Submission or Separate But Equal

Submission or Separate But Equal 

 "Talk of submission rankles many a hair on the necks of women.???"

Noun

1.

control freak - someone with a compulsive desire to exert control over situations and people

Ephesians 5:22-25, 33.
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church . . . . [T]he church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands . . . . Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church . . . . [E]ach individual . . . also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

"ouch! how can that be? the following is by a couple in our church who has been married 42 years. Talk of submission rankles many a hair on the necks of women.

Paul writes to the Ephesians and addresses relationships from the perspective o
f leadership and responsibilities. Having been married for 42 years, we know it either works together sweetly under the right priorities, or it fails miserably. We've done both.

For years we clashed over the husband's role. We had different opinions, but little understanding. As a result, we competed for control while he demanded obedience to the rank of husband. This is not God's design for roles in marriage. Leading in the role of headship involves loving, serving, caring for the other person as Jesus Christ does for the church -- His people. He died for her.

We learned that submission involves four responsibilities beginning with an attitude of entrusting ourselves fully to the Lord. Our focus in life must be on Jesus Christ. Through Him we are able to love and submit. Second, submission involves respectful behavior; third, godly character. And fourth, it involves doing what is right and according to God's will. Finally, we learned that God doesn't intend for one to be a slave to the other in total subservience. We simply relate to one another as unto the Lord.

But, to prevent chaos, there needs to be order. So, God placed the husband in authority over his wife with the responsibility to love and lead her, just as Jesus does for His people. These are roles we accept willingly as we pursue Jesus.

We learned perfection in this is impossible. Essentials include: unconditional and sacrificial love, a willingness to forgive, keeping short accounts, and the ability to laugh at yourself. This makes submission reasonable, not a burden, but it requires taking the initiative and serving with integrity.

Finally, praying together daily has changed our hearts in a way nothing else has. Leadership involves acting on Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, "stand firm in the faith, act like men" (1 Corinthians 16:13). Men, lead well, serve well, and pray with your woman. Respect will follow." [sic]  [1]

Why is hypocrisy singled out as the worst of evils?

Hypocrisy is not a species of pride or lust or anger, etc.  If it is a sin, it is is a sin against truthfulness. But on second thought, perhaps hypocrisy can be understood as a type of pride.  The proud man, blinded by his own excellence, cannot see his own faults.  Lucifer the light bearer's very phosphorescence hid from him his finitude and creaturely status and transmogrified him from light bearer to Prince of Darkness.  Lacking humility and incapable of accurate self-assessment, the proud man imagines himself to be better than he is.  He is arrogant in that he arrogates to himself qualities that he does not in fact possess.  But this doesn't really support the notion that hypocrisy is a species of pride.  The proud man, blinded by his excellences, is blind to his faults.  But it seems that the hypocrite must be well aware of his faults so that he can hide them from others.  He must know his true motives in order to dissemble them.  [2]

What makes Judaism stands out in the sense of gender equality is that, G-d is neither male nor female.



The role of women in traditional Judaism has been grossly misrepresented and misunderstood. The position of women is not nearly as lowly as many modern people think; in fact, the position of women in halakhah (Jewish Law) that dates back to the biblical period is in many ways better than the position of women under American civil law as recently as a century ago. Many of the important feminist leaders of the 20th century (Gloria Steinem, for example, and Betty Friedan) are Jewish women, and some commentators have suggested that this is no coincidence: the respect accorded to women in Jewish tradition was a part of their ethnic culture.

In traditional Judaism, women are for the most part seen as separate but equal. Women's obligations and responsibilities are different from men's, but no less important (in fact, in some ways, women's responsibilities are considered more important, as we shall see).

The equality of men and women begins at the highest possible level: G-d. In Judaism, unlike traditional Christianity, G-d has never been viewed as exclusively male or masculine. Judaism has always maintained that G-d has both masculine and feminine qualities. As one Chasidic rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Both man and woman were created in the image of G-d. According to most Jewish scholars, "man" was created in Gen. 1:27 with dual gender, and was later separated into male and female.

According to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of "binah" (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men. The rabbis inferred this from the fact that woman was "built" (Gen. 2:22) rather than "formed" (Gen. 2:7), and the Hebrew root of "build" has the same consonants as the word "binah." It has been said that the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah) were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in prophecy. Women did not participate in the idolatry regarding the Golden Calf. See Rosh Chodesh below. Some traditional sources suggest that women are closer to G-d's ideal than men.

Women have held positions of respect in Judaism since biblical times. Miriam is considered one of the liberators of the Children of Israel, along with her brothers Moses and Aaron. One of the Judges (Deborah) was a woman. Seven of the 55 prophets of the Bible were women (they are included in the list of biblical prophets).

The Ten Commandments require respect for both mother and father. Note that the father comes first in Ex. 20:12, but the mother comes first in Lev. 19:3, and many traditional sources point out that this reversal is intended to show that both parents are equally entitled to honor and reverence.

There were many learned women of note. The Talmud and later rabbinical writings speak of the wisdom of Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir. In several instances, her opinions on halakhah (Jewish Law) were accepted over those of her male contemporaries. In the ketubah (marriage contract) of Rabbi Akiba's son, the wife is obligated to teach the husband Torah! Many rabbis over the centuries have been known to consult their wives on matters of Jewish law relating to the woman's role, such as laws of kashrut and women's cycles. The wife of a rabbi is referred to as a rebbetzin, practically a title of her own, which should give some idea of her significance in Jewish life.

There can be no doubt, however, that the Talmud also has many negative things to say about women. Various rabbis at various times describe women as lazy, jealous, vain and gluttonous, prone to gossip and particularly prone to the occult and witchcraft. Men are repeatedly advised against associating with women, although this is usually because of man's lust rather than because of any shortcoming in women. It is worth noting that the Talmud also has negative things to say about men, frequently describing men as particularly prone to lust and forbidden sexual desires.

Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers. The rabbis are not concerned that women are not spiritual enough; rather, they are concerned that women might become too spiritually devoted.

The rights of women in traditional Judaism are much greater than they were in the rest of Western civilization until the 20th century. Women had the right to buy, sell, and own property, and make their own contracts, rights which women in Western countries (including America) did not have until about 100 years ago. In fact, Proverbs 31:10-31, which is traditionally read at Jewish weddings, speaks repeatedly of business acumen as a trait to be prized in women (v. 11, 13, 16, and 18 especially).

Women have the right to be consulted with regard to their marriage. Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's. Men do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives, a right that was recognized by law in many Western countries until a few hundred years ago. In cases of rape, a woman is generally presumed not to have consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she consented after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! This is in sharp contrast to American society, where even today rape victims often have to overcome public suspicion that they "asked for it" or "wanted it." Traditional Judaism recognizes that forced sexual relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not permitted; in many states in America today, rape within marriage is still not a crime.

There is no question that in traditional Judaism, the primary role of a woman is as wife and mother, keeper of the household. However, Judaism has great respect for the importance of that role and the spiritual influence that the woman has over her family. The Talmud says that when a pious man marries a wicked woman, the man becomes wicked, but when a wicked man marries a pious woman, the man becomes pious. The child of a Jewish woman and a gentile man is Jewish because of the mother's spiritual influence; the child of a Jewish man and a gentile woman is not. See Who Is a Jew? Women are exempted from all positive mitzvot ("thou shalts" as opposed to "thou shalt nots") that are time-related (that is, mitzvot that must be performed at a specific time of the day or year), because the woman's duties as wife and mother are so important that they cannot be postponed to fulfill a mitzvah. After all, a woman cannot be expected to just drop a crying baby when the time comes to perform a mitzvah. She cannot leave dinner unattended on the stove while she davens ma'ariv (evening prayer services).

It is this exemption from certain mitzvot that has led to the greatest misunderstanding of the role of women in Judaism. First, many people make the mistake of thinking that this exemption is a prohibition. On the contrary, although women are not required to perform time-based positive mitzvot, they are generally permitted to observe such mitzvot if they choose (though some are frustrated with women who insist on performing visible, prestigious optional mitzvot while they ignore mundane mandatory ones). Second, because this exemption diminishes the role of women in the synagogue, many people perceive that women have no role in Jewish religious life. This misconception derives from the mistaken assumption that Jewish religious life revolves around the synagogue. It does not; it revolves around the home, where the woman's role is every bit as important as the man's. [3]

by  Tracey R Rich    More: http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

Links for Further Reading

Project Genesis offers an online course on Women in Judaism, covering subjects such as equality between men and women in Judaism, faith, prayer, relationships, and feminine intuition.
Kresel's Korner, written by an Orthodox woman, addresses many of the questions that people have about the role of women in Orthodoxy. Kresel is an intelligent, well-educated woman who responds to many feminist critiques of Orthodoxy and illustrates a very different kind of female empowerment.

Source: 
[1] https://www.facebook.com/john.w.sr.5

[2] http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/04/hypocrisy-the-seven-deadly-sins-and-the-left.html

[3] http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

Tithe Teaching Detriments

*** “Some people say tithing is Old Testament law. No, it's not. It's an Old Testament principle.”? ~ Via a Pastor on giving! 

Believers are responsible to measure 'the church*' teachings in the light of the truth of the Bible. It is our duty to recognize error. 

The Levitical tithe was to meet a need, that of the Levitical priesthood and to help the poor. The Levitical priesthood and all laws and ceremonies pertaining to it ceased when the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.  the Books of the Christian New Testament do not teach tithing. "The New Testament" offices or callings of a pastor, etc., are not the same as the Levitical priesthood, which was based on lineage and the Mosaic ceremonial laws, and that the "church*" building is not the same as the Temple. 

Detriments of the Tithe Teaching
1. The "churchs" tithe teaching can cause tithers to have an erroneous feeling of self-satisfaction, a feeling that they have "paid the bill" and placated God. This can become akin to a superstitious practice of "pleasing of the gods" we see in pagan cultures. Are tithers in some cases even attempting to buy their way into heaven? Wouldn’t this be the same as buying spiritual favor by purchasing indulgences? This practice was soundly condemned in Martin Luther's "Ninety-Five Theses."

2. Mal. 3:8 says, "’ Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.’ But you ask, "How do we rob you?" ‘In tithes and offerings….’" This verse is used prior to the passing of the offering plate in many "church" services to coax the congregation to get out their wallets. But, contrary to the meaning of the verse under the old covenant to which it refers, today people ARE robbing God, not of tithes, but of proper giving to the work of God and to the poor. When people "pay their bill" to the "church", they aren’t as apt to give that cup of water or $20 to a needy person around them.  Therefore, they have robbed God by neglecting opportunities to perform a mitzvah in the form of helping the poor. People write out tithe checks in a dogged, joyless manner as if in bondage. They, too, are robbed. They are robbed of the joy of giving to real needs they can see with their own eyes.


3. Tithing can cause an undue financial burden on givers. Young families with children often are living hand to mouth anyway. So are many single parents, college students, and the elderly. They themselves are actually the poor who need help occasionally, yet by sitting in "the church", they are told that they must give up ten percent to a "church" that often is wealthy.

4. This brings us to the next point. It is not uncommon today for the incomes of "church"es (some of whom teach tithing and some of whom don’t), especially large ones in America, to have such enormous incomes that they have investment portfolios. They hire experts to help them manage their funds to make it grow. Why? So they can give to missions or the poor? So they can build more buildings, gyms, bowling alleys, climbing walls? So they can have huge paid staffs? Daycare centers? The kingdom of God has nothing to do with buildings. The early "church" grew by great leaps without buildings. 

Trillion Dollar Church!

The American church system through its thousands of schemes to gather money, has amassed over a trillion dollars worth of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, insurance programs, real estate, etc. The interest they pay on the mortgages of their buildings could literally feed all the poor in the world! 

The deceptive means 10’s of thousands of ministers use to raise money, of which the modern tithe is one of them, has drained our country of resources that could tremendously bless the world. But the church is sitting on the money. Now they are beginning to be fleeced themselves.

Recently, hundreds of the leading Christian organizations lost millions of dollars investing in a fund named "New Era." It was a scam called a "Ponze scheme." An evangelical, named Bennett, dropping the right names such as Billy Graham and Rockerfeller, convinced most of the leading Protestant ministries to invest as much as over 500 million dollars into a fund that promised them a doubling of their money over a 6 month period of time. Now anyone with a little sense should smell something amiss here, especially since conservative Christians should be looking at conservative investments that usually give a low return on investment. But top Christian ministries invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a fund started by another Christian, whose sole purpose in setting up the fund was to defraud them of their, or should I say "your" money. The federal authorities finally shut it down, but not before millions of dollars were lost. (See Dew from Mount Hermon, issue number 7 for more details.)

A person who teaches tithing robs God’s people from hearing from God Himself about what and whom to give to each and every day. Someone who pays their taxes, and gives 10 per cent of their income to their pastor, plus offerings for missions, building fund, bake and rummage sales, etc., because the law or tradition of their organization pressures them to do so, is likely to develop an attitude that their giving is finished at the offering plate. They are so drained of finances that when Jesus arrives at their door for a piece of bread, their response might be, "Oh, I gave already at the church!" Laws such as the modern tithing law, instituted by either ignorant or deceiving ministers keep God’s children from hearing what they should be doing on a day to day basis! Yes, Mr. or Mrs. or Reverend Tithing Teacher, you are robbing people, God, and the world from the blessings He wants to pour out on them and through us! Now repent and stop it! His mercy endures forever! Go to the fountain of grace, HaShem, and discover how to enter into His rest yourself! Then and only then can you lead God’s sheep into that rest themselves. Until then all you will do is fleece them and eat them yourself!

"Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them." (Ezekiel 34:2-4)

"My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray; they have turned them away on the mountains. They have gone from mountain to hill. They have forgotten their resting place. All who found them have devoured them." (Jeremiah 50:6-7)

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that those who twist the Mosaic Law to say what it doesn’t say, are robbing God even though they may not be aware of it. They are also robbing themselves of much-needed rest, and they are robbing the world around them of the true blessings they are to bestow upon their neighbors.

* Church

 the words "church" and "circus" both come from a similar pagan origin

circ- + (is a Latin root word meaning: circle [a ring; wheel], round). 

Circe 
Latinized form of Greek Κιρκη (Kirke, Kirkh ), which possibly meant "bird". In Greek mythology Circe was a sorceress who hypnotized men, and changed men into animals, and made them her slaves. 

circle 
c.1305, from O.Fr. cercle, from L. circulus "small ring," dim. of circus (q.v.). Replaced O.E. trendel and hring. Meaning "group of persons surrounding a center of interest" is from 1714. 

circus 
c.1380, from L. circus "ring," applied by Romans to circular arenas for performances and contests (esp. the Circus Maximus), from or akin to Gk. kirkos "a circle," from PIE *kirk- from base *(s)ker- "to turn, bend." First attested use for "traveling show" is 1791. 

Church 
O.E. cirice "church," from W.Gmc. *kirika, from Gk. kyriake (oikia) "Lord's (house)," from kyrios "ruler, lord."

US Catholic Church a $170 billion business

Among Pope Francis' challenges will be oversight of the sprawling, lucrative -- but embattled -- American organization.

A Jewish response to a Pastor

 

West Virginian Pastor Dies Snake Handling Service

May 30, 2012

Details emerge in pastor's death

SAMANTHA PERRYBluefield Daily Telegraph

BLUEFIELD — A Mercer County pastor who died after being bitten by a timber rattle- snake during a religious service in McDowell County was taken to a Brushfork-area residence before emergency service personnel were called.

Details into the death of Mack Randall Wolford, 44, of Green Valley, emerged Tuesday after it was learned Wolford, pastor of Full Gospel Apostolic House of the Lord Jesus in Matoaka – a church that practices serpent handling – died Monday as a result of a snake bite incurred during a homecoming service.

Lauren Pond, a freelance photojournalist from Washington D.C., was at the weekend service during which Wolford was bitten.

Pond said about 25 people were in attendance at the homecoming service at Panther State Forest. "Randy (Wolford) had invited me down," Pond said, explaining that she had been working with Wolford for about a year on a documentary project. "I went to it (the homecoming service) last year. This gathering was the second one."

Pond said Wolford was bitten in the thigh by a timber rattlesnake during the Sunday service.

She said she was shocked when she saw Wolford had been bitten, but those in the congregation did not seem as surprised. "I didn’t expect it to happen," she said. "I don’t think anyone necessarily expected it, but they’ve dealt with it before so it’s not such a huge shock maybe."

The area’s most widely known serpent-handling church is Church of Lord Jesus in Jolo, whose minister is Harvey Payne. A family member of Payne’s who answered telephone questions Tuesday noted Wolford was pastor of the Matoaka church, not the Jolo church.

Pond said she did not know Wolford’s medical state after the snake bite. "I don’t know how lucid he was ... people were talking to him."

"Not too long after the bite – maybe 40 minutes," Pond said parishioners transported Wolford to a residence in Mercer County.

The Daily Telegraph learned Tuesday Wolford was taken to Plainview Mobile Home Park off Airport Road in Brushfork. It is not known how long Wolford was there before emergency personnel were called.

"We did transport someone from a trailer park with a reported snake bite," Bluefield Rescue Squad Administrator Sam Pennington said. "I’m not sure what park, but they did transport somebody to Bluefield Regional with a reported snake bite."

Reports indicate Wolford died Monday as a result of the injuries sustained at the Sunday service.

McDowell County Prosecuting Attorney Sid Bell said his office has never prosecuted anyone for serpent handling, describing it as a "constitutionally protected religious service."

"I can’t find anything in state code or the state Constitution that would make using snakes in a religious service illegal, regardless of where the service was held," Bell said.

State park officials said they had no knowledge of a religious service including serpent handling taking place at Panther Wildlife Management Area.

"We are not aware of such an occurrence," Ken Caplinger, chief of state parks in West Virginia, said. "If we were asked for permission for such a thing to occur, we would not provide permission for that to take place ... if somebody were to do something like that, if would have been done without our knowledge or permission."

Pond noted she was not covering Sunday’s homecoming service for a news story, but a "longer-form, photo-documentary project."

She said she had been working with Wolford for about a year on the project.

Pond said she first met Wolford on her third visit to Jolo. "He was one of the most open pastors I’ve ever met about the faith. I visited him last November, and hung out with him ... Randy (Wolford) really helped me understand it. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. I respect it."

Although initially declining to be interviewed for a news story, Pond did agree to speak to the Daily Telegraph to clarify and confirm reports, and ensure accurate facts were reported to the public.

Serpent-handling pastor profiled earlier in Washington Post dies from rattlesnake bite

By Julia Duin, Published: May 29

Mack Wolford, a flamboyant Pentecostal pastor from West Virginia whose serpent-handling talents were profiled last November in The Washington Post Magazine , hoped the outdoor service he had planned for Sunday at an isolated state park would be a “homecoming like the old days,” full of folks speaking in tongues, handling snakes and having a “great time.” But it was not the sort of homecoming he foresaw.
Instead, Wolford, who turned 44 the previous day, was bitten by a rattlesnake he owned for years. He died late Sunday.
Mark Randall “Mack” Wolford was known all over Appalachia as a daring man of conviction. He believed that the Bible mandates that Christians handle serpents to test their faith in God — and that, if they are bitten, they trust in God alone to heal them.
He and other adherents cited Mark 16:17-18 as the reason for their practice: “And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
The son of a serpent handler who himself died in 1983 after being bitten, Wolford was trying to keep the practice alive, both in West Virginia, where it is legal, and in neighboring states where it is not. He was the kind of man reporters love: articulate, friendly and appreciative of media attention. Many serpent-handling Pentecostals retreat from journalists, but Wolford didn’t. He’d take them on snake-hunting expeditions.
Last Sunday started as a festive outdoor service on a sunny afternoon at Panther Wildlife Management Area, a state park roughly 80 miles west of Bluefield, W.Va. In the preceding days, Wolford had posted several teasers on his Facebook page asking people to attend.
“I am looking for a great time this Sunday,” he wrote May 22. “It is going to be a homecoming like the old days. Good ’ole raised in the holler or mountain ridge running, Holy Ghost-filled speaking-in-tongues sign believers.”
“Praise the Lord and pass the rattlesnakes, brother” he wrote on May 23. He also invited his extended family, who had largely given up the practice of serpent handling, to come to the park.
“At one time or another, we had handled [snakes], but we had backslid,” his sister, Robin Vanover, said Monday evening. “His birthday was Saturday, and all he wanted to do is get his brothers and sisters in church together.”
And so they were gathered at this evangelistic hootenanny of Christian praise and worship. About 30 minutes into the service, his sister said, Wolford passed a yellow timber rattlesnake to a church member and his mother.
“He laid it on the ground,” she said, “and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh.”
A state forester, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said park officials were unaware of Wolford’s activities. “Had we known he had poisonous animals, we would have never allowed it,” he said.
The festivities came to a halt shortly thereafter, and Wolford was taken back to a relative’s house in Bluefield to recover, as he always had when suffering from previous snake bites. By late afternoon, it was clear that this time was different, and desperate messages began flying about on Facebook, asking for prayer.
Wolford got progressively worse. Paramedics transported him to Bluefield Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. It could not be determined when the paramedics were called.
Wolford was 15 when he saw his father die at age 39 of a rattlesnake bite in almost exactly the same circumstances.
“He lived 10¹ / ₂ hours,” Wolford told The Washington Post last fall. “When he got bit, he said he wanted to die in the church. Three hours after he was bitten, his kidneys shut down. After a while, your heart stops. I hated to see him go, but he died for what he believed in.”
According to people who witnessed Mack Wolford’s death, history repeated itself. He was bitten roughly at 1:30 p.m.; he died about 11 that night.
One of the people present was Lauren Pond, 26, a freelance photographer from the District. She had been photographing serpent handlers in the area for more than a year, including for The Post, and stayed at Wolford’s home in November.
“He helped me to understand the faith instead of just documenting it,” she said Tuesday. “He was one of the most open pastors I’ve ever met. He was a friend and a teacher.”
The family allowed her to stay near Wolford’s side Sunday night, and she’s still recovering from having witnessed the pastor’s agonizing death. “I didn’t see the bite,” she said. “I saw the aftermath.”
In an interview with The Post for last year’s story, Jim Murphy, curator of the Reptile Discovery Center at the National Zoo, described what happens when a rattlesnake bites.
The pain is “excruciating,” he said. “The venom attacks the nervous system. It’s vicious and gruesome when it hits.”
But Wolford refused to fear the creatures. He slung poisonous snakes around his neck, danced with them, even laid down on or near them. He displayed spots on his right hand where copperheads had sunk their fangs. His home in Bluefield had a spare bedroom filled with at least eight venomous snakes: usually rattlers, water moccasins and copperheads that he fed rats and mice. He was passionate about wanting to help churches in nearby states — including North Carolina and Tennessee, where the practice is illegal — start up their own serpent-handling services.
“I promised the Lord I’d do everything in my power to keep the faith going,” he said in October. “I spend a lot of time going a lot of places that handle serpents to keep them motivated. I’m trying to get anybody I can get involved.”
His funeral will be held Saturday at his church, House of the Lord Jesus, in Matoaka, just north of Bluefield.
Julia Duin, a contributing writer for The Washington Post Magazine, wrote the original article about Mack Wolford.


source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/in-wva-snake-handling-is-still-considered-a-sign-of-faith/2011/10/18/gIQAmiqL9M_story.html

Update:

WEB EXTRA: 1983 Daily Telegraph story detailing the death of Wolford’s father, also from a snake bite

Bluefield Daily Telegraph

— — EDITOR’S NOTE: The following story appeared in the Aug. 30, 1983, edition of the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. It details the death of Mack Wolford, who died from a rattlesnake bite during a church service. Mack Wolford was the father of Mack Randall Wolford, who died Monday, May 28, after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a church service the day before.



Headline: Man Dies From Snake-Handling Ritual Near Iaeger

From Staff and Wire Reports

IAEGER — A Kentucky man died from a rattlesnake bite after a religious snake-handling ceremony at a McDowell County church, authorities said Monday.

Mack Wolford, 39, of Phelps, Ky., died at about 9:50 Sunday night, eight hours after being bitten by a yellow rattler during services at the Lord Jesus Temple in Mile Branch, near Iaeger, said Sue Walker, a dispatcher at the Welch state police detachment.

Ms. Walker said Wolford was bitten around 2 p.m. at the church in this rural community about four miles south of Iaeger on Rt. 80. However, an ambulance wasn’t summoned until 10:40 p.m. and Wolford was dead on arrival at Stevens Clinic in Welch, she said.

Snake handling is a ritual employed in some predominantly rural Christian churches as a demonstration of faith. It is based on a Biblical passage in which the faithful are said to “take up serpents” yet not be harmed.

The Rev. Bob Elkins, who operates a similar church in [the] county and says he has been bitten at least seven times, said Monday he did not believe the incident was the result of a lack of faith on Wolford’s part.

“I wasn’t there when it happened, but in my opinion he died fulfilling the faith,” said Elkins. “If they die they’ve got nothing to worry about if they died in the faith.”

Michael Steele of the Little Huff Rescue Squad said that when he arrived at the church Sunday night, Wolford’s family was praying around his body.

“They had him in the bed and his family was around him,” said Steele. “The way they talked, they were handling snakes earlier that evening.”

Steele said Wolford suffered the snake bite hours before rescue crews were summoned.

“It’s the religion,” Steele said. “They don’t believe in going to the hospital when they get bit because they don’t believe they’re going to die.”

The Rev. Brady Dawson, pastor of the Lord Jesus Temple, was conducting regular church services Monday night and could not be reached for comment.

In August, 1982, the Rev. John Holbrook died from a rattlesnake bite he received during a church service in Oceana. Holbrook did not receive medical assistance at the time because his religion did not permit it, officials said.

Wolford was born in Phelps, and was the son of Elizabeth Hurley Wolford of Logan and the late Billy Wolford. He was employed as buggy operator at Chisolm Mine, Phelps.

Survivors in addition to his mother are his wife, Vickie Hicks Wolford; three sons, Randy Wolford, Kevin Wolford and Chris Wolford, all of the home; two daughters, Robin Wolford and Shauna Wolford, both of the home; one stepdaughter, Lesha Hicks, of Morehead, Ky.; five brothers, Nick Wolford, Ervin Wolford, Gene Wolford ad Tracy Wolford, all of Phelps, and Melvin Wolford of Delbarton; four sisters, Reba Lewis of Michigan, Helen Blankenship of Delbarton, and Lassie Wolford and Irene Wolford, addresses unknown.

Wolford’s funeral will be Wednesday at 11 a.m. at the church, with Dawson and the Rev. Bobby Ayers officiating. Burial will be in Hicks Family Cemetery near Phelps.

Members of the church will serve as pallbearers.

Fanning Funeral Home, Iaeger, is in charge of arrangements.

source: http://bdtonline.com/local/x1647292521/WEB-EXTRA-1983-Daily-Telegraph-story-detailing-the-death-of-Wolford-s-father-also-from-a-snake-bite

How Sex got out of hand in the Church

"Homosexuality, Christianity, & the Gospel"

How Masturbation and Homosexuality got out of hand in the eyes of the church        

or

What Happened To My Masturbation Thread?[1]

This video from the Equip Forum from Summit Church deals with the difficult issue of Same-Sex attraction from a biblical perspective. [Twisted as it may be] 

J. D. Greear: "We tried to get past the myths, the political talking points, and discover how the gospel challenge$ this issue and those of us on both sides of it." Source:

 Some commentators have looked for a rationale in the story of Sodom, in which the men in the town attempt to rape the visitors to Lot’s house. (See Genesis 19; the word “sodomy” comes from this incident.) However, the occurrence in the story was a case of homosex­ual rape, hardly a legitimate precedent for the kind of consensual homosexual acts we are considering. Others see the root of the prohibition in the verse “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute” (Deuteronomy 23:18). Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East, but, like the story of Sodom, it is no longer a relevant precedent for modern homosexuality.

Sex outside Marriage [2]

Morality consists of suspecting other people of not being married.
George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma

Adam

Before Christianity started to take an interest in controlling marriage, there had been little or no taint associated with illegitimacy. Even in the Middle Ages families would be proud to admit to having been founded by bastards. Many still bear surnames starting with the element Fitz-, which often indicates that the first bearer of the name was a royal bastard. As Church influence over marriage grew stronger, sex was increasingly discouraged outside marriage. Penances were imposed that depended on factors such as age, marital status, and whether or not the man was in Holy Orders*. Class came into it as well. A man who seduced a serving girl could expect half the penance of one who seduced a girl who was his social equal. As Christianity grew stronger, so did the stigma of illegitimacy. For example, fornication was not a crime in the American colonies until Puritans made it one in 1692. In some states it remained an offence until the late twentieth century. In Arizona, for example, fornication was punishable by three years imprisonment.

By Victorian times it was common for women's lives to be ruined by a single indiscretion in their youth. The child would be sent to an orphanage and the mother to a mental asylum. This practice continued well into the twentieth century. In the 1990s, there were still old women in mental asylums who had been there for decades, and who were first committed for no other reason that they had given birth to a child out of wedlock. Others escaped their fate by murdering their new-born children and hiding the bodies. Every so often such grisly relics are found, often in old shoeboxes in attics. Children who were sent to orphanages were generally informed that their parents were dead. Thousands of such "orphans" were shipped from Britain to Roman Catholic orphanages in Australia after World War II, without the knowledge of their parents. Some discovered in adult life that the Church had lied to them and they were not orphans at all. Forty such women, brought up by the Sisters of Nazareth in Garaldton, returned to Britain on the fiftieth anniversary of their exile to be reunited with their families in 1997*.

The term living in sin has a mildly humorous ring to it now, but not so long ago it was widely used in all seriousness. In 1995 there was considerable opposition when a Church of England report suggested abandoning the term. In the past all Christians genuinely believed, as a minority still do, that unmarried couples are committing a grave sin. If one of the partners is married to someone else, then they are committing adultery, an even more serious matter under Church Law. After all, the Old Testament clearly prescribed the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus 20:10). As recently as 1959, Geoffrey Fisher, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, stated that adultery ought to be a criminal offence.

One of the worst sexual sins in the eyes of churchmen was masturbation. Masturbation was particularly loathed, yet priests felt compelled to inquire into the minutest details during confession. A leading fifteenth century theologian, Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, wrote an entire treatise on hearing the confessions of masturbators. Countless generations have been terrified by stories of what God would do to those who practised masturbation. They would go blind or deaf, or become insane, or develop syphilis or gonorrhoea. The usual term for masturbation was "self pollution" or "self abuse". As for many other harmless practices, biblical authority was found to condemn it, and as so often the interpretation was questionable. According to the book of Genesis, God was displeased with Judah's eldest son, so he killed him. Since he had died without issue, Judah was concerned about his succession. The Leverite law stated that in such circumstances a brother of the dead man should marry the widow and raise any children in the dead man's name. This duty fell to Onan:

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went into his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.
Genesis 38:8-10

The reference to spilling seed probably denotes coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation. Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally favoured this interpretation because it provides grounds to prohibit coitus interruptus as a form of contraception*. In fact Onan's offence is clearly not so much what he did, but what he did not do. His error lay in disobeying his father, and not doing what he had been instructed to do. This latter interpretation, that Onan's offence was the wilful disobedience of the Leverite law, is the one accepted by most rabbinical scholars*. No matter, there was no other text to justify criticism of masturbation, and Christian moralists needed one, so this one had to be pressed into service.

Well into the twentieth century the state of New York officially held that masturbation causes insanity. God, too, apparently shared such misapprehensions for he revealed all manner of erroneous information to Protestants, Roman Catholics and other Christians. To Ellen White, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, he disclosed that masturbation would render a man a cripple and an imbecile. Such stories were supported not only by churchmen but also by Christian physicians who gave the stamp of medical approval. Doctors assured their patients that masturbation caused all manner of ills, from back pain to epilepsy. Up until the middle of the twentieth century almost every adult in a Christian community was, as Bertrand Russell said, more or less diseased nervously as a result of the taboo on sex knowledge when he or she was young. Even today it is not difficult to find fervent Christians who will affirm in all seriousness that masturbation causes impotence, blindness, deafness, insanity, and venereal disease, and that it will result in hair growing on the palms of the hands. Although all of these supposed symptoms are imaginary, Christian children of many denominations are still threatened with them.

William of Auvergne pointed out in the thirteenth century that male masturbators are automatically guilty of a number of crimes including homicide and sodomy (homicide because the semen was spilled unproductively, sodomy because it was not being deposited in a proper vessel). Apart from the shame, guilt, and embarrassment associated with masturbation, penalties for it could be severe. At one time seminal emission attracted a penalty of seven days fasting if it was involuntary and 20 days if it was physically assisted. Monks masturbating in church were liable to a fast of 30 days, and bishops to 50*. No punishment succeeded in eliminating this vice, and masturbation was still a major problem in Victorian times. Boys might be infibulated, i.e. have wires threaded through their foreskins to prevent them from masturbating. Alternatively, spiked metal rings could be fitted around the penis to discourage tumescence.

For girls, matters could be worse. Father J. C. Debreyne, a Trappist monk and physician, who had his own list of imaginary symptoms caused by masturbation, favoured the surgical removal of the clitoris from female offenders. It was after all only an organ of pleasure, superfluous to the act of procreation. Clitorectomies (sometimes called female circumcisions) were performed on Christian girls, just as they still are on Muslim girls. In the late nineteenth century Dr Jules Guerin of London claimed to effect excellent cures on masturbators by cauterising the clitoris*. All this because Christian theologians believed masturbation to be worse than incest or murder. Infibulations and clitorectomies are no longer tolerated, but the Church still clings to its ancient attitudes. As a modern theologian has observed:

...anyone who derives his theology from Catholic moral theologians will be convinced, even today, that masturbation wastes the spinal marrow, softens or desiccates the brain, and can generally impair the constitution*.

Because of their association with sex, the genitals were generally seen as vile and disgusting. So it is that we refer to them by the Latin name pudenda, from pudendus meaning "of which one ought to be ashamed". In England our straightforward native Saxon terms have been forced out of use or reduced to the status of obscenities. Missionaries down the centuries, even to the present day, have encouraged potential converts to think of their genitals as shameful and dirty. Shame is introduced to make all cultures more like the guilt-ridden ones of Christendom. Even so, it seems that clothing does not always guarantee freedom from temptation to natural desire, at least if we are to make inferences from the incidence of red-haired aborigine babies in the wake of Irish missions in Australia.

For many non-Christians it is difficult to credit the extent to which Christian societies have gone to suppress sexual matters. Not so long ago nuns and convent girls were expected to take their baths in swimming costumes, or with the bath sheeted over. The reason was that otherwise their naked bodies might be seen by God, or by their guardian angel, or by one of the host of other spiritual beings who frequent our bathrooms. Many children in Christian countries still reach puberty without having learned anything of basic human sexual physiology. Adolescent boys raised by Christians are often surprised to find themselves experiencing spontaneous nocturnal seminal emissions, and girls are often horrified at their first menstruation. In many non-Christian cultures such events are much less traumatic: children are familiar with sex and sexuality from an early age because such matters are ordinary, natural aspects of everyday life.

Christian societies are now slightly more realistic than they once were. The second Council of Mâcon in 585 decreed that male corpses should not be buried next to female ones until they had decomposed*. One could never be too careful in matters sexual. The obsession with sex often had dire results. Not so long ago gynaecologists could carry out physical examinations only when absolutely necessary. And even then it was common practice for such examinations to be carried out under sheets in darkened rooms. In the early nineteenth century a Philadelphia professor could boast of American women that they "prefer to suffer the extremity of danger and pain rather than waive those scruples of delicacy which prevent their maladies from being fully explored"*. We shall never know how many thousands of women have died unnecessarily, protecting their Christian modesties from the attentions of the medical profession.

Most of the extreme Christian ideas are now discarded and forgotten, having been superseded by liberal, secular and scientific ones. Sometimes all that was necessary was for a non-believer to bring the Christian-inspired practice to public notice, and public opinion did the rest. As we have already noted, at the end of the nineteenth century female masturbation was sometimes prevented by excising the clitoris, or cauterising it with red-hot irons, this operation being advocated and practised by Christian physicians. Such practices fell out of use after being publicised by an atheist physician named Sigmund Freud*.

_________________________________________________________________

Homosexuality and Transvestism [3]

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 18:22


The ancients seem to have accepted homosexuality without too much concern. Plato recounts a myth that sets both male and female homosexuality firmly within the realm of normality. Zeus himself kept a catamite (young male lover), his cup-bearer Ganymede. And no one thought less of Alexander the Great because of his male lover, nor found it odd that one of his best fighting units was composed exclusively of homosexual couples.

Christianity brought new attitudes, more extreme than those of its parent religion, Judaism. Homosexual sex was now an outrage. The Church's view on this matter was founded in the scripture cited above "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination". This however was not thought to be a strong enough indictment, so the early Church reconstrued the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. To the Jews, Sodom had traditionally been identified with shortcomings such as irreligiousness, pride, and adultery. It was these wrongdoings that they thought had incurred the wrath of God. Only later, when they came to be outraged by liberal Hellenistic and Roman attitudes to sex, did they start to associate the cities of the plain with misdeeds such as fornication and homosexuality. It was Philo of Alexandria, living in the first century AD, who seems to have first interpreted the story as one principally about homosexuality, and this was the version that the Church Fathers preferred. So it is that, to this day, anal intercourse and sometimes other sexual practices are referred to as sodomy, and practising male homosexuals as sodomites or sods. (Several American states still regard sodomy as encompassing any form of intercourse other than that carried out using the missionary position).

As the Roman Empire crumbled, the Church succeeded in replacing traditional sexual liberality. Homosexuals were soon being punished by forcible castration and public display. A law passed under the Christian Emperor Valentinian in 390 prescribed death by burning as the penalty for homosexuality, and this was confirmed by the Code of Justinian in the sixth century. Through Gratian's Decretum the death penalty was adopted by European nations, for example under Edward I in England and Louis IX in France. Alfonso X of Castile favoured castration followed by hanging upside down until dead, but at the end of the fifteenth century Ferdinand and Isabella changed this to the more traditional burning.

According to the Golden Legend all sodomites throughout the whole world had been divinely exterminated in preparation for Jesus Christ's arrival , but somehow the practice had become popular again. In Europe, homosexuals were burned to death like heretics throughout the Middle Ages — the non-clerical ones at least. The French continued to burn homosexuals as late as 1725.

For centuries heresy and homosexuality went together in the Christian mind, twin evils both deserving of death. Virtually all non-Christians were believed to practice homosexuality, and virtually all heretical groups were accused of it as well, whether or not there was any evidence. One such heretical group is particularly notable in this respect, the Bulgarians a group of Gnostic Dualists related to the Cathars. They flourished in the eleventh century, and as the name suggests were based in Bulgaria. In Old French a Bulgarian was a boulgre, modern French bougre. In English the word adopted another spelling — bugger. Historically it was applied to a succession of heretical groups, each of which was accused of sodomy. So it is that under the headword bugger the Oxford English Dictionary gives two definitions: the first obsolete "A heretic ...", the second current, "One who commits buggery; a sodomite ...". (If the Bulgars really did practice anal intercourse, it was almost certainly with their wives and for contraceptive reasons. Anal intercourse between man and wife was a common form of contraception throughout Christendom for many centuries.)

Homosexuality has always been particularly common in single sex institutions (such as prisons, mental asylums, sailing ships and boarding schools) and no less so in religious ones (monasteries, nunneries, seminaries, etc.). Medieval Church commentators freely admitted that homosexuality was common among clergy. St Peter Damian was particularly worried by priests who engaged in homosexual activity with each other, then confessed to each other and gave each other light penance. He was also critical of the practice of soliciting male penitents who revealed their homosexual inclinations during confession. As for other crimes, clerics tended to get off lightly, if they were charged at all. While other offenders were executed, clerics could expect a mild punishment, even though they provided a high proportion of offenders.

Despite the prevalence of homosexuality in their own ranks, Churches have, until the last few years, consistently expressed abhorrence at homosexual practices. Now, for the first time, some of the traditional views have been softened, and homosexuality is accepted by the Church of England, for example, merely as "falling short of the Christian ideal". In the Republic of Ireland homosexual acts such as kissing could until the 1990s incur two years in prison with or without hard labour. Buggery was punishable by penal servitude for life.

Christian attitudes to homosexuals still reverberate. The Church enjoys exemptions from laws on sexual orientation in many countries so that it can continue to discriminate. Every major natural disaster is still accompanied by sermons from pulpits asserting that the disaster is God's punishment for unchristian sexual activity. Many senior Churchmen have declared as a fact that the AIDS epidemic is a punishment from God for homosexual activity.

The Church has traditionally held views on transvestism similar to those on homosexuality. In support it has been able to cite Deuteronomy 22:5:

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the L ord thy God.

So it was that one of the main accusations against Joan of Arc, which ensured her death at the stake, was that she insisted on wearing men's clothes. This was also one of the reasons the Church so disapproved of theatre. Having forced women of the stage acting troops had no choice but for men to play women's parts, and right-thinking Christians found this nearly as bad as seeing real women on stage.

Women were prosecuted in the early twentieth century for wearing trouser suits — their sentences were less severe, but only because the Church was no longer able to enforce its views as strictly as it could in the Middle Ages.

6 Things Mom Taught Me About Church + Homosexuality & the Gospel

 “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute” (Deuteronomy 23:18). Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East, but, like the story of Sodom, it is no longer a relevant precedent for modern homosexuality."  Torah does not explicitly prohibit les­bianism, and because lesbianism does not involve the spilling of seed." 

This video from the Equip Forum from $ummit Church deals with the difficult issue of $ame-$ex attraction from a biblical perspective. [Twisted as it may be] 

J. D. Greear: "We tried to get past the myths, the political talking points, and discover how the gospel challenge$ this issue and those of us on both sides of it." source:

Homosexuality and Halakhah  [4]

Homosexuality and Halakhah

Traditional sources on homosexuality.

By Rabbi Michael Gold

The following article is reprinted with permission from Does God Belong in the Bedroom? Two claims made by Gold in this article are disputable and should be noted. First, is the assertion that Judaism is not concerned with inner feelings. While it is true that in Judaism actions are more often than not privileged over thoughts and feelings, certain manifestations of Judaism, including hasidism and musar (a 19th century movement that focused on the study of Jewish ethics and values), do stress the importance of inner feelings. Second, is Gold’s assertion that natural law is a concept foreign to Judaism. While some scholars have assumed this to be true, others disagree.

An important point to make from the outset is that Jewish law does not teach that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. On the contrary, Jewish law is concerned not with the source of a person’s erotic urges nor with inner feelings, but with acts. The Torah forbids the homosexual act, known as mishkav zakhar, but has nothing to say about homosexuality as a state of being or a personal inclination. 

In other words, traditionally, a person with a homosexual inclination can be an entirely observant Jew as long as he or she does not act out that inclination.

The Biblical Sources

The basis of the prohibition against homosexual acts derives from two biblical verses in Leviticus: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). The Torah considers a homosexual act between two men to be an abhorrent thing (to’evah), punishable by death—a strong prohibition.

The Torah gives no reason for this commandment. Some commentators have looked for a rationale in the story of Sodom, in which the men in the town attempt to rape the visitors to Lot’s house. (See Genesis 19; the word “sodomy” comes from this incident.) However, the occurrence in the story was a case of homosex­ual rape, hardly a legitimate precedent for the kind of consensual homosexual acts we are considering. Others see the root of the prohibition in the verse “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute” (Deuteronomy 23:18). Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East, but, like the story of Sodom, it is no longer a relevant precedent for modern homosexuality.

Various rabbis have tried to come up with other reasons for the biblical prohibition of mishkav zakhar. (Note, however, that a Torah prohibition always stands on its own even if no cogent rationale can be found for it.) Some rabbis have argued that homosexuality is forbidden because procreation is impossible. Others have defined the homosexual act as intrinsically unnatural and therefore opposed to the purposes of creation. There are difficulties, however, with both explanations. Judaism grants sexuality a purpose above and beyond procreation, and natural law, although influential in the Catholic Church, is not an authentic Jewish concept.

A Talmudic Interpretation

A more likely explanation for the ban against homosexual behavior is given in the Talmud by Bar Kapparah, who makes a play on the word to’evah (“abomination”), claiming that it means to’eh atah ba(“you go astray because of it”). Both Tosefot and the Asheri (medieval commentators) comment on this passage that a man will leave his wife and family to pursue a relationship with another man. In other words, homosexuality undermines and threatens the Jewish ideal of family life, of marriage and children, articulated in the Torah. Heterosexuality is the communal norm for Jews; homosexuality, a perversion of that norm.

The Assumption of Heterosexuality

Rabbinic literature assumes that Jews are not homosexual. For example, the Mishnah presents the following disagreement between Rabbi Judah and the Sages: “R. Judah said: A bachelor should not herd animals, nor should two bachelors share a single blanket. The Sages permit it.” The halakhah follows the Sages because the Talmud says, “Israel is not suspected of homosexuality.”

The Shulhan Arukh (a foundational work of Jewish law from the 16th century) never explicitly mentions the prohibition against homosexual acts but mentions the precaution that a male should not be alone with another male because of lewdness “in our times.” However, Rabbi Joel Sirkes ruled about one hundred years later that such precautions were unnecessary because of the rarity of such acts among Polish Jewry.

A more recent responsum was brought by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi in Palestine. A rumor that a certain shohet (ritual slaughterer) had committed a homosexual act provoked the question of whether he should be disqualified for the position. Rav Kook ruled that the shohet could be retained because, even if the rumor were true, the man might have since repented of his act. It is noteworthy that Rabbi Kook’s responsum considers homosexuality an act of volition for which one can repent.

Lesbianism

Lesbianism is never mentioned in the Torah. One talmudic passage refers to homosexual acts between women: “R. Huna taught, Women who have sex one with the other are forbidden to marry a Kohen(priest).” The halakhah rejects Rav Huna’s opinion and allows a lesbian to marry a Kohen. However, Maimonides ruled that lesbianism is still prohibited and should be punished by flagellation. The prohibition is not as stringent as that against male homosexuality because the Torah does not explicitly prohibit les­bianism, and because lesbianism does not involve the spilling of seed.

A Summary

We can now summarize the classical halakhic position:

Judaism is concerned with explicit acts, not inner feelings.
A homosexual act between two men is explicitly forbidden in the Torah.
A homosexual act between two women is forbidden by the rabbis (i.e. it was not forbidden by the Torah, but was in later times forbidden; this type of prohibition is less severe).
Homosexuality is considered an act of volition for which one can repent.
The reason for the prohibitions seems to be that such behavior undermines the Jewish family ideal of marriage and children as set out in the Torah.
Rabbinic thinkers in the past did not consider homosexuality a Jewish behavior problem. source:

Rabbi Michael Gold is the rabbi at Temple Beth Torah, Tamarac Jewish Center in Tamarac, Florida. He is the author of four books, and his articles have appeared inMoment, Judaism, Jewish Spectator, B'nai Brith International Jewish Monthly, and numerous other publications. He also served as co-chair of the Rabbinical Assembly's committee on human sexuality.

[1]  Christian Church Today

[2]  http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gfc_exmarriage.htm

[3]  http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gff_homosexuality.htm

[4]http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality/Homosexuality_and_Halakhah.shtml