"1946" Movie In 7D

The filmmakers of this documentary make the claim that Bruce Metzger, interpreter and editor of the RSV and NRSV translations of the Bible, thought that maybe putting the word "homosexual" in his translations might not have been such a great idea. They get this from a letter Metzger sent to a seminarian student, which Metzger thought would never see the light of day. Metger was once quoted as saying gays in the Church were like "whores plying their trade," so his going with the word "homosexual" was his prejudice being put into his translation, with those on his translation panel either going along with it or staying silent with their objections. I guess Metzger must have stewed on it, because in 1971, he updated his RSV translation by taking the word "homosexual" out and replacing it with the ambiguous and broader term "sexual perverts" that could mean either a homosexual or a heterosexual. Then, for whatever reason, in his 1989 updated translation, he replaced "sexual perverts" with "Sodomites," as in not just "homosexuals," but any man who practices sodomy. Of course, that was also the wrong word to use because everyone didn't associate "Sodomite" with just any anal sex; they associated it with the men of Sodom, who were supposedly what? Homosexual (the association of anal sex with Sodom was made centuries later), so now we're back to square one with making it look like it was only about homosexuals again. Did the Church accommodate those changes? No. The Church responded, saying, "No, that's all right. We'll stick with the translation that has the word 'homosexual' in it. You can keep your other translations. Thank you, and have a nice day, Bruce. XOXO." The anti-gay were already jumping all over this documentary by saying, "So what? The descriptives of homosexuality in past translations finally gave the word 'homosexual' its proper place in this one translation." My take: In most cases, with the earliest Bible translations that we have? The verse translations are carried over from the prior translations. If a mistake was made with the meaning of a verse in THAT Bible's translation, and not caught and corrected by the next group of translators? That translation error will be carried over into the next translation, and the one after, and the one after that, and on and on, with the only difference being the wording of the era in which that translation was written. So, what do you do to correct this? You bypass the jumble of differing translations of the word by going directly to Leviticus to get Paul's reason for going there. Some argue that the meaning of the word refers to pederasty, as claimed by this documentary. In contrast, others, like myself, believe that cult idolatry is being referenced, drawing on the Leviticus wording, the context the wording is in, and knowing the world of the ancient Canaanites, which would be the reason for that wording. The fact is, the word " homosexual " is wrong in Metzger's translation because the homosexual descriptors in most prior translations are wrong. The 1940s-50s saw homosexuals as mentally sick child predators who were institutionalized and routinely lobotomized. This was how Metzger saw homosexuals in his time. That bias informed his translation, as did the biases that informed prior translators. The word "homosexual," used for the first time in a Bible translation, would put in stone a condemnation of both male AND female homosexuality (it's impossible to read female homosexuality into this word) for those in the Church who needed just that one word to condemn all of homosexuality.

...

I had a strong presence in YouTube comments. One thing I can say in all honesty out of the endless people I've engaged and debated, who've ranged from pastor, priest, and pew sitter, is that give it time, their debating with me always goes from the Bible to other issues, the real core of the problem they have with homosexuality.

They find homosexuality disgusting or at some level distasteful is what it really boils down to for most when they give up hiding behind Scripture. They love going to bogus science studies of disease and mortality rates as a reason to hate me. Me going to an early grave racked with disease is a reason to have a problem with me? If anything, that should be making you show me the love of Christ MORE, considering my short and miserable existence here on Earth. Or how all humans would die out if we found ourselves on a mysterious island with no heterosexuals to procreate. Like we were somehow air-lifted there in our sleep by unknown entities or all procreation would just stop if all heterosexuals just evaporated off the face of the Earth one day. Statistically, a society can't be all straight or all gay in orientation. I guess bisexuals would also not exist.

You do know that gay men and women still have their working sexual organs, right? So we could still be able to re-populate the Earth if we wanted to, but we would do it by careful design. We would also be better at procreation than you would because each child will be WANTED and not by accident, making abortions nonexistent. Isn't that what you want? 

They only do this "It would end the human race" scenario with gays and not heterosexuals who might, for instance, be genetically sterile because of a nuclear winter or a mass genetic screw-up where only males are born (not a problem for all gay men). They also don't see the problem that being celibate for the Kingdom, what Paul wished we all did, that also would bring about our extinction. 

All this is very telling and backs what I've always believed. The Bible comes in second with why they have a homosexuality issue. The Bible is the backup they need to justify how strongly they feel against homosexuality, it's a reference, not the reason. They think the Bible is somehow saying to them; "I have your back with whatever else you have on these perverts." For those who say I'm driven by my homosexuality to read the Bible how I read it, aren't you reading the Bible through the lens of your own heterosexuality? Your bias would be stronger than mine because it was drilled into you starting at birth (blue is for boys and pink is for girls) and reaffirmed to you every day of your life.

All I care about is the Word of the eternal and living God to guide me on this subject and I don't need to go anywhere else. Too bad you people can't say the same.

...

Bad Blood

John Shore is a prolific Evangelical Christian writer and founder of "Unfundamentalist Christian." Now John is gay-affirming and with him it's; "There is no middle ground, that's what the Bible says, shut your mouth!" I love John. Now there is Andrew Marin, also a prolific Christian writer and founder of the "Marin Foundation" with their "I'm Sorry" campaign (get it? It's a campaign to say to gays; "I'm sorry for how the Church has treated you."), but you can't get out of Andrew if he's affirming of homosexuality with the Bible or not. He'll straddle the fence even if his pants split. He once gave his reason that is neither here nor there without giving a direct answer. I give him credit, not love because he outright won't just say how he believes.

Whether Andrew knows this or not, everyone pretty much knows he believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. The thing with Andrew is that he stretches the message of the love of Christ over bad Bible teaching like was a big Persian rug that he hopes hides what the Bible says on homosexuality, but makes people ask; "What's that big lump under this pretty rug?" I'm convinced Andrew will never come right out and state how he really feels no matter how much you try to pry it out of him. Now there is something to be said about the "FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE! FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE" Message that WILL bring many who felt ostracized by the Church to Christ, but this doesn't answer the big Bible question on homosexuality. Now you have TWO lumps under the rug people can't help but notice. One is what the Bible says on homosexuality and the other is what Andrew says on it.

It was only a matter of time when John and Andrew came to blows on social media, what was bound to happen with two Christian powerhouses having ministries reaching out to the homosexual community. 

I understood John's frustration with Andrew because bringing a gay kid into the faith saying; "God loves you and the Church was wrong to say bad things to you, but now look at the fine print of the Bible whenever you have the time" CAN be devastating to a child with finding out God's love was conditional after all. I'm sure Andrew's reasoning is; "Don't let the Bible get in the way of a good witness!... They'll learn their sexuality is wrong later." 

When the smoke cleared, Andrew left to fight other battles with gays who were suspicions about his motivation AND Christians who think Andrew is hiding the Bible condemns homosexuality message (they're right) with only talking about love. 

Shore said on his blog about the exchange with Andrew:

"I don’t expect to hear from him (Andrew) again. But I’m confident that if I do, he won’t say anything beyond how important it is to continue the dialogue, to keep building bridges, to “live in the tension,” to reach out in love, fuzzy, fuzzy, blah, blah, tastes great, less filling. Because selling that kind of sugar-powdered waffle is how Andrew makes his money."

Later, when John received criticism for what looked like a less-than-Christian response to Andrew, he went further stating:

"... folks have made the point that Andrew’s work is valuable because he is “building bridges”—because he is, as one reader put it, “creating stepping stones from one end of the spectrum to the other.” They appreciate Marin establishing a neutral, non-judgmental, values-free middle ground where parties on either side of the gay-Christian debate can meet to together discuss and explore the issue.

And I certainly understand how great that sounds.

But it’s not great. It doesn’t even make sense. Because when it comes to the issue of LGBT equality, there is no middle ground. There can’t be. The Christian/LGBT issue is a moral issue. And moral issues are by definition about right and wrong.

And this particular moral issue is one of no small consequence. There couldn’t be more at stake with it. The Christians on one side of this debate are claiming that, in the eyes of God, those on the other side are less than human."

Whoooosh! Goodbye middle ground.

John goes on...

"No matter how strenuously he or she might deny it, any Christian who fails to forthrightly and unambiguously assert that there is nothing whatsoever inherently immoral about same-sex relationships has chosen a side in this conflict. They’ve chosen to perpetuate the maligning, ostracizing, and degradation of gay people by Christians. If you don’t stop one person from abusing another, what good are you to the victim? To a starving man, the person who can’t decide whether or not they want to share their food is no better than the person who outright refuses to."

... well said, John.



I bring up this incident between John and Andrew because I'm seeing this being played out more and more now. Those like John and myself having to confront the Andrews of the world with hard Scripture (in our case, affirming) over their exuberance of love and acceptance that's hiding a bill of goods that says you have to be alone for the rest of your life or make an opposite-sex relationship work once your foot is in salvation's door.

another thing...

I'm seeing a misappropriation of terms by the anti-gay with the intent of confusing people. "Ex-Gays" are now calling themselves "Gay Christians" (you can be gay, just don't have gay sex) and anti-gay churches are now saying they are "Gay Affirming" (we affirm you as a child of God, just don't have gay sex). 

Freshly Sliced Sandia

My Summer has been a bust, I blame the anti-Christ. And to stick it to him I'm posting some news that happened while I was gone.

Remember Tony Perkins? I know you don't because I never posted about him. This elder statesman with the anti-gay set says natural disasters are from God for being pissed at the likes of gay marriage happening. Well, a flood of "Biblical Proportions" (his own words) gushed through his home with him and his family barely escaping in a canoe they happened to have had laying around.
Maybe God will get him next time.

This has been in the news because people are relishing in the delicious irony. But what isn't widely known is that the people who were giving donations for the flood victims in the area through a local church called "Greenwell Springs Baptist Church," were actually giving to Perkins (who's their "pastor by absence") to rebuild his own house (Greenwell is a front for Perkins' designated hate group the "Family Research Counsel"). On top of THAT, the FRC is one of the richest hate groups around with support from the wealthy and well hidden DeVos family who are also supporting racist school vouchers along with other unsavory endeavors.

When I first posted this in 2016, I had no idea Trump would bring these ghouls (Perkins and the DeVos kin) together.
...................................

Meanwhile, in Canada...

What about us lovey?

...................................

Orthodox Rabbi demands gay acceptance and demands kosher calamari.

...................................


I updated my arsenokoitai post.

And some on my favorite rascal.



Now back to my Summer. 

Connie Joins The Animal Liberation Front

Landon Schott is another straight Christian (remember Preston Sprinkles and all that fake dancing to show tunes?) who thinks he can pen a book about homosexuality. I got into it with a production company that promoted Landon a while back:

Me: I have a radical idea. Why don't you interview a gay Christian about being gay in his walk of faith instead of interviewing a straight man on this topic? It's like you interviewing me about the black experience in the Church when I am neither black nor in the Church to speak on that experience.


Their response was they can do whatever they want. Without even looking, they accused me of having only opinions on my blog I wanted when I have more of what anti-gay apologists say on here with my tags below proving it, and that I should take myself to a dry lake bed and leave myself there.


What's creepy is Schott is a Pentecostal like myself and as Pentes are prone to do, they blame homosexuality on demons instead of having a sober and rational dialogue with understanding  homosexuality from an actual homosexual. At least Sprinkles has evolved his views, though still not affirming, with discussion he's had with homosexuals to learn better where they are coming from.


"Nothing this guy is saying is anything "new." He portrays his arguments as if they are revolutionary, and he even states that the church "isn't discussing homosexuality" so he has taken it upon himself to do so. I'm not sure where Mr. Schott has been, but evangelicals have been discussing homosexuality long before anyone asked them to. Then he actually starts talking and it's the same talking points that evangelicals have ALWAYS used. It's telling that Michael Brown wrote the foreword for his book; it appears to me that Michael Brown could very well have written the entire book, at least in that there's not a single thing that Schott addresses that wouldn't 100% agree with Brown's tired assertions that have lost play among non-evangelicals long ago.

Schott is basically just a younger, hipper, "shirt untucked" version of the same message promulgated by Brown and countless anti-gay evangelicals before him. Basically I look at this entire book as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by Evangelicals to promote an anti-gay mindset to their children and grandchildren. Little Bobby and Billy don't give a damn what some old Pastor like Michael Brown has to say since they know so many gays and have no problem with them, but maybe, just maybe if those same bigoted and incorrect words come from the mouth of a 32 year old unshaven hipster these kids will get the message better. 

Wear as many rainbow shirts (Schott is fond of wearing rainbow t-shirts to show whatever odd point he's trying to make) as you want for some, tell people you wrote this book because you "love gays" all you want, that still won't change the fact that in that very same book you say that every single gay person you have met was either sexually molested or had a poor relationship with his parents. (pg. 173) I don't know many gays who would view that ridiculous assertion as kind or loving. I also doubt they would consider it loving for you to refer to gay-friendly churches as being akin to satanist temples. (pg. 116) And something makes me think they might take umbrage with the notion that "gay-affirming teachers... are influenced by demons" (pg. 112). But hey, none of that matters because you're wearing a rainbow shirt- CLEARLY you must love gay people."

- YouTube comment.

I'm going to be enjoying my Summer and take a hiatus from my blog.

"Consider the work of the Lord, for who is able to straighten what he has bent? For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."

- Ecclesiastes 3:13, Jeremiah 29:11.

Rainbow Sherbert

Twice this was brought up to me this week in a debate and even though I already answered it in different ways here on my blog, twice it's still got thrown in my face like they had something. The snort is "man and woman becoming one flesh." And this PROVES it can only be a man and only a woman.

I'll now give my ice cream analogy to show what isn't stated, isn't automatically prohibited.

If a man talks about vanilla ice cream, that's doesn't mean he thinks strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor, he just didn't talk strawberry ice cream (let's say vanilla was first and strawberry wasn't created yet). Now if this same man specifically stated; "Vanilla ice cream is a good flavor AND strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor," you could can say, without question, strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor. But you only believe strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor just because it isn't vanilla ice cream. Making a flavor bad when it isn't even mentioned.

Now I want ice cream.

Red Carpet

There is a "phantom" verse that is popping up on different parts of this page I can't get rid of, like with Brown, just pray it goes away.

This is what I see. People like Anderson are now making what Brown says about homosexuality more acceptable, more palatable. Anderson is an aberration, a hate-filled human being who believes gays should be killed and go to Hell. But Brown also believes gays are going to Hell unless they repent of being a practicing homosexual. Anderson makes no apologies and has no sympathy for the dead in Orlando, while Brown gives his sympathies to the dead in Orlando when he went after those same gay people when they were alive. His message on homosexuality doesn't seem so bad now when compared to crazy Steve Anderson or attention whore Roger Jimenez. Brown is now the lesser evil, Anderson and Jimenez were the Trojan horse.
Brown can't even help himself agreeing with the supposed future "persecution" of how Christian talk to homosexuals and gun control laws. Both agree gays are going to Hell, it's just Brown who doesn't believe they should be killed to get them there. These two and I include all other anti-gay religious leaders also, are on the opposite ends of the same prism that excludes gay children from the table of the Most High God.

.................................................

I spoke to my husband about the shooting last night. I wrote what I wrote in response to a list of Christian leaders who now all of a sudden come out like squeaking mice offering their prayers and sympathies and I say it here again:

"... Half of those people on the list have said horrific things about gays and NOW they have the gall to try to give their sympathies? What an insult to the memories of those killed when they spent their lives hearing the anti-gay rhetoric coming from these same people.
As a gay man and Christian, keep your condolences and sympathies to yourself. They are not needed or wanted and that includes their followers."

Franklin Graham is now included who of course only talks about the shooting as a result of a "Godless Nation" when he is one of those who's made the atmosphere toxic for LGBTQ, deflecting even a little responsibility he might have.
Compare his response to Catholic Bishop Robert Lynch:

"Sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Attacks today on LGBT men and women (from us) often plant the seed of contempt, then hatred, which can ultimately lead to violence."

I read an article that said many Christians are genuinely surprised at the angry response they are receiving from the LGBTQ, like they somehow had something to do with it. You did.

What Omar Mateen did was kill 49 gay men and women in one fell swoop with a semi-automatic gun. What religious leaders do from the pulpit and what is repeated by those in the pews is kill the gay soul. You don't do it one sweep, you do it slowly, you draw it out with tiny paper cuts to the spirit. More gays have died from words and "Christian" actions than those that died at the hand of a single Muslim that day. That blood on the sidewalk outside of the Pulse nightclub will river to the Churchyard and it will be a testimony to you.

What did you just call me?

When I was thinking about a name for this place of delicious Chinese moon cakes and Biblical truths, I wanted it to stick out. I'm cut from the cloth of cutting, raw, and honest when I present the Bible. 

A title like "Fun Time Brunch With Frankie! Who Wants A Mimosa???!" Would be lost on most people who don't get my snarky humor that's probably not Biblical. So what do I do? I made a blog title describing our depraved state of being fallen, rotten, creatures in need of a Savior from Psalm 14:3, Ecclesiastes 3:10, and Romans 3:12; "Everyone has turned away. Together they have become ROTTEN to the core... " The QUEER tells you right off the bat the type of content this is going to be in relation to, and the CHRISTIAN was a given. 

If you're under the age of 40, you probably won't care what my site is called, it's only the ones that are over 40 that seem to be bothered by the name, so they tell me, because the site CONTENT bothers them.

Now enjoy your time here and don't sweat over my blog name when you pass me the dip you've already half-eaten. 

 

Typical reactions to my blog name.

Pentecostal Confidential

Greg Laurie is the Pastor of a mega-church that's not far from 'The Happiest Place On Earth' in Orange County. He trots out all the same tired lines one would expect on homosexuality, but what I didn't know until today, and what Greg won't tell you, is that Greg was brought to the knowledge of salvation from a gay man named Lonnie Frisbee. Greg has called gays "the enemy," but was it an enemy that brought you to Christ Greg? Scratching a little deeper, I find this beast was baptized by Lonnie when he left the gay-affirming Church thinking he was rid of homosexuals like himself. It's like Six Degrees of Lonnie Frisbee.

After I posted this, I received word Laurie edited his church page. This is what he deleted:

"God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality."


I never delved into the tale of Frisbee because it's a sad one. His story took place in the time of the flower children of the '60s, how God used him in founding some of the most influential Pentecostal churches (Calvary Chapel, Vineyard) around today, and how he was run out on a rail (sound familiar?), blotted out of church history, and left to die of AIDS outside of the churches that once embraced him.

I could go into Brant Baker who mirrors Lonnie's tale or the oddness of the Paul Cain case, but that is for another time on a cold night with hot cocoa my child.

"I first heard the gospel message from him (Lonnie) and responded when I was 17. As did thousands of others around the world. He helped father three great moves of God. Did you know that when he was last in Africa, ten young men gave their lives to Jesus Christ? And that those ten men each went out from Lonnie's meeting and started ten churches each? And that a "Jesus People type" revival swept across Africa as a result of those churches? How many souls can say that you first brought the gospel message to them?"

- David Sloane.



-
When I quoted the above from David when I first wrote this post in 2016, I left out the last part of his quote that said; "... Were you there when he told me that he had been deeply wrong in his prior conduct and "was now paying the price for it?"

Now David was talking about Lonnie's homosexuality. The implication being because Lonnie was gay, AIDS was the price he paid for it, a sentiment apparently shared by Lonnie himself from some alleged audio tapes Lonnie made before he died (even if Lonnie did do this, it doesn't take away from the fact God worked through him while still being a gay man and not after). I tried to make David look good b editing the first quote talking only about Lonnie's missionary work in Africa. I wanted to keep out the disagreement I had with David on the last part of what he said, but this is what I wrote back to him on the entirety of his quote:

"He was used mightily of God, but he was a practicing homosexual and this showed God used A GAY MAN, not a FORMER gay man, not a NON-PRACTICING gay man. Lonnie was never to find peace with his homosexuality because of those around him like Chuck Smith (Smith is a whole other story) who loved and used his anointing, just not the homosexuality that came with it. I noticed in defending Lonnie you couldn't leave out the shot how he felt he was "paying the price" for what you probably believe was his homosexuality when instead it was the price for promiscuity. Why was he promiscuous? Because Lonnie believed a same-sex relationship couldn't be blessed by God. He reaped the fruit of what he was TAUGHT. 

There is a move of the Holy Spirit with calling God's gay and lesbian children to the table as they are and a moving in "straight" churches with God telling them "These are mine also." It's too late for Lonnie, but he's in Glory seeing what is happening with those of us like him and praising God."

David actually wrote me back when I was eating cereal with this:

"Thanks for your perspective. There are many in the Body of Christ today who believe that God is going to move mightily in the homosexual communities. I think Meri Crouley has said this a time or two. The fact is there are actually safe and friendly environments where homosexuals do come together as a Church. Anyone visiting them can not deny the presence of the Holy Spirit that they experience while there. Evidence that God loves all of us and is not willing that anyone should perish. The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 2:3 All of us are born into sin and are sinners in the eyes of God. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; Romans 3:10 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:6 Thank God for His mercy and grace! God bless you."

 - David Sloane.


Now David sounds dandy, but I looked up "Meri Crouley" and yet again we find another "Prophetess," with a talk show no less, and who's her favorite guest? Walid Shoebat. Let me familiarize you with some quotes from Mr. Shoebat:

"The homosexual movement is the most hateful and most vile group in all of the Western world. The sodomites are supremacists; they believe that they have the superior lifestyle, a disposition and constitution more superior than the “others,” who they consider as inferior breeders. This is the ideology of sodomism."

"Sodomism is the ideology of homosexual superiority, in which the homosexuals desire to usher in — through propaganda, violence and state coercion — a utopia in which homosexuality is seen as a supreme ideal, and those who believe in the conjugal union as is affirmed and established by the Christian Faith, are viewed and treated as enemies."

"We are deliberately neglecting this ill called the sodomite and his pernicious goals, all in the name of tolerance and a feigned Christian love. Love is not about accepting everyone they are, it is often enough about purging the wicked to preserve the innocent. To outlaw the sodomite, would be to protect children whom the sodomite is pursuing to recruit for their demoniacal scheme."

OUCH!

I like to believe David didn't know the opinions of Walid on homosexuality, otherwise, I doubt he would have brought up the show that gives him a platform for these views. Only David knows. Crouly is a hoot, but to have such a poisonous person, a man avoided even by other anti-gay Christians like James White, is without excuse.



I'm sure this post is only interesting to those with a Pentecostal bent, but I try to keep my brethren in the news because nothing is ever going on with Pentecostals other than the rent and blaming demons for cakes coming out of the oven lopsided. 

Salt In Kenya

Rabbi or Rebbe?

Link

I'll start a new blog tag for my trans readers.