Wednesday, 16 March 2011

Bible: Male Rape Victims to be Killed - Bernadette Brooten

The rise of gay churches and clergy men (and women) is startling to those who have an orthodox grounding in the Bible. Sadly, Christian ethics are blighted by the secular manifestations which “have become increasingly in terms of purely individual self-fulfilment and self-expression.” [1]

Basil Mitchell expresses the potential dangers in the reliance on “the personal” and does advance the notion; this criterion (“the personal”) could be used to justify same-sex unions and relations outside marriage. [1]

Let’s be frank, this is exactly what we are seeing in the West – more and more Christian leaders are essentially following the secular band-wagon and presenting Christianity as secularism with an added belief in Jesus.

Gay Christians, prepare for the shock!

We would like to ask the churches who are so accepting of gay and lesbian clergy and congregations to have a closer look at the Old Testament and the writings of Paul of Tarsus (aka Apostle Paul). It will surprise you and Bernadette J Brooten’s interpretation will send shock waves down your very being.

Bible: death penalty for gays

I find it peculiar that it’s a Muslim who has to point this out – the Bible is vehemently opposed to same sex relationships.

“Leviticus 10.13 prohibits sexual relations between men, defines them as an “abomination” and places them under the DEATH PENALTY (see also Lev.18.22)” [2]

Liberal Christians, I will tell you that it gets more shocking as, according to Brooten, this death penalty includes rape victims – including children.

Bible: Male Rape Victims put to DEATH – Bernadette J Brooten

Brooten writes, “Ethical considerations such as consent, coercion or the power imbalance inherent in adult-child relations are not legally relevant in these passages (nor in the surrounding Levitical Laws on adultery, incest and bestiality). Thus, regardless of the sexual relationships of the participants (a man and his consenting male partner, an adult male whom he had raped, or a child victim), all are equally culpable, since all are equally defiled (see Philo, De spec.leg.3.7.37-42).” [2]

According to Brooten, Paul (in the New Testament) “does not employ the ethical categories of consent or age for distinguishing between sanctioned and condemned sexual relations” [2]

I acknowledge this is Brooten’s interpretation – an interpretation which could well be wrong.

Nevertheless, our liberal Christian friends will point out these laws are from the Old Testament and that they follow the New Testament. They may well call the OT laws a “curse” – Jesus’ following of this “curse” coupled with those Christians who maintain Jews must still abide by OT laws militates against this outright dismissal of the OT.

However, Paul (in the NT) AGREES with the OT laws concerning homosexuals.

New Testament: Gays “DESERVE TO DIE”

“Paul Describes male-male relations as “impurity” and asserts such men “deserve to die (Rom. 1.24-32). [2]

This information may be faith-shattering to gay Christians but it must be said regardless of the ramifications. Paul offers no acceptance for lesbian Christians either…

Paul is against lesbianism too!

“Paul extends the prohibition to include sexual relations between women (Rom. 1.26) as do other postbiblical writings.” [2]

Sharia or Biblical law?

Christian Islamophobes are constantly prattling on against Sharia but are absolutely oblivious to the hypocritical depths they sink to whilst doing so. A law based on the dictates of God is never going to be morally unacceptable as true morals are taught via divine revelation. The real problem crops up when folk who are motivated by their desires decide to change a religion for purposes of “self-fulfilment” – this is what we are seeing within Christian circles as we speak.

Earlier today, I had a conversation with a Catholic and told him of the Muslim view of the Bible having been altered by men – I told him this belief is easily proven too – he agreed!

It is the job of the truth seeker to seek out the true religion. Christianity makes more sense when one utilizes the lens of Islam to view it.

[1] The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, Edited by John Mcmanners, Oxford University Press, 1990 p. 624

[2] The Oxford Companion to the bible, Edited by Bruce Metzger and Michael G Coogan, New Oxford Press, 1993 p. 288-89

Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam



MichiganRaider said...


GENE ROBINSON, the first openly gay bishop in the history of the Anglican Communion, stood before 1,500 American Episcopalians and proclaimed: “I’m not an abomination in the eyes of God.” The Episcopal Church should “stand up for right”, he insisted.
Moments later, Robert Duncan, the conservative Bishop of Pittsburgh, took the microphone to declare that the Church had reached an “impossible moment” and was on the brink of an historic schism.

The high drama, played out in the ballroom of an Ohio hotel on Wednesday night, could determine the future of the 2.3 million-strong US Episcopal Church in the global Anglican Communion.

Episcopalians, gathered for their three-yearly convention, are struggling to craft a response to complaints that they broke with Anglican doctrine in 2003 by consecrating Bishop Robinson, who lives openly with another man.

The 2004 Windsor commission, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has invited the American Church to declare a moratorium on consecrating gay bishops and express “regret” for the events surrounding their 2003 decision.

But resolutions, drawn up by an Episcopal panel, which could come to a vote as early as tomorrow, fall short of the Windsor commission’s recommendations.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, the Church of England’s second-in-command, took the microphone to give warning that the proposed resolutions were not sufficient.

“We have been asked to build a bridge,” said Don Curran, a delegate from central Florida. “Say the bridge is 1,000 ft long. If the bridge is only 950 ft long, it does not work. It’s useless.”

Instead of declaring a moratorium, the American Church may simply urge “very considerable caution” in choosing any more gay bishops.

Similarly, its expression of “regret” is couched in terms that make clear that the American Church is sorry only about the lack of consultation with other Anglican provinces, not the actual consecretion of Bishop Robinson.

Conservatives have denounced the proposed resolutions as a “fudge” and say the measures will not heal the rift over homosexuality.

“We see people leaving the Episcopal Church daily. Some people are hanging on just for this convention. If the Episcopal Church produces a fudge, you will see things fall apart,” said Cynthia Brust, spokeswoman for the American Anglican Council.

MichiganRaider said...


By Mark Reynolds A GAY vicar who plans to marry his male model boyfriend was yesterday branded “an abomination before God”.

The Reverend Colin Coward, 65, is entering a civil partnership with Nigerian Bobby Egbele, 25.

But the “marriage” has sparked a fierce debate among Christians.

Stephen Green, director of lobbying group Christian Voice said: “Mr Coward is just an emotionally disturbed man trying to inflict his predilections on the rest of the Church.

“I fail to recognise him as a Christian because he doesn’t keep the commandments of Lord Jesus, who states ‘marriage is between a man and a woman’, so although this guy claims to be following Christ he actually isn’t.

“This is an abomination before God, not a holy union.”

The couple are to marry on October 9 at the Register Office in Devizes, Wilts, before a blessing at Mr Coward’s church, St John the Baptist.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Salisbury stressed the blessing would be “separate” from the civil ceremony.

Mr Coward has refused to confirm that he will remain celibate, a requirement for ordained gay clergy in the Church of England.

Yesterday Mr Coward, who lives with Bobby in Marston, near Devizes, revealed that he hopes to set a “visible example” to gay people in the Church.

He said: “My goal is for everyone within the church to feel comfortable with the situation because at the moment the majority of gay Christians marry secretly.

“It is a taboo subject but the church is under huge pressure to change its stance and that pressure will only increase in the future.

Read more:

Michigan Raider said...

Gay couples will be able to marry in church after the House of Lords last night lifted a ban on same sex unions in religious premises.

The vote wipes out one of the final distinctions between marriage and civil partnerships.

It provoked warnings that it would undermine the institution of marriage.

The move – backed by some Church of England bishops – was hailed as a breakthrough last night by gay rights campaigners.
But it is seen by church traditionalists as a damaging step on the road to forcing churches to marry gay people against their will.

It is likely to be opposed by the Pope, who has already criticised government policies on homosexuality, when he makes his first visit as Pontiff to the UK later this year.

The amendment to the Equality Bill does not force churches to accept civil partnership ceremonies.

But it lifts the barrier that had been in place preventing homosexual blessings in churches and also the prohibition on religious language being used in such ceremonies.
It is likely to lead to pressure from the gay community for the church to recognise same sex partnerships.

The Church of England will maintain its official opposition to blessings and civil partnerships but the vote is likely to mean that some pro-gay clergy simply ignore the official policy.

More...Gay equality laws threatening last Roman Catholic adoption agency 'will lead to harm to children in care'

They received encouragement when several senior churchmen in the Lords announced last week that they would support the measure agreed last night, which was proposed by the openly gay Labour peer Lord Alli.

It passed by 95 votes to 21, a majority of 74.

Bishop of Salisbury, the Dean of Southwark and four retired bishops all backed the move.

Read more:

Anonymous said...

Muslim Beauty Contestant Shanna Bukhari Told to Burn in Hell
United Kingdom--Shanna Bukhari who is Great Britain’s first Muslim Miss Universe contestant told the press that religious zealots not only slammed her decision to enter the beauty contest but told her to rot in hell.

Miss Bukhari aged 24 had the zealots predicting her torments in hellfire and with some other religious Muslim men posting messages on her Facebook page condemning her Miss Universe move as offensive to Islam.

"Three men wrote that they would not support me because what I was doing was sinful," the young beauty contestant told the Manchester Evening News. "They said I should rot in hell, which is pretty shocking.”

Miss Bukhari also critisized these men as hypocritical.

"They contradict themselves by going out clubbing, drinking and smoking at the weekends. That is completely hypocritical and they should look to themselves before they start judging others.”

Miss Bukhari who works as model and is from a Pakistani origin, said that she wants girls from the Muslim communities to feel that they can do this.

"Muslim girls don't enter competitions like this because Islam does not permit it, but there is so much more to it than looking pretty," she said. (Read more

Anonymous said...

I was in an airport, having hurried from a venue where I had just given a talk. I don't ever speak from a written text, but I do carry notes -- a page or two of quotations from various Muslim Brotherhood operatives, etc., including jihadist and Islamic supremacist statements by some putative American moderate Muslims, as well as quotations from the Qur'an and Hadith, etc. I had this material in my suit pocket, and it dropped out when I took off my suit jacket to go through security. So a few minutes later I was again in the friendly presence of police and TSA personnel. One gentleman was holding up my notes and asking me why I had this material. I started laughing, because I realized that there was absolutely nothing in the notes to show that I actually opposed what was written there -- and realized that it might take awhile to straighten the whole thing out.

And it did. But I didn't mind. Because I knew what they were doing. I knew they weren't holding the bearded, swarthy fellow with notes full of jihad and hate because they were racists and bigots, and didn't like people of Middle Eastern descent, or hated Muslims, or what have you. They were doing their job, which was to protect the American people. Irum Abbasi and Hamas-linked CAIR should realize that, and I think they do. They should also realize that we are on to them.

"Muslim removed from flight wants crew disciplined," from the Associated Press, March 17 (thanks to Twostellas):

SAN DIEGO — A Muslim woman said Wednesday that she wants a Southwest Airlines crew disciplined for removing her from a flight for wearing a headscarf.
Irum Abbasi, 31, told reporters at a news conference outside San Diego's airport that she was forced off a San Jose-bound flight in San Diego on Sunday because a flight attendant found her to be suspicious.

Abbasi said she was told that a flight attendant overheard her say on her cell phone words to the effect of: "It's a go."

The mother of three, who is originally from Pakistan, told reporters that she said, "I've got to go," before hanging up because the flight was about to depart. She believes the flight attendant made the assumption about her comment because she was wearing an Islamic head scarf.

After patting down her head scarf and talking to her, Transportation Security Administration agents recognized the mistake and told her it was not necessary to inspect her purse or cell phone, Abbasi said.

But they refused to let her back on the plane, telling her the crew was uncomfortable with her on the flight, according to Abbasi. She was booked on the next flight.

"I was in tears," Abbasi said. "I was just crying. I have lived in the United States for 10 years. I am a U.S. citizen."

Anonymous said...

Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz said the airline has apologized to Abbasi twice, including the day of the incident. The airline also gave her a voucher for another flight, he said.

Abbasi said she gave the voucher to someone else and at this point does not want to fly Southwest again. She said she wants a written apology and a guarantee that the crew will be disciplined.

Abbasi, who is originally from Pakistan, said the verbal apology "doesn't make me feel better. This time they said we weren't comfortable with the head scarf. Next time, they won't be comfortable with my accent or they won't be comfortable with my South Asian heritage."...

Hanif Mohebi, director of the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said his group believes she was targeted because of her head scarf and wants to meet with the airline to ensure it does not happen again.

Abbasi attributed her removal to growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and said that it was a direct result of the congressional hearing called by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., on the radicalization of U.S. Muslims....

The same day Abbasi was removed from a plane in San Diego, pilots on an Alaska Airlines flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles locked down the cockpit and alerted authorities when a flight crew grew alarmed at the behavior of three men who were conducting an elaborate orthodox Jewish prayer.

FBI and customs agents along with police and a full assignment of fire trucks met the plane at the gate at Los Angeles International Airport, and the men were escorted off. After questioning from the FBI, the men were released without being arrested.

Anonymous said...

Gay Christian is an oxymoron. You are either gay, or you are a Christian, but you cant be both at the same time.

Although you can be a celibate homosexual Christian - but since your celibate that wouldn't make you "gay" per say. You would just be a Christian. Its more about being active in your sin (or being active in your sinful though)

Homosexual Muslims, Christian wont stone you but tell you the truth, read the bible, repent of your wickedness.

Do not wear womens thaub like some prophet did...

Anonymous said...

Throughout South Asia, homosexuality has been a taboo subject. But there are signs in some areas that gay people are now becoming more open in their behaviour. In this column a gay man in Pakistan talks about the advantages of being gay there compared to the West. He prefers to remain anonymous.
It is all too common to hear examples of the repression of sexuality and oppression of sexual minorities in South Asia.

Open displays of straight and gay sexuality are taboo in Pakistan
But the problem with sweeping generalisations about sexuality, or anything else for that matter, is the exceptions.
I am one such exception - a gay man who grew up in Pakistan, became aware of his sexuality while studying in the US, had most of his early experiences of love and sex there, and yet decided to come back home to Pakistan.

It will surprise many when I say that I actually feel more comfortable about myself while living here than I was in the West.

It was not always so of course. Before my return, I felt quite aggrieved when my straight brother downplayed my apprehensions about being gay in Pakistan.

I cannot remember a single occasion in almost 10 years that I have felt threatened with regards to my sexuality in Pakistan

Have Your Say
It really was not a problem, he suggested. How insensitive and naive of him, I thought.
My brother has won the point since though. While I maintain discretion in many respects, I have come out to most of my family, with their loving support.

I have also come out to all my friends, and rarely meet anyone aggressively hostile to gay individuals.

I have lived with a lover independently without anyone raising an eyebrow.

I have attended gay parties more uninhibited than any I have seen in the West.

'Differently configured'

In fact, I cannot remember a single occasion in almost 10 years that I have felt threatened with regards to my sexuality in Pakistan.

An entirely unrepresentative experience to be sure, as far as the experience of a majority of Pakistanis is concerned.

But there is no representative sample that I can think of.

Pakistan has 'conservative religious and cultural attitudes'
Sexuality itself is so much more differently configured in Pakistan than in the West - which is where the language of the sexuality debate comes from.
This is especially true in terms of people's perceptions of their identity and behaviour, in terms of class, with regards to family and religious obligations.

I would not for a moment suggest that it is easy being gay in Pakistan.

Homosexual acts are illegal, and conservative religious and cultural attitudes mean many gay people are afraid to openly acknowledge their sexuality.

They face ostracism by their families if they do. But in a sense the American military's approach of "don't ask, don't tell" is applied throughout this society.

minoria said...

Paul in Romans 1:32 says homosexuals are worthy of death according to the judgement of God,but in other passages Paul says to be kind to others,live in peace.

Paul also repeats the Ethical Heart of Jesus' message:the Golden Rule(love your neighbor like yourself")So in basic interpretation:"Clear Verse overues Less Clear Verse".

Here are all the verses of the Golden Rule in the NT:

About Mosaic Law

The Jews,in the OT narrative,saw many miracles by God.He freed them from slavery in Egypt,fed them miraculously,etc.

They were given a choice:"Do you want to be the Chosen People?"
They said yes,they could have said no, but they knew there were strict laws,including death for homosexuality.

If they had said no they could still have got salvation through the 7 Noahide laws,for non-Jews.

minoria said...

I forgot to add that Mosaic law is only for the Jews.And in Christianity it has been fulfilled by the New Alliance 2,000 years ago.

Those who say Christianity is anti-human rights because of Mosaic law don't know the specifics:

1.That it was only for the Jews,1% of the population.
2.That was 2,000 years ago.
3.The death for adultery,homosexuality,blasphemy,etc was NOT forced but the Jews decided to accept the conditions.

4.And the Jews accepted BASED on EVIDENCE(according to the OT narration)of Yahweh's power.

Anonymous said...

yeah pakistani gays, im sure dave and nabeel know alot about that,wink wink nod nod.