the Creator form the woman from the dust of the ground as was in the case of the man?
Out of the ground the Creator formed every beastof the field and every bird of the air to include man (the human malespecies).
Gen. 2: 19.
19) Out of the ground the Creator formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, andbrought them to Adam to see what he would name them. And whatever Adam named each living creature , that was its name.
Are we to question the Creator?The Creator chose to extract the womanfromthe man. Why? Was it to prove that the woman once resided inside of the man?
Since the Creator did not breathe into the woman’s nostrils, as was in the caseof the man, to make her a living being, it is safe to say that the woman was already a living being living inside of the man.
No one, apart from the Creator,knows how longthis went on; one guess is just as valid as others;but we know from reading the literal words of the Bible that at one point in time, Adam, the first man, was both male and female while Eve was living inside of him, before the extraction, and therefore had both masculine and feminine desires emanating from his mind and body.
Sincethe Creator did not breathe into thewoman’s nostrils to make her a living being, (at least there is no proof or claim of this from the Bible),thisindicates that the woman was already alive in the body and mind of the man.
If the woman wasliving inside oftheman, she would havehadfemininedesirescoming from her mind from inside the body of the man. And if shehad tofulfillthosedesires, she would have had to use his, Adam’s, body in order to do so.
If we are curious enough and want to find out with whom Eve would want to have a sexual relationship while living inside of Adam,perhaps we should ask the same question of Cain who went to the land of Nod, after he killed his brother, the fourth person on Earth then, where he met his wife.Who were the forefathers and descendants of his wife? Werethere other people on Earth at that time besides Adam, Eve and Cain? Umm!
All we know according to the Bible is that the Creatortook the woman from theman, without breathing the breath of life into her nostrils, and she became a separate living being.
It appeared that the woman did not needthe breath of life because she was already alive, livinginside the body of the man; living beings have desires; their needs haveto be met.
It may have been much easierto have formed the woman from the dust of the ground, as the Creator did in the case of every other beast in the field to include man(the male species), that would surely have given some form of equalityamong the male and female gender. But the Creator in His infinite wisdom chose not to form the woman from the dust of the ground. Hepreferred to extract her from the man.
Is it safe to conclude that atonepoint intimethe man & the woman(dyad)was oneperson both physically and mentally?
Let’s read verse 6 from chapter 3 of Genesis to prove this point.
6) So when the woman SAW that thetree was desirable for food that was pleasantto the EYES,and a treedesirable to makeone wise,(We should not substitute the word fruit to mean knowledge – remember we are not to apply figurative meanings to the Bible)she took of its fruitand ate, and she also gaveto herhusband with her, and he ate.
We can see that mentally,Eve,the otherpart of Adam, was in complete control of the body and mindat that time; she asked Adam to eat and he ate. He did not once hesitate. He did exactly what was asked of him without question. (A henpeck husband you say?) Or, weretheystill connected mentally and she was in full control of the body and mind at that instant? Without addition or deletion, a layperson would correctly think so.
Verse 7 of Genesis chapter 3 says:
7) Thenthe eyes of both of them Wereopened……..
This verse seems toimplythat their eyes were opened after they allegedly sinned or ate afruit. This was not the case at all.
Their eyes were opened long before (at least her, Eve’s, eyes had been opened prior to that time) because verse 6 of the same chapter says:
6) so when the woman SAW thatthe treewas desirable for food that was pleasant to theEYES…………..
One cannot see anything, good or bad, unless his/her eyes are opened.
In order for Eve to have seen the tree to eat of its fruit,shemust have physically seen the fruit before she took of it. (We do not want to apply any figurative meaning to the fruit – some say the fruit symbolizes knowledge. The Bible does not say this – remember we are thinking literally).