IF YOU WANT TO WATCH FULL INDIE MOVIES,XXX AND UNCUT VERSION-WITH LOT OF NUDITY AND SEX SCENES,BE A PART OF OUR EXCLUSIVE SITE NOW.CONTACT US WITH THE DETAILS BELOW:
 EMAIL US:pgo_blog@yahoo.com 
 TXT US:09610389525 
 VIBER/IMO/WHATSAPP US:09984709012
MEMBERSHIP ACCEPTANCE UNTIL SLOT IS AVAILABLE,(MINIMUM MEMBERSHIP FEE IS 200PHP).LIFETIME ACCESS ALREADY.

Gay Truth


NOTE:This page is intended for gay people only.We do not force anybody to believe what we believe.Let us just respect the beliefs of each other,in order for us not to have misunderstandings..peace,peace.peace and love,love,love to everyone.Thank you.
Unang-una sa lahat nagpapasalamat kami sa souce ng mga impormasyong napapaloob sa page na ito.Naniniwala kami na marami pa kayong malalaman sa site niya na maaaring ngayon niyo lang malalaman.Kung gusto niyong puntahan ang source site namin.Kindly Click Here.

Tanong: Nilalang nga ba ng Diyos ang mga Bakla?

Sagot: OO naman,Bakit?Dahil ayon sa Genesis,ang lahat ng tao ay nanggaling sa iisang ina at iyon ay si Eba(Genesis 3:20),Tao rin naman ang mga bakla,Kaya malinaw na nilikha ng Diyos si Eba at nanggaling ang lahat ng tao kay Eba at kabilang na ang mga bakla doon.Therefore si God din ang gumawa ng mga bakla.Gets niyo?Kaya wag kayong papayag na sabihin ng iba na hindi ginawa ng Diyos ang mga Bakla.

Tanong: Eh Bakit,Parati nalang sinasabi nila na lalaki at babae lang daw ang nilalang ng diyos dahil si Eba at si Adan lang ang nilikha ng Diyos?

Sagot:OO nga nakakasawa na yang dahilan nilang yan na dahil lamang si Adan at si Eba lang ang nilikha ng Diyos ng time ng creation ay hindi na kasama sa nilika ng Diyos ang mga bakla,Ang sagot ko sa sinasabi nila,used their common sense,Bakit use their common sense?Eh kasi ng time ng creation o ng paglalang nakapokus ang lahat sa pagpaparami o reproduction,So dahil dun,Bakit lalalangin ng Diyos ang isang bakla that time?Paano dadami ang tao kung bakla ang nilikha ng Diyos,eh alam naman natin na sa isang homosexual relationship eh wala namang kakayahan ang homosexual partner na gumawa ng bata.So papano maisasa katuparan ang kagustuhan ng Diyos na dumami ang tao that time?At yun na nga ang nangyari ng dumami na ang tao doon na nagsilabasan ang mga Bading..At dumami pa ng dumami.Kung hindi nilikha ng Diyos ang mga bakla hindi na sana niya hinayaan na dumami pa ang mga bading sa mundo.Gets niyo?Kaya huwag kayong papayag na hindi nilikha ng Diyos ang mga bakla.

Tanong: Bakit nga ba ginawa ng Diyos ang mga Bakla?

Sagot: Upang hindi magkagulo sa mundo?In what way?Let me explain.at the beginning.Alam naman nating lahat na hindi ginawa ng Diyos na pare-pareho ang tao.May bulag,may bingi,may maitim,may maputi,may mayaman, may mahirap, may bakla,may tomboy and etc.Bakit nga kaya ganun?Ang sagot,Upang hindi tayo magkagulo.Halimbawa nalang,nilikha ng Diyos ang tao na pare-pareho ang mukha.Kapag may isang kriminal at huhulihin ito ng pulis at yung kriminal ay tumakbo sa grupo ng maraming tao at dahil magkakamukha ang mga tao.Hindi malalaman ng pulis ang huhulihin niya sapagkat pare pareho ang mga mukha nito.At pag humarap ang pulis sa salamin,makikita niya na kamukha niya rin ang kriminal na yun kayat pwede niya ring hulihin ang sarili niya.Gets niyo?Magulo ang mundo pag pare pareho tayo.Another example;Isipin nalang natin na pare pareho tayong nilikha ng Diyos na mayaman.Kapag inutusan ng isang mayaman  ang kapwa niya mayaman,sa tingin niyo ba susunod yung isang mayaman.Hindi,ang idadahilan nun;"Pareho tayong mayaman bat muko uutusan?"at pag di pa magkasundo ay baka mag away pa ang mga ito.Gets niyo?Ganun din ang dahilan Bakit may bakla at tomboy,sapagkat nilikha tayo ng Diyos na iba-iba.Naniniwala ba kayo na may nag eexist ngayon na bulag?oo naman.Na may mayaman?oo naman.Na may bakla?Ofcourse yes.Ngayon alam niyo na?Isipin niyo nalang kung ayaw ng Diyos sa bakla at mga homosexuals eh di sama hindi Niya na hinayaan na dumami pa ang mga lahi nito?Diba?Like what happened at Noahs time.Diba ginunaw ng Diyos ang mundo dahil labis na ang kasamaan ng mga tao,kaya,kaya niya rin gawin iyon ulit kung ayaw sa pagdami ng kabaklaan sa mundo.Sana na gets niyo explanation ko.


Kung nilalang nga ng Diyos ang mga bakla,Bakit maraming mga tao ang nagsasabing bawal daw sa bibliya ang pagiging bakla at marami pa silang verse na pinapakita kung saan sinasabi nila na hindi sinasang-ayunan ng Diyos ang mga bakla?

Sagot: Kung hindi ka magbabasa ng bibliya,talagang maaari ka nilang mapaniwala na yung mga verse na pinapakita nila na galing sa bibliya ay patungkol sa mga bakla,pero ang katotohanan ay hindi ito patungkol sa mga bakla.Iisa-isahin ko sa inyo ang mga verse na ginagamit nila sa bibliya na ayon sa kanila ay patungkol sa mga bakla.

(Sodom and Gomorrah)

Sodom and Gomorrah were Canaanite cities built on trade routes and the kings of those cities grew wealthy through trade and the plundering of weaker cities.  Sodom itself was plundered by Shemite kings in Genesis 14:1-12; because of this the residents of Sodom did not trust strangers and they didn’t extend hospitality to anyone from outside the city.  In addition, the inhabitants of Sodom worshipped a Canaanite deity and took part in temple prostitution.

Genesis 18:20-32 contains the account where the Lord is heading toward the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because “the people of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.” (Genesis 13:13)  Abraham begins to bargain with God and intervene for the inhabitants of the city in the hope that there would be at less ten righteous in the city and the city would be spared from destruction.  Keep in mind, God had already decided to destroy the cities before the angels arrived in Sodom.

In Genesis 19 the two angels arrive in Sodom and they are greeted by Lot.  Lot strongly urges the two angels to spend the night in his house opposed to spending the night in the square.

“But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.”  Genesis 19:4-5 NRSV

Most nongay Christians hold the belief that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality.  There are homosexuals in every city, state and nation of the world, but they only make up a small fraction of the population compared to heterosexuals.  I am sure the situation was the same in Sodom.  Keep in mind, God agreed to spare the city if He found only ten righteous.
The Hebrew word for “to know” is Yada.  This word is used 943 times in the Old Testament and it has various meanings.  It can mean to know right from wrong, good from evil, to know God, to know the truth, the law, people, places or things.  Only about a dozen times does this word refer to sexual activity.  Yada is a general term that describes many kinds of intimate relationships.

If you take into account the context of Genesis 19:1-8, the men wanted to rape the angels.  If you take into account the culture in Sodom at that time in history, you find the people of Sodom participated in fertility cult worship, they were suspicious of all strangers and they were very inhospitable.  It was also a common practice at that time in history for men to rape other men as a form of humiliation and belittlement.

“Look, I have two daughters who have not know a man; let me bring them out to you, and do with them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”  Genesis 19:8 NRSV

According to the culture of Lot’s day, Lot was obligated to provide hospitality and protection to his visitors.  Because of this obligation and the fact that women were considered property, Lot offered his daughters to the angry mob.

If all the men in Sodom were homosexuals, it would be logical to assume Lot would have been aware of this and he would have never offered his daughters knowing the men would reject them.

There is a similar story to the Genesis account in Judges 19:14-30 were a Levite was traveling with his concubine and they arrived in Gibeah.  An old man of the town offered the Levite and his concubine lodging and food.  As they were enjoying the old man’s hospitality, the men of the city pounded on the door demanding that the old man send the Levite out to them.

There are some similarities and differences concerning these two accounts but I am going to concentrate on two main points.  In Genesis, the strangers were angels and in Judges the strangers were a man, a servant and his concubine.  In the Genesis account, the men rejected the offering of Lot’s two daughters and in the Judges account, the old man offered both his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine, but the angry men only accepted the Levite’s concubine.  The men were only interested in raping the visiting strangers, not the citizens.

The issues behind both of these biblical accounts are gang rape and sex with angels in which Jude 6 & 7, 2 Peter 2:4-6 and the Testament of Naphtali 3:3-5 are in agreement.

“And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”   Jude 6&7 NKJV

The Greek words Jude used for “strange flesh” is sarkos heteras which means different flesh, it is were we get the word “heterosexual.”  According to Jude in verse 6 the strange flesh he was referring to is angel flesh.  The passages below from 2 Peter appears to agree with the words of Jude.

“For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly.”  2 Peter 2:4-6 NKJV

Peter first references Revelation 12:7-9 as a reason for the fall, then Genesis 6:1-4 as a reason for the flood, then Genesis 19:1-15 as the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  These references point back to the two verses in Jude which show the strange flesh is angel flesh.

Here is a quote out of Rick Brentlinger’s book Gay Christian 101, Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians from the Testament of Naphtali referring to the sin of Sodom.

“The Gentiles went astray, and forsook the Lord, and changed their order, and obeyed stocks and stones, spirits of deceit.  But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless.”  Testament of Naphtali 3:3-5

The Testament of Naphtali agrees with the verses in Jude and Peter.  Therefore, we can conclude part of the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was gang rape and going after angel flesh.  I believe the men of Sodom were aware Lot’s guests were angels and even with this knowledge they still wanted to rape them.

There are various passages of scripture which outline reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; however, I believe Ezekiel tells exactly why God destroyed the cities.


“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom:  She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  “And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”  Ezekiel 16:49-50 NKJV

Ezekiel gave many reasons for the cities destruction but homosexuality was not mentioned.  In fact, none of the scriptures site homosexuality as a reason.  Jesus didn’t seem to think so either; He said the sin was inhospitality.

Letting the scriptures speak for themselves, it is obvious the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality or same sex relationships.  The cities were destroyed because of idolatry, inhospitality, haughtiness, pride and a lack of concern for the poor and needy.  They were also fornicators who went after angel flesh.  




Hindi patungkol sa mga bakla ang nangyari sa Sodoma at Gomora,at paano ko naman nasabi yun?Kung babasahin niyo sa Genesis 19:8 Ito ang nakasulat "Ako'y may dalawang anak na dalaga, sila na lang ang ibibigay ko sa inyo at gawin ninyo sa kanila ang gusto ninyo, huwag lamang ninyong galawin ang mga lalaking ito. Mga panauhin ko sila at dapat ko silang ingatan."Yan kung mga bakla ang nakatira sa Sodoma ng panahong iyo malamang aware na si Lot nun,At Bakit niya ibibigay ang dalawa niyang anak ng dalaga sa mga lalaking iyon?Eh, alam niyang mga bading ang mga taong pinagbibigyan niya?Sa makatuwid,hindi mga bakla ang mga tao sa Sodoma sapagkat mga anak na dalaga ang inalay ni Lot sa kanila.Gets niyo?

Ang totoong dahilan bakit ginunaw ang Sodoma at Gomora ay matatagpuan sa Ezekiel 16:49-50,at ito ang sabi; "Tingnan mo ang mga kasalanan ng Sodoma: siya at ang kanyang mga anak ay may maipagmamalaking kayamanan at kasaganaan sa buhay, ngunit hindi sila marunong tumulong sa mga nangangailangan, naging palalo sila."Kaya malinaw na hindi dahil sa kabaklan kaya ginunaw ang Sodoma.

(Leviticus)


In the Book of Leviticus, chapters 17-26 are known as the Levitical Holiness Code.  The code is a set of commands given to the nation of Israel outlining the proper conduct they were to follow while in the land of Palestine, under the Law of Moses.  The code addressed the nation of Israel thirteen separate times.  It never addressed the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans or Christians.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a women; it is an abomination.”  Leviticus 18:22 NRSV


“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”  Leviticus 20:13 NRSV

What is the religious context behind the above verses?  In order for us to begin to reach a conclusion we must take a closer look at Leviticus 18:21.

“You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God:  I am the Lord.”  Leviticus 18:21 NRSV

The purpose behind this prohibition relates to the issue of idolatry concerning the Canaanites.  God did not want the Israelites to engage in any of the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites.  The idea was to separate them and keep them from defiling themselves.

The Canaanites worshipped Molech, also known throughout Palestine and the Bible by the general name Baal.  Molech was associated with life and reproduction and children were also sacrificed as a form of worship to this false god.  The goddess Ashoreth was also worshipped along with Molech, this goddess represented fertility.

The prohibitions addressed after Leviticus 18:21 refer to idol worship and shrine cult prostitution which will be discussed more when we cover Deuteronomy 23:17.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 address male worshippers who stood in for the fertility goddess.  These male worshippers used sex as a form of worship to their deity; men had sex with men as well as women.  Some men even castrated themselves in order to worship Baal and Ashoreth.

When the Bible mentions something as being an abomination what is it referring to?  The Hebrew word for abomination is toebah and it means detestable.  Something that is detestable is culturally or ritually associated with idolatry.

God calls the eating of certain foods such as shellfish, pork and rabbits an abomination.  He also forbids the wearing of mixed fabrics.  These things within themselves are not bad or immoral.  These things were seen as an abomination because they were culturally or ritually associated with idolatry.

In the same sense, a sexual relationship between two men or two women is not bad or immoral within itself; it was viewed as an abomination by God in the context of idol worship.  We as Christians no longer refrain from eating certain foods because we view them as sinful; we simply see them as food.  We no longer refrain from wearing cloths with mixed fabrics; we simply see them as clothing.  These things are no longer associated with cultural or ritual idolatry.

If God was really condemning same sex relationships as some nongays believe, why is there no mention of female-female sex within these verses?  In cult shrine prostitution male worshippers participated in sex with both male and female shrine prostitutes, however females never had sex with other females because women do not have seed.  The worship of the deity involved the spilling of seed or the sacrificing of seed, such as child sacrifice.    



Those who live prior to the Law of Moses were not under the Law.

Those who lived prior to the Law of Moses were not required to live under the Law.  As we will see, those who lived prior to the Law would have clearly violated the Law.

    Abraham and Sarah

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad.”  Leviticus 18:9 NRSV

“If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, he shall be subject to punishment.”  Leviticus 20:17 NRSV

“Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister…”  Genesis 20:2 NRSV

“Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.”  Genesis 20:17 NRSV

The Law of Moses clearly forbids a man to marry is sister, yet we know from the text that Abraham married his sister Sarah.  Even though this violates the Law, God bless them and their seed Isaac.  Therefore, the Law was not binding for them.


Amram and Jochebed

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh.”  Leviticus 18:12 NRSV

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to lay bare one’s own flesh; they shall be subject to punishment.”  Leviticus 20:19 NRSV

“Amram married Jochebed his father’s sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the length of Amram’s life was one hundred thirty-seven years.”  Exodus 6:20 NRSV

The Law of Moses clearly forbids a man to marry his aunt, yet we know Amram married his aunt Jochebed.  Even though this violates the Law, God blessed them and used both Aaron and Moses to free the Hebrews from slavery to Egypt.  Therefore, the Law was not binding to them.


Judah and Tamar

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law:  she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.”  Leviticus 18:15 NRSV

“If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion, their blood is upon them.”  Leviticus 20:12 NRSV

According to the account in Genesis 38:16-26 that is exactly what took place.

The Law of Moses clearly forbids a man to have sex with his daughter in law, yet we know Tamar was Judah’s daughter in law.  Even though this violates the Law, Jesus came from the tribe of Judah.  Therefore, the Law was not binding for them.


Jacob with Leah and Rachel

“And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.”  Leviticus 18:18 NRSV

According to the account in Genesis 29:18-28 that is exactly what took place.

The Law of Moses clearly forbids a man to marry two sisters while they are both living, yet we know Jacob married both Leah and Rachel who were sisters.  Even though this violates the Law, Joseph and Benjamin were born from the second wife Rachel, in which Joseph was used by God to save a nation.  Therefore, the Law was not binding for them.

Leviticus 18 describes the nature of the crimes and Leviticus 20 describes the punishment for the crimes, yet God never punished Abraham or Sarah, Amram or Jochebed, Judah or Tamar, Jacob, Leah or Rachel.


Those who lived after the death of Christ are not bound by the Law

There are those who still insist homosexuals have to abide with the Law of Moses.  The Law of Moses began around 1450BC and ended in 30AD with the death of Christ.

As we have already established, those living prior to the Law of Moses did not need to abide by the Law and the people who lived after the death of Christ are not required to follow the Law.  Below are a few scriptures that show us this is true.

“For this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, because a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.  Where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.  For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.”  Hebrews 9:15-17 NRSV

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”  Romans 6:14 NRSV

“For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”  Romans 10:4 NRSV

“The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”  John 1:17 NRSV

The death of Christ was the end of the Law of Moses; it was never intended for Christians to follow.

The text in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 do not address or condemn homosexuals or homosexuality.  However, the text does forbid heterosexual men to have sex with other men (for the purpose of ritual prostitution) like they would usually have sex with a woman.

The text has nothing to do with homosexuality, not as we know it.  The text clearly addresses the issue of shrine or cult prostitution connected with the worship of Baal and Ashoreth.

The children of Israel were forbidden to take part in Canaanite fertility rituals.  These rituals had nothing to do with marriage, (heterosexual or homosexual) love or devotion to one another.  The Law of Moses is obsolete and is no longer binding to Christians or homosexuals.  The text in Leviticus does not condemn homosexuality.  




Isa pa ito sa mga verse na paboritong gamitin ng mga taong nagsasabing bawal sa bibliya ang bakla,sa totoo lang basahin muna nilang mabuti ang Leviticus Chapter 18 para malaman nila kung kanino pinapatungkol ang verse na ito.Hindi ito patungkol sa mga kabaklaan o sa mga honosexuals.Ito ay patunkol sa mga Israelites kung saan laganap noon ang pagsamba sa diyus-diyusan nilang si Baal.Sa pamamagitan ng pakikipagtalik ng natural na lalaki sa isang natural na lalaki naipapakita nila ang pagsamba nila sa kanilang diyus-diyusanKung totoong sa homosexuality ito pinapatungkol,Bakit hindi nasabi ang pakikipagtalik ng babae sa babae sa mga verse na ito?Sapagkat wala namang seed o binhi ang mga babae kaya sa lalaki sa lalaki ang ginagawa nilang pagtatalikkung saan isa nila itong ritual upang sambahin ang kanilang diyus-diyusan.Gets niyo?Hayx,unawain muna kasi bago iinterpret.



(Deuteronomy)

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.  Thou shall not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow:  for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”  Deuteronomy 23:17-18 KJV

The Hebrew word for sodomite is qadesh (male temple prostitute and the Hebrew word or whore is qadeshah (female temple prostitute).  The term sodomite does not refer to the city of Sodom or the inhabitants.


“My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them:  for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God.  They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and elms, because the shadow thereof is good:  therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.  I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery:  for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots:  therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.”  Hosea 4:12-14 KJV

The verses in Deuteronomy and Hosea both contain the Hebrew words qadeshah (female temple prostitute) and zanah (street prostitute).  Even though the two are different, the text in Hosea connects them.  The text connects the two because the zanah participated in idolatrous temple worship with the qadeshah.  The Israelites strayed so far from God that the street prostitutes started to give themselves sexually to the worship of idols.

In addition, in Deuteronomy the qadesh was related to the dog (kelev).  The use of dog in the text is a term used for a male shrine prostitute.

The text of Deuteronomy and Hosea are related to the verses in Leviticus but they are not the same.  Leviticus refers to male shrine prostitution where the verses in Deuteronomy and Hosea refer to both male and female shrine prostitutes.

It is fairly clear the text in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Hosea do not refer to homosexuality and they do not condemn homosexuality and sodomites are temple prostitutes not homosexuals.  The whole context of the verses relate to idolatry and temple prostitution.





Katulad din ito ng nasa Leviticus,hindi ito patungkol sa homosexuality pero patungkol ito sa pagsamba nila sa kanilang diyus-diyusan at part ng kanilang ritual ang pakikipagtalik sa lalaki sa kapwa lalaki.Kaya hindi ito patungkol sa Homosexuality but it is a natural man to natural man sex interaction.

NEW TESTAMENT VERSES:

Romans 1:26-27 is one of the favorite verses nongays like to use to condemn homosexuality.  Was Paul really addressing homosexuality or was he confronting a completely different issue?  We know for a fact, temple prostitution was heavily practiced in Rome and we know immorality among the people was widespread.  So, let’s examine the scriptures and address the real issue behind Romans 1:18-28.

It is also important to keep in mind when Paul wrote Romans he was writing about the culture he knew in the first century and he wrote Romans in a manner in which the people living in the first century would know and understand.
In Paul’s day there were many temples in Rome and one of these temples was the temple of Cybele.  Cybele was known as the Magna Mater (Great Mother) and Mother of the gods and was worshipped as the Sacred Protectress of Rome.  She was also depicted on Roman coins.

Goddess worship and shrine prostitution was widely practiced in Rome.  Cybele worship included orgies and ritual bloodletting by both the priest and priestesses which was similar to the practices of those worshipping Baal in the Old Testament.

The priests were known as galli or gallus who were physically castrated.  They castrated themselves to honor their servitude to the goddess and offered themselves sexually to male worshippers.

Let’s begin the breakdown of the verses.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.  So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves.”  Romans 1:18-24 NRSV

I believe the verses above describe two types of people.  First, the Gentiles who rejected God and worshipped false gods and second the nation of Israel who forsook God and turned to idol worship.

In the verses we are going to examine you will see a cause of God’s wrath toward these people and result of his wrath.  God is loving, patience, kind and merciful but one can only reject Him for so long before He pulls His hands of protection away and allows them to reap what they sow.  Obviously God wants to be first in everyone’s life but if someone wants to worship idols, He will eventually let them.

We need to take a closer look at Romans 1:23-24 where Paul states they exchanged the image of the immortal God and worshipped images.  One of issue’s Paul wrote about was the making of idols.  We are going to read 2 Kings 17:9-17 which shows the nation of Israel did exactly what Paul addressed in the verses in Romans.
“The people of Israel secretly did things that were not right against the Lord their God.  They built for themselves high places at all their towns, from watchtower to fortified city; they set up for themselves pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every green tree; there they made offerings on all the high places, as the nations did whom the Lord carried away before them.  They did wicked things, provoking the Lord to anger; they served idols, of which the Lord had said to them, “You shall not do this.”  Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.”  They would not listen but were stubborn, as their ancestors had been, who did not believe in the Lord their God.  They despised his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their ancestors, and the warnings that he gave them.  They went after false idols and became false; they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the Lord had commanded them that they should not do as they did.  They rejected all the commandments of the Lord their God and made for themselves cast images of two calves; they made a sacred pole, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.  They made their sons and their daughters pass through fire; they used divination and augury; and they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.”  2 Kings 17:9-17 NRSV

The above text is certainly not the only text that speaks of the idolatry regarding the children of Israel but is just one example.  It verifies the issue Paul was addressing in Romans and we certainly do not need any proof text that the Gentiles engaged in idolatrous practices because the Bible is littered with those types of examples.

Examples like the one above tell me the children of Israel could not have understood nor had a personal relationship with the one and only God.  It is just more proof that the Law did not bring the nation of Israel closer to God; instead, they drew further away.

Now that we know the cause of God’s wrath, we need to look at the effect of His wrath.  Because both the nation of Israel and Gentiles made and worshipped idols and God allowed them to engage in temple prostitution and dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  He allowed them to do exactly what they wanted to do.

Paul is also addressing people who worship birds, four-footed creatures and reptiles.  I personally don’t know anyone who is Christian who worships such creatures so it is obvious Paul could not be talking to us.

When it is clear Paul is addressing idolatry it is hard to understand why nongays cannot or will not acknowledge this fact.  Paul is not condemning homosexuals who are in a committed relationship with a partner of the same sex.

“Because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!  Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.  Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural.”  Romans 1:25-26 NRSV

In the above verse we have another cause and effect.  Because they continued to reject God and worship idols God gave them up to degrading passions.  In the Greek, the term degrading passions is atimia pathos which means to lower down a person from a place of honor through lustful desire.

Since we know Paul is addressing the issue of idolatry and temple prostitution, it is reasonable to conclude that God giving them over to degrading passions refers to cult temple prostitution.  Those participating in temple prostitution used sex as a form of worship to their fertility goddess.  This practice had nothing to do with love or a normal relationship.

The above verses speak of women exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural intercourse.  I have searched for any evidence that women had sex with other women concerning temple prostitution and I have been unsuccessful in finding any such evidence.  I have even talked to a local minister who has studied ancient temple prostitution and she has never found any such evidence either.  It is possible women to women sex could have happened in wild orgies, but that is just a guess.

I am more inclined to believe the exchanging of natural intercourse for unnatural intercourse deals with the prostituting of one’s body.  Certainly prostitution is not the intention God had in mind concerning sexual relations.  To me, prostituting one’s body is unnatural.

“And in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.  Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.”  Romans 1:27-28 NRSV

We already know men had sex with other men as well as women in cult temple prostitution.  Again, the context is dealing with temple prostitution, not committed loving relationships, whether that relationship is heterosexual or homosexual.  God is allowing them to do what they wanted to do.  They wanted to engage in temple prostitution and He let them.

Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality, but He did condemn idolatry and prostitution.  Also, since men were also having sex with women in temple rituals should we conclude that heterosexuality is wrong and God condemns that as well?

Obviously we know that is not true.  It is clear Paul is not condemning homosexuality, not as we know it.  We know those in temple worship engaged in homosexual acts but it is unlikely these people were truly homosexuals.  I believe most were heterosexually married and only engaged in such acts as a form of worship, it certainly was not their sexual orientation.

It is not to say that homosexuals did not engage in such activity, but I am saying the activity had nothing to do with a loving, committed relationship.  Paul is not condemning lesbianism or homosexuality.  The whole context of Romans 1:18-28 addresses the issue of idolatry and should be understood in that manner.


(1 Corinthians)

“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, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV

Before we dive into the above verses and the meaning of malakos, there are types of male-male sexual relations that were acceptable in Roman culture.

-    Pederasty
-    Male prostitution with other males
-    Shrine prostitution
-    Male-male sex between slaves
-    Male-male rape of slaves
-    Exploitation of male slaves in brothels for economic reasons
-    Homosexual relationships between males of equal status

Again, when Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians he was writing about the culture he knew in the first century in which his readers would have understood the context of the issues in which he addressed.

The main issue we need to address is the meaning of the word used for effeminate (malakos).  According to the ancients the term malakos had a variety of meanings.  For example:

-    Pericles believed the word referred to intellect
-    Plato believed the word referred to too much music
-    Aristotle believed the word referred to a lack of restraint and excessive enjoyment or bodily pleasures
-    Josephus believed the word referred to lack of courage
-    Plutarch believed the word referred to passive sexuality in heterosexual men
-    John the Faster believed the word referred to masturbation

In general, malakos means soft.  It could refer to soft clothing, soft bedding or possibly someone who is morally weak.  Jesus Himself used malakos to refer to soft clothing.

With such a wide variety of meanings it is unclear to what exactly the word malakos actually means.  More importantly, it is probably more beneficial to tackle the issue of what malakos does not mean.  Is homosexual an accurate translation of malakos?  Since malakos was not translated as homosexual until 1958 in the Amplified Bible, the answer is no!

In our time and culture it is impossible for any of us or any scholar to accurately translate malakos with any certainty.  Therefore the only way to come to a conclusion regarding the meaning of the word is to examine what the ancients believed it meant.

Below is a quote taken from Rick Brentlinger’s book Gay Christian 101, Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians.  This quote is from Clement of Alexandria, AD 150-215.

“Decoration makes women courtesans [prostitutes], and men effeminate and adulterers… they become effeminate, cutting their hair in an ungentlemenlike and meretricious way [meretricious is Latin, indicating a prostitute who attracts attention in a vulgar manner], clothed in fine and transparent garments, chewing mastich, smelling of perfume.  What can one say on seeing them?  Like one who judges people by their foreheads [Jeremiah 3:3 – “thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed,”  Jeremiah 6:15, 8:12, Revelation 17:5], he will divine them to be adulterers and effeminate addicted to both kinds of venery, haters of hair, destitute of hair, detesting the bloom of manliness [facial and body hair], and adorning their locks like women…  those who take out hair by pitch-plasters, shave, and pluck out hairs from these womanish creatures… Such are those addicted to base passions, whose whole body is made smooth…  But for those who are men to shave and smooth themselves, how ignoble!  As for dyeing of hair, and anointing of grey locks, and dyeing them yellow, these are practices of abandoned effeminates; and their feminine combing of themselves is a thing to be let alone.”

From the description above, it seems very likely Clement of Alexandria is describing the cult temple priests known as galli or gallus.  These male priests castrated themselves and adorned themselves in a feminine manner as agents of the fertility goddess.  Because they serviced male worshippers they adorned themselves to resemble women.

There are male homosexuals who exhibit more feminine tracts than others but the use of effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is not describing a man who is inherently gay.

From the list of definitions regarding malakos it is impossible to be certain who Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.  It could have been a shrine prostitute, a pedophile, someone who was morally weak, etc.  I would be more inclined to believe Paul was referring to a shrine prostitute but that is just a guess.  However, I am certain Paul’s use of malakos in this verse does not refer to homosexual.  It simply does not fit.


(1 Timothy)


“For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”  1 Timothy 1:10 KJV

The word used for them that defile themselves with mankind is arsenokoites.  Arsenokoites is a compound word where the Greek word arseno means man or male and the Greek word koite which means bed or couch.

The origin of the word is thought to coined by either Paul or the Hellenistic Jews.  The word could mean shrine prostitute, pederasty or it could possibly refer to incest.   We cannot be sure what the true meaning of the word is since it is a made up word.

In Rick Brentlinger’s book Gay Christian 101, Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians, a heterosexual linguistic scholar, James Barr makes the statement:

“The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history…  it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.”

Nongays attempt to make the individual meanings of male (arseno) and bed (koite) to mean homosexual with no regard to the historic usage of the word.  If someone living 2000 years from now tried to accurately define a modern compound word such as jitterbug or fancypants, they would probably come up with a definition far from what the words actually mean.

Even though it is impossible to know exactly what arsenokoites actually means, there is a clue in a quote by John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, around AD 575.  This is another quote from Gay Christian 101.

“One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling, and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones.  One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both).  [Jacob with Leah and Rachel] Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one’s son; another the wife of one’s brother.  It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father’s concubine.  Some even do it with their own mothers and others with foster sisters or goddaughters.  In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”

From the above quote it is clear arsenokoites does not mean homosexual at least John the Faster did not think so.  The meaning of the word is unclear and all one can really do is make a guess to what arsenokoites actually means.  That being said, it is a giant leap to translate the word as homosexual.

There is not enough evidence to point to any particular behavior and make it stick.  If Paul was really condemning homosexuality, he would not have been so vague.  He would have used a word the ancients understood to mean homosexual, not a made up word in which the definition is not clear.  




Sana naintindihan niyo na lahat ng verses na ito na matatagpuan sa bagong tipan ay hindi patungkol sa homosexuality.


Tanong:Kung hindi patungkol sa homosexuality ang mga verses na ginagamit nila,Ibig bang sabihin nito na hindi kasalanan ang maging bakla?


Sagot:TAMA, hindi kasalanan ang maging isang bakla.Nilikha ng Diyos ang mga bakla at normal lamang na kalatan ng mga bakla ang buong mundo.


Tanong:Kung hindi kasalanan ang maging isang bakla,Maaari ka bang magbigay ng halimbawa kung saan makikita na noon pa man ng panahon ng bibliya ay may nag-eexist na na homosexual relationship?


Sagot: OO naman.Merong pangyayari sa bibliya kung saan kung babasahin at iintindihin lang nating mabuti ay malalaman natin na isa itong homosexual relationship.Bibigyan ko kayo ng tag-iisang halimbawa mula sa luma at bagong tipan na matatagpuan sa bibliya.


LUMANG TIPAN:

(Jonathan and David)

The story of Jonathan and David is very intriguing.  Could it be they were just close friends as is the view of the Traditionalists or were Jonathan and David involved romantically?  In my and many others view, the text suggests the two were a couple.  I don’t believe we are reading something into the text that is really not there just because we want to justify homosexuality.  We are going to examine the text and quotes from scholars to answer the question whether Jonathan and David were romantically involved.

“Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself.  Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house.  Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.  Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt.”  1 Samuel 18:1-4 NASB

I have to admit this is odd behavior for Jonathan who is next in line for the throne to hand over (without a second thought) his royal robe, armor, sword, bow and belt to David.  Here we have Jonathan handing over to David his right to the throne.

There are those who say Jonathan made a covenant with David for a political advantage.  Given that Jonathan was already next in line for the throne, he didn’t necessarily need the help of David; he could call on his army at any time.  David could protect himself but it could have been to David’s advantage to make a covenant with Jonathan.  Yet, it is Jonathan making a covenant with David.  So, the question remains, if the covenant was not for political gain, what was its purpose?

Below is a quote from the book Gay Christian 101 concerning the context of the above verses in 1 Samuel 18:1-4.

“Matthew Henry, AD 1662-1714, tells us:  Jonathan “fell perfectly in love with him… the soul of Jonathan was immediately knit unto the soul of David…  David is seen in Jonathan’s clothes, that all may take notice he is Jonathan’s second self…  So entirely satisfied were they in each other, even at the first interview, that they made a covenant with each other, 1 Samuel 18:3.  True love desires to be constant.”

Below is the commentary on the above quote from the author of Gay Christian 101.

“Perhaps Matthew Henry based his description on the meaning of qashar, the Hebrew word translated in English as knit:  “the soul of Jonathan was (qashar) knit with the (nephesh) soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own (nephesh) soul.”  Qashar (knit), when linked with nephesh, (soul) as here, refers to being romantically in love with someone.  Nephesh conveys the idea of soul, self, life, desire, emotion, passion.  In this context, nephesh refers to the seat of emotions and passions while knit describes an activity which involves the mind, the will and the character.”

So, just from what we have examined so far, it is reasonable to conclude there was more to the relationship between Jonathan and David than just friendship.  To further solidify their relationship involved romance we must dissect some additional verses in 1 & 2 Samuel.

As we know Saul wanted to kill David even though David had done nothing wrong.  When the new moon came, Saul expected David to be present at the king’s table for the new moon meal.  However, David told Jonathan to tell Saul he needed to go to Bethlehem to take part in a yearly sacrifice.  Here is Saul’s reaction to this news.

“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan.  He said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!  Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?  For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.  Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.”  1 Samuel 20:30-31 NRSV

You have to wonder why Saul was so angry.  If Jonathan and David were only friends, there would be no reason for Saul to exhibit that kind of rage.  Something else was going on in which Saul did not approve.  Could it be Saul did not approve of Jonathan and David’s relationship?  Below is one of the quotes I found in Saul’s Sexual Insult and David’s Losing It Homosexuality and the Bible, Supplement by Bruce L. Gerig concerning the line “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman.”

“John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407), bishop of Constantinople, paraphrased this line by describing Jonathan as “You son of common whores, who are men-crazy and run after every man who comes into sight; you weak, effeminate wretch; you nothing of a man [!], who lives only to shame yourself and the mother who bore you.”

Now, let’s look at the next verse.  “Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame…?”  The main word here is the Hebrew word for chosen bacher which means “to choose.”  This word has an amorous component to it as described in the quote below also in the same work cited above by Bruce L.  Gerig.

“C.F. Keil and F. Delitszch (1950) hold that bacher means “to choose a person out of love, to take pleasure in a person.”  Tom Horner (1978) translates the second phrase of Saul’s outburst (from the Greek) as “For, do I not know that you are an intimate companion to the son of Jesse…?”  (20:30) Warren Johannson (1990) translates the same phrase as “do I not know that you are the darling of the son of Jesse…?”  Jonathan Kirsch (2000) agrees that the Greek version, probably the more accurate, does seem to suggest that Jonathan is sleeping with David.  Certainly, this is as valid an interpretation as any other; and, perhaps in the end, it is the most accurate one, since one must connect the clues here with other homoerotic, semi-buried clues found elsewhere in the text.  Although Nissenen (1998) states that he does not see a homosexual relationship here, he then writes, contradictorily, that Saul’s mention of the mother’s nakedness “gives the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.”

Now, let’s turn some attention to the phrase “to the shame of your mother’s nakedness.”  The Hebrew word for nakedness is erwa, a word which most often in the Old Testament refers to genitalia.  In the incest laws of Leviticus 18:6-18, to uncover someone’s nakedness meant to expose that person’s genitals, for sexual purposes.  Certainly Saul would have understood this and it was probably the context in which Saul was using it.

We also know Jonathan and David had a prearranged plan in place in order to notify David of Saul’s plan if he wanted to kill him.  We also know Jonathan was distressed concerning his father’s desire to kill David.  Below is a verse outlining what happened after Jonathan warned David regarding his father’s plan.

“… David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times:  and they kissed one another, and wept with one another, until David exceeded.”  1 Samuel 20:41 KJV

To this point we have been told of Jonathan’s love toward David, but know we see David showing his feelings toward Jonathan.  There is much debate regarding the meaning of the word “exceeded.”  Modern Bible translations usually have the word translated “wept the more’’ but there is probably more to the meaning of the word than some are willing to admit.  Below is another quote from Bruce L.  Gerig.

“Many objections may be raised to most of the English translations.  As William McKane (1963) notes, the idea of “excessively” is dubious Hebrew; and also the Hebrew cannot be translated as “until David recovered himself.”  David Jobling writes that the textual evidence for “wept the more” or “the longer” is flimsy.  Also, both the Hebrew and Greek texts make it clear that it is only David who “exceeded,” not both Jonathan and David.  Further, in view of the larger story, it can hardly be imagined that “David’s grief was even greater than Jonathan’s.”  The idea “until David recovered himself” hardly represents a great “consummation” as the Septuagint suggests, only a winding down.  Peter Ackroyd points out that very likely something is missing here in the text, as it now stands.  Hans Hertzberg notes that the Hebrew (ad higdil) is “incomprehensible”; and based on the older Septuagint text, the original Hebrew probably read ‘ad taklit gedola, which may be translated as “until [David] grew large [to] completion.”  Peter Ackroyd translates the ending as “to a great climax,” and Warren Johannson even more bluntly as “until the ejaculation.”

The Bible shows Jonathan and David met one final time (that we know of) and the verse below contains the content of that meeting.

“He said to him, “Do not be afraid; for the hand of my father Saul shall not find you; you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you; my father Saul also knows that this is so.”  1 Samuel 23:17 NRSV

What Jonathan said to David regarding his father not being able to find David is true.  Saul could never find David but Jonathan always knew where David was at any given point.  This probably means the armies of both Jonathan and David were working together to keep David’s location a secret from Saul.

Secondly, Jonathan makes the comment that he will reign along side David.  This is odd behavior for someone who was the rightful heir of the throne, to give that right away, yet plans to rule anyway.  The two planned to rule Israel together, this is even more evidence that Jonathan and David were romantically involved.

Finally, there is one last verse that requires attention and that verse is 2 Samuel 1:26.

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

In the above verse, David is making a contrast between the love of Jonathan and the love of women.  Before the death of Jonathan, David already had three wives and it is very unlikely David was speaking about the friendship of women as some suppose because men in David and Jonathan’s time did not have intimate, non-sexual friendships with women unless they were a member of the immediate family.

It is much more likely David was stating Jonathan’s love for him was greater and deeper than the love he has ever received or experienced from any of his wives.  Oddly enough, scripture never says that David loved any of his three wives.

Jonathan and David enjoyed a fifteen year relationship.  I believe there is enough evidence between the scriptures and the study of scholars to safely conclude Jonathan and David were much more than friends.




Sana nainitindihan niyo.Kung titingnan nating mabuti,hindi lang basta magkaibigan sina Jonathan at David kundi higit pa dito.



BAGONG TIPAN:
(Roman Centurion and His Pais)

“When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.”  And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.”  The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed.  For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”  When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.”  Matthew 8:5-10 NRSV

According to the Strong’s concordance the Greek word used for the centurion’s beloved servant is pais which is translated as servant, child, manservant, maid, maiden or young man.

Also, according the Strong’s concordance the Greek word used for the other servants of the centurion is doulos which is translated as bond, bondman and servant.

Greek language and literature used pais to mean “a beloved lover” or “the younger partner in a same sex relationship.”

If the servant the Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal was identical to any of his other servants, why does he use different words to distinguish between his servants?  The following quote from the book Gay Christian 101 will shed some light on the reason why.

“Kenneth J.  Dover, a heterosexual, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford University and noted authority on ancient Greece, tells us the younger partner in a homosexual relationship is called a pais or paidika.  The younger partner ranged in age from a teenage boy to an adult well into his thirties.”

Also, it was not common for Romans to view slaves as friends as noted in another quote from Gay Christian 101.

“Cato the Elder, 234-149 BC, was known as the conscience of Rome.  His views generally express the views of Roman culture in ancient times.  At age 80, around 152 BC, he gave advice to farmers about what to do on a newly purchased farm.  Cato suggested having a major sale, “getting rid of products and worn out equipment and worn out animals, [and sick] slaves…”  Cato would sell a sick slave, rather than find some way to effect his healing.  Cato, “the conscience of Rome” showed none of the concern for a sick slave that the Roman centurion showed in Matthew 8.”

The Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his pais and referred to his other servants as doulos.  Now, Jesus would have known what the centurion meant by his pais but the first thing Jesus says to this centurion is “I will come and cure him.”  Notice Jesus does not tell the centurion he has to end his homosexual relationship with his beloved pais before He would heal his servant.

Jesus did not accuse the centurion of any sin whatsoever, but Jesus does praise him for his great faith.  Certainly if homosexuality was such a grievous sin as many people want to believe, Jesus would have said so.

It is very possible the pais was the male lover of the centurion since in Greek and Roman culture a pais was known to be the younger male partner in a homosexual relationship.  Knowing this, if homosexuality was a sin, Jesus had the perfect opportunity to say so.  




Sa mga susunod na post ko,may mga shocking revelations ako  na maaaring ngayon niyo lang malalaman.
Katulad na lamang ng:






  • Did you know the
    first man to get
    saved by grace in the New Testament was a gay man?







  • Did you know Jesus never condemned gay people and never condemned gay partnerships? 





  • BLOGGERS NOTE: Kung may nga katanungan po kayo tungkol sa inyong pagkatao na nais niyong maliwanagan,maaari po ninyong ipadala ang inyong mga katanungan sa aming personal email address.Kindly message us at pgo_blog@yahoo.com and we will answer your questions sa lubos ng aming makakaya.Maraming salamat po.













    Abangan sa susunod na mga post ko kung ano ang mga katibayan ko sa mga pahayag na ito.Hanggang sa muli.GOD Bless to all of us.To GOD be the Glory.



    Blog Contents Disclaimer:

    -PhilippineGayOnline Blog do not host or upload any movies and films.Therefore,Philippine Gay Online Blog held no responsibility for the accuracy, compliance, copyright, decency, legality or any other aspect of the contents from third party,link,and source sites.If you have any legal issues for any of the movies and films located in this blog,kindly contact the appropriate host/source sites.Thank you.

    -We respect the intellectual property of others,thats why we are not hosting the videos here in our blog.This videos are courtesy of its right/true owner/up-loader.No copyright infringement intended upon the used of this videos.This videos are not hosted on our servers,this are all embedded only.For complaints about this videos,please contact the source site.Upon watching the videos in this site,you should be in the right age(18 years old and above) and you agree with the things stated above.

    DISCLAIMER NOTE:
    -If you believe that you are the real owner of some of the videos on this blog and you dont want to appear this videos on our blog even though it is just an embedded video only,We will respect your decision,kindly message us on our email add pgo_blog@yahoo.com and we will promptly remove this content.Thank you.

    Be One Of Us!Join This Site Now!