Learning about religion and how each religion incorporated scriptural doctrine in the last chapter provided a brief, in-depth look at scriptural misinterpretation as well as, enlightened you on a few  more scriptures you may have been unfamiliar with.  But let's look even further into the sphere of religious beliefs and traditions. Seemingly, human sexuality has become an important focus, not only in our schools but in the church as well. So much, this issue can no longer be swept under the rug.  Living in a society that promotes sexuality in virtually every aspect of media and musical enterprise,  almost makes it completely impossible to escape sexuality.
             In fact,  there are many religions today that require its members to establish monogamous relationships, because doing so sets a traditional way of living, not to mention, it also coincides with most religious doctrine. However, looking at our society today and the increase of same-sex partners, attempting to suggest that religious doctrine written from an era when same-sex relations were not as prevalent, is still geared towards our society today is causing serious controversy.  Fact is, society is in great turmoil surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage. And considering the new research surfacing regarding religious doctrine and how often such doctrine has been revised, the subject of human sexuality can no longer be over looked.

In particularly, most theologians lecture from religious doctrine and promote such doctrine as the written word of God. Yet mankind continues to show its authority by altering such doctrine, this creates a cause of concern.  In fact, when President Bush was elected, he was given the power to instill his  ideaology, in an effort to make changes that he felt were suitable for all American citizens. But when he began enacting new laws and rules that were not favorable for every American citizen, he violated a contract agreement he made before being elected.

In many instances, religious doctrine reflects the same scenario. When Bible publishers take an oath to conduct their business transactions according to professional business ethics, but begin to practice unethical business, they too, have breached a duty of trust. And when religious followers are given access to such material that is published by these publishing businesses, and such material is not completely accurate, this imposes a serious threat for all humanity. Reason being, religion is perceived as something sacred and honorable.

Albeit,  historically the Bible was once separate from religion all together, today, most religions incorporate the Bible into their worship service. Take Christianity for instance. Most Christian organizations follow either the New King James Bible or the King James Amplified Bible. However, there are more than twenty versions of the King James Bible. Some of those Bibles use the term homosexual, while others do not. Yet, most Christians believe each Bible conveys the same message on the subject of homosexuality.

However, when the very book a publisher publishes defies what Bible publishers have done and are still doing, that in it self is the main source of biblical confusion.  In fact, it is this confusion that has allowed the issue of human sexuality, particularly, homosexuality, to become untolerable to those who have not read and or, studied their religious doctrine thoroughly. But who is to blame: the teacher or the follower?  In particularly, some Christians and even some Muslims declare homosexuality an abomination. However, once you read the entire doctrine you learn that not only was man lying with man considered abomination but virtually everything else also.

 In fact, in the book of Leviticus chapter eighteen, verse twenty-two, the scripture reads: “Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”.   But what  does the term “abomination” mean? Especially since the Middle Ages the term abomination included such act as adultery, or even Christians marrying Jews or Muslims marrying Christians. 3

In fact, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary the term means: something disgusting or loathing.1 Interestingly, the term is Latin and is a past participle of abominari, which also means: "to deprecate as an ill omen". It also is an English term used to translate the Biblical term תֹּועֵבָה tōʻēḇā or to'ba (noun) or ta'ab (verb) in the Authorized King James Version, and sometimes in the NASB. Moreover, many modern versions of the Bible (including the NIV and NET) translate it as something detestable. While both shiqquwts and shiqquts translate the term into abomination. 2

  In English, the term signifies something exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked, or vile. In Biblical terms "to'ba" does not carry the same sense of exceptionalism as the English term. It simply signifies something that is completely forbidden or unclean- according to specific religious beliefs, but not necessarily against God.  Therefore, people shouldn't assume the act is sinful. Yet, almost all Christians use Leviticus as their saving reference of making homosexuality a sin. But if you read the entire scripture of Leviticus you are certain to gain more clarity on the issue. In fact, in verse twenty-seven it reads:

“(for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you.”- Leviticus 18:27 & 28, the Holy Bible, KJV

Furthermore, when you read further, you learn that this was a time when mankind was just beginning to establish laws and rules.  In the last chapter, you read a scripture instructing that Moses established the law. But who was on the mountain top with Moses when the law was established? Albeit we have been taught that it was God, I wasn’t present and neither were you. Perhaps this is why the scripture below reads:

“Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that he speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemy, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine angel go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perissites, and the caanites, and the Hivites,and the Jeb’usites; and I will cast them off.”- Exodus 23:20-33, the Holy Bible, KJV

According to this,  God is not always present with mankind so we are appointed angels. Even the scripture below tells us:

“And the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”- Genesis 6:3, the Holy Bible, KJV

 Perhaps this is why this scripture also reflects this message:

  “Our fathers worshipped in the mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neitehr in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and: they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”- John 4:20-24, the Holy Bible, KJV

All in all, reading these scriptures provides you with a different perspective on what was happening at that time of life. But does mankind have a connection with God in our present world? Or have some of us merelyhad encounter's with angels as intercessors, according to the scriptures? Here it is, three thousand years later, if not longer and society is shuffling feverishly, searching for answers that lye hidden within our own beings. In fact, it seems, society has come to a place where we are divided on virtually every issue surrounding biblical history. Why? Especially when Romans eight verse seven and eight reads:

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Therefore, one must ask why the issue of human sexuality continues to be at the forefront of religious controversy?  Take for instance: Thomas Nelson Publishing, a long time publisher of Bible’s, revised the same scripture on the subject of homosexuality- four times- in four years.  Learning this, is baffling. So much, it forces you to investigate this publisher’s deception more-in-depth. 

What was discovered, is that in a Bible originally published and copy written in 1977 by Thomas Nelson Publishing, the revised scripture reflects this message: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” 4

Yet in a Bible originally published and copy written in 1982 by the same publisher, the same scripture reads like this: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” 5

And, in another Bible published and copy written in 1987 by Thomas Nelson Publishing ,the same scripture reads as followed: “Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob- these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.”6

 Clearly, reading these three scriptures you see, each scripture was revised within a five year period of one another according to each publishing date.  Still, each scripture reads differently from book to book.  Looking at the last revision, its obvious the publisher needed to elaborate a little more in-depth on the subject.  But was there really a need to?  Is it obvious to you that this publisher is simply stating a bias opinion, based on its personal beliefs, instead of including what the original scripture conveyed? Albeit many people of faith prefer to look at both sacred texts and traditional text for guidance on this issue, the authority of various scriptural passages and correctness of translations and there interpretation is  very much hotly disputed. 7

Take for example, in Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, sexual relations between men are traditionally forbidden, and is taught that such behavior is sinful.  Yet there are some major religious denominations like: Reform Judaism and the United Church of Christ, who accepts homosexuality. In fact, these religions believe any injunction against the actual sexual act itself- were originally intended as a means of distinguishing religious worship between Abrahamic and pagan faiths, specifically Greek (Ganymede) and Egyptian rituals, which made homosexuality a religious practice and not merely human sexuality. 8

However, there are some Christian denominations such as the Presbyterian and Anglican churches, which now welcome members that engage in same-sex sexual practices, and also perform same-sex marriages, much like the Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism do.  In fact, in Judaism, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are a primary source Jewish people use to support their views on homosexuality.  Even Rabbinic Jewish tradition understands the verse in Leviticus prohibiting a man from having sex with another man. However, trying to determine if such religious doctrine has the power to prevent a particular sector of people or individual’s from acquiring their equal religious rights- can be disturbing.

What people today describe as psychological or biological homosexual inclination is not discussed among classical rabbis. The sources only discuss specific same-sex acts and not the modern concepts of homosexual identities and relationships. Many Orthodox Jews view homosexuality as a choice;  while some sources claim it to be a deliberate deviance.

 In January 2007, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards significantly reinterpreted the issue of homosexuality, and now allow gay men and lesbians to become rabbis and cantors. 9 Since then, Progressive forms of Judaism, including Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism in North America and Liberal Judaism, including the United Kingdom, view homosexuality to be acceptable on the same basis as heterosexuality. Yet, Progressive Jewish authorities believe either traditional law against homosexuality are no longer binding or that they are subject to changes that reflect a new understanding of human sexuality. 10

In fact, some of these authorities rely on modern biblical scholarships suggesting the prohibition in the Torah was intended to ban coercive or ritualized homosexual sex, including  those practices ascribed to Egyptian and Canaanite fertility cults, as well as temple prostitution, because the practice of homosexuality prevents procreation. 11 But with so many birth control methods available today in our modern-world, like contraceptive’s (rubbers, IUD’s), abortion and hysterectomies, the issue of procreation should no longer be permitted as a basis of argument when attempting to discourage homosexuality, especially within a particular religious sect.

Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that many prominent Christian theologians have been critical of homosexuality throughout the religions history. Maybe this is why so many homosexual ministers, rabbis, priest, and Bishops remain closeted about their sexuality. Take for instance, the recent news release regarding a Milwaukee Priest who recently stepped down from his position as Archbishop; finally comes out publicly stating, “He’s gay.” But long before now, this former Archbishop along with other priest and Archbishops-- rallied that homosexual practices was defiant and sinful. In fact, the term “sodomy” gained its popularity from St. Thomas Aquinas, who was considered to be the most influential scholarly theologian of the Middle Ages. 12

Even more interesting, in the 20^th and 21^st century , a few historians and theologians challenged this traditional understanding and argued that passages within the Bible had been mistranslated or do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.” However, the Roman Catholic Church on the other hand, affirms early Christian teachings on homosexuality by stating, “Basing itself in Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity”, tradition has always declared ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. And they do not proceed from a genuine affective sexual complementarity.” 13

Nevertheless, there are quite a few Christian denominations that do not condemn homosexual acts a being evil and or, sinful. In fact, many liberal Christians are open and affirming to active homosexuals. Surprisingly, almost 40,000 members from the Metropolitan Community Church are devoted to being open and affirming to active homosexuals. Moreover, the United Church of Christ has begun condoning gay marriages as well as- some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches who too, allow the blessing of gay unions. Moreover, the United Church of Canada also allows same-sex marriage and views sexual orientation as a gift from God. 14

Still , there are many religious sects in America that oppose same-sex marriages. Perhaps, the biggest fear these particular sects possess derives from outward public persona. Perhaps, some religious organizations fear embracing homosexuality because they would be looked upon as rejecting scriptural teachings. And with such a broad history of church sermons denouncing homosexuality, to begin acknowledging homosexuals as normal people within a church realm, may be perceived as contradictory to what has already been taught.

Luckily today, laws are being implemented to protect homosexuals’ right to exist as well as being accepted as normal and members of church congregations. In fact, Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, in England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by  the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and “reorient ate” themselves. 15 In another incident, Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid, was faced with a civil suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathedrals, on the feast of the Holy Family.16 Furthermore, a Swedish Pentecostal Pastor name Ake Green was prosecuted for his “hate speech against homosexuals” while conducting a sermon where he cited Biblical references to homosexuality. 17

Unfortunately, these are some of the legal issues surrounding homosexuality. Perhaps, this is why new laws are being implemented to protect homosexuals from religious discrimination. Interestingly, in August 2006, Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and titular head of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, said,  “homosexual activity is contrary to the teachings of Christianity, and that homosexuals must change their behavior if they are to be welcomed in the Anglican Church.” 18 In fact, the Worldwide Anglican Communion has been in a state of disintegration since the action in 2003 of the US Episcopal Church, (ECUSA), who ordained an active and unrepentant homosexual by the name of Gene Robinson. Rowan Williams condemned the American Episcopal Church, for having “pushed the boundaries,” when it ordained Robinson. 19 Yet many other openly gay clergy claimed it was Williams himself who spearheaded the move, which began in the 1980’s. 20

Nevertheless, American Christians are still at odds concerning homosexuality because most of them believe what the scripture teach. So who’s to blame; God, who is the inspiration of the word or the elected committee that implemented the term in the Bible? Since we know there are arguments surrounding scriptural revisions, the Bible shouldn’t be the sole source which churches use to accept homosexuals or denounce them. In religions such as: Islam, Zoroastrianism, Dharmic religions, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism each one has a different perspective.

In fact, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, and other Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria, Pakistan the Maldives, and Malaysia, have laws that punish homosexuality with prison, fines, or corporal punishment. 21 It is this sort of injustice that reminds me of the Hitler administration and its implementation of Paragraph 175, which we will discuss later. Nevertheless,  the discourse of homosexuality in Islam is primarily concerned with activities conducted solely between men.  But is this because men are considered a direct off-spring of God?  When looking at the issue according to the Holy Qur’an, the issue of homosexuality is dealt with completely different than often spoken of. In fact, in this particular scripture taken from Surah 27:54&55, of the Holy Qur’an, it reads:

 “We also sent Lut as a messenger: behold, he said to his people, “Do ye do what is shameful though ye see its iniquity? Would ye really approach men in your lust rather than women? Nay, ye are a people of grossly ignorant!”22

Examining the citation at the bottom of the page regarding this scripture, it shares this insight:  “The ignorance referred to here is the spiritual ignorance, the ignorance of how grossness and sins that bring shame on their own physical and moral nature are doomed to destroy them: it is their own loss. That they knew the iniquity of their sins has already been stated in the last verse. The knowledge makes their spiritual ignorance all the more culpable, just as a man consciously deceiving people by half truths is a greater liar than a man who tells lies inadvertently.” 23

 In addition, according to the Holy Qur’an, the worst sin of all is divorce. Throughout the entire Qur’an, there is not a particular scripture that elaborates on homosexuality. So where do Islamic leaders acquiring their understanding of homosexuality? Could it be from their ancestral ignorance surrounding the issue? By the way, the scripture derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Much like the Christians who have misinterpreted this story, the Holy Qur’an only touches on the subject of same-sex attraction when speaking of homosexuality; by using the story of Sodom and how the men outside Lots house lusted after the angels who visited Lot.

Even then, one is still misled, because the scripture doesn’t mention the city was destroyed because of homosexuality. The scripture sheds light that the city was destroyed because there wasn’t one person in the entire city that was righteous. Before the angels departed from heaven they ask God would he destroy the entire city if there was fifty people who were righteous.

“And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”- Genesis 18: 26, the Holy Bible.  And when the angels arrived in Sodom there wasn’t one person who was righteous. But if there were ten, God would have spared the entire city: “And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.”- Genesis 18:32, the Holy Bible, KJV Therefore, the idea of the city being destroyed solely because of homosexuality is once again proven to be false.

Nevertheless, in Islamic countries, a males desire for an attractive male youth is widely expected and condoned as a human characteristic similar as the admiration or attraction for an older or wiser sibling. But homosexual intercourse itself has been and still is interpreted as a form of lust. 25 In fact, the Vendidad, one of the later Zoroastrian texts composed in the Artificial Young Avestan language, it is thought that some concepts of law, uncleanliness, dualism, and salvation were shared between the religions 26, and subsequent interactions between the religions are documented by events, such as the release of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity by Zoroastrian Cyrus the Great, in 537 BC, and the Biblical account of the Magi visiting the infant Jesus.  Still, the Vendidad generally promotes procreation. 27

 Looking at the dharmic religions that originated in India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, teachings regarding homosexuality are less clear than among the Abrahamic traditions. Unlike western religions, homosexuality is rarely discussed. However, most contemporary religious authorities in the various dharmic traditions view homosexuality negatively, and when it is discussed, it is discouraged or actively forbidden. 28

In ancient religious texts such as the Vedas, which often refer to people of a third gender, who are neither female nor male. Some see this third gender as an ancient parallel to modern western lesbian, gay, transgender and/or intersexes identities.29 However, this third sex is usually negatively valued as a pariah class in ancient texts, which are Ancient Hindu law books that categorize non-vaginal sex (ayoni) as impure. 30

Similarly, some medieval Hindu temples and artifacts openly depict both male homosexuality and lesbianism within their carvings, such as those seen on temple walls at Khajuraho. Some infer from these images that Hindu society and religion were previously more open to variations in human sexuality than they are at the present. 31 In Hinduism, many divinities are androgynous. There are Hindu deities who are intersexes (both male and female); who manifest in all three genders; who switch from male to female or female to male; male deities with female moods and female deities with male moods; deities born from two male or two females; deities born from a single male or female; deities who avoid the opposite sex; deities with principal companions of the same sex, and so on. In fact, one of the most important aspects of Hinduism is the belief that both God and nature are unlimitedly diverse. 32

Additionally, in Asian societies that are shaped by Buddhist traditions, they take a strong ethical stand in human affairs, sexual behavior in particular. Unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into detail as to what is right and what is wrong in what it regards as mundane activities of life. Details of accepted or unaccepted human sexual conduct are not specifically mentioned in any of the religious scripture in Pali language. However, the most common formulation of Buddhist ethics are the Five Percepts and the Eightfold Path, which means: one should neither be attached to nor crave sensual pleasure.

These precepts take the form of voluntary, personal undertakings, not divine mandate or instruction. The third of the Five Percepts is “To refrain from committing sexual misconduct.” However, sexual misconduct is such a broad term, and is subjected to interpretation relative to the social norms of the religions followers. 32 In fact, Buddhism in its fundamental form does not define what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms for lay followers. Therefore the interpretation of whether homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson or not, is not a religious matter as far as fundamental Buddhism is concerned.

Buddhism is often characterized as distrustful of sensual enjoyment and sexuality in general. 33 In particular, homosexual conduct and gender variance are seen as obstacles to spiritual progress in most schools of Buddhism. Interestingly, a notable exception in the history of Buddhism occurred in Japan during the Edo period, in which male homosexuality, or more specifically, pederasty between young novices and older monks, was celebrated. 34 However, within Japanese traditions, there is a widespread story that homosexuality was “invented” by the Bodhisattva Manjusri of wisdom and the sage Kukai, the founder of Buddhism in Japan. Japanese Buddhist scholar and author Kitmaura Kigin said that heterosexuality was to be avoided for priest and homosexuality encouraged. 35

Meanwhile, looking at how homosexuality is perceived in Sikhism where there is no written view on the matter; you learn that in 2005, the world’s highest Sikh religious authority described homosexuality as “against the Sikh religion and the Sikh code of conduct, and totally against the laws of nature,” and called on Sikhs to support laws against gay marriage. 36 In fact, Sikhs call for supporters against gay marriage is similar to the Christian Right, who too, have been known to rally against gay marriage here in America. Albeit such rallying has had its fair share of let downs, to-date there are five states that allow same-sex marriage. And surprisingly, the most conservative states of all.

Still, one serious problem the Christian Right faces is seldom being able to counter establishment elites and the mainstream culture on rival turf. In the polemical realm, it is frequently outgunned by it opponents. This is not because the religious conservatives are intellectually inept. Rather, it is because they often insist on employing a scriptural line of argument against people who deny the authority of the Bible to resolve the question under dispute. 37

So it does little good to quote the dire injunctions against homosexuality from the book of Leviticus to people who find the Old Testament outdated and irrelevant. To listen to some fundamentalist, one sometimes gets the impression that the argument for martial fidelity depends entirely on acceptance of the literal truth surrounding the story of Jonah and the whale. 38  In fact, the contribution of Religious Rights over the past decade has enormously affected the overview perspective on homosexuality within the church.  It is not best measured in terms of specific policy victories on homosexuality. Albeit, the Christian Right defeated a District Columbia ordinance liberalizing sex laws. Obviously, from this, you see that the Christian Rights has always influenced the way the religious community deal with homosexuality.  Therefore, in order to isolate the issue and cease all debates, Christian Rights grease the palms of elected officials and church leaders in an effort to gain favorable rulings against those who seek support surrounding the homosexual agenda. 39

And despite religious opinions and various religious doctrines, there is no valid evidence to dispute that homosexuality is against God. If two consenting adults of the same sex decide to partake in sexual activity, isn’t it their choice? Didn’t God give man the will to choose his or her own path? And since it is the individual’s choice, no one has the right to infringe upon those individuals methods of pleasure.  Not even according to biblical scripture.

 In fact, looking at this scripture below which reads:

“I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”- Luke 17: 34& 35, the Holy Bible KJV 40

… It’s apparent two men in the bed or two women in the bed grinding together, one of each still gained entry into heaven. In fact, when you read further you find scriptures that read:

 “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”-Romans 8: 7, 8 KJV 41

Honestly speaking, these two scriptures provide assurance that it is the interpretation of each reader that taints the truth. But on the other hand, there should be no interpretation of the scriptures period, after all II Peter 1: 20 and 21 reads:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

 Reading this gives us another reason to question biblical interpretation, because it seems interpret ting the scriptures has become so casually acceptable- Bible publishers are simply adding whatever words they elect to add, whenever they feel  the need to do so; after all, it is their work.  But, if that work ridicules a person, and causes a person mental anguish, a crime has been committed. Freedom of Speech is not absolute under the First Amendment. Considering copyrights, trademarks, and unfair competition laws punish published expressions that infringe on the rights of others. Almost every state defines the legal term “defamation” as the publication of a false statement of fact about a person or organization, in writing, visually, or verbally, that is derogatory and that injuries the subjects reputation. And if that statement reaches at least one person, it is the essence of defamation. 42

Therefore, when a Bible publisher elects to incorporate the term “homosexual” within its books, under the support and influence of Christian Rights, who rally against homosexual nature, they in fact are the very culprits who initiate the idea of such negative connotation towards homosexuals, which penetrates the mind's of religious followers, because they trust what they read in the scriptures.Regardless if the revisions are true or not, publishing and selling a book that teaches homosexuality is against the will of God has caused homosexuals around the world grave injustice.  Jesus said in John Eight, verse fifteen: “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.” 43

Yet, despite what this scripture teaches, most Christians judge people on the appearance rather than on merit. And in a religion that has and still does teach the essence of love, it seems the importance of loving someone who is homosexual is not included.

In fact, throughout the entire Bible there are many scriptures that can be viewed as discriminative. Take this scripture for instance: I Corinthians fourteen verse thirty-four and thirty-five:

 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”44 Yet today, we have women ministers who teach from these very scriptures in churches around the world.

The guarantee of religious liberty in itself is a characteristic feature of the American constitution. It also finds expression in many state constitutions. The constitution includes provisions that every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and that the civil and political rights of no person shall be diminished on account of religious beliefs. Looking at the decision made by the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, which held “a school board could not compel a Jehovah’s Witness child to take part in a flag salute exercise”, 45 this decision was not grounded on religious freedom but rather on the ground that the First Amendment secures a general right to be free from state compulsion to accept any particular creed of ideology. But accepting the ideology that homosexuals would not inherit the Kingdom of God defies the First Amendment rights of homosexuals, especially if one believes differently according to their religious belief.

In the same token, according to the constitution, the underlying purpose implicit in the religious clauses of the First Amendment, the religious factor shall not be used as the basis of the legislative classification designed either to hinder or promote religious activities. In short, these clauses are designed to prohibit government from subjecting religion to discriminatory treatment and from according it a preferred treatment. Therefore, religious liberty under the free exercise clause means:  no person shall be disadvantaged because of religion in the exercise of other freedoms or, indeed, in the enjoyment of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by law and that, in turn, no person shall because of his religion enjoy an advantage under the law, over and above that enjoyed by other people. 46

Freedom from discrimination on religious grounds should be a facet of religious liberty. Our whole constitutional history refutes the argument that what is meant by religious liberty is a principle directed against preferential or discriminatory treatment on religious grounds. Religion deals with man’s relationship to his God, however he may be defined. It defines an area of spiritual autonomy which is withdrawn from the reach of civil authority. It involves belief, and it conditions conscience and feeling. 47

In addition, religious belief is defined by statue to mean: “an individual’s belief in relation to a Supreme Being, involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or merely a personal moral code.”  There is however, widespread agreement with the view presented in an article on homosexuality in Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, which declares “those who base their faith on the OT and NT documents cannot doubt that their strong prohibitions of homosexual behaviors make homosexuality a direct transgression of God’s law. 48

People abroad in every religious organization need to understand three factors on the subject of homosexuality: the civil rights factor, the human factor, and the theological factor. In Ralph Blair booklet- An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Homosexual Community Counseling Center, 1972), Blair suggests that “part of the task of evangelicals is to abandon unbiblical crusades against homosexuality and to help those who have quite naturally developed along homosexual lines to accept themselves as Christ accepted them—just as they are—and to live their lives which include responsible homosexual behavior.” 49

When Bible interpreters interpret the scriptures they completely defy the sacred laws within the scriptures. By imposing terms which they feel are suitable for revision, denounces the truth of the scriptures themselves. If you review Romans Ten, verse six and seven it reads:

 “But this is what the Scripture says about being made right through faith: Don’t say to yourselves, “who will go up to heaven”, and do not say, “Who will go down into the world below,” 50

Reading this you learn no human has the knowledge surrounding who will go up to heaven or who will go into the world below.  

In fact, in Romans Ten verse twelve and thirteen it tells us: “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 51

Perhaps it is not the issue of homosexuality that causes such uproar within the church, but one particular scripture that down play’s married men; almost forbidding them from doing the work of the Lord.  I Corinthians Seven, verse thirty-two and thirty-three, reads: “But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.”52

 Reading this, many will find this scripture appalling. Seemingly, throughout the entire Bible there are many scriptures that will cause one to raise an eyebrow, but one must keep in mind, these are writings based on man’s understanding of how he believes God thinks.  But even that seems ludicrous. Man cannot think for God…God created man. Assuming that God would prohibit homosexuals from entering the Kingdom of God is wrong.

After all, wasn’t the entire purpose of revising the text meant to correct the terms in order for the reader to attain a clear and precise understanding? With so many versions of the scriptures in print, many still find it quite challenging to agree with Bible publishers who have allowed such negative thoughts on homosexuality, to become an issue in society, which continues to separate us as a people, more so than bring us closer together.  If church congregations continue neglecting to embrace homosexuals based on scriptural teaching alone, then the purpose of attending a church for salvation and truth is no longer available for homosexuals, let alone, anyone else.

“An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.”- Proverbs 29:27, the Holy Bible, KJV

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”- James 1: 27, the Holy Bible, KJV

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”- Romans 3:28, the Holy Bible, KJV

To Reserve your copy of Ancient Secret's Today's Religion's Don't Teach, please complete the form below.