I had an encounter with someone in YouTube comments that at first sounded like a trap the Scribes and Pharisees would give, but it turned out unexpectedly.
TRJ: When the Pharisees quoted the old law at Jesus, were they right or wrong? When they condemned him for breaking the Sabbath, were they right or wrong?
Me: Of course, they quoted the old letter of the Law, that's all they knew, but Christ would put a new Law, a "Royal Law" that would take the place of all the laws and sayings of the prophets.
They were wrong. Because even though they quoted the old letter of the Law about the Sabbath, they didn't understand the 'heart' of the Law. The Sabbath was made for us, not us for the Sabbath.
TRJ: So the spirit of the new law is more important than the letter of the old law. Thanks! To restrict yourself or hurt yourself or even to circumcise yourself is to put yourself back under the law which Jesus fulfilled with his sacrifice. Paul wrote that the Gentiles need not put themselves under the restrictions of the Old Law, because to do so would be to reject Christ. Consider Galatians 5:2: "Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
How much more painful and unnecessary a restriction is it to be denied the pursuit of fulfilling companionship that others get to pursue simply by virtue of being heterosexual? Even God himself says in Genesis, "It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make a suitable partner for him." The guiding principle here is companionship to help relieve loneliness. This restriction against same-sex relationships, like circumcision before it, appears to be an unnecessary barrier to Christ and community with the Church for LGBT people. Are we not worthy of "suitable partners" for ourselves?
If the answer is Yes, then that would contradict God's decree that such loneliness is not good. Today, if people "cut off" their sexuality or their foreskin, they effectively put themselves back under the old law, and Christ becomes nothing to them.
The law leads people to Jesus; Jesus does not lead people back to the law."
All Christians should be like this man. Having a knowledge of the Word, reasoning, and wisdom, a real-life Proverbs 2:6 instead of the Proverbs 9:7-8, I mostly get on social media.
I wrote this as a post on my marriage tag, but it's worth repeating here since nothing I write is in a specific, readable order.
We as Christians have been given the power by Christ to "Bind" or to "Loose" (Matt. 16:19) on subjects coming before respective Church leaders, subjects the churches have never needed to address before, when a judgment call needs to be made. What is decided by them with these subjects on Earth, Heaven will respect. This autonomy was given to the Jews (Matt. 23:3), and Christ gave it to the Christian elders who sit at the "Seat of Moses" with the body of believers they lead in agreement (Acts 15:22).
When church bodies decide the affirmative on issues of homosexuality, only now coming before them (acceptance, marriage, ordination), it is loosed in Heaven. Some church bodies still "bind" on homosexuality, and that is fine, they have that power on Earth that WILL be respected in Heaven, but this is not binding to those church bodies that loose acceptance.
As far as I know, I'm the only one who put this little apologetics gem in relevance to the Church with homosexuality. Let someone else run with it in more depth.
Play this song and read the rest below; it fits.
Ex-gays" love YouTube (they've now built a big presence on TikTok). Someone wrote this because the testimony of the "ex-gay' was getting raked over the coals in the comments section:
"Can y'all people just leave people who just want to live freedom from homosexuality, just let us be. Man, that is part of the reason why Ex-LGBT people don't want to tell their story because people are so hostile and are afraid to be called bigot or homophobe and even get hurt for even testifying freedom from homosexuality. Just to let you know some of the comments are hurtful some people so can you explain your opinions a little bit more respectfully."
I just came from a channel of an "ex-gay" who said homosexuality is selfish. It was selfishness for HIM because that was how he was as a person, but don't apply that to me, who's in a relationship of self-sacrificing love. Now you know why we have a problem with these "ex-gays." They pin all their bad experiences and personal hang-ups on homosexuality, and THEN they tell straight Christians we are just like them with all this struggling, loneliness, and unhappiness they once had. Can't they just live their lives with the happiness they supposedly found and stop projecting on us the mess they were in? And of course, straight Christians will eat up what they say because they tell straight Christians what they want to hear about homosexuality.
A refute, even if loving of these "ex-gay" testimonies, and ironically, you are labeled the hater. You'd think straight Christians placed money bets on these people the way they cheer them on. There are a ton of vids on YouTube from people saying they have overcome everything from drug addiction to emotional brokenness by the Power of God, and they have just a few comments, but boy, an "ex-gay" will always have their comments section packed to the brim with people praising God they left homosexuality.
Since I'm starting to blog again, let's revisit some of the slivers of glass in my milkshake.
Franklin Graham has really become a political hack since the few postings I did on him years ago. He's also gotten so bad with taking shots at the LGBTQ community on Twitter and in interviews, and even Christians are finally saying enough. A few months ago, every venue he was to speak at in the UK, the same towns that embraced him before, revoked all of his speaking invitations because he went too far with harping about homosexuality, even for them. Would Franklin humbly respect their wishes because he's boycott crazy himself or because it's the Christ-like thing to do? No, he got his load of lawyers to sue all of them, including several ministers, with what Paul said not to do to fellow believers. What happened to dusting the dirt off your feet and walking away from the towns that won't have you, like Christ tells us to do, Franklin? Or what about not demanding your way or demanding back what's taken from you, like Paul tells us to do, Franklin?
I also want you to never forget that Franklin did an interview for a Russian newspaper where he made the "Pedo Libel" claim against homosexuals that passed under the radar of the American media because it was printed only in a Russian newspaper, in Russian. This is the real Franklin and not the one he presents in the states that claims to love the homosexual. He knew if he made this claim in the English-speaking press, even prominent Christians would call him out for it, so the coward only gave how he really felt to an audience on the other side of the world who already believed it.
 |
| Big seller at Franklin's favorite doughnut shop, Voodoo Doughnuts. |
Addendum: I found out I was wrong. Franklin did do an interview with an American journalist where he stated homosexuals "recruit" children. I really didn't think he would have the guts to bear this false witness. My question is, do most of his ministry supporters know he said this? He has a lot of support from moderate Christians who would stop supporting him if they knew he made this pedophilia false witness.
You'd think time would have tempered Robert Gagnon with all the refutes of his book, but he's still the insulting prig, calling out the sexuality of scholars who did the refuting and demeaning lay Christians who call him out by saying they are not the great and wonderful scholar he believes himself to be.
He still talks like his book is relevant today... got bad news for you, sweetheart.
Remember when I compared Gagnon to a minstrel show, only bigots clapped for when I did a critique of his book? There's a story of the Salem witch trials that I think is apropos for him NOW.
A group of young girls in the town of Salem would drop to the floor, retching and screaming, saying they were being vexed by witches, which started the witch hysteria that the town of Salem is associated with. When the witch trials were over, everyone knew they had made a big mistake, and these people who were killed were innocent victims.
The story goes that not too long after, one of the girls who was in that group of witch accusers saw a group of travelers walking down a road. She fell on the floor, retching and screaming, saying she was being vexed by a witch because she thought the stunt might still work on these strangers passing through. One of the travelers walked up to her and said (in modern speak), "Give it up. No one is falling for it anymore." Hearing this, the girl got up, brushed the dirt off her dress, and quietly walked away.
This is Gagnon, an accuser who you can tell to hang up the act because no one is buying it anymore.
- Theologian Ed Oxford from his book; "Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay."
I'm starting to see a dangerous path someone is taking that I'm promoting on my blog. The issue is the authority Scripture should have on our lives. It's becoming convoluted with him saying the Bible should be the authority, but only what is the "good authority" we take for ourselves (?) if I'm understanding him right. I could be wrong if that's not what he's saying.
I'll only quote what Benjamin B. Warfield said and leave this alone:
"The trustworthiness of the Scriptures (original autographs) lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore fundamental to the Christian hope and life."
This should be posted again.
Let's take a break.
I come from a family of foodies and great cooks. It's in my blood, or is that huli huli sauce in my veins? I've recently discovered the joys of MSG. I put it in everything, and it's like a can of pressurized biscuits exploded in your mouth with flavor. I know it's gotten a bad rap when people were saying they were getting migraines from Chinese food ("Chinese Syndrome") that had MSG, but we know now that was a bogus scare. To date, no study, except for one seriously flawed one, shows MSG, a common amino acid, does anything to you. Mine comes in the form of "Peruvian Flavor Enhancer" (like it was somehow dug up in the mines of Peru), which you can buy in Mexican markets. Sprinkle it on something and see if I'm lying? And if it feels like your head is about to split open? It's probably because you ate bad trout and not because of the wondrous thing called MSG.
David Chang on MSG.
Recently, I was accused of "breaking God's heart" with what I believe about the Bible and homosexuality. I was also in the past accused of breaking the hearts of other Heavenly hosts with what they say is my "Hayride to Hell" (NOT a Halloween Hallmark Channel movie), with how I believe. Apparently, I seem to be breaking hearts all over the place.
These people love to preach on social media because everyone now thinks they're preachers (you have to be called).
If I bring up the apologetics of Romans 1, they change the subject and write me a page long sermon having nothing to do with what I said like they're auditioning for a church pastor position instead of responding to what I just said on Romans 1:26. These people only go to their heartfelt feelings (what they accuse progressive Christians of doing) and sometimes do these paragraphs after paragraphs of loving Bible-speak of how God loves/cares/wants the best for me, but these urges/desires/practices of homosexuality of mine are sin to God, but they can't judge me, like they just did, because they aren't perfect either. They do this assuming I'm not a Christian, or if I am, it's me needing homosexuality like I'm jonesing for a fix of it, and that's why I'm deceiving myself with how I believe. They think the Holy Spirit is giving them these words to speak to me. If the Holy Spirit really was leading you, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying to me because you'd be wasting your time.
They love to hear themselves give the message of salvation, like no one has ever heard it before, and pat themselves on the back after because they thought they just gave a great witness. I guess it's easier to give me paragraphs of all of what Paul already wrote instead of answering me with what little I wrote on specific verses you can't answer, so off you go with what will take me an hour to read.
I say all of this in relevance to a discussion I just had and often have. I also add that it's only recently that the Church came up with this: "Only straight marriage reflects the union of Christ and the Church" argument. This is a clever and new trick because there is no actual verse on homosexuality you can go to with going to the original languages, you can't refute. They've successfully weaponized the institution of marriage by making up an entire theology against homosexuality from nothing.
What I wrote on marriage.
Speaking about progressive Christianity...
Not believing in Hell is a thing with progressive Christianity, but those verses can't be refuted because Christ spoke more about Hell than He did about Heaven. There is no wiggle room with Hell because it's not in a vice list with no context or in the context of idolatry. Another thing that's big with them is how we should see ourselves. The Bible says we are rotten (the first thing I wanted to establish when I came up with my blog name) to the core; no one is good or righteous, not one. Progressive Christianity says this is a bad way of looking at ourselves. We need to see ourselves in only a good way and do away with this negative view of seeing ourselves as rotten sinners with no good in us. Let's get something straight. Christianity doesn't exist to affirm you or to make you feel positive about yourself. If this is the type of Christianity you want? Don't bother calling it Christianity.
This needs to be said again.
Paul in Gal. 3:28 makes a distinction with using the word "and" instead of "nor" because he's going to the Genesis language of God made "man AND woman" in Genesis in 1:22. Paul THEN addresses the culture which divided people by social standing and ethnic background by the use of the word 'nor' to show there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, free or slave, all being equal before God. Paul knew exactly what he was doing with his exact wording to those who would use the man and woman paradigm from Genesis, some type of rule for some, and not freedom for all.
One of the first names I went after when I first started this blog was Michael Brown. Somehow, he's crowned himself as the spokesperson for the 'anti-gay with the Bible' sect, and he walks around like he lords over the thing. He has no theological training, and he believes that just because he's a straight Messianic Jew, it gives him the right to speak on all things homosexual in the Church. He just wrote this, which was printed in gay news outlets:
"We are vile. We are vicious. We are mean-spirited. We treat each other with disrespect and disdain. There is little honor. Little humility. Little grace. Perhaps worse still, we have been taught to hate and we have found justification for our hatred. They are Satan incarnate. They are pure evil. They deserve nothing but damnation. They are worthy of our ridicule. To treat them with even a modicum of decency is beneath our high Christian calling, a calling we now demonstrate by our condescending, cruel, mocking, and merciless attitudes. Oh, how holy we have become! The truth is that we can hate sin without becoming hateful. We can stand against corruption and evil without becoming vile. We can even be righteously indignant without becoming venomous. Have we become so consumed with partisan politics to the point that our Christian identity is now completely intertwined with a fleshly, angry, divisive, and accusative spirit – the very spirit of worldly politics?”
When I read this, I was nearly shouting Hosannas in thinking the Holy Spirit finally broke through to Michael in showing him how most Christians like himself have been with the LGBTQ.
Then I read this was in the context of only Republican and Democrat Christians having nothing to do with the LGBTQ.
Back to the dog house you go, Michael.
\
Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Sometimes I really wonder if I was called to preach to anti-gay Christians. God knew it had to be someone like me to deal with them.
Grace Selmer Baldridge is the #1 singer on Christian iTunes, and she's just getting started. She's also an out and proud lesbian.
The floor is littered with thrown-out Christian singers who, when they came out, could only find gigs in the back of gay coffee shops and one-room affirming churches. Grace has somehow broken the "Gay Christian Singer Curse" (It's unbelievable, but later it would be done again by a drag queen, you heard me right, named "Flamy Grant"). Of course, most churchy Christians are furious over it. Most of the comments on her online concert call her "Satanic" to someone who's hurt, lost, and needs to be put to God in prayer.
If you listen to her music, you'd understand why she's in the place she's in. She has a rawness that's almost unnerving. People want to connect to God with raw emotion, and Grace does it for them. Even Kevin Max of DC Talk came out in support of her Tweeting; "Excited for you and for this breakthrough ... it's high time Christian music got a shake up with a message of reality & hope beyond the homogenized CCM ... kinda historic, definitely amazing."
I don't believe this fury would be so strong over Grace if she weren't a lesbian.
A YouTube comment has a good take on this, stating:
"It's time to recognize the difference between "Christian music" and "Worship music." Worship music has one purpose; to glorify God. We need to have a space where Christians can sing about their life, their experiences, and their struggles with faith. And those struggles are rarely squeaky clean, polished stories. Christians sometimes say the f-word. Christians sometimes get angry with God. Christians fall into sin. Why can't they sing about those experiences? Some of my favorite songs are about people's struggle with faith due to the hurt they've experienced from the church. I wouldn't call them worship music, but its a song that is a major part of many Christians' life experiences.
This album is about a Christian's life experiences in relation to her faith. She made Christian music. Not worship music. Christian music."Modern churches are losing people in the pew like water seeping out of a cracked snow globe. Continue this pig-headedness of condemning the LGBTQ, and you will see more and more who kept those pews warm living their faith without you in a kinder and more empathetic way. You believe that to slow the leaking of these Christians from established church bodies is to smack the label "Gay Christianity" on any theology that isn't condemning-based, your NEW heretical demon to go after. Instead of listening, giving a chance, to see if I am Biblically sound with the hermeneutics that come from the Bible still being inerrant? You damn me as a false teacher who gives a diabolical revisionist theology without even looking.
I am not a progressive Christian.
Are you being asked to compromise the Bible on homosexuality? Absolutely not, at least not from me, but you can either listen to me, and the few like me, who still hold the integrity of the Bible as the center of all of how we believe, or you can hold empty snow globes, wondering how progressive Christianity ran off with your Gen Z and Gen Alpha children.
Know your enemies, but also know your allies in the dark corners of the room.
What Pastor Mike Winger said on 'arsenokoite' was brought up to me on Sean McDowell's YouTube channel. So I went across the street, got two orders of takoyaki, and sat down to hear what I thought might be challenging, on what he felt like he could speak on. First, he's really awkward with how he speaks. I almost felt bad for him because of how he held himself when speaking. I found it hard to believe he was a pastor of a church with real pews and living people sitting in them, then I found out he was a youth pastor. Not to down youth pastors who wear hoodies and tell teens not to touch themselves, but they aren't the first people that come into my head when I think of hermeneutics and homosexuality.
I went over every point of what Winger said on the mystical word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as he was saying them (I just used some of my own arguments because it was so basic) and you could almost feel how visibly upset the guy was who put up the challenge was with commenting back to me because I just blew one of his heroes out of the water. My intent was not to hurt his feelings, but if you tell me Winger's arguments were "airtight," you're going to have to accept when I show they aren't. Winger comes off as a great guy, and even the guy who brought Winger up to me came off as a great guy, but some people just shouldn't be in a pulpit, and some people need to know when to stop seeing a man as a hero.
Like I said, this all happened on Sean McDowell's YouTube channel with an anti-gay Mennonite theologian he did a Q&A with (I brought up my own Mennonite theologian who believed the opposite of Sean's Mennonite theologian). When I did a lengthy refute of Preston Sprinkles (I still find it hard to believe that's his last name) on Sean's channel another time, he deleted it. I bring it up again on the Q&A vid, and Sean contacts me himself, saying he didn't delete anything. I told him to look for my comment calling him out for the deletion with the unedited time stamp to prove it, and all Sean could say was "good to know" before running away.
If I were a public persona with a donations ministry who wrote books and did podcasts? I would be a living nightmare to people like Sean, Sprinkles, and Winger, who then would have to engage me openly instead of hiding behind living room drapes, hoping I don't see them.
I also think they're all in cahoots against me and have covert talks about me in dark church basements about how to take me down.
My own Church conspiracy, since everyone seems to have one.
My big question is this to both of them? Are they in a bar or some kind of backroom bar in a restaurant? Or is it a bar with a restaurant menu that has chicken with waffle fries?
A Holiday Inn bar in Burbank, California, had a layout just like this. It smelled like pine sole and Pinoy lechon. I'm all for interfaith dialogue when the Jesus of the Bible is the only center of it.
Those who use the procreation argument haven't thought about the subject very deeply at all. It doesn't take very much thinking or debate with competent opposition to realize the argument is extremely weak. After all, fathers and daughters can procreate, as can mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, and first cousins with first cousins. This line of reasoning, taken to its logical ends, leads directly to incest acceptance if procreation is the only criterion for marriage.
"The practice of the Christian life consists of the discernment of (the seeing and hearing), and the reliance upon (the reckless and uncalculating dependence), and the celebration (the ready and spontaneous enjoyment) of the presence of the Word of God in the common life of the world."
- William Stringfellow
I heard of Greg Eiler's book from a trans girl. It was persuasive enough that her conservative pastor called her up and said he was sorry for being so wrong on the issue after reading it. Since trans seems to be the new battlefield with anti-LGBTQ Christians (me saying this here at this time would almost be prophetic), this book should be invaluable in future debates.
Trans Air Force Staff Sergeant Logan Ireland is daring you to say something.
I saw a recent vid of Chris, and it was more than disturbing. He spoke like a robot and looked like someone smeared Vaseline all over his face.
In the Summer of 2024, I learned that Chris is getting married to a beautiful woman. For 13 years since he started his ministry, I have been living a wonderful life with a man who loves me deeply and preaching to the LGBTQ about God's love, while Chris was spending lonely nights in Motels 6's eating cold sandwiches and warm salads waiting to give his "ex-gay testimony" in condemning churches who invited him to speak and calling his stage mother right after to ask how he did.
So congrats, Chris!
That's all I'll say.
“(Saint) Patrick was a great winner of souls. And he is — I can tell you — he is in heaven. I have seen his mansion. And because Jesus also has a sense of humor, he built Patrick’s mansion in a field of five-foot-tall shamrocks. I saw him in heaven, and so he’s got all these shamrocks that sing to him, and they work with Jesus Christ because God has a sense of humor.”
- Self-proclaimed Christian "Prophetess" Kat Kerr.
(The pink type is in honor of her cotton candy hair)
Kicking Devil's ass and church casseroles is the name of our game, son.
I already addressed the question of: "Why, after all these thousands of years, is the argument only now being made to see whose Scriptures, always thought to be a general condemnation of homosexuality, now being said they're not?" I want to add another point.
They see it as me questioning how the Church, the Body of Christ on Earth, has always seen this, but you have to remember that a large chunk of that time was the Church being the Catholic Church, a religious body that put what councils and what the early church fathers had to say on the level of Gospel itself.
Of course, the early Catholic councils and church fathers are going to have a vehemence against homosexuality as straight men are prone to, and that vehemence, of course, is going to be carried over to Protestantism, because why wouldn't it? If you read what these councils and early church fathers had to say on homosexuality, it almost all comes from opinion. Even the staunchest opponents to Catholic traditions, like James White, can't help themselves from letting what the early church fathers had to say inform them on homosexuality and Scripture when they say it should only be Sola Scriptura. I bring up the early church writers myself, but I bring them up in the context of them contradicting each other, what they did a lot of, or showing what they believed in it.
The Catholic views on homosexuality, from councils and the early church fathers, have dictated how the Protestant church has felt about homosexuality even up to now, with them not knowing where this influence on their collective consciousness really came from, the same for the unbelieving World. To question that negative view is not questioning the Catholic tradition of seeing Homosexuality, how it SHOULD be seen, but questioning Scripture itself.
I didn't say all the above to bash Catholics though I believe, like the Bible says, you need to be born of the new birth and not just go through the motions of ceremony and prayer repetitions "as the pagans do," but the painful fact is the historical hatred of Jews is rooted in Catholicism, a hatred Martin Luther shared, so no one is off the hook with this historic hatred of homosexuality. It's bad Catholic baggage Luther carried over to Protestantism when it should have also been left behind with the anti-Semitism.
Johnny Cash saying I'm going to Hell.
1 Corinthians 13:13 reads:
"And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
Now this seems to be a straightforward saying that love is greater than faith or hope, but if you go to Paul's Greek, you'll see the word for love is αγαπη, which isn't just a general term for love, but a word that specifically denotes the love of Christ. Remember, I showed in my previous translation post how the mysterious "faith" is just another word for simply "trusting." Now knowing this, the meaning of this verse takes on a new light of God's love for us.
Faith - trusting.
Hope - in (where you place your trust).
Love - God's love.
But the greatest of these is God's love.
Translation? Trust in God's love because His love for you is greater than all the trust you could ever place in Him.
When I do posts like this or give spiritual, practical advice, like whether Christians should watch horror movies? I get so much love for my spiritual advice, but when I say what I say about homosexuality and the Bible? I get called a demon by a chorus of comments.
Speaking of demons...
Years ago, I posted a video of how the Pentecostal church is booming in the LGBTQ community in Brazil. The responses were as if I posted a video of a pet snake eating a tiny Christmas manger. Nothing sends the anti-gay religious off the deep end like seeing the LGBTQ worshiping God in the Spirit. It really hits something deep and ugly inside them, and honestly, some responses felt like they were demonic.
Let's try to piss off demons again.
I'm starting to see the heresy of Gnosticism rearing its ugly head again. I studied Gnosticism years ago (author Elaine Pagels was the big pusher of it with her books), and it really was a nonsensical thing. Gnostics have these counter "Gospels" (Book of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.) that are esoteric and just plain cheesy (I couldn't even finish the Thomas Gospel because it was like a stoned teen wrote it, trying to sound deep). They were never 'kicked out' of the canon because they were never in it to begin with (proponents of it claim it was swatted out of the early church with a broom like it was a mouse that got into a house). It's from these heretical works that we get the heresy that Mary was the lover of the Lord, and Judas wasn't such a bad guy after all if you read HIS Gospel. The Gnostic Gospels are also interesting in that, like our own four Gospels, they also say nothing about homosexuality.
Someone quoted me some Bible verses that they claimed spoke against homosexuality. I said that it never ceases to amaze me what lengths you people will go to find something new against homosexuality that no one has ever seen before. Sure enough, now the anti-gay are saying that homosexuality is a form of Gnosticism, an argument (a new book published makes this argument) that is just as fantastical and nonsensical as the Gnostic Gospels themselves.
I will say I'm glad I read Pagel's book. Her aim in one chapter was to make those who were martyred for the faith in the early church look stupid for giving up their lives. These stories will never leave me and will always be in my heart. Doing the opposite of what she thought these stories would do.
Turn off your phone, get in your comfy quilted blanket with some hot apple cider, and listen to some classic Stan Moore for the next hour on a cold night.
Pentecostal Evangelist Ernest Angley dies (Aug 9, 1921 - May 7, 2021)
From JMG:
In 1996, internationally known televangelist Ernest Angley admitted to his assistant minister that he had had sexual relations with a man who was employed by their church, Grace Cathedral in Cuyahoga Falls. The telephone conversation was tape-recorded and made available to the Beacon Journal and Ohio.com last month. The person who provided the tape did so for a promise of anonymity. That person felt called to action after reading about an exchange of lawsuits between Angley and another former Grace Cathedral pastor, the Rev. Brock Miller. Miller sued Angley in August, claiming that the sexual abuse Angley inflicted upon him had caused permanent damage. Angley had countersued for defamation. The source believed releasing the tape would show that Angley, who has preached vehemently against the “sin” of homosexuality, has a history of sexual abuse involving his employees. Angley has consistently condemned homosexuality. In a 1995 book called “Oh, God, What a Mess!” he wrote, “Homosexuality is vile, vile before God; and it will send souls to Hell.”
I'm making the painful decision to delete the post on Colby Martin. I get mail from him all the time, and each time it just seems he's going further to a place I don't see as sound. I will always see him as a brother in Christ, but I can't in good conscience keep on promoting his views here with people thinking I support his type of progressive Christianity, and yes, this was the person I was talking about I didn't name above. His message of easy Christianity, with not wanting to see yourself as a "bad person," finally did it for me. Christianity IS a struggle of fighting the inner man and becoming less so Christ becomes more in us. We are to die to self every day; it isn't a one-time deal that happens when we are born-again, with Paul giving us a clear reminder of that (Romans 7:15-20). The inner man will always fight to put himself on the throne of our heart, and it will always be a continuous fight to beat the old bastard down. If your walk of faith is following 'rules' of the Bible you hate doing, then you aren't existing in true faith.
At this point, I should contact people like Kevin DeYoung and Gagnon and give them the challenge that if I can prove their deception with what they've written on the Bible and homosexuality? They give $10 to an LGBTQ homeless youth shelter. Think they'd be gracious enough to take up the challenge? They could build a food pantry just with the bogus "science" section from Gagnon's book alone.
A Letter from a Gay Christian Man to a Straight Christian (who deleted it in the comments and banned me)
Hey friend, I'm a Christian too.
Now you may not believe that, but I really am. And I agree, God did call us all to put to death what we once were, but you think that death for ME is who I love. You say it's not about singling out gay people, but this video isn't for anyone else. We're all broken, but what you see as my brokenness is my peace in my faith. Now you bring up 1 Corinthians 6:9, but I know the language Paul wrote that verse in, and it doesn't say what you think it says. I know, you read it in what's in most Bible translations, and it's what was always told you by your church, so why question it? I get that, but I did question it because it's a bigger thing for me than it ever will be to you. And if I remember right, wasn't Genesis only a narration of how God created everything? So how did you turn that into a law of death against who I love now? When did that happen? I never heard this argument until just a few years ago. I'm not mad at you because I know you come from a place of love; that's why it hurts me when such sincere people like you are sincerely wrong. But this is the thing, you can change your heart with me! You can love me and call me a brother in Christ without thinking I need to change, but to do that, you need to listen, and let's be truthful, the Church isn't really big on listening to people like me.
So, how should you come at this as a straight Christian? Glad you asked. It should go something like this.
I was always taught to believe homosexuality was wrong because of what the Bible says. I'll be honest in saying that because it personally doesn't affect me, I haven't looked closely at how some Scriptures have been interpreted in the way they have, but it shouldn't even matter if I'm right about homosexuality not being in God's right plan, I still have to love you as myself because Jesus commanded me to. I can't deny you marriage because I won't deny it for myself or others who don't believe in God like I do. I won't use terms like "lifestyle" or "agenda" or make comments to demean you because it's unchrist-like for me to speak to you or about you in that way; again, that's not loving you as myself. The truth is, the Church has gone way overboard with homosexuality, and it should repent of that. I know I don't have such a strong reaction to someone who's divorced or living a life God wouldn't be happy with, or even with the things I practice in my own life, so maybe I'm coming from a place I need to look at that maybe might not be love. I want to be like my Savior more and more every day, and that can only happen if I listen, really listen, instead of just talking at you. And who knows? Maybe God will show me you're right.
Every June, anti-LGBTQ Christians lose their mind and act like gays will descend on them like vampires in the movie "30 Days of Night."
I was asked what Hermeneutical methodology I use. It's the Grammatico-Historical-Hermeneutic. Same one all Evangelicals use.
I wrote this on my marriage post when the question was asked: "Should a (non-affirming) Christian attend a gay Wedding?"
Any decisions or choices we make as a believer should go through the test of "Loving your neighbor as yourself." Now the question is asked: "Would I want someone I love to attend my wedding even though they might not approve of the union?" The answer is yes if you really followed the edict of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" as a hard truth. Doing to another what you would want to have done to you in real action. Weddings are attended all the time by people who might not necessarily approve of the person the loved one is marrying, but that shouldn't change because it's a homosexual union and the fact you are playing a part in their joy and happiness because you love them is a Christ-like testimony they won't soon forget and will be the greater witness than anything you could say on homosexuality. Christians have no problem attending secular weddings that are all ceremony and not faith-based; with the two getting married, why should it be different here? Plus, you get free shrimp at the reception, and who doesn't like free shrimp?
A pastor with a ministry in Australia responded with this:
The vast difference is that God designed marriage between men and women.
Those who are not Christians who get married into a heterosexual marriage are still in line with the creation mandate.
The golden rule is all about what’s in the best interest of the other person. It’s not about what the other person wants. It’s about how I can act in their objective biblical best interest? In the same way that I would want someone to act in my objectively biblical best interest!!
My friend might want me to go to the pub with him and get drunk, but that does not mean that I do that simply because it’s what he wants, and what I might have wanted if I didn’t have Christ!
Attending an event that celebrates a commitment to lifelong sin is the most hateful and hurtful thing that we could do to anyone. It is the opposite of the golden rule.
And I responded back with this:
So all it takes is that it's a man and a woman? It doesn't matter if the two are haters of God, as long as they are the opposite sexes? If they don't acknowledge God, how can this union be right in the eyes of God? All it takes is the right plumbing, and God will be happy?
Following the Golden Rule isn't dependent on the other person; it's only about your actions towards them. How is it going against THEIR best Biblical interest when they find offense with you not going and you blaming the Bible for it? This is NOT following the Golden Rule, and you're making God out to be the bad guy for it.
If your friend needs you to go out with him because he needs you as a friend, you don't have to get drunk with him because he gets drunk. You're going to his gay wedding, you're not getting gay married too. It just means you're giving your presence to support your friend, loving him, and doing for him what he would do for you.
YOU may think it's hateful and hurtful going, but you not going is what THEY see as hateful and hurtful to them.
He wrote me back:
It doesn’t matter what they interpret from your actions. That isn’t your job! Your job is to live with integrity and conviction!
You going to the bar with an alcoholic friend would be an utterly destructive and stupid idea.
Me back:
It's not what they're "interpreting," it's what they are seeing. Your job is loving your neighbor as yourself, THAT is your job if nothing else. Do that and you do well in your faith (James 2:8).
Comparing alcoholism to same-sex attracted people. Great. I hate when gay people get so gayed that they kill people in car crashes or their lives fall apart because they keep knocking back shots of gay in the morning. Showing true love is going with your friend, ESPECIALLY if he's an alcoholic. Not going is what would be destructive and stupid in case he needs you to drive him home.
I want to say one more thing because we will never agree. I minister to people who have questions about the Bible and homosexuality and the pertinent issues that surround it. I was confronted by a mother who asked me if she should attend her daughter's wedding, the question in your video. Of course, you know my answer. She went and afterward wrote me how it was one of the wisest things she did. She said when her daughter first saw her, she broke down in tears because she thought her mother wouldn't come. The mother said she felt no compromise in the spirit of her faith. She said when her daughter first came out to her, there was a closeness that was gone, until that moment she went to this marriage. She said she felt she got her daughter back and thanked God for it. Two people were blessed that day. The daughter for the rest of her life will remember her Godly mother going to this important occasion, and she will think of the God of her mother because of it. On gay social media, I have seen account after account of gay men and women who invited their parents to their wedding, and the parents didn't go because of the advice given to them, like the one in the video above. The fruit of it was hurt, bitterness, parents feeling justified in their self-righteousness, and a hatred of the God of the parents who made them unloving to their child.
You will know a thing by its fruit.
I pray you see the error of what you speak.
He banned me from his channel. The next week, he railed against "progressive Christianity" because he thought I was one, and the week after that he had an "ex-gay" on because he still couldn't shake me off.
My favorite thing at a Chinese buffet is the crab bake. A creamy casserole with imitation crab is the star of the place. When I learned how to make it, I couldn't stop making it. Russ (the hubby) doesn't even like seafood except for the occasional mahi mahi (Cajun style) if a restaurant has it, so it was all just for me. The big ingredient is mayonnaise, and I had to do more cardio and battle ropes just so I could eat the stuff. Which brings me to my mayo fixation. I started to stick mayo in everything because it seemed to make everything taste better. From chocolate chip cookies to homemade tortillas. It was my umami until I found the wonder of MSG.
There used to be a restaurant in Encino called "Jerusalem Pizza, an Italian/Japanese restaurant that was run by Hassidic Jews. They made this "sushi pizza' that was like a crab bake, but with crispy rice as a pizza crust and raw fish on top of the bake I never found anywhere else. They would talk about me in Yiddish (I have that look where people are always asking about my nationality). Old German women also talked about me in German in an authentic German deli when I said, "Give me the stinkiest cheese you have," because I like to try strong cheeses. All the talking about me is never good.
Rabbi Menachem Creditor has a great anecdote on marriage.
He was at a panel with other conservative rabbis. One rabbi said, "The beauty of conservative Judaism is that at one table we have both people for and against gay marriage when it was passed." And Rabbi Creditor stood up and said that when the ones against it expressed their disgust, someone should have slammed their fist upon the table and defended the LGBTQ community. From his perspective, debate about halacha applies to things like whether swordfish is kosher, never about the humanity of others. Because it was never just about marriage, it's always been about whether LGBTQ people deserve love, family, and humanity.
What do these "ex-gay" men get out of this? I still haven't figured that out yet, but it's no secret that gay men gravitate towards straight women like we're programmed by the Creator for it.
I wrote this post in 2012. As of August 2021, a YouTube channel once again promoted this "After The Ball..." conspiracy theory. It got 10k views in 2 days.
Sometimes I'm asked the question, "Since a homosexual union (homosexuality) doesn't break the Royal Law of love or is a transgression against another, the case you make, why can't a brother marry a sister (incest) since that too doesn't break either one also?"
I think this was asked of me in the comment section of one of my postings, but for some reason, I wasn't getting the question.
First, incest was permissible from the time of Genesis between Adam and Eve's sons and daughters. Incest unions were also committed by several Bible Patriarchs. It was only stopped when the Leviticus prohibitions stopped it, Now the question is, why? It really is apples and oranges with homosexuality and incest in Leviticus because the incest coupling of relatives is specifically named and prohibited across the board with men and women in Leviticus, while homosexuality is only mentioned in the context of Moloch worship and in acts of male anal intercourse ("lyings of a woman"). Granted, an incest coupling between two mutually accepting relatives doesn't break the Royal Law or constitute a transgression against another, but I believe something else comes into play here with why these unions are prohibited all of a sudden. God foresaw the corruption of our DNA before we understood what DNA was, and other corrupting influences in our physical bodies. Christian writers Bert Thompson and Trevor Major wrote this that I think sums it up nicely; "There was no need for strict laws on marriage partners in the early Patriarchal Age and for at least one good reason: during this time, man was in a relatively pure state, at least physically, having left not long before the perfect condition in which he was created and the Garden that had sustained his life...No harmful genetic traits had emerged at this point that could have been expressed in the children of closely related partners. However, after many generations, and especially after the Noahic Flood (Genesis 6-9), solar and cosmic radiation, chemical and viral mutagens, and DNA replication errors led to the multiplication of genetic disorders. God protected His people by instituting strict laws against incestuous marriages in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. Laws regarding incest were given only during the Mosaic dispensation. Those living prior to this period or since this age ended (Colossians 2:14) have not been bound by its laws on incest anymore than we are bound by other Mosaic mandates That said, since more genetic disorders have arisen in the world population since the time of Moses,...it is even more important to avoid marrying a close relative. Christianity thus far has ensured that such rules have been carried forward into modern laws in the Western world."
This guy is also an Evangelical Christian, has a blog like I do, grew up in the San Fernando Valley like I did, AND he has a catering business for gay-affirming Christian events. How did I miss out on this when I'm just like him and my thing is food? Did you see that table setting? Raw almonds and potpourri in vases? I bet the chairs are white birch, and the Southern peach lemonade drinks are out of this world.
One thing that always struck me as weird is how Christians always feel like Judaism is a religion we have to keep going to. Keep in mind that when you quote Leviticus on homosexuality, you're quoting a religion that believes there was no Original Sin, so there was no need for a Savior to bring man back up to God with a sacrifice of His son for our sins, the very bedrock of our religion. They think the Trinity is us worshiping 3 Gods, and believe Jesus was a big phony Messiah and blasphemer today, like they did then. The Scribes didn't even believe in an afterlife.
This is a religion you want to go to for spiritual advice as a Jesus believer? Paul himself says to not follow Jewish precepts in Titus 1:14. Judaism should be nothing to a believer in respect to their walk of faith, just like their proscriptions aren't a list for us we have to check twice. Judaism is a narrative of creation, a lineage of how Jesus came to us, works of the miraculous from God the Father, fascinating stories of the prophets, and many practical life lessons that you find in other religions, but that should be the end of it for us (their styles of Biblical language are also insightful). But unless you're a convert to Judaism, they scratch their heads, wondering why you want to go to their religion for anything. It's their party you were never invited to, but you pushed your way in as an unwanted guest anyway. Why do you think Paul, the Jewish Pharisee, skipped the middle man (Judaism) and went straight to the salvation message? I think it's silly when Christians need to say 'shalom' or the name of Jesus in Hebrew (one pastor even wears tzitzits) with what they believe will somehow bring them closer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses. Why stop there? Why don't Christians sleep in a sukkah during Sukkot or wear a yarmulke along with the other countless practices of the Jews? Jesus is the whole package. You don't need Jewish trappings, observances, lingo, or anything kosher. Christianity isn't a continuation of Judaism; it was the end of it.
The Jewish people will always be the apple of God's eye, He will always keep His promises to them, and He will work in and through them until this world ends, but God deals with us separately with separate promises. We are the second God came for, not the first. We are that sheep in another fold. Their promises aren't our promises, and our promises aren't theirs, even though we are both loved and cared for by the same God. We are the VIP guests of the groom at the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, not the Bride.
I see Cameron in the comments section of my James White/Romans 1 post is gone. Probably fell in one of my trap doors, my site is known for. I do give the kid credit for having the huevos to follow through in coming to my ranchero after he said he would, but you don't bring bubblegum to a knife fight.
I think this one post is bigger than my actual blog. I should do some upgrades and put up some fancy mahogany wood for the walls, hire one of these for outside when my blog visitors get hungry. I'll even have a deep tissue masseuse (5:00 PM - 7:00 PM). Think you'll find that on any other affirming blog? All you'll get over at those other sites are saltless saltine crackers and a 3-hour sermon on the types of governments during the Tribulation period.
When I was reading just how grievous the sin of slander was, I saw that the Bible made this sin uniquely evil. It's so grievous that the Greek word for a slanderer is the same word for "Devil."
I will start talking about Russ more because he does walk with me in my faith every day, but for the sake of what I was called to do here? No fun pics of us picnicking in wet soccer fields with watching the sun rise.
Just so you know? Russ is the same guy in my testimony.
I always believed Chrysostom never wrote on the word arsenokoite for homosexuality; someone stated that he did. So, I wanted to look at this deeper.
This person is getting this from Kevin DeYoung's book, refuting John Boswell, who said Chrysostom didn't use the word for homosexuality. It doesn't really surprise me if Chrysostom did because he had the most intense hatred for homosexuality (some biographers say it was almost a pathology with him comparing it to murder) than any other church father. He hated Jews almost as much as he hated homosexuals, so that should put his views in perspective. Second, it changes nothing on the word meaning homosexual just because it comes from him, another misogynist/homophobic/anti-Semitic church father. The word he uses isn't even arsenokoitai, but what DeYoung says is the word rsenokotow. I can't find the word ρσενοκοτοω in the Greek anywhere, and DeYoung is the only one saying this. I checked Chrysostom's homily on 1 Corinthians 6, not there, what IS there is him saying the verses are in the context of sexual excess, using gluttony as the example, with no mention of homosexuality. It isn't in his homily on 1 Timothy 1:10 either. Now this is the thing. If he did use the word rsenokotow, that I've somehow missed and would be happy to find, it would still be DeYoung saying Chrysostom is using this word for homosexuality because DeYoung believes the word is referencing homosexuality, so to DeYoung, Chrysostom must believe the same thing (the anti-gay religious wouldn't shut up saying Chrysostom said arsenokoitai/rsenokotow specifies the word for a homosexual if they could, but they don't). DeYoung also states that Chrysostom uses a variation of the word arsenokoite 20 times in various forms (spelling the word 20 different times makes absolutely no sense unless he had multiple strokes), with again, DeYoung saying all these variations of the word written by him has the meaning of a homosexual (I'm going by what DeYoung wrote in his book's footnote with everything here). So, where are all these times he writes the word? Chrysostom DOES condemn effeminate men, but he uses the word malakoi for that purpose and not rsenokotow.
Chrysostom biographer Chris De Wet also brings this up: "The problem we face is that Chrysostom rarely discerns between persons engaged in pederasty, same-sex prostitution, or other same-sex relations. Despite their considerable differences, these are all part of the same transgression to Chrysostom."
This alone should be enough to ignore this particular church father on this specific issue.
In the way I write, I like to use as least number of words as possible to get to what I'm saying (I didn't know this until someone pointed it out to me). It's like I'm taking filler words out that aren't necessary, but at the cost of clarity to my readers. Now, people who have a problem with my views use that as an excuse to say they don't understand what I'm trying to say. They use this as an out for themselves by not engaging my points, even though the other posters in the comments had no problem comprehending what I'm saying in my sentences. When I ask them why my words are causing them so much "deep confusion' for them? All of a sudden, they understand me just fine because otherwise they look dense.
....
Someone wrote these sources to say 'arsenokoitai' means a homosexual; "Nestle-Aland translations, the Syriac Peshitta, and "The Source New Testament" by Dr. Ann Nyland."
My response: Nestle-Aland rejects the Masoretic, Syriac Peshitta is a corruption of the Masoretic, and I don't know why this person is bringing up Nyland when she wrote the gay friendly "New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context."
....
Certain exchanges stick with you. That was the case with Nick in the comments of this post.
Happy Late Birthday, Nick.
I stumbled on an affirming ex/still is/who knows? An Evangelical pastor named Mike Maeshiro. At first, he sounded legit with saying:
"I spent most of my life saying that I was “same-sex attracted” or that I “struggled with my sexuality.” I grew up in the Evangelical church, started out Baptist, became non-denominational, and eventually landed in the charismatic movement. I wasn’t committed to any of these forms of Christianity; they merely served as context for me to wrestle through the supernatural encounters I was experiencing "with the Holy Spirit. I’ve always been a very spiritual person, sensitive to spiritual influences and atmospheres. I discovered that knowing the Bible and living a spirit-led life were two very different things. I was told at a young age that gay people were going to hell. I didn’t realize there was a whole world of Queer theology out there. It takes a lot to go against your religious tradition. It was the voice of God that inspired me to challenge what I was told the “Word of God” said. There are a lot of hurting people in our world who have questions about their gender, sexual orientation, their natural desires, and whether they can belong in the family of God. As a spirit-filled follower of Jesus, I have come to definitively understand that God loves and accepts gay people exactly the way they are, with no caveats or conditions."
So I looked into him. When he's talking about a "Spirit-led life," I wondered what Spirit he's actually living for after I was done listening to him. The Word of God seems non-existent to him, and he says that we can tap into the spirit world seemingly without Christ, that just a knowledge of the spiritual world will help you get what you want out of it if you know how to play it like it's a hustle. Turning the spirit world into a "friends with benefits" kind of deal. He also said that his spiritual discernment gave him all kinds of annoyances as a child, even going is far as spirits telling him if the adults around him were lying. I thought of Acts 16:16-18.
The fact that he's big in social media is no surprise when he says some Christians are "seers" and "sensitives" of the spiritual realm, which, of course, will make them feel more special than others. This is not Biblical, it's just new age gumbo packaged to Christians.
Anything that takes the focus away from Christ and into the spiritual realm as its own thing? Is false. This is not the Holy Spirit. If you have doctrines about Angels or are making videos on how to speak in tongues? This is not the Holy Spirit. If you think God gives you glimpses of Heaven or Hell? You are no longer living by faith, but by sight.
I hate that this guy is affirming because he corrupts my message that is Biblically based, mixing lies with Biblical truth to those who are hurting and will be susceptible to his Godless message.
This should also tell you again that I just don't go only after the anti-gay religious, I'll also go after you if what I discern is spiritual evil or doctrinal heresy, even if you are affirming of homosexuality with the Bible.
This post is buried deep in my blog and can easily be missed.
It's about time for a break from writing.
"Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."
- Gal. 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:15.
It's weird how when I take a break from blogging. It's only then that people write me. I wrote about Joe Dallas and Chris Yuan* years ago, and it's only now that I was contacted by both. All Joe had to say was, "I've been called many things, but this is the first time I've been called smarmy." Chris is a drama that's still playing out as we speak.
Later...
As predicted, Chris gave me the line, "My facts with what the Bible says -vs- your feelings," because that's all he knows what to say to those who don't agree with him. I told him I make my case from the Bible being the inerrant Word of God and not by "feelings." I told him that maybe he should actually read my blog first before jumping to assumptions about me. I also pointed him to the post I wrote about him. He told me he never said he was an "ex-gay" (I show on his post that isn't true), and he's still going with the wounded puppy line he's famous for of: "I'm just trying to figure all this out in a cold and dank world." I pointed out how he now speaks to his audiences by giving bogus facts on homosexuality and how that no longer makes him the babe in the woods he claims to be.
Now let me enjoy my break in peace, and believe I'm sailing off the coast of Mexico with my shirtless man drinking out of coconuts.
*Chris' contact wasn't out of the blue. I was invited to be interviewed for a podcast on YouTube. Checking out some of the episodes, I saw he had a few ex-gays as guests, Chris being the latest. I told him I didn't want to be associated with his program, and that prompted Chris to respond to me. I bet he's sorry he did.
I posted a short spoken word YouTube on the word arsenokoite.
These are comments I received from the same poster on that YouTube I answered.
Him: "Arsenokoite is Greek and is directly translated to “bedder of man”. The word was not used often at the time, but when it was, it was absolutely used to reference homosexuality, not idolatry. This is, largely, because of how vehemently the Romans at the time hated homosexuality. Paul is, very obviously, talking about homosexuality, using the clearest word for it at the time. As for the idea that Leviticus was talking about pagan adultery, that may have been true for 18:22, where the preceding verse, 18:21, refers to sacrifice to Moloch, it is very clear that it is NOT true for 20:13, where Moloch, or other gods for that matter, are not referenced to. For 18:22, I would also like to say that, as far as I can tell with an online print, the punctuation of the list seems to make this item distinct from the previous, where Moloch is mentioned. I think it would be a stretch to assume that just because the two list items are close together means that they are related beyond the theme of the list. I am not quite sure what you mean by “there were several words that meant homosexuality, he would have used those instead.” So I am asking to clarify: are you saying that because Paul didn’t use another word, that means it does not mean homosexuality? For instance, because he did not use eremenos, he could not have meant homosexuality? Or were you making a different point here?
I very much enjoyed this video, it was short and to the point! It was nice to have the black screen and to be able to simply listen. Keep up the good work!"
Me: "Thank you so much for the kind words.
Now some corrections.
It is not "bedder of man." The Greek 'arseno' is just a man, 'koite' means bed, or beds, so the literal translation is "man bed/beds." It absolutely was not used often to reference "Homosexuality." Where do you get that from? The earliest use of the word, around the time of Paul, was from the Sibylline Oracles, which put the word in the category of injustice, not in the category of sexual practices. Philo, Paul's contemporary, like Paul, would have interpreted the Leviticus passages in the context of cult prostitution because both were taught in the same Jewish tradition on those passages.
It was the clearest word for homosexuality at the time? Where do you get that from? The Babylonian Talmud puts the word for "sporting with children" (pederasty). And the early pagan source "Apology of Aristides" puts the word for Zeus raping Ganymede (pederasty). Where else would you have gone to get the meaning of "Homosexuality" other than from Bible translations?
You: "... (Leviticus) 20:13, where Moloch, or other gods for that matter, are not referenced to."
You missed verse 5: "I will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Moloch." 1 Kings 22:46 says these men (qā·ḏêš) were male shrine prostitutes. Secondary historical sources back this up.
Eremenos is just a boy who was groomed for homosexuality. Why would Paul use that word? If he did, he would only be saying, "don't groom boys for homosexuality." There was no one word for "homosexual" in the ancient world. Only descriptives of the active and passive in a homosexual practice. Paul could have said "Kinaidhos and Kolombaras," which would have told his 1 Corinthians audience that both active and passive partners in homosexual practice are forbidden, regardless of age, but he doesn't. And where is the prohibition on lesbianism? Paul could have said "Tribas" for a lesbian, and it would have left no doubt he was also prohibiting lesbianism, but he doesn't. Paul had to come up with something unique that would give him the meaning of cultic homosexuality, so where would he go that was familiar territory for him? Leviticus, which gave him the homosexual cult practices of the Canaanites, the homosexuality he took and put in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Some make the argument that "malakoi" in 1 Corinthians is the other half of arsenokoite in a homosexual practice, but where is malakoi in 1 Timothy 1:10? An arsenokoite would have no malakoi to do homosexuality on in 1 Timothy. Paul's 1 Timothy audience could say, "I guess it's fine to be a malakoi bottom because he doesn't prohibit that role. Bring on the arsenokoite tops!" And where are the lesbians again?
Too many pauses in this. I just got back from running, and I was trying to think of the perfect words that made me slow and pause, but thank you."
Him: "I appreciate the respectful reply!
Arseno does mean men, and koite means “bed”. However, notice that it is not “koite” but “koitai”, the conjugation that directly would mean “to take to bed”. The compound word, then, would literally translate to “to take men to bed”. Koine Greek compound words were very often literally the sum of its parts.
I said that it was NOT used often, I agree with you on that, but the few uses it has are specifically speaking about men, having sex with men. I saw that you just got done running, so I am assuming you misread that, I can only imagine trying to read after I run, that being said, it is extremely important to keep in mind the historical context of the Mediterranean, and that the law and sexual relationships WERE still bound together, as Rome had outlawed marriage between two men of equal status, and this WAS absolutely referenced in legal documents as arsenokoitai.
As for Paul denouncing homosexuality in no uncertain terms, we have Romans 1:26-1:27, where he specifically says that men had sex with men, and women had sex with women.
I would disagree with those people, as malakoi would be more closely to, pardon the oversimplification, femboy. A soft male. I think that, given only my understanding of koine Greek, that arsenkoitai is pretty blanketed, and IF you are going to say it is talking about homosexuality, you would have to treat it as such, since that would be the literal translation of the words.
You said that Leviticus 20:5 mentions Moloch, but that’s a completely different section of this list, as evidenced by 20:8 having the ending statement of the section: “I am YHWH, sanctifying you.” In ancient Hebrew literature, this was used as a kind of paragraph break, denoting another part of similar nature but separating it from the previous statement, like a colon. I disagree that the following statements are only in an addition to the discussion of paganism in the previous section, and that this section as a whole is supposed to be about these actions period. It also speaks about incest, which was NOT a direct part of Canaanite ritual and, if I am understanding correctly, was also frowned upon by them specifically during their sexual rituals.
I think that, in truth, we can also see how Paul’s audience received the information by looking at letters between early churches from the 1st and 2nd century, which do, in fact, specifically mention same gender sex, usually in the same breath as pederasty or effeminacy. Justin Martyr, halfway through the first century, and Clement of Alexandria come to mind, but I’m sure there are others too.
I say all of this, but I am just a man, and I could misunderstand and misinterpret. I think that we should treat everyone with respect and love, because that IS a cut and dry command, and I appreciate you for engaging with me respectfully."
Me: "I never said koite didn't have a sexual connotation. I only broke down the LITERAL wording from what you wrote that implies men bed men. Even going by your definition of "(arseno) to take to bed," it leaves the word open. Who are these men taking to bed? If it were men taking other men to bed, Paul would have said arsenokoitearseno, which would give that clear-cut meaning. He didn't do that because he WANTED you to go to Leviticus to know the homosexuality that was being prohibited, cultic homosexuality.
You can't expect all of the sum parts of a word from the past to have the same meaning today. If a future culture were to read our word "hotpockets," they would interpret it as "pockets that are hot," rather than how we understand it to be, namely, dough with pizza filling. Yale theologian Dale Martin was the first to make this argument with arsenokoite.
Now you're saying it's a few uses without telling me where those uses are? What does Paul's going to Leviticus have in any way to do with the laws of the Mediterranean world? He never went there. Now here is where you're fibbing because there are no Roman legal documents that have the word arsenokoite referencing two Roman men of equal status or any status. Why would the Roman Empire go to an old Jewish text to get a word, a word Paul invented, to prohibit any Roman relationship?
I guess you don't know about me and Romans 1. I exegete the entire chapter. And the answer to you is No.
You: "... arsenkoitai is pretty blanketed... talking about homosexuality."
Koites was used centuries before Paul's usage, and when used as a suffix in compounded words, it always indicated the penetrative aggressor, never the passive. That means it can't apply to both partners in a homosexual act, so it can't be a catch-all term for all homosexual activity. And where are the lesbians again? You KNOW by the very breakdown of the word arsenokoite that it can't be used for homosexual women, so the word "Homosexuals," that tricks you into thinking lesbians are included, should never have been put in a Bible translation.
I've never heard of "I am YHWH, sanctifying you" being used as a comma. And I know the linguistics of the Hebrew Bible. A comma is still a continuation of the thought; it's not a period, is it? Even so, it doesn't take away what's plainly stated in the chapter, the men of Israel are not to take part in the homosexual sacred prostitution practice of the Canaanites to Moloch (other gods).
Pederasty is not homosexuality, and malakoi was not only a gay man in the ancient world. And what did I say about going to the Church Fathers on this YouTube? They are no better than going to translations. You cut out the middlemen of the Church Fathers and go directly to Paul. Even they couldn't agree on what arsenokoite means. John the Faster saw the word as prohibiting anal/oral sex between men and women, and Barnabas, in the epistle attributed to him, made it about pederasty.
I appreciate the civil discourse. You are truly a kind man who shows the love of God in how you speak to a fellow brother in Christ. What I rarely get.
God Bless You."
