CATERING & WEDDING PLANNER BY KASEH BRIDAL: Wedding | Zamzary & Zila
Wedding | Zamzary & Zila
client | Zamzary & Zilavenue |Palong 16 ,Sertingdate | 25 July 2009make up by |jaja@KASEHwedd.dress|KASEH BRIDAL Leraars sien rooi oor pienk fees | Oudtshoorn Online
Leraars sien rooi oor pienk fees	“Homoseksualiteit ‘n gruwel en onnatuurlik”
Oudtshoorn. 30 Maart 2012. 07h03. Op die vooraand van die 2012 weergawe van die Absa KKNK, is Oudtshoorn se geestelike leiers besorg oor die planne om later vanjaar ‘n gay fees op die dorp te hou.
Die bohaai herinner aan die protes teen die optredes van Fokofpolisiekar op die ABSA KKNK 2006. In die jongste hoofstuk skryf pastoor Kobus van Zyl van die AGS Klein-Karoo Gemeente in Die Hoorn dat “homoseksualiteit ‘n gruwel en onnatuurlik” is en dat “ons as kerk” die voorgenome gay fees “ten sterkste teenstaan”.
Die brief word ook onder die name van 4 ander predikante gepubliseer: ds Ruthven van die Baptiste-kerk; ds Griebenow van die Helende Woord Bediening; ds Kruger van die Presbiteriaanse kerk; en Johan Barnard van die Vineyard-kerk.
OO se standpunt is dat daar onder geen omstandighede teen mense gediskrimineer mag word op grond van ras, geloof, ekonomiese omstandigheid, of seksuele oriëntasie nie.
Dat Die Bybel “homoseksualiteit” verdoem is ‘n verdagte waardeoordeel.
Die plaaslike leraars se eiesoortige hermeneutiek (Bybelse uitlegkunde) oor homoseksualiteit is ‘n aanklag teen die produk wat teologiese kweekskole lewer.
Die leraars meen homoseksualiteit is “onnatuurlik”…
Wel, dis so “onnatuurlik” soos linkshandigheid. Sowat 5 – 10% van mense is homoseksueel; sowat 5 – 10% is linkshandig.
Linkshandigheid is eeue lank deur die Christelike Kerk beskou as ‘n teken van verbondenheid met Satan. Dit was, byvoorbeeld, een van die “tekens” dat ‘n vrou ‘n heks was.
Linkshandigheid is sowaar eers in die tagtigerjare in Rusland gedekriminaliseer.
Dierkundiges en bioloë neem homoseksuele en lesbiese aktiwiteite al vir 200 jaar waar. Daar is meer as 600 wetenskaplike artikels oor dieselfdegeslag-seks onder diere.
Hoekom weet so min mense daarvan?
Die primatoloog Linda Wolfe ruk die haas hieroor uit die hoed: “Baie primatoloë is onwillig om hul inligting te publiseer omdat hulle homofobiese reaksie vrees (‘my kollegas gaan dink ek is gay’)”.
Dr. Bruce Bagemihl, ’n bioloog, het vorendag gekom met ’n lywige boek van 750 bladsye wat elke moontlike stuk navorsing en empiriese gegewe oor dieselfde-geslag-seks by diere bevat. Dit is ’n horing van ’n boek vir bedtyd: Biological Exuberance – Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
Die aap is uit die mou: Sowat 10%-20% van etlike dierspesies is homoseksueel, lesbies en biseksueel. Soogdiere, voëls, insekte, de lot. Gay skape (moffies?), bokke, bobbejane, olifante, dolfyne, walvisse, leeus, kraaie en kangaroes.
Die bioloog John Weinrich sê homoseksuele diere is “vindingryke virtuose” vergeleke met heteroseksuele. Twee laboratoriumstudies, van Simon LeVay en van Dean Hamer, reeds uit die vorige eeu, dui onteenseglik aan dat menslike seksuele oriëntasie ‘n biologiese funksie is.
Dit is verregaande dat rasionele mense in die 21ste eeu hulle nog op voorwetenskaaplike bronne kan beroep om biologiese diversiteit te verklaar. Dit is meer as verregaande – dis skynheilig. En dit is gewoon oneerlik.
Maar terug na Die Bybel:
Vir die antieke Hebreër was seks en voortplanting onlosmaaklik verweef. Semen het alles bevat wat vir die nuwe lewe nodig was; ‘n vrou was maar net ‘n broeikas, ‘n halfwas man wat niks tot die nuwe lewe bygedra het nie.
Wanneer ’n man met ’n man gemeenskap sou hê, vernietig hy eintlik ’n mensie – soos in die geval van Onan wat sy saad (die mensie) op die grond gestort het. Wanneer ‘n man seksueel soos ‘n vrou opgetree het, of behandel is, is die manlike waardigheid aangetas; is die hele Maatskappy se mans verneder. Die patriargale ysterhand van Hebreeuse kultuur is duidelik sigbaar in die afwesigheid van ‘n soortgelyke verbod op seks tussen vroue.
Paulus, weer, het geen begrip gehad van die moderne sielkundige insig dat ‘n gay oriëntasie vroeg in die lewe vasgelê word nie; dat heteroseksuele verhoudings vir gays “onnatuurlik” is nie.
Om ewige norme uit hierdie voorwetenskaplike paradigmas af te lei is om onverantwoordelik met Die Bybel om te gaan. Augustinus het dit in die vierde eeu gedoen en die mans van Sodom, wat die ou Nabye Oosterse gasvryheidreël oortree het, beskuldig van “homoseksuele verkragting”. Ons kennis van seks en seksualiteit, en ons seksuele moraal, het immers oor eeue heen verander.
Teenswoordige seksuele insig handhaaf steeds Die Bybel se veroordeling van bloedskande, verkragting, egbreuk en bestialiteit, maar verwerp egter Die Bybel se veroordeling van seks tydens maandstondes, selibaatheid, eksogamie, naaktheid, masturbasie, geboortebeperking, die benaming van geslagsorgane, en die bepaling dat semen en menstruasiebloed “onrein” is.
Moderne gemeenskappe verwerp ook Die Bybel se aanvaarding van prostitusie, poligamie, swaershuwelikke, seks met slawe, byvroue, kindertroues en om vroue as besittings te beskou, en veral die gebiedende opdrag om bepaalde oortreders te stenig.
Die Jesus van die Evangelies se verhoudingsnorm is een van respek en getrouheid. Hy het juis uit sy pad gegaan om almal wat uit hoofde van afkoms, biologie en ekonomiese desperaatheid uitgesluit was, in te sluit in die dampkring van onpartydige deernis. Dit baar standhoudende seksmaniere: dit buit nie uit nie, dit domineer nie; dit is verantwoordelik, ondersteunend, versorgend en liefdevol. Dis al. Dis genoeg.
2003. Britz, Etienne, Linkshandiges, gays ‘saam hemel toe’. Die Burger, 20 November 2003. Kaapstad.
2006. Snyman, S D. Help Levitikus 18:22 en 20:13 die (NG) Kerk in die Debat oor Homoseksualiteit? OTE 19/3.
2006. Van Aardt, W J. “Die biologie van Gay wees”. Noord-Wes Universiteit, Potchefstroom. 23 Januarie 2006
2008. Zanemvula de Wet, Annelize. Is homoseksualiteit regtig ‘onnatuurlik’?
By, 16 Augustus 2008. Kaapstad.
← How not to win friends and influence peopleSakekamer-voorsitter verwelkom feesgangers →	29 thoughts on “Leraars sien rooi oor pienk fees”	investigative public says:	2012/04/12 at 15:37	Beste Hansie.
Ek vra om verskoning vir my effe drastiese, geirriteerde en onnodige optrede van nou die dag. Alhoewel dit geen afbreek maak aan my sienings soos hierbo gestel nie, raak ek tog soms geirriteerd wanneer dit blyk ou en beproefde waardes, sedes, opvattinge en sieninge word blykbaar oorboord gegooi vir vernuwing en post moderne idees, terwille van inklusiwiteit, en selfs verdere verwarring,eerder as om die inherente menslike swakhede aan te spreek via die Skrif , bekering, vergifnis via die soendood ens. Jammer dat ek die man en nie die bal gespeel het nie. Ek glo jy sal verstaan.
Op sekere gedeeltes vd bespreking is ons op dieselfde bladsy, behoort alle sondaars met liefde en respek hanteer te word, ons almal meer verdraagsaam behoort te wees en ons broer se bewaker te wees, net soos wat ons self bewakers benodig, nooit kan oordeel veral omdat ons nog nooit in daardie persoon se skoene gestaan het nie en self van tyd tot tyd bekering en vergifnis benodig.
Hopelik sal ons aanhou hande uitreik na mekaar en selfs vrinne kan bly of raak, ten spyte van verskillende of uiteenlopende sieninge (Agreeing to disagree)
Op n ligter noot, voordat ek aanstaande week weer tot die eintlike onderwerp terugtree, die volgende: (op n ligter noot en meer uit ons eie era) maar dalk ook kontensieeus t.o.v. die onderwerp.
‘ clothes dryers ‘ and the clothes were hung out to dry in the fresh air and
‘ man hadn’t yet walked on the moon Your Grandfather and I got married first, .. …. … And then lived together..
The term ‘making out’ referred to how you did on your school exam…. Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, and instant coffee were unheard of. We had 5 &10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents.
Are you ready ????? This woman would be only 59 years old. GIVES YOU SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT…….
PASS THIS ON TO THE OLD ONES, THE YOUNG ONES WOULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
Hansie Wolmarans says:	2012/04/11 at 12:20	@sadruid. Dankie vir jou aanvaarding van gays en begrip vir hulle situasie. Wat betref mense wat tweeslagtig is, wat my betref moet ons hulle met dieselfde liefde en begrip aanvaar as enige ander mens. Wie is ons om te oordeel?
sadruid says:	2012/04/11 at 09:13	@ Hansie Wolmarans, pas op om die uit ander se woorde aan tehaal, gaan lees mooi wat in die groot boek staan ivm die ou wette, “as jy 1 afdwing op ander geld almal vir jou” en soos jy ander oordeel sal jy geoordeel word. Homosexualeteit kom wel in die natuur voor, en is geneeties nes linkshandigheid en velkleur. As jy die selfde bronne gebruek hoe verduidelik jy tweegeslagtelikheid (persone met albei geslags dele).
@KWB you oningeligtheid is ooglopend, ek daag jou uit om dit wat jy kwytraak ivm Sodom en Gamora te staaf uit you bron. Sover as wat ek kon vasstel was die sonde van Sodom en Gamora nie sexueel nie maar finansieel van aard, gierigheid, en self verryking. Wonder nou waar het ek die selfde gesien?
Daar is heelwat vertaalings foute in die geskrifte en oor tyd het die foute somige geestelikes goed te pas gekom, en ook die wyse waarop daar uit die bybel aangehaal word, soos “die man is hoof van die huis(punt).” maar wat staan in die volgende vers “Mans luister na jul vroue”!
Ek sluit af met Mark 19: 01,13. Nou het jul klippe om te gooi, kom ons kyk na wie en word gegooi en dit sal meer van die wat gooi vertel as die wat gegooi word.
Hansie Wolmarans says:	2012/04/11 at 08:15	KWB & Investigative Public! Your comments seem to be two sides of the same psyche. KWB, if God is punishing homo-eroticism, as you say, shouldn’t we leave punishment to God (‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’–Rm 12:19) and stop having a voyeuristic concern about how “they” “do it?”. By the way, your interpretation of the story is highly contentious. The Sodomites wanted to interrogate the strangers (“know” in the sense of “interrogate”). I experience your remarks as humiliating to gays and below any level of basic decency. Investigative, I agree with you that we should take hands; I sincerely tried to do it by engaging you in academic debate. My impression is that you lower the debate to the level of personal vindictive (“Hansie Slim” “Johnny Come Lately”), in stead of sticking to the argument. I did in fact follow the debate between you and Comment (Enough to know that you misspelled Romeines “Reik”–it should be “Ryk”; and that you describe yourself as “strait”–I sincerely hope you mean “straight”; I only know the word “strait” in contexts like “straitjacket”). It seems you have made up your mind beforehand, and is using and quoting the Bible (“God”) in a selective way to confirm you prejudices. This I find, to say the least, intellectually dishonest. Please note that I am not your “friend.” If we debate, let’s keep it on a professional leve.
investigative public says:	2012/04/10 at 17:04	Hansie Slim, “you are skilfully selective” op my skrywe hierbo – ons is al lankal deur en verby daardie punte van jou laaaang relaas – ek is jammer jy is n “Johnny come lately” tot hierdie debat, dan sou jy geweet het waaroor die crux gaan, hoekom ek SPESIFIEK verwys na die aangehaalde Link van COMMENT m.b.t disfunksionele families in daardie konteks en studie spesifiek, hoekom ek aanhoudend vir COMMENT vra oor sy seksuele orientering omdat dit sal help om hom by te staan en te antwoord, tensy hy/sy nie homoseksueel is nie (wat ek vermoed) en slegs eindelose verwarring met onnodig uitgerekte “akademiese redenasies” wil ontketen. (m.a.w. n side show)
Die res van jou argumente oor Bybelse teenstrydighede is n totaal ander debat, vir n ander dag my vriend. Elkeen het sy vrye wil en kan verander en verbeter soos wat die Gees jou persoonlik inspireer, of nie.”As a man thinketh, so is he.” Selfs immorele gedagtes oor n vrou is owerspelig en is ons almal onderworpe aan bekering, daagliks, dan nie ? Hier word nou onnodig hare gekloof. Kom ons reik hande uit aan almal en bly by die onderwerp asseblief.
KWB says:	2012/04/10 at 16:19	Die juiste rede waarom God Sodom en Gemorra verwoes het is omdat die mans Sodomie en Gatmors toegepas het, dit is immers die laaste genoemde begeerte na sonde die sondige praktyk van Sodomie-in-die-moerras. Niemand het hieraan ontkom nie en selfs die aksie van in die rigting kyk het Lot se vrou in ‘n sout mamparak verander. “Fire and brimstone” vir Sodom en Gemorra, laat my wonder of God hierdie praktyk meet aan hoe hy die aarde finaal sal vernietig oor die Pomparak praktyke. Wat is elk geval so lekker aan gatkryp?
Hansie Wolmarans says:	2012/04/10 at 13:28	Investigative Public. If I understand you correctly, you state the following:
(i)	People who participate in this debate should declare their sexual orientation.
(ii)	God supplies us with unambiguous moral guidelines of what is right and what is wrong, and God does not contradict Godself.
(iii)	We should pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Scripture who “can confirm this to any human being.”
(iv)	Various verses in the Old and New Testament indicate that homosexuality is a sin (like bestiality, incest, masturbation, rape, murder, theft and the like).
(v)	We should love the sinner but hate the sin. (I agree.)
(vi)	Marriage and family is the cornerstone of society.
(vii)	Homosexuals come from dysfunctional families.
(viii)	The reason why God forbids homosexuality is that it is unnatural, that it is unhygienic and that it does not lead to procreation.
In response, I would like to argue the following:
(a)	A statement of sexual orientation is irrelevant in a debate of this nature. It can only detract from the argument by promoting prejudice and homophobia. If I as a man argue for women’s rights, should I be required to pull down my pants to prove I am not a woman cross-dressing as a man? You will see I write under my own name. For me, that is enough.
(b)	The Bible (“God”) is not unambiguous when it comes to morality; in fact, it is downright contradictory. Things we find morally reprehensive are condoned in the Bible. Slavery (even in the New Testament) is permitted, as long as you treat your slaves well. You can even assault your slaves providing they survive for two days after (Ex. 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48). I purposefully omit all the Old Testament passages commanding genocide, rape and pillage.
(c)	Prayer to the Holy Spirit is no guarantee that we will make the right choices. Under the “guidance of the Holy Spirit” some churches claim that blood transfusion or contraception is sinful. You put masturbation in the same category (my church does not; and my teenage children certainly not). Reflect for a moment what faithful Christians did in the past under the “guidance of the Holy Spirit”: Holy War; the systematic extermination of heretics; the Crusades; The Inquisition; burning women as witches; enslaving Africans; Apartheid.
(d)	The verses you quote from the Bible are not about homosexuality (i.e. people who are sexually orientated towards members of the same gender). The Bible, broadly speaking, understood it only as homo-erotic sex (i.e. sex between members of the same gender). Today we know better: it is an orientation. Your statement that homosexuals come from dysfunctional families is wrong, hurtful and reprehensible. It would be a similar gross simplification to say that left-handed people come from dysfunctional families, or heterosexuals for that matter.
(e)	Regarding the family as the basis of a healthy society, I agree with you—but not because “the Bible says so.” In fact, I do not accept some of the teachings of Jesus about family. He said his mission was to make family members hate one another so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt 10:35-37). He promises salvation to those who abandon their wives and children for him (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30). Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26). The rod is not enough for children who curse their parents; they must be killed (Matt. 15:4-7; Mark 7:9-10). To these family values, Peter and Paul add the despotic rule of husbands over their silenced wives who must obey their husbands as gods (1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet 3:1). I think we have progressed from the patriarchal structures of biblical times, and a new and healthy morality of equality and respect is developing. However, I also think that a society which accepts gays and allows them to make their contribution to society has a better chance of survival than those who do not.
(f)	We do not need to refer to “God’s revelation” to decide what is right and what is wrong. All societies, long before they started to worship one God, figured it out for themselves: murder, rape, theft, or bearing false witness is wrong. In fact, we have excellent inner guidelines to help us make decisions about morality: deeds which are harmful to ourselves or to others are wrong; deeds which are not, are right. From this viewpoint, contraception is right, because it prevents overpopulation and more harm to our resources. If heterosexual adults claim the right to express themselves sexually in a way which is not harmful, so can homosexuals.
(g)	Your arguments that homo-erotic sex is “unhygienic” are interesting. It seems all forms of sex are unhygienic; even people who always and ever have been in monogamous relationships are exposed to health risks. Please look at Songs of Songs in the Old Testament, a love song, about sex for the sake of sex, with no reference to either God or procreation. In 2:3 the woman says, “…and his fruit was sweet to my taste.” You decide how hygienic or unhygienic this Biblical practice of oral sex is (!)
As a Christian, (and I believe under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) I therefore conclude that the practise of homosexuality per se is not sinful. I am not in the least interested what happens in privacy between consenting adults, as long as it is not harmful.
investigative public says:	2012/04/10 at 10:25	COMMENT, you still have not answered the question, are you homosexual or not ?
For the rest of your comments and links, the following. Homophobia and bigotry remains absolutely wrong,thus we are on the same page and no need to preach to the converted about free agency. The above article once again highlites the sad state of affairs that both those with homosexual tendencies and those perpetrating violence against homosexuals come from disfunctional homes and is Scripturally in need of repentance.
We are however missing the point here. Is homosexuality normal ? Is it , in the eyes of God, just another abomination or sin in need of repentance like adultery, , fornication, masturbation, sodomy, incest, bestiality etc ? (all sexual in nature)
Once we move to higher ground of Godliness, and seek HIS guidance, we will only then begin to understand what it is all about and why FAMILIES are so important in the bigger scheme of things. Satan /or the adversity already knows this and a constant battle between forces of light and darkness will remain to destroy Families, as the cornerstone of Deity and society, till the Second Coming. Answering questions such as, Where do we come from, why are we here, where are we going to after life, will help much to put this all in perpective. As long as mankind is trying to define, justify, or speculate about the origins of homosexuality with endless studies and counter studies, we will continue to move in endless circles
Holy Scripture, be it the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita and others give usefull insights as one googles it, eg Islam and homosexuality, protestants/catholics and homosexuality, Gita and homosexuality, etc
Either one genuinly explores and ask for guidance and direction from above, or this discussion will remain fruitless with endless confusion. Greetings
Comment says:	2012/04/10 at 07:45	Investigative Public, you may find this article “Is some Homophobia Self-Phobia?” very interesting:
investigative public says:	2012/04/07 at 11:23	COMMENT, you side stepping the homosexual issue by consistently bringing up side shows and MOSTLY outdated O/Testament Laws,(as you already know with all your research) that was “updated” by the N/Testament and latter day scripture and continued modern revelation, will just go around in meaningless circles to justify your personal view point and or sexual orientation, deliberately sowing confusion i would guess. What else could your real motive be ? Care to explain ?
Gebasseer op jou redenasievermoe, het ek het bv. my werkgewer se tyd verlede week “gesteel” toe ek jou in werksure geantwoord het, so daarom is dit nou neusie verby met my, n gebod is gebreek en kan ek maar hoereer en homoseksualisme, bestialiteit ,sodomie en ander gruweldade pleeg, en my ekskuusie is, ek is n sondaar en omdat sowat 10% van die samelewing volgens studies dit ook pleeg, is dit verskoonbaar, aanvaarbaar en my verweer en dit sal nou alles regmaak ? Komaan COMMENT, ek en jy weet van beter !
Met jou argument, gooi jy by implikasie gerieflikheidhalwe nou die baba met die badwater ook uit en kan ons dan mos maar sommer ook tegelykertyd die O/T se 10 gebooie ook uitgooi en ignoreer, en begin moor, steel, begeer ens ens, korrek ? April, Mnyimba Lot en andere mag dalk dan sekere “gekanselleerde gebooies en munisipale regulasies” dalk vreeslik paslik vind , vra ek maar, of hoe ? !
Jou agenda bly steeds duister en alle slimpraatjies en aandagafleiers gaan geensins bydra tot eerlike en openlike gesprek. Wanneer ons die onderwerp van homoseksualisme uitgestryk het is jy welkom om al die ander “teenstrydige” aspekte aan te roer
Terug by homoseksualisme. Is jy strait of gay ?
Eers wanneer jy dit geantwoord het kan ons hierdie gesprek meningvol verder neem.
Geniet die Paasnaweek met sy Christenboodskap, wat steeds geld vir beide gelowiges en ongelowiges rakende die Opstanding. Seenwense .
Comment says:	2012/04/05 at 17:18	@Investigative Public: The point of the Dr Laura letter is that heterosexual Christians do not obey the dictates of the bible, so why should homosexuals do so? And can the bible which as illustrated in the Dr Laura letter approves the commission of the most appalling atrocities really be relied on as a moral compass? Do those who are opposed to the so-called ‘gay festival’ also demand a boycott of restaurants that serve prawns – the other biblical ‘abomination’? And if not, why not? Could it be that the real motive for opposition to that festival is not religious at all but simply bigotry?
investigative public says:	2012/04/05 at 15:42	Dear COMMENT
It is precisely for the fact that you are not Christian and see Jesus apparently only as a guru, rather than the Son of God who Atoned for all mankind’s sins, that you might not share or understand the bigger picture. The Holy Spirit can confirm this to every human being,( the Saviour’s correct teachings) through both His ancient and modern servants, the prophets , on condition YOU sincerely wish to do so, rather than indulge in frivolous side shows, so called academic discussions leading nowhere and in the long run, to no avail.
Should YOU sincerely be searching and be genuinely interested, the following: Are you gay or strait, as per my previous request , (still unanswered ),as this will help a great deal in approaching the matter with you in sincerity ?
At close inspection you will note that the majority of my quotes in the previous email were NOT from the Old Testament, and your reference to Dr Lara, skillfully side stepping the topic of homosexuality making me wondering about your real intent and if you are rather out to deliberately cause confusion and mischief, rather than honestly seeking for answers on the topic at hand. Justifications just wont do.
If you are honestly searching and are seeking for answers, research, pray and study the given link below, then we can take the discussion further next week. Happy Easter my friend, a time christians commemorate his Death and especially celebrate His Ressurection, where HE Atoned for ALL mankind that have lived before and all those yet to be born.
Comment says:	2012/04/05 at 10:08	@ Investigative Public: I take it from your list above that you concur that there is no attribution to the guru Jesus Christ of any statement prohibiting same-sex relations. I am not a Christian, but as far as I can make out most of your attributions are to Old Testament sources. Of course the Old Testament prohibits a great many things, as is illustrated in this letter written to Dr. Laura Schlesinger a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. The letter was penned when she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
investigative public says:	2012/04/05 at 07:27	Beste Comment
Hopelik sal van die ingeslote Skrifture van hulp wees.Die feit dat so baie na Homoseksualisme as onnatuurlik verwys, is omdat dit presies dit is, n onnatuurlike afwyking wat uiters onhigehenies is, geen natuurlike voortplanting kan geskied en enige afwyking van moraliteit buite die heilige en Godgegewe huweliksverband om te vermenigvuldig (in love, not lust) sy risiko’s het soos vigs,en ander geslagssiektes. Baie sterkte.
See also Adultery; Sensual, Sensuality.
Those who go after strange flesh are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, Jude 1:7
investigative public says:	2012/04/04 at 17:25	COMMENT, dankie vir jou interessante menslike terugvoer.
Die idee dat homoseksualiteit “blykbaar” volgens jou beweringe nie teen die goeie sedes van gemeesnskappe indruis nie, bly debatteerbaar – is dit al ooit in SA getoets dmv n onafhanklike referendum of iets in diervoege ?
Ek het nie daardie Skriftuurlike Gebooie geskryf nie, maar God deur sy Profete. Die daad, nie die persoon nie, word veroordeel. Die uiteindelike veroordeling van elke mens sal slegs deur God die Vader gedoen word, met Christus as ons advokaat tot God. Intussen moet ons met liefde en respek na mekaar uitreik, ophelp, aanmoedig tot bekering, gebasseer op die Skrif, elke dag. Die gesegde. “Dont think you are better than me because i sin differently” Ons het almal hulp nodig.
God weerspreek homself nie. Of Hy het die opdrag gegee dat man en vrou georden dmv die huwelik moet voortplant OF dat homoseksualiteit/lesbenisme met sy doodloopstraat op voortbestaan .(.soos Rankplank dit stel …”WAAROM sou ‘n biologiese entiteit se gene hom afstuur in ‘n doodloopstraat” ) is vir die mens vooropgestel, nie teenstrydighede nie. God is dieselfde gister, vandag en more, korrek ?
Koning James se sieninge van lank gelede en soos hy self meld; “.. i am neither God or an angel….I wish to speak in my own behalf…” is presies dit en kan mos nou maklik geinterpreteer word om enige omstandighede te pas, want hy is nie meer hier om self die bedoeling van sy skrywe te staaf nie, of hoekom hy beweer Christus sogenaamd homoseksueel was.Daar is geen Skriftuurlike bewyse daarvoor, slegs menslike interpretasies om vermoedelik bemoeide gewetens te sus, sou ek reken.
Die werklike punt wat ons nooit uit die oog moet verloor nie, ten spyte van n liberale SA Grondwet, dis in die finale analise deur veilbare mense geskryf.
Teen die einde van die dag, wie se wette is belangriker, God s’n of die veilbare mens s’n ? Ek kies God se wette enige dag.
Baie sterkte vorentoe, vir jou, my en ons almal. Jou persoonlike gewete en oortuiginge sal hopelik vir jou n bron van leiding bied dmv gebed bied wat sal bepaal of ons op die regte pad is.
NS: Ek is terloops net baie nuuskierig n.a.v jou nagevorsde kommentaar hierbo, is jy self homoseksueel of lesbies. Ek self is strait ! Groetnis
Comment says:	2012/04/04 at 16:08	Investigative Public the point here is that same-sex relationships do not ‘indruis teen gemeenskappe se sedes en waardes’: the apartheid regime viciously oppressed a variety of people (with bible in hand), including gay and lesbian people. We now live in a democracy which enshrines in its constitution the rights of homosexual men and women, a right which was affirmed by an overwhelming vote in the democratically elected Parliament which legislated the right to same-sex marriage (not just civil union). Thus the recognition of the rights of homosexual men and women is a value of South African society. You may still be adhering to the attitude of the apartheid regime on this issue, but you are a dissenting voice. Importantly, homosexual men and women do not need religious approval for their relationships, although that is readily available from Christian Churches who recognise that the guru Jesus never spoke against same-sex relationships. In fact, you may be interested to know that there are biblical scholars who are able to platform a biblically substantiated argument that Jesus himself was homosexual or bisexual. The ‘gay Jesus’ is an ancient Christian tradition which recurs throughout history: one of the more interesting of these occurrences is in the history of King James (as in King James bible) and his relationship with the George Villiers who he referred to as ‘my sweetheart’ and ‘my sweet child and wife’. In 1617, James explained to the Lords why he was making Villiers Earl of Buckingham:
So you and the ‘Christengelowiges’ had better be circumspect when you condemn homosexuality – you may just be condemning Jesus and the ‘beloved disciple’ John!
investigative public says:	2012/04/02 at 10:30	Dankie vir die info COMMENT. Wanneer mens die artikel lees, word dit mooi uiteen gesit, soos wat so baie ander Christengelowe ook doen. Die volgende uittreksel daaruit, steeds baie insiggewend. Die daad word nie goedgepraat (homoseksualiteit of dieselfde geslag huwelike) nie, maar dat diesulkes steeds met respek en waardigheid hanteer word, iets waarmee baie mense ongelukkig steeds sukkel, en aanhou bly oordeel.
Kom ons reik eerder hande uit, selfs aan die 10% van die bevolkings wat moor, roof en steel, of wat ookal die afwyking is, selfs dit wat indruis teen gemeenskappe se sedes en waardes. Veregewe eerder as veroordeel.
“The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”
Comment says:	2012/04/02 at 08:15	@ Investigative Public: The General Relief Society you quote above is a Mormon organisation. You may be interested to know that the Mormons who are outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage (as are radical gay and lesbian activists) have a progressive approach to the broader issue of gay and lesbian rights: speaking in support of ordinances which gave protection to gay and lesbian residents of Salt Lake City, the formal submission from Michael Otterson representing the Mormon Church noted:
“I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree,” said Otterson. “Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but (we) will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society.” (For the full text sees here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343558/Mormon-Church-backs-protection-of-gay-rights-in-Salt-Lake-City.html )
investigative public says:	2012/03/31 at 18:00	n Baie interessante Proklamasie aan die Wereld tov die Familie as Hoeksteen van die Samelewing op die internet opgespoor, wat in 1995 uitgereik is. Alle korrupte en immorele samelewings van die verlede het met rampspoedige gevolge gedisintigreer waarvan die Romeinse Reik alombekend is. Oordeel self
Die inhoud eerder as wie die volgende gestaaf het, is belangrikste;.
Home	Home and Family
Rankplant says:	2012/03/30 at 22:30	Baie goed beredeneer en sorgvuldig uiteengesit, OO. Miskien word een vraag straks onbeantwoord gelaat: WAAROM sou ‘n biologiese entiteit se gene hom afstuur in ‘n doodloopstraat? Dit is dalk die alles-oorheersend, dog interressante vraag, aangesien homoseksuele aktiwiteit geen genetiese voortplanting tot gevolg kan he nie. Die koue realiteit is dus dat homoseksualisme ‘n geneties misplaaste direktief moet wees. Dit verminder natuurlik geensins die menswaardigheid van enigiemand nie, inteendeel, dit behoort juis ‘n groter mate van begrip tot gevolg te he . Heteroseksuele Jan Alleman het net so min beheer oor sy eie seksuele orientasie as die hond in sy huis s’n. Om veroordelend te reageer op iemand anders se ‘verkeerde’ orientasie is dus ietwat hipokraties. Die samelewing “straf” homoseksualisme omdat dit die hoeksteen daarvan “bedreig”: die familie. Om God natuurlik in te sleep by die veroordeling is eers kortsigtig. Dit laat Hom bietjie skisofrenies en onbeholpe lyk aangesien Hy geen ‘uitweg’ bied nie. Of dalk is dit Satan homself wat ywerig besig bly met met die herskryf van soogdiere se genetiese kode…of dalk nie- hy kan nie op meer as een plek terselfdertyd wees nie. Nee wat, die Wetenskap, insig en ‘n wil om te verstaan bring helderheid. En vryheid van keuse…
Comment says:	2012/03/30 at 16:33	Investigative Public makes mention of the draft green paper on families – which quite specifically affirms same-sex couples as families and affirms their role in society – read the paper in full here: http://www.dsd.gov.za/index2.php?option=com_docman&task...
Carel Botes says:	2012/03/30 at 15:01	Ek is geskok, maar ook nie verras deur van die sienings hier, asook die van die redakteur van OO nie. Ek respekteer julle sienings, maar kan glad nie daarmee saamstem nie. Ek bedank die predikante wat nog bereid is om standpunt in te neem en nie soos die res van die wêreld wil word nie, die bybel waarsku ons reeds daarteen!Dit is ook die laaste keer dat ek OO sal lees en sal dit waardeer indien dit nie weer aan my gestuur word nie. Vriendelike Groete
sequel says:	2012/03/30 at 11:36	Ugh. Dis nie asof reguit mense gaan gay word deur gay mense te sien nie. Die hele punt van die dominees se kritiek is net om mense te probeer ongelukkig maak. Ek hoop die dominees vind iets beter om met hul tyd te doen.
The guardian says:	2012/03/30 at 11:13	Mat 7:2-5 se so mooi dat ons nie mag oordeel nie. Dit se ook dat die maatstaf waarmee ons ander meet teen ons gemeet word ook.
PIenkes du Plessis says:	2012/03/30 at 10:11	Ek kan wragtag nie glo dat daar nog ‘geleerde’ mense rondloop wat nie homoseksualiteit as ‘n biologies-genetiese feit aanvaar nie. Wadde ongeluk het ‘n spul bokwagters in Sinaï se woestyne se uitsprake met ‘n mens se fisiese samestelling te doen? As moffies en gays en lessies op hulle eie manier wil kafoefel, is dit omdat hulle is soos hulle is. Dis ‘n doodnormale optrede vir 10% van die mens- en dieredom, en ons ander 90% moet net ons bekke hou.
Hansie Wolmarans says:	2012/03/30 at 09:44	‘n Lekker nugtere reaksie teenoor skreiende fundamentalistiese onverdraagsaamheid. Die argument is duidelik. As jy die Bybel wil lees as ‘n handboek vir moraliteit, (a) moet jy ook aanvaar dat dit sonde is om byvoorbeeld rente te vra (Eseg. 18:10-13), of dat prostitusie aanvaarbaar is en dat egbreuk net iets is waaraan ‘n vrou skuldig kan wees en nie ‘n man nie (behalwe as hy seks het met ‘n vrou wat ‘n ander man se besitting is).
(b)Verder is daar aanduidings dat Dawid en Jonatan ‘n homo-erotiese verhouding gehad het. (Sien my artikel Dawid, Jonathan en homo-erotiek.) Wat maak jy van 2 Sm 1:26 waar Dawid oor sy boesemvriend verklaar: “Jy was vir my baie lieflik; jou liefde was vir my wonderliker as die liefde van vroue.” In 1 Samuel 20:41 word vertel hoedat Dawid en Jonatan mekaar omhels en gesoen het, “totdat Dawid groot geword het.” (Die natuurlike betekenis is “‘n ereksie gekry het” – maar al die vertalings sensor dit).
Daar is natuurlik ‘n groeiende aantal kerkgenootskappe wat homoseksuele mense volwaardig aanvaar. Op ‘n volwasse manier erken hulle ook dat elke mens die reg het om hulle seksualiteit uit te leef op ‘n wyse wat nie skadelik is nie. Om die Bybel effens aan te pas, lees weer Galasiërs 3:28? “Daar is nie langer slaaf of vry, man of vrou, gay of straight nie, in Christus Jesus is julle almal een.”
Comment says:	2012/03/30 at 08:52	Firstly an important point: the priests are in my opinion absolutely within their rights to hold a dissenting view, because it is just that – a dissenting view.
Their approach to the issue on the basis of a ‘Christian” position may however be usefully subject to some reading on the subject: in 1994 the highly respected Yale academic John Boswell published a scholarly history of the attitude of Christianity to same-sex relationships under the title “The marriage of likeness: same sex unions in pre-modern Europe”. Here is a precis of the work by Natalie Zemon Davis from Princeton University:
“The result of twelve years of research, Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe focuses on Boswell’s discovery of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions, here translated into English for the first time. These ceremonies, which were performed throughout Christendom into modern times, are shown to bear striking resemblance to heterosexual nuptial services. Boswell traces same-sex unions from Platonic Greece, where the bonding of brotherly equals was considered the noblest form of human contact; to Rome, with its elaborate systems of legal adoption; to Christianized Europe, in which moral ambivalence toward human sexuality of any kind gradually gave way to intolerance, but not before the Church created liturgies to bless loving unions both straight and gay. The analysis required to place these ceremonies in their proper context makes this book a virtual history of the roots of all modern marriages. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe demonstrates that same-sex relationships have been sanctioned and even idealized in Western societies for over two thousand years.”
Interestingly an earlier (1980) book by Boswell “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality was severely criticised as an attempt by Boswell to whitewash human rights abuse and atrocity committed by the Christian church.
Opposition to same-sex relationships is also quite distinctly a colonial position as was highlighted in a recent incident involving Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini: Brent Meersman writes as follows:
“What was particularly interesting about the recent controversy surrounding King Goodwill Zwelithini’s comments was the defence of his words by Zulu academics and linguists who said the king had not targeted homosexuals. University of Zululand Professor Jabulani Maphalala pointed out that the monarch said ukuhlukumeza, which meant abuse in this context. Maphalala continued that since time immemorial homosexuality is well documented in Zulu oral history, and had the king wanted to talk about homosexuals he would have used terms such as ongqingili or izinkonkoni or izitabane. In other words, the language itself tells us that Zulu society had come to grips with the phenomenon of homosexuality long before any white people appeared.”
As Meersman points out: “Anyone who says that homosexuality is un-African is racist. We have an enormous body of historical and scientific evidence for the existence of homosexuality in every culture on every continent and stretching back in time as far as the human record goes. Homosexuality may not be normal, but it is natural. The South African government should be lauded for standing up for the rights of African homosexuals at the United Nations against vociferous opposition from bigoted regimes across the continent.” (see http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/brentmeersman/2012/03/26/homosexuality-is-african/ )
investigative public says:	2012/03/30 at 08:29	OO, die bekommernis van die Eerwaardes op ODN is totaal verstaanbaar. Die vergelyking van die mens met diere is nie n goeie een nie. Die mens se geskapenheid om heerser oor alles te wees en die aarde te vermenigvuldig, is prominent. Homoseksualiteit staan lynreg daarteen en die Godellike en profetiese opdrag is nerens in die Skrif, hetsy Kanonieke , Apokratiewe of ander geopenbaarde geskrifte ooit herroep nie. Inteendeel, daardie oorspronklike opdrag word versterk.
Ek stem, Christene behoort heelwat meer verdraagsaam teenoor die andersgesinde 5 tot 10 % van die bevolking te wees met liefde en ondersteuning hanteer te word en terugverwys te word na Geskrifte, Profetiese verklarings waarvan ons as mensdom nog so baie moet leer..
Die Soendood en gawe van Vergifnis is twee baie belangrike aspekte hier, ongeag ons seksueel orientiering. Indien dit lynreg teenoor die Opdrag in my eerste paragraaf is , is intense innerlike ondersoeke en vergifnis baie belangrik, ook uiters PERSOONLIK en privaat. Baie liefde en sterkte aan al diesulkes.
Die Family Policy Institute in Kaapstad bied uitstekende leiding hier, so ook die Christian News Portal;
Family Policy Institute [enaidoo@familypolicyinstitute.com] – Gateway News [news@gatewaynews.co.za]
” Homosexuals (amongst other things )argue the Church’s (Scriptural) condemnation of their lifestyle promotes teen suicides and motivates acts of violence against them.”
“Nothing can be further from the truth. But the task team’s agenda does pose a serious threat to religious freedom. Sexual violence must end! But never at the expense of the Gospel.
Please read Family Research Council’s excellent booklet, Top Ten Homosexual Myths.
The Department of Social Development has published the Green Paper on Families in the Government Gazette. The paper seeks to promote family life and strengthen families in SA..”
Die idee is nie om in die publiek hieroor te debatteer en die wat sensitief hieroor staan, verder te vervreem nie maar eerder hande te neem, uit te ryk, introspeksie te neem en laat die leringe van Christus ons lewens voed en reinig.
Sterkte aan almal, aan beide posisies van die spektrum.
sadruid says:	2012/03/30 at 08:15	Ek wonder soms oor die “geestelike leiers”, hul is vinnig om tekste aan tehaal en te oordeel. Wat staan in die bybil van oordeel, hel verkondig “God is liefde” maar preek haat. I die bybil word somige tekste vermy want dit is onaangenaam en teenstrydig teen die populere gevoel. Nee die kerke het populer besighede geword waar die leeraar heuning om die gemeente semonde moet smeer anders. . . . “soek n ander plek Mr” Ook is hul selektief op wanneer is dit sonde en wanneer nie, wat is en wat is nie, watter reels geld nog en watter nie, tog stan dit duidelik as jy die 1 reel/wet as geldig ag, ag jy almal geldig.
Ek wil nog graag hoor hoe verduidelik hul heprodite(2 geslagtelikheid) en Jeuses wat na n vraag oor die ontmande, geantwoord het, Van hul is so uit keuse, van hul is so deur mens gemaak, van hul is so deur die vader gemaak, dit staan in Matt.
Dan sal God my veroordeel omdat ek lief het, en in vrede lewe, of sal God jou veoordeel wat ander veroordeel en onmin, saai?