Rating: 
Summary: An intelligent study, but the purpose?
Review: "What the Bible Really Says ..." takes on the volatile argument of religion and its presumed negative moral influence on sexual orientation and/or same-sex practices. Author Daniel Helminiak develops an intelligent and scholarly thesis that Scripture has few minor references that condemn homosexuality and, a step further, that anti-gay biblical passages are not blanket condemnations of gay people and acts. Through it all and in the end, Helminiak theorizes that the Bible doesn't even address (therefore, condemn) same-gender sex as it is understood in contemporary terms and that anyone seeking the definitive answer about homosexuality being acceptable or evil, will need to find the answer somewhere else. It might seem this book is a self-study for gays, lesbians and bisexuals still closeted and resisting their orientation because of the moral condemnations of whatever their religions, and how they can see the faulty of their religious-based rejections by self and others. Indeed, if the closeted person remains closeted because of his self-disdain based on religious beliefs, this book may be a positive step toward self-acceptance and understanding....
Rating: 
Summary: Well written and informative!
Review: "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" gives a liberal, theologically based interpretation of the commonly used passages against Homosexuality. While many will not agree with the interpretations, they are well documented and have excellent support. This book gives new light to familiar passages such as the ones found in Romans and Leviticus. The interpretation given in this book may or may not be correct, but it is something to think about. The author has done significant research and has a solid foundation. I'd recommend this book to anyone who truly wants to begin finding their own truth about homosexuality. At the same time I would recommend reading "Straight and Narrow" by Thomas Schmidt. With these two books you will receive a complete picture of the arguments for and against homosexuality so that you can begin to find your own answer.
Rating: 
Summary: Literal interpretation vs Scholarly interpretation
Review: ...BR>Now I invite those even challenge those individuals, not affraid to learn, not affraid to actually open their minds to something different, to read this book. Investigate the validity of it's historical, anthropological and cultural findings. Understand the stories and what they were meant to teach during those times. Understand what lessons you can learn today. Check the accurateness of the interpreted words in your own bible.
To sum up I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this book. It will open your mind to your own interpretation and your own relationship with GOD not those of someone else - some other human being who is no closer to understanding the truth than you are!!!P.S. I think organized religions are great as long as you understand and know why YOU as an individual are part of it.
Rating:
Summary: Reasonably accurate
Review: A fair representation of Biblical thought as explored from a non biased viewpoint. Very helpful for those needing some guidence whether just coming out or simply attempting to deal with their homosexuality. Proof that God does love everyone without exception.
Rating:
Summary: Clear Explanation of a Complex Subject
Review: A positive and affirming book for lesbians and gays and those who love them. This is an excellent introduction to the subject of what the bible says about homosexuality. It is thin and easy to read but still pitched at an intelligent level. Helminiak states up front that this is not intended to be an academic tomb; therefore the book, while well researched, keeps references to the appendix. Using the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, this book asks and answers the questions: "What did the authors of scripture mean by their prohibitions of homosexuality and why were these prohibitions made?" and "What relevance, if any, does this have to today's world?"
Rating: 
Summary: A BLATANT DISTORTION OF BIBLICAL TRUTH
Review: After enduring Rosie O'Donnell's propaganda on O'Reilly's Factor show, I had to give this book a look. What I found was most disturbing. This book is yet another revision of the Bible's unalterable stance against homosexuality. The author holds that the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts are not blatantly anti-homosexual. He contends that the ancient views on such activity were much different than ours and these passages probably meant something quite different at the time. Regarding the ancients: Homosexuality was practised by some of the most notoriously perverted roman emperors, i.e. Nero, Tiberius, and Hadrian. Some selected young boys to be castrated and later subjected them to the most licentious perversions. Since any Roman could be killed on the emperor's whim, few challenged their actions. True scholars know, however, that such activity was never encouraged in any society. The ancient Romans tolerated this perversion provided it was between consenting adults (not young boys) and the participants kept circumspect (very quiet) about it. In lieu of a willing partner, the heinous act was often perpetrated on an unwilling slave and the passive partner (or receptacle) was always regarded with great contempt. Homophobia would have run rampant indeed had they proposed a Gay Pride March, same sex "marriage", or adoptions. And introducing homosexual agendas in the few schools they had was never a consideration. The premises presented in this book simply do not hold water; in fact the proverbial dike is riddled with holes. There is no gray area in the Bible re homosexuality. The Bible's truths on this subject cannot be manipulated or rewritten to fit one's political or sexual agenda. It is what it is. How does one reinterpret Leviticus 18.22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." or a passage in Romans: "...Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts...the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion..." or Corinthians: "...the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God...nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." Homosexuality has and will always be a perversion of nature and against God's law. FOR A GREAT ANTIDOTE TO THIS REVISIONISM I HIGHLY RECOMMEND F. LAGARD SMITH'S FINE BOOK ENTITLED "SODOM'S SECOND COMING." The entire book is an eye-opener. Of special interest are the chapters The Dark Side of Being Gay (listing various physical acts, etc.) and Scripturephobic Bible-Bashing.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent popularization of modern biblical scholarship
Review: As Father Helminiak points out, the Bible has no concept of homosexuality, which is a modern concept and word. What one can study is what the Bible says about what we would class as some forms of homosexual behavior. But the biblical authors lacked the concept, and so could not classify anything as homosexual. Therefore, there can be no general condemnation of homosexual behavior (our concept) in the Bible, like it or not. That's the fact. There are only a few texts in the Bible that clearly refer to homosexual behavior, and a few others, which may do so. However, to mention something, even in the Bible, is not always to condemn it. The contrary assumption is simply the fallacy of special pleading. Most of the points Dr. Helminiak makes are nothing new to anyone who has seriously looked into the subject. The Sodom story in Gen. 19:1-29 is really about the abuse of strangers, who according to the mores of the area should be offered food and shelter. It is well known that no text in the Bible interprets the sin of Sodom as homosexual behavior, but a whole host of other things. Helminiak makes the very apt point that it is really those who give a hard time to the strangers and outsiders in our time (which would include homosexuals in great part) are the ones really guilty of the sin of Sodom. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the Holiness Code, a body of (ritual) uncleanness laws. The Holiness Code explicitly tries to keep the Israelites different from the pagans whose practices were considered impure, and probably involves a religious aversion to mixing of kinds (as sewing two kinds of seeds in a field or using to kinds of thread to make a cloth). The term translated as "abomination" in the King James Version is simply a term for uncleanness. Easily provable. Helminiak makes a good case that the only thing that would have really counted as sexual intercourse for the ancient Hebrews was penile penetration in either vaginal or anal sex. This would explain why the ancient Jews had little concern for lesbianism or many other sexual activities. In Romans 1:24-27, we find that Paul does not actually say that the sexual activity referred to is wrong, simply that it is a consequence and even punishment for idolatry. Paul was at that point addressing the Jewish Christians in Rome. Helminiak plausibly maintains that Paul maintains there are two sorts of consequences of idolatrous worship. There are impure, socially disapproved activities, as in 1:25-27, and there are other things which really are wrong, as in the listing in 1:28-32. The sin lists in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10 may not even refer to homosexuality at all. "Malakos" simply means soft, and in times past was regarded as referring to the self-indulgent or even those who masturbate. "Arsenokoites" occurs in the Bible these two texts only, and no one really knows for sure what it means. There seem to be some positive accounts of homosexual relationships in the Bible, although the Bible could not categorize them in that way. It seems quite likely that David and Jonathan had a love relationship, as can be gleaned from 1 Sam 18:1-4, 1 Sam. 20:16-17. Saul himself may have had a sexual relationship with David, if an alternate reading of the vowelless Hebrew text in 1 Sam 16:21 is correct. His outburst in 20:30-31 may indicate he is jealous of Jonathan's relationship with David. David's lament for both in 2 Sam. 1:19-27 is very revealing, especially that the love of Jonathan was better than the love of a woman. There have been more speculative interpretations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, and also between Daniel and the chief eunuch in Nebuchadnezzar's court, but the evidence is scant. However, it is quite likely that Jesus encountered a man in homosexual relationship. The Centurion who pleaded for a cure for his very dear servant in Matt. 8:5-13 and Lk. 7:1-10 may well been in love with him. It was common for a Roman slave owner to use slaves for sexual purposes, and soldiers often took along a male sexual partner. Matthew and Luke do not relate that Jesus reacted to any of this, but simply commended the Centurion's faith and told him his dear youth was healed. Among the spurious texts, the old King James Version mentions "sodomites," a clear mistranslation, in Dt. 23:17; I Kgs 14:24, 15:12, 22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7; although the same term in Gen 38:21 clearly means some kind of prostitute. The usual translations are cult prostitute, temple prostitute, or sacred prostitute. How one evaluates something depends on the standards used. This is a work of popularization, depending in great part of research done by others, and it's a remarkably good one. It introduces one into biblical interpretation, placing a text in its historical context, determining the meaning of the actual words, and shows how such methods of study apply to the biblical texts that mention some sort of homosexual behavior. Dr. Helminiak also briefly summarizes some of the research into changing Christian attitudes toward homosexual behavior over the centuries and provides some references. Helminiak does not cover all the scholarly interpretations of the texts, but then neither does any other book I am aware of. Sometimes, I prefer other interpretations, but I cannot exclude his. John Boswell and Robin Scroggs are well worth reading, as well. But he raises most of the major questions and provides intelligent answers. Also, it's a very clear read. It fully merits a 5 star rating.
Rating:
Summary: I Like It, And I Haven't Been Able To Read It Yet
Review: Can't wait to receive this book. Any book that flies in the face of long-held beliefs by the christian (deliberately un-capitalized) right is good with me.
How quickly we forget that two gay guys, "King" James, and "Sir" Francis Bacon GAVE US THE KJV....HELLO !!!
We shouldn't forget Ruth & Naomi either. Scripture doesn't have to say these "same-sex" couples were screwing each other every night, in order for them to have a loving relationship. It's none of our freakin' business about their sexuality. But, if they were...so much the better.
As long as these folks had a loving spirit, they're following Jesus' admonishment to love one another (etc, etc), and that's plenty enough for me. Preachers need to mind their own business. After all I've seen plenty of preachers with more problems with sex, than regular everyday folks.
Can't wait to read this one.
Rating:
Summary: Finally! A logical, Biblical Defense
Review: Coming from a fundamentalist background - and being gay - I always found the two worlds always at odds. Now I have an intellegent, Biblical, and social defense to those who would try to deny my relationship with God. Not an easy read, but definitely a "must read" for any gay Christian and their families.
Rating:
Summary: deeply flawed and full of wishful thinking
Review: Daniel Helminiak tries to convince the reader that the Bible condemns only special kinds of homosexuality (e.g. gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah), that the verses against homosexuality in the holiness code of the book of Leviticus only refer to Israelites (as God's chosen people) etc. Unfortunately Mr. Helminiak often reads into the text what he wants to get out of it. When explaining the meaning of some Hebrew or Greek words he uses the definitions he likes best and which seem to support his interpretation (ignoring the fact that the same words are used with another/different meaning in many other verses in the Bible). When quoting some texts the author sometimes stops too early because reading some more verses of the texts Helminiak refers to makes clear that the texts don't say what the author claims etc. The book is full of circular reasoning and Helminiak's arguments (although some of them sound convincing at first) can be refuted easily. You can read a good rebuttal on the website of the "Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics" (it's not allowed to mention the link here but the website can be found easily using Google). Click on "Social Issues" to find the article. The book "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality" by James White and Jeffrey Niell also refutes the views of Helminiak and other authors who try to make the Bible "gay-friendly".
| 
