|The creation of the great sea monsters|
In the first story of creation in Genesis 1, we can see the usage of the verb "to create" (bārā') in two critical and important points in the story- the creation of heaven (this is a general title for the creation of the world) and earth and the creation of man (see Genesis 1:1, 1:27).
However, those two occurrences are not the only ones. In genesis 1:21, on the fifth day of creation, we can see another usage of the same verb, as written:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים;"
וְאֵת כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת אֲשֶׁר
שָׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם לְמִינֵהֶם,
וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף כָּנָף לְמִינֵהוּ,
" וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב
"And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good".
The question that should arise is why the author of this chapter decided to use this verb in connection to the creation of the great sea monsters? Other questions are: who were those creators and why is it important to tell us that they were great?
However, other verses from the bible show us a different picture. If you want to understand the creation of the great sea monsters, you must pay attention to those verses.
"The Taninim" appear in The Bible in two contexts: the Egyptian one,
which is mostly related to the exile from Egypt, when Moses' staff becomes a "Tanin" (see Exodus 7:9-12, here the meaning of the "Tanin" is a serpent), or the imagery of king pharaoh as one (see Ezeikiel 29:3- this is his nickname here).
The second context is important for our discussion today.
"הֲיָם-אָנִי, אִם-תַּנִּין: כִּי-תָשִׂים עָלַי מִשְׁמָר."
"Am I a sea, or a sea-monster, that Thou settest a watch over me? (Job 7:12)
If you look in the book of psalms, you'll find the answer. The verses from this book that speak about "Tanin" create a picture of the war, or great battle between The Almighty and the great sea monsters, as we can see in Psalm 74:13-
"אַתָּה פוֹרַרְתָּ בְעָזְּךָ יָם; שִׁבַּרְתָּ רָאשֵׁי תַנִּינִים, עַל-הַמָּיִם"
"Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength; Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters"
Apparently, God needs to watch over the sea and the sea monsters, because he had a battle with them in the past. The question is when and where did it take place?
Furthermore, in Psalm 91:13 there is a reference to "The Tanin" and we can once more see that God is battling with it and other creators.
In order to solve this mysterious riddle, we should pat attention to two more occurrences of "The Taninim" in the book of Isaiah.
עוּרִי עוּרִי לִבְשִׁי-עֹז, זְרוֹעַ יְהוָה--עוּרִי כִּימֵי קֶדֶם, דֹּרוֹת עוֹלָמִים"
" הֲלוֹא אַתְּ-הִיא הַמַּחְצֶבֶת רַהַב, מְחוֹלֶלֶת תַּנִּין
"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the days of old, the generations of ancient times. Art thou not it that hewed Rahab in pieces that pierced the dragon?
This verse reveals to us a great war in the old ages, between two sides: The arm of God, and sea monsters, Rahab and Tanin. Another thing that we can say is that God won this war and that one of the meanings of Tanin could be a dragon.
This war, my friends, could only have taken place during the creation of the world. There was a war between God and the sea and its monsters, which the author of the first chapter didn't want us to know about. This is the reason that he chose to use the same root and verb in the creation of man, the world and the sea monsters. From his point of view, there was no war. God is the only one that creates. No gods or sea monsters can battle him.
What about the future?
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִפְקֹד יְהוָה בְּחַרְבּוֹ הַקָּשָׁה וְהַגְּדוֹלָה וְהַחֲזָקָה"
עַל לִוְיָתָן נָחָשׁ בָּרִחַ, וְעַל לִוְיָתָן, נָחָשׁ עֲקַלָּתוֹן;
" וְהָרַג אֶת-הַתַּנִּין, אֲשֶׁר בַּיָּם
"On that day, the LORD with His great and strong sword will punish leviathan the slant serpent, and leviathan the tortuous serpent; and He will slay the dragon who is in the sea".
This is the reason why "The Tanin" should praise The Lord (see Psalm 148:7); this is the reason why the enormous kings of this area are being compared to "The Tanin" (see Isaiah 51:34, Ezekiel 32:2). The picture is clearer now: the great sea monsters were great, but they couldn't fight with The Lord or with the pen of the author of Genesis 1!
I wish us all "no more wars", as "Anwar El Sadat" proclaimed.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sep 15, 10
It is interesting to read the lively discussion on the morality of homosexuality between Rev O Young and Steve Oh. However, I believe addressing the worldview that which shapes the individual would readily address some of the conflicts both of these writers express.
Does the Bible condone homosexuality?
We might had thought that this question is a binary answer: right or wrong. However, some would further discriminate as to what homosexuality entails. Some Christians believe that being attracted to the same sex is fine, but to have sex, would be crossing the line. The former is not well spelt out in the Bible and therefore, I would argue, would be a grey area, for we know that there are different levels of affection, and that would had made things more complicated.
I think O Young takes the position that to engage in homosexual sex (consented) is biblically correct, while Oh says that the Bible does not condone same sex affection, what more homosexual sex. In this case, both have summoned the authority of the Bible to discover the truth, if homosexuality is a subset of righteousness.
O Young in his first letter, made several arguments, taking excerpts of Church history and Bible interpretations. The examples put forth were examples of paradigm conflict, as described by Thomas S Kuhn.
Firstly, he took the example of slaves, where the Bible does mention that the Jewish nation was allowed to practice 'slavery'. Unfortunately, the idea of slavery then was very different from ours, in that our worldview of slaves is aptly expressed in the movie 'Amazing Grace' – 'this mark shows that we don't belong to God, but to men'.
In other words, there was no legislation or human rights accorded to them. Slavery in ancient Israelite civilization was more of a servant-master relation. In fact, whole families became 'slaves' when they could not make a living in their own estates though they would be liberated in the year of Jubilee. But even so, they could choose to remain as 'slaves'.
O Young, therefore, makes a parallel argument that Bible 'scholars' then, erred in their interpretation, seeing that the Bible condoned slavery. And likewise Bible scholars today erred in their interpretation that the Bible does not condone homosexuality. However, he had used the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which had both elements of homosexuality as well as hostile hospitality to support his case. Does he not realize that his conclusion that God punished the two nations because of the latter could be confounded by the former?
He should, indeed, refer to the Scriptures where homosexuality was singled out as not pleasing to God, which many 'conservative' Christians believe is the case. But unfortunately, he believes that judgment is confounded by gay-rape and the temple prostitution culture, which has no mention in the Bible, but only in historical records.
Another extraordinary example used was the case of Galileo. Unfortunately, this example is not parallel to his argument. The Church, in Galileo's time, believed that the Bible was the answer to all questions in life, including scientific ones. They used the Bible to assert that the scientific 'truth' was that the earth was right smack in the center of everything and all revolved around it.
Galileo, however, took observations and realized that it is to the contrary. This example expresses the boundary of the virtue of science and Biblical truth - not whether the Bible was interpreted erroneously.
To set the record straight, I do not see how the Bible condones homosexuality. Rather, it is well spelt out that it is morally wrong, and man should not engage in such acts, on par with such acts as premarital sex, stealing, murder, covetousness. Yes, men engage in these acts and that is why the same book dictates that men are sinners and Christ has accepted them.
For Christians to reject homosexual men, would make a church empty but for Christians to accept homosexual acts would make a church heretic.
After all, if homosexuality is right and natural, then intelligent design proponents will have to retreat as the designer is not that intelligent after all as it does not promote the production of offspring. And no, priesthood is a special position that which God has anointed in the Church, not something trivial that everyone can so choose.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Sep 13, 10
Society's ignorance of homosexuality or gay people is not limited to ordinary citizens as and writers as
How could we, gay people, impose our lifestyle on anyone? We never seek to convert or recruit anyone. Homosexuality, is just like heterosexuality, it is a sexual orientation, we do not choose to be gay or straight, and we cannot change. Disturbingly, a lot of people, either based on ideological or religious zeal, condemn gay people and coerce us to change, or encourage us to lie about who we are, or deny our rights to live our lives authentically like every heterosexual. They are the ones who impose heterosexuality on us, not vice versa.
I believe homophobia, perhaps, is the last acceptable prejudice. Otherwise how could our effort to urge people to not discriminate against gay people be interpreted as imposing a gay lifestyle on others? Can you imagine anyone who urges people not to discriminate against women, or Chinese and Indians in Malaysia in our case, be understood and opposed as 'imposing' a certain lifestyle on others?
Oh asks 'Gays only talk of gay rights but what about non-gay rights to not accept gay agendas?' Because homophobia is an acceptable prejudice, I can imagine his question sounds reasonable to many people. But, can you imagine some people asking 'you guys only talk about minority rights but what about our rights not to accept your agenda and continue to be sexists or racists?'
I do not agree and believe that since we gay people (or LGBT) may disagree with some churches, or most churches in Malaysia, including the Catholic Church, that we have to create our own religion. The Church or most churches in the past refused to ordain women pastors, so women or those non-sexist men should have left the church and created a new religion? What about Christians that disagreed with most churches and the Catholic Church that supported slavery and were against the abolition of slavery vehemently in the past? Should they have had to create a new religion too?
To argue that anyone who disagrees with what the Church believes or what most churches teach, needs to leave and create a new religion is being ignorant of the history of Christianity and they wrongly believe that Christianity or Christian churches never change.
Oh is trying very hard to argue against homosexuality by not appealing to his religious beliefs in the article. His effort is applauded but his arguments are nonetheless speciously convincing. For instance, I can't agree more with him that Aids is harmful, but so are all sexually transmitted diseases. Do we condemn heterosexuality because most STD patients are heterosexuals?
He asks 'What will happen to the human race when everyone is gay or lesbian? Where will children come from?' Does he condemn the Catholic priesthood and ask 'What will happen to the human race if everyone is a priest? Where will children come from?'
We merely ask society to not discriminate against gay people, just like feminists and good men have urged the society to respect women. How could this have been twisted into making everyone a woman, or everyone gay in this case?
He asks 'If homosexuality is harmless why are the major religions like Christianity and Islam against it?' I am not an Islamic scholar, so I shall not pretend to be one or seek to answer this question on behalf of my Muslim brothers and sisters. As a Christian, I just want to point out that not every Christian church is against homosexuality, even though perhaps it is true in the context of Malaysia that most Christian churches are against homosexuality.
Thus it is wrong to say that Christianity is against homosexuality. There are a lot of Christian fundamentalists and churches in the US that deem the Islamic religion as an evil religion, but do not think Oh would agree with them and say that Christianity sees Islam as an evil religion.
Talking about the decay of traditional family values, I do not know which tradition he is talking about. Because according to many traditions, marriage was never about love, and marriage was not about an union between a man and a woman, but a man and as many women as he could afford. So, which traditional value is he upholding? Are all traditional family values good?
I am not surprised a lot of people still compare homosexuality to bestiality and paedophilia. It is simply outrageous, because they have no correlation to each other in any way. However, interestingly enough, many Americans in the past had said interracial marriage led to bestiality, and now some people use the same argument against gay marriage. Perhaps we could learn something from history.
I am appalled when I read what Oh wrote: 'No one is going to convince me that homo-sodomy is okay when science tells you that the anus is not meant for sex.' Has he forgotten that he just said in the same article that 'No one cares what couples do in their bedrooms but they have to bring it up in the public and demand acceptance.'
First, if you don't care, why bring it up later? Second, who are 'they' that bring it up in public what they do in their bedrooms? Third, who are those scientists that tell you the anus is not meant for sex and anal sex is morally wrong or clinically wrong? Fourth, there are straight couples who love anal sex, do you condemn heterosexuality because of what they do in their bedrooms or elsewhere? There are many gay couples, especially lesbians that do not have anal sex, are you ready to say without having anal sex, homosexuality is okay?
Regarding the arguments of gender roles and manhood, this is too trivial for me to refute. I better stop here lest I insult the intelligence of the readers.
However, Oh, as much as I disagree with him on other issues mentioned above, is at least right on this: 'The body of evidence worldwide provides proves the militant gay agenda has split communities and societies more than any other civic group in recent times.'
But, my question is, who should be blamed? Some societies and most churches were divided on the issue of slavery; in Malaysia, people are divided by the emergence of Pakatan Rakyat. So whose fault is it when society is divided?
Last but not least, I will never impose my religious beliefs or my interpretations of the Bible on anyone. As a Christian pastor, I merely share the most recent and not-so-recent scholarships in biblical studies with my Christian siblings and argue for homosexuality. I have never urged the government to close down any church that believes homosexuality is a sin or that people who believe so should be criminalised. So who is imposing his or her religious beliefs on whom?Henry Hock Guan Teh A health conscience daughter pestered her drug addict mom to only eat vegetables and give up heroin. Her mom scolded her "I did not impose my lifestyle on you and you don't impose your lifestyle on me". The daughter said, "I am just encouraging you to eat vegetables". Grandson came in and requested her mom whether he can take heroin and be like his grandma. The addict grandma interrupted, "Now, don't you impose your view on your son ...... he is always welcome to join me". Hmmmm .... I always wonder to what extent a sharing of thought or a discouragement or a role model from a pastor could be calculated as an "imposition"? When a person say "You cannot impose your view on others, isn't it that person is also imposing his view i.e. the view that "You cannot impose your view on others"? Likewise, when that addict grandma do not impose her view but setting a bad example and say it is OK ... isn't it indirectly encouraging such habits and therefore she should be severely admonished?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Sep 7, 10
I refer to the Malaysiakini report It's not a gay church, explains pastor. The idea is preposterous no matter how hard Ouyang Wen Feng tries to convince us. But there will always be people who will follow anything because it suits them.
They will explain away the traditional and correct interpretations of certain scriptures that condemn homo-sodomizers and the sad bit is they can be convincing to the unwary who do not study the entire teachings of the Christian faith or receive the proper guidance from sound teachers of the faith.
But religion is not about twisting a teaching to suit ourselves. There is a word for this sort of thing. It is called heresy and every religion suffers from it. You either accept a religion's teachings or you don't. This is what we expect of an honest believer.
If you want to change part of a religion's cardinal teachings, the honest thing to do is to invent your own as many people have done over the ages. Expecting Christians to accept something as seriously heretical as the gay agenda is like saying a Hindu should eat beef, a Muslim not fast and pray and a Buddhist believe in God.
Christianity has been assaulted by all kinds of heresies since its inception. Some are not even Christian and call themselves churches. Some even hide their real teachings behind traditional Christianity to gain respectability.
That is why all the epistles were written to help the early believers understand the doctrines of their faith and protect the churches from heresies, and heretics, and there were some strong words reserved for them. You can't claim misinterpretation when the entire Bible clarifies its stand against homosexuality in different places, not just one passage of the Bible.
No doubt the gays will give their interpretation but other parts of the Bible will expose the fallacy of their arguments. There are too many instances where homosexuality is condemned.
Christians are 'sinners' from all walks of life and backgrounds who approach God in humility and feel remorse for their sins and repent from sinful lifestyles. They believe the Gospel that Jesus Christ died for all their sins at Calvary and that they can be 'born again' by accepting and receiving Jesus into their hearts and then living their lives in obedience to his teachings which are recorded in the Gospels and the teachings of the epistles and doing good works.
That is why included in the list I referenced above are homosexual offenders, together with adulterers, thieves, robbers, murderers, fornicators etc. Many homosexual offenders, not just the temple prostitutes, were delivered from their besetting sin.
In Rome as in Sodom, gay orgies were a common feature of the social life of the decadent Romans, and that is why for 300 years Christianity was persecuted, because it offended the Emperor-worshipping and orgy-loving Romans.
There were people who thought they could have a bit of Jesus and then add or subtract and turn Christianity into a 'do-it-yourself' faith. It resulted in heresy and often sin. If religion is something that I can pick and choose like my favourite food at a buffet meal then it is meaningless. I might as well make my own. Ouyang's group will achieve credibility if they desist from claiming to be Christians because the Bible exhorts Christians from fellow-shipping with those who claim to be Christians but among other things 'sexually immoral.'
As much as Ouyang's arguments may reflect his good intentions, I find many of his reported comments too outlandish and self-contradictory, to ignore. In particular I quote, 'The reverend notes that apart from citing religious beliefs, no one can articulate 'what is wrong with homosexuality, or what harm it does to individuals or the society.' Perhaps Ouyang should start listening for a change.
The body of evidence worldwide provides proof the militant gay agenda has split communities and societies more than any other civic group in recent times. If dividing society is not harmful then I have nothing to say. And if being the conduit of the initial Aids scourge is not harmful, then what is?
In the West they call it 'gay-bashing'. Many males resort to violence against gays because they feel that gays demean and have a negative impact on their manhood. I don't condone this criminal act, but it reflects the harm many males experience and react negatively.
Gay couples also confuse gender roles. There may be feminists and gays but there are also many more who think that traditional gender roles are being harmed by the gay agenda, as some women think feminists do more harm to women than good. Why should the liberal values of the fringe groups that encroach on mainstream society be accepted as the norm just because they have a louder voice in the popular media?
It is something I hope gays understand. Male relationships have been negatively affected by the gay culture and it is not nice to be thought of as gay because men get along well with other men.
Gays only talk of gay rights but what about non-gay rights to not accept gay agendas? After all, it is gays who are imposing their lifestyle on others because no one cares what couples do in their bedrooms but they have to bring it up in the public and demand acceptance.
Why should gays broadcast their sexual preference? If they are worried about their property and other rights why don't they make private contracts between themselves instead of changing societies traditional laws and values to accommodate them?
The mere act of accepting gay rights is a defacto denial of our traditional rights. And that is why gays and Christianity are incompatible in the sense of an active gay sexual lifestyle. Religion aside, though it provides the strongest defence against all forms of moral decay in society, what will happen to the human race when everyone is gay or lesbian? Where will children come from?
If homosexuality is harmless why are the major religions like Christianity and Islam against it? Why did God destroy Sodom? Or have the gays seriously considered that God is deadly serious against this sin? And they may be deluded since this is a common warning in the Bible?
Every great civilization nearing its decline sees the rise of social and moral decay and we catch glimpses of that in the West today. Not only have they lost touch with the family they have ditched traditional family values. Western children call their fathers by name and show utter disrespect for their parents and the elderly. They have forgotten the meaning of roles. And liberal governments encourage the young to split the family. It wasn't always like that.
Many traditional values are under siege in the West and many Westerners themselves are extremely concerned and upset. And today the agenda is same sex marriage. And next? I dread to think. Do Malaysians want to ape the West in their decadent ways? The gay church is not only a religious perversion of Christianity but a serious threat to moral society and the survival of modern civilisation.
That so many famous or infamous people are gays is beside the point. Once all of Germany's and Japan's 'who is who' were for a hideous agenda of world domination. Did that make it right?
If gays are serious about justice they should stop and consider if they themselves have been just to their societies that they are trying to re-invent. Have they considered that some males do not like being treated as sex objects by other males? Do they consider that their militant ways are dividing their communities?
And using the 'you are homophobic' if you dislike gays is a cop out. It is a blanket slander of genuine dislike of the gay lifestyle which many males find simply repugnant. Or do they not have the right to dislike something that they find abhorrent like someone having sex with an animal?
No one is going to convince me that homo-sodomy is okay when science tells you the anus is not meant for sex. There are humans who find pleasure in having sex with animals and objects and young children so should we also accommodate them?
Who we have sex with is a choice. Because we have an urge does not mean we need to satisfy it. Otherwise we would be having sex like animals. And don't tell me some animals have same-sex sex because who wants to imitate animals? The truth is animals know better what homosexuals don't. Some homosexuals proselytize and initiate confused youths into a lifestyle that has seen young gays having a high incidence of suicides which they again falsely blame on society. Society hates thieves and robbers and toll collectors but do they have a high suicide rate?
Religion has served societies well with upright laws and values. And throughout history there will be people to test their limits, and when they succeed often follows the slide down the slippery slope, unless it is something that benefits all of society. Not all who are against the homosexual lobby are religious people as I have illustrated with the gay-bashers.
In the 70's there was a group called the Children of God who used their female members to become 'holy hookers' for God. These females believed that love is sharing and that includes their bodies. It was the result of false teaching but try to convince them.
Often those who are unwary are the unwitting victims and I have no doubt there are genuine gays who seek spiritual comfort but being told you can be gay and Christian is like telling an alcoholic you can be a member of Alcoholics Anonymous and still keep drinking your favourite alcoholic beverage. Sadly you can't be that insanely contradictory.
In case people who don't know me start labelling me let me clarify that I have studied the gay issue and spoken to gays long before the advent of the militant gay agenda. It would be simplistic to draw a one size fits all conclusion or solution to a complex problem and it would be equally simplistic to think that once gay always gay or that one is born that way.
Ironically gays like Ouyang have found the Holy Grail in Christianity but sadly have used it to draw the life-giving liquid not from the true 'spring of living water' but a poisoned well and as Islamic cleric, Harusanni Zakaria rightly said, 'will destroy the world' and sadly, themselves in the process. As the Bible says 'there is a way that seems right but leads only in death.'RespectDiversity Everyone deserve the right to interpret their religion in their personal capacity. No one should impose their personal analysis of Christian scriptures to the dismay of others. Whether a selected view is mainstream or not, no one can dictate that their interpretation of god is the right one and lambaste others as heretics. All in all, there must be a live and let live policy as humans. This is explained in the variety of Christian sects around the world.
Steve Oh Dr Suresh Kumar, so what is your point? Who is denying gays their fundamental rights? Surely an intelligent doctor like you if you are one can differentiate between right and wrong. When gays distort Christianity, Christians have the right to rebut them. If you read my letter properly I said the gay problem is complex. There are different types of gays. Hormonal imbalance occurs also in heterosexuals. The problem is not about whether gays have the right to exist - it is they have distorted Christianity and don't expect Christians to sit down and embrace them for destroying the truth in a false concept of compassion and love. That is the issue at hand. Would you be upset if I suggest bomohs should be accepted as equals in the medical profession?
Steve Oh Aiyah Jerusalem Cross..homo topic not joking matter what..so why you like dat? You can cry mother cry father all you like but what I say is what Bible teaches so no need to attack me lah. Go and study the Bible properly then you will understand what real compassion is...and why i am real Christian and not bluff bluff one. If people call your mother a prostitute you will keep quiet meh? People want to corrupt God's teaching so real Christians got to tell them they are wrong ..that also cannot ah?Real love is telling people the truth like telling govt the truth... I love gays and got nothing against them and can make friends with them what but not as Christian brothers...if my son is gay I will tell him same thing lah...truth is truth what...BTW I can tell you more stories how I help gays and they can contact me anytime for help...if I don't care for gays you think I want to waste time writing and kena attack by people like you? Don't joke lah! Ask your gay friends to talk to me anytime.
Dr. Suresh Kumar To say the gays are trying to impose their belief on others is preposterous to say the least. God has given us brains to think and analyse our thoughts before we translate it into action. Secondly the male/female hormonal imbalance or defect in a person is also responsible for the behaviour. Without elaborating much, I just wish to say that, as human beings, the gays too have a rightful place under the sun. We may despise them and their actions, but we have no right to discriminate or punish them for what they are, only their maker has the final say.
Patriot I do not think there is any imposition of one's way of life or sexual inclinations on anyone. The choice is left us to follow or not, accept or do not accept. It is unfortunate they have been created this way and out of the norm. The stigma is itself bad enough. Do not make it even worse by ridiculing and condemning them for something which is no fault of theirs unless you are willing to help to alter their chromosomes to set it right and proper. It is always easy to use religion to justify one's acceptance or rejection and in the process, refuse to see real person who leads an isolated life. I am no gay or easily influenced by anyone.
Jerusalem Cross Steve Oh lets hope one of your kids turns out to be gay. Then maybe you will learn compassion. Call yourself a Christian? Don't joke-lah.
Steve Oh Ida, God sets the conditions who is a Christian. The acid test is obedience. Jesus asked, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord but do not do what I say?" In the Bible (John 6) you see him lay down his terms and it was recorded many no longer walked with him. Many people have a false idea of what a Christian is. How do gays glorify God when what they do is an abomination to God? If everyone comes to God on his or her terms there is no Christianity. The vital point is when people turn to God they must turn from sin and that is something some find hard to do like the rich young man (love of money) in the parable. When gays come to God like every sinner God accepts them but they have to give up what God considers sin. In fact it is very Christian to reject those who corrupt Christianity. The Bible commands Christians to not accept those who are slanderous, drunkards, swindlers and sexually immoral, among other things. It is what the Bible teaches, I am just pointing out what it says.
ida bakar Dear Steve Oh, Gay or not Christians have this need for God. If mainstream churches cannot and would not accommodate them, why not let them have a church of their own. No doubt you see them as corrupter of mainstream Christianity but to deny them space to glorify God is not very 'Christian', surely?
SusahKes Steve, I like the way you articulate the issue. No doubt there will be a mass of opposing views that bombard....I agree with you that these days, it appears that the homosexual movement is the one that is bent on imposing their values on the rest. How easily we are labelled homophobic, simply because we wish to adhere to what God has already wanted us to do. Then again, Jesus did foretell, "as it was in the days of Noah...." In the past, one of the arguments was that gays were born that way. But the latest finding by the American Psychological Association, is that there is no gay gene. By the same token, if I had a friend who was alcoholic - and some say that alcoholism is hereditary - does that mean I should not tell my friend to change his lifestyle, simply because he was "born that way"? I too can't imagine a God who created male & female, & commanded them to procreate/multiply, would then leave out gay relationships from his plan if He was ok with it. Unless of course, He is not ok.
Jefferson76 Thank you for speaking up for those of us who don't agree with how Mr. Ouyang interprets the Bible.