Before I start, I'd like to say thank you to Joshua Mack for the picture, as there wasn't an option to quote it and I don't want to forget. 4000 comments, wow! Thanks all.



I am very happy to respond to anything that is in the public forum and thank you for taking the time to do so. I am also happy to be corrected on points where I am in error. I am not a Christian and therefore my understanding is from the perspective of an outsider. However, I should present some credentials as to why I felt moved to comment in the first place.

Firstly, I am a spiritual person and I do believe in deities. My own belief system may differ from others, indeed it might be highly subjective in part or whole, but the fact remains that the faith is there. Where I feel that a deity is being misrepresented, I do feel that I should speak up. Secondly, my own position, within my Wiccan religion, has an inherent responsibility attached to it. I am a third degree High Priestess, which means that I am responsible for initiating others into the Wiccan path. This often involves meeting people who are very obviously Christians angry with their God, or else disillusioned with 'Churchianity'. I have sent more people back to Christ than I have initiated into Wicca. I guess that, after a while, it becomes second nature to defend faith in all its stripes and colour, than to merely single out one as worthy of my attention. Thirdly, I have family members and friends who are Christian. I didn't recognize that brand of Christianity as being anything akin to that which I see in their faith. Fourthly, I am acutely aware that there is a majority of young people on these forums. It is reasonable to assume that a percentage of them are having to acclimatise to the fact that they are homosexual. If they are also Christian, then I didn't think that they needed this extra pressure of being told that they are sinners and therefore destined for a particularly nasty brand of afterlife.

I wanted to declare my bias and perspective before we enter into further debate, so that we are all above board and clear.




I was poised to respond with what I found disturbing, but your use of 'they' and later the phrase 'certain people within the church' tells me that you are more interested in what the Christians at work found wrong. Could you please give me an example of where they twisted the words of the Bible to fit their own opinions and I will ask them to elaborate tomorrow? I cannot answer on their behalf.



I dared because if just one person, reading that blog, ended up in some kind of emotional trauma, as their circumstances were both Christian and homosexual, then I would have failed as a human being in not stating that I believed it to be unacceptable and wrong in its central premise. My definition of bigotry is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'a person who is prejudiced and intolerant of differing views'. I felt that MBarnes128 was not only intolerant of homosexuality, but also justified this as a tenet of Christianity. There were extremely strong intimations that practicing homosexuals, though loved by God, would nontheless suffer a terrible afterlife as a result of not denying their nature whilst on the Earth. That is the love of a deity? It is not the love of the Christian God as I understand it.



I concur that, as MBarnes128 has stepped out of this debate, the above is a moot point.

I also apologise if I did misrepresent that point. I had listed them primarily to ascertain that I had understood the points being made, so I am glad that that one was incorrect. Are we in agreement that that the Christian God made men and women in his own image, including homosexuals?



An opinion delivered at the end of a knuckle-duster can be quite persuasive. People do routinely follow fads, you only have to hang around the blog section of this forum for a few weeks to spot that one; but why do they do it? I believe that people actually yearn for tribes. They judge themselves by the approval of others, while delineating their boundaries with what has been disproved. The rebel might love to have a wolf avatar, while everyone else has a fox, but that again is simply identity carved out of the fashions of others. What the homosexual faces is a severe limitation of choices. They can't run with the 'gang' because their sexuality is inherently exclusive, until they find others, of course. If an individual was raised in a family of homosexuals, within a community of homosexuals, and educated at a school full of homosexuals, then of course an argument for 'trend' could be made, but most aren't. Most are raised with hetrosexual role models in the majority. How does that equate therefore for following the fashion? It could point to the rebel, but it's a dangerous route for some, if so. You are unlikely to get beaten up over a wolf avatar, but the likelihood increases for a homosexual out there on the streets.

I agree with you that some people will be derogatory about any difference that they uncover. It's an insecurity issue most of the time. If that was the worst that an emerging homosexual teenager had to deal with, then yes, fair enough, let them toughen up, but it can be must worse than that. I personally know a young man whose mother took a bat to his bedroom and smashed up every possession that he had. His dad and brother beat him up, before chucking him out into the street. He was sixteen years old. I know this for a fact, as he ended up at the house of my friend and his boyfriend, and I was the one to administer first aid.



I do not believe the Bible prophecies, but I respect the fact that you do. If you are right, then of course the world population explosion, and its consequences in terms of resources, does become a moot point. If you also believe that the Bible condeems homosexuality, then I can also see how my theorizing here is also undermined.

But what if I am right instead? The point returns to being valid.

I think that this is one where we will have to agree to disagree, until we knew for certain which of us is correct (ie Armaggedon does or does not occur).




I haven't repeated my words here, as it's very long. If anyone else reading would like to see the paragraphs that Mormril is responding to, then scroll up to the main blog entry. They begin, 'Presumably the major source here is Leviticus 18:22...' and end with, 'We are made of the same stuff and this includes homosexuals.'

Mormril, I covered a lot of ground there, would you mind if we took this on specifics? As far as I can see, I mostly used the Bible and my own intellect, apart from the bit where I looked up Moloch. I have to admit that I was unfamiliar with him and therefore could not adequately respond to his mention. Yes, I did use Google there, specifically I used Google to find Wikipedia.

If you were referring to the discussion of King James Stuart, then my credentials are the MA BA (Hons) after my real name; I have authored a published textbook and therefore could argue that I am a professional person in the field of historical research. My degrees are Master of Arts in History and Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in History and Philosophy. I covered the Stuarts.

I am quite happy to provide my sources and to discuss my methodologies. However, I could do with knowing which theory we are specifically referring. I would also be delighted to view the evidence which disproves said theory, so I can analyse it too.




I am looking forward to reading, upon your direction, the Biblical verses which referring to the casting of David and Jonathan into a torturous afterlife, following whichever earthly punishments may have been landed upon them by their God. As I said, I am not a Christian and therefore I must have missed that recounting.




As I am not a Christian, I can't really comment beyond what I've already said. The theology as I understand it does appear to me to be as you state it though. Perhaps we'll both be proved wrong.



I'm on safer ground here, as a Pagan. Loki's involved?



Thank you, Teacuptime. I can only say 'appeared', because my knowledge as stands doesn't stretch to learning about their punishment.



I'm sorry, I'm crying with laughter over the 'to be hi'. I hope you haven't copyrighted that, because it's so cute!

Sorry, I'll get back on track now. The baby thing - yes, you are quite perceptive in that war, famine, pestilence and death would not only affect them too, but in even greater numbers than the adults, due to their vunerability. My point though was that these four solutions are a bit nasty, wouldn't a God of love prefer a nicer solution? I hypothesised that creating more homosexuals would have a knock on effect of fewer children. It's not that homosexuals can't have children, as they are quite anatomically capable, but not with each other. Therefore the likelihood of them replacing themselves would be lesser.

You appear to be talking about practising homosexuality, rather than simply being so. As in acting upon your nature as opposed to quietly just knowing that you are. Yes, that is a choice. A cruel choice, but one nontheless. My argument is that there is no choice in being born homosexual and therefore being in the position where you have to make the choice between practising it or not.

Adam and Eve is a creation story, which, as I understand it, describes the birth of the human race. It has to be a fertile union then, or else the human race would never have happened. We'd have been in big trouble if either Adam or Eve had been homosexual and not prepared to grit their teeth and go against their nature for our sakes. *pauses to giggle again over the 'to be hi'* But it doesn't say in Genesis that this is the only permissible union. Adam and Eve were the only ones there and they were, by all accounts, hetrosexual. Presumably God didn't stop there, or else their children would have struggled to find their own partners. How do we know that God didn't create homosexuals in the next batch of humans?



You said it all so much more succinctly than I did.



It's all become a bit of a moot point, as MBarnes128 has now deleted her blog. I wrote the above in the belief that I was commenting in her blog. If there is anyone else who concurs with the remaining points, then I would be happy to go on.

I was basically going on to discuss Hel. There are two points here: the historical (how Hell ended up in the Christian belief system to start with); and the Pagan (it is actually a not so bad afterworld, once it's disaggregated from the slander). It would have been a bit of a tangent, but I reserve the right to also defend my own religion alongside everyone else's religions.

Back to the plot, I'd have finished with the fact that I've found no firm evidence that homosexuals are either going to be condemned to the nasty Hell of Christian lore or even the colder Helheim of Pagan lore. While it is MBarnes128's opinion that sinners will go there, and practising homosexuals are sinners, I wish to see some solid Biblical evidence of the fact, before she starts frightening members of Sal's forum with such threats.

Ultimately, it is down to each individual which way they are going to jump on this one, but hearing all sides of the argument is a plus, in my humble opinion.

This is from my work colleague, whom we'll call K:



Mormril and Legolas, I'll respond to your latest comments later on.

I was imagining Adam leaning up against a tree, in his sexiest pose, going,
'Oh hi...'

Eve being the attractive, young miss being said 'hi' to.



That's fair enough.

However, it has occurred to me that there are hundreds of different translations of the Bible. Which one are you using? I want to make sure that we are both looking at the same thing, when we are discussing the contents. For the record, I've been looking at the King James version.



I've read it. It's the bit where God takes the rib from Adam and creates Eve, who is then brought unto the man. I did have to read it a couple of times before I worked out the relevance here. Is it this verse? 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.'

My interpretation of this is that the 'one flesh' isn't Adam and Eve themselves. If a couple are cleaved together to produce 'one flesh', then I'm reading that as creating children. This is therefore instructions about on how to create children. But it doesn't say that all other cleaving is forbidden, if you know what I mean.



You were proving to me that all the ills of the world pretty much come down to human beings having been granted free will in the Garden of Eden. However, despite the mess that we get ourselves into, with all the wars etc, God is still there and still takes the time to intervene and save us. Is that a fair summary?

Thinking about to the context here (I was saying that the population of the world is too big and so increasing the number of homosexuals will help with that in the long term), are you arguing here that God doesn't need to come up with something like homosexuality to reduce the long-term stress on resources, because we humans are already doing a great job at reducing the population with wars etc?



Sorry, cariad fi, I do tend to waffle on.



Then why are we having this conversation?



Oh, bless you. {{{Mormril}}} Unfortunately, until we've bottomed this issue out, I can't.



I took it as read that David and Jonathan were gay, it was the lack of punishment from God that I was questioning. Ok, it appears that we should reverse a tad and focus on Samuels. That way we can at least start from the same place.

Important notes: Jonathan is the son of Saul; David is the son of Jesse.





All of '1 Samuel 20', though I will quote the verses that seem to me to suggest an extremely close relationship:








Ok, how are YOU reading it?

(Will continue later.)

Yes, I am. It is pretty much irrelevant here, except that it needs to be noted so that any suspected bias, in terms of religious perspective, on my part can be contextualised. For the record, my friend Cabochon once wrote a weekly discussion elsewhere on the subject of homosexuality in Wicca. That may be found here, though it's pretty off piste as regards our present topic.

Does the 'oh dear' stem from a lack of knowledge about my religion, or have you encountered someone dodgy amongst my fellow adherents? I'd be happy to discuss Wicca with you, should you need clarification on any matters. I am fully cognisant of the fact that some strands of Christianity discourage their practitioners from speaking to people from another religion; while others are happy for their flock to do so, as long as there's some kind of evangelism taking place; and yet others really don't care who their people talk to, as long as they are true to themselves and their own God.

I'm not sure which branch of Christianity you belong to, so I don't know which one applies. If it is a 'speak freely' one, and you do have any questions, then I'd be happy to answer them for you. There is one common fallacy, which I've heard often from Christians who have already approached me with concerns, regarding Satan/Lucifer/Morningstar/The Devil. In Wicca, he is considered to be a Christian God, not one of ours. Therefore, it may reassure you to know that Wiccans do not worship Satan any more than, say, a Christian worships Buddha or a Sikh worships Allah.



Thank you for clarifying that. I had believed that the dogma expressed was that all sinners went to Hell, so this was worth the correction.



So, by emulating Jesus, sinners can have a chance at Heaven; but by just saying you are Christian, without backing that up with actions, you are almost certainly commiting yourself to Hell. The epitaph 'sinner' meaning nothing because, in reality, we are all sinners. Just checking that I've understood it all correctly.



This is great news! I'm also following your train of thought here: homosexuals, as human beings and regardless of their sexuality, are sinners. As Jesus died for them too, then they have as much chance as everyone else for admission into Heaven, as long as they have faith and follow through with acting within their faith.

This appears to concur with what my colleague, K, also told me/us earlier:



So the mere fact of being homosexual isn't going to keep our Christians from Heaven, as long as they are acting within their faith too.



Thank you for sharing that with us. As someone who believes that homosexuality isn't a choice, I can only agree with you so far and hope that you will share any further conclusions that you reach upon pondering about this.



Thank you for the clarification there. I had been misreading MBarnes128 then, as I thought I was reading that it was a sin. This puts things right.



There is a distinction here that didn't appear to me to be present before. It is the distinction between being homosexual; and either thinking about it, or following through on that nature to engage in a relationship.

Gosh, it is complicated, isn't it?

Could the 'thinking about it' actually be a manifestation of the free will awarded either in the Garden of Eden? If homosexuals are born that way, then it's the moment of acting upon their nature that becomes the choice. In order to make a choice, they first have to consider the possibilities and recognize that a choice is there to be made.

Hold on, Jesus spoke of beginning 'in the heart', that's not thinking about it, that's feeling it. It's falling in love or else having a physical attraction; that's beyond merely thinking about it, but it's not yet an act. However, is it fair to apply a ruling made about adultery onto something else? I'm thinking that we can only really apply a ruling here if it does directly mention homosexuality, as I don't want to second-guess the Son of God here! (Being a mere mortal and all. )



I'm in agreement here.




So homosexual or not is irrelevant, as no-one has been in God's image since Adam. Oh! Right! LOL Thank you for clarifying that bit.



No problem, cariad, we can pick up after you've had your beauty sleep.

Ok, I can see that. I also have friends whom I would trust with my belongings and for whom I would do anything.

However, I'm looking here at precisely what Jonathan gave to David. Jonathan is a prince and a warrior, yet he's given up his garments, sword, bow and girdle.

The 'robe' is ambiguous. It may pertain to his armour, his robes of office or else it may point to Jonathan enjoying being naked, so not minding if David wears his clothes for a change. Let's try this another way... Legolas, you and I have been friends for a while. I'm now going to consolidate that friendship by taking all of my clothes off. *strips* Ta-daaa! I don't know about you, but I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable at the moment (not to mention cold).

When 'robe' is read within the context of the rest of the list though, it sounds more like armour or robes of office. The items that either keep him safe or else show off his high status. The list is telling us that he's given up his sword, bow and girdle. We are talking about the centuries just before Christ here, not Runescape, you can't just walk down the road and get another sword. These things are handed over during the rites of passage into manhood. They are then used in battles. After the battle, the sword is taken to the Smithy, so that all chips and dents can be repaired, then it's back into their sheath for the next round. These things are the symbols of his manhood and station in life; they are also the fundamental items of protection and defence, let alone aggression.

The girdle, in my mind, is also problematic. The trouble is that there are two or three meanings. Firstly, it is another word for undergarments. The lioncloth thingie that Christ was wearing as He was crucified is called a girdle. It kind of bound up men's... bits... to stop them flopping about, especially in battle. (This is where we get 'gird your loins' from, meaning 'ready for battle'. It's also how come the predecessor to women's tights/pantyhose was called a girdle.) Secondly, it was a belt, but held a status symbol. The length or colour of the girdle respresented various stations in life. Thirdly, it could be the sword-belt/sheath. Which of these was Jonathan handing over?

There could be an argument that Jonathan has simply clothed and armed David, but that isn't what it says. Jonathan has stripped himself of his own robe; and the rest of the items are all prefixed with 'his'. In what possible circumstances could David (raised as a shepherd and good with a lute) be the better person to hold the weaponry and robes than Jonathan (raised as a prince and a soldier), in a choice between them? If invaders arrived at this moment in time, they'd be in big trouble.

In my reading of that then, Jonathan has stripped himself naked and handed over the symbols of his manhood to David; all this taking place in the same sentence that tells us that they have just made a covenant with each other, in the name of their soul-felt love. Legolas, though I respect your interpretation of it, to me it feels a little more than just letting your best friend borrow your Gameboy.