Gagnon's Poor Passion

David Kyle Foster, who first posted this video on YouTube, pushes Gagnon videos on his website. And of course, he's yet another "ex-gay" who blames homosexuality for the same-sex trauma he experienced as a boy. He also blames it for his drug addiction, sex addiction, and steak fat addiction. He probably sat in a dark room thinking what else he could pin on homosexuality (this one makes the fantastic claims that 85% of lesbians come from abuse to all gay men have an "arrested emotional development"' because "not one of them had a loving father"). I don't know what it is, but ex-gays either come off as creepy, fanatical, or feign this hyper-happiness with glassy eyes like they're in a cult. David falls in the first category.

He won't let anyone post a refute on this Gagnon video because he's afraid Gagnon is going to be made fun of in the comments section (exhibit: A) he can't control, so he just hoards this video that gives Gagnon the opportunity to bullet his arguments without a challenge.

Since Foster will delete any dissenting view or negative comment on all of his YouTube comments (I believe he's literally checking comments on the daily and is ready and waiting with his trigger finger on the delete button), I thought I'd bring Gagnon here.

Gagnon pulls the same stunt on his own YouTube channel with even a little length of a refute. Gagnon also refuses to debate the audience with any type of a Q&A after one of his speaking engagements because he's a control freak with a debate setting.

[Updated: Someone contacted me and stated Gagnon will answer little questionnaire cards submitted by the audience, cards he can either reject or accept as long as they don't talk, but this is very different with having a dialogue back and forth with someone in the audience who can point out the contradictions and errors of what he's saying after he's said them.]

This blog has pointed out the error that's the "moral, ritual and ceremonial" paradigm enough to what's being presented by Gagnon here. The man thinks Paul speaks from the center of these Old Testament prohibitions with almost everything he wrote, as if the old Pharisee Saul didn't really completely die to the Law, but still makes a guest appearance from time to time. He misses the very core message of Paul who said the old prohibitions are dead to us and ignores Paul saying in 2 Corinthians; "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" and again in Romans; "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." It's re-stated in Acts; "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?" And in Hebrews; "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless." "The law is only a shadow, not the realities themselves."
Even the ancient Jews believed the new "Messianic Torah" would replace their written Torah; "The Torah that a person learns in this present age is trifling compared to the Law of the Messianic King" (Koheles Rabah 11:8).

Homosexuality was never 'absolutely' proscribed in the New Testament. You have the homosexuality entwined with idolatry in Romans 1 where Paul patterns his sin list in Romans from other idolatry vice lists popular in his day and from Deuteronomy that mirrors Romans word for word. Paul only spoke on homosexuality through the narrow lens of idolatry or exploitation with Gagnon taking these examples to make a blanket statement on homosexuality using clever and deceptive hermeneutics tricks and I already brought up Gagnon's error with seeing homosexuality with being equal as exploitive homosexuality, so I don't need to go further with correcting this view he continues with now and later in the video with his interpretation of "arsenokoites" that's easily refuted by me all over this blog. This is a perfect example of Gagnon's "half-readings" I first brought up in my critique of his book. He quotes extensively from David F. Greenberg's book; "The Construction of Homosexuality" (an book I've also read) in his book. Greenberg gives an exhaustive narrative of homosexuality through the ages as a practice without condemning comment or consequence, all documented by Greenberg, all deliberately left out by Gagnon.

Gagnon brings up his two children and what they KNOW is wrong and equating that with how we are suppose to feel about homosexuality, we should KNOW it's wrong. Gagnon believes so strongly and so deeply homosexuality is so contrary to anything right or good or holy, he's incredulous you can't see it. This is a tactic of his to make you feel foolish with what he thinks you should see as a given. This is Gagnon who sees homosexuality as the equivalent of "a child touching a hot stove."

He takes apart the easy argument of those who bring up the "abomination" of mixing two types of cloth with the "abomination" of homosexuality in Leviticus. Why doesn't he bring up the more complex issue of divorce Christ takes away from Moses? The sin of usury in the Old Testament Christ actually carried over unlike homosexuality? Breaking the Sabbath that also calls for the death penalty? Circumcision the Old Testament says is a "forever" act? Or the other slew of what the Bible calls "abominations?"

Leave it up to Gagnon to make the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to be about the woman's adultery and not about how we are to be merciful and not judging, what Christ tells us to go and 'do likewise' in Luke 10:37. What do we get out of what Jesus did in here according to Gagnon? Saving someone for the future "Kingdom of God" who may choose not to repent. Is it this? Or is it Jesus showing the example of bestowing mercy over the letter of the law (James 2:12,13) to the crowd of witnesses? What made Him an enemy to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ to be stoned according to "The Law." By implication Gagnon says Jesus would have took part in the stoning if He could, but begrudgingly stops Himself for the singular reason of saving her for "The Kingdom." This is yet another case of Gagnon not being able to take his head out "Old Testament" weights and balances and missing the mark that Christ did what He did to give an example to the listeners around the adulteress and to us.

Paul called out a man at the church in Corinth with what he was doing that hurt another with what was a transgressional relationship, Gagnon says it's the same with two non-related homosexuals (ironically, Gagnon has stated that the Corinthian man's incest is preferable to homosexuality even when the Bible gives no such account of Paul taking a stance with a homosexual man in the church). He takes the Greek word "Porneia" (harlotry) in the verse describing the Corinthian man's sin and carries that description to mean homosexuality. In all Biblical instances the word is used, without exception, it is either in reference to a breaking of a marriage obligation or prostitution and is never carried over to homosexuality, what Gagnon would have you believe that again is him broadening a prohibition beyond it's clear and stated borders.

Gagnon gives away his bias against Homosexuality with saying tolerance is not loving, but then he says to show tolerance to the divorced with the excuse it's a "one time sin" and immediately it stops being a sin or living in a state of sin.

His question of; "Are homosexuals at risk?" He answers his own question because to him there is no other answer. Gagnon uses the term "Aggressive Love" that to him translates as fighting legislation that would stop gay children from being bullied in school to writing letters to church bodies telling then to kick gays out, THIS is Gagnon's "love" in action, a love he thinks he sees with Christ. Unlike what Gagnon believes, love does not dishonor others or demands its way... just ask Paul (1 Cor 13:5), a 'good disciple' of Jesus.

No comment is needed further with Gagnon's claim the only problem the Pharisees had with Christ was because he was pushy with an even more intensified Old Testament ethic while at the same time being loving, I really wonder if Gagnon believes this stupidity himself.

This is one of Gagnon's weakest argument (I'm assuming your stopping the vid and reading what I say as he's talking), along with the since discredited "science" in his book, that somehow men and women are to be 'complimentary parts' to each other and is a large part of why he believes as he does. I point out this error of his in my review of his book; "The Construction of Homosexuality... " and another reference to his work is another solid treatise on this pagan-based belief. Gagnon goes to bogus science because he can never show the "consequence" of homosexuality he compares to vices that do have notable consequences in Paul's vice lists.

When Gagnon brings up the fact Christ never talks about homosexuality with saying Christ never brought up incest either, he misses the fact Sodom was brought up to Christ. Instead of leading Christ to expand further with what was the sin of Sodom, Christ says nothing other than making it a case for inhospitality.* When Christ comes across the same sex practicing Centurion, He says nothing other than to admire the faith of the Centurion, When Christ does speaks on marriage, he's quick to bring up "born eunuchs" Gagnon himself concedes could fit the the historical definition of a homosexual.

He claims that the Christians of Paul's day would have seen homosexuality as a given prohibition from the Old Testament like incest, let's look at that closer.

Gagnon states; "There is no record of a Jew practicing homosexuality in early Judaism" and "There is no dissenting opinion anywhere in Judaism on the subject of homosexuality," he's wrong (see; "Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" by Steven Greenberg and "Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" by Theodore W. Jennings Jr).

Gagnon's false claim of the Greek term "Malakoi" he tries to pass off as meaning an effeminate 'gay' man is easily refuted by myself and others (see "Love Lost In Translation" by K. Renato Lings with outside sources referenced: 490 - 499).

The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar is the Hebrew translation of "lying of a male" from Numbers 31:18 and is only describing the act of penetration. 

This is a refutation of Gagnon saying Leviticus is an absolute prohibition on homosexuality even outside of it's idolatry context with outside sources referenced (see; Myth 2# and 2-3 A – Seven Myths in the Homophobic Interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that also addresses Gagnon's other points mentioned in the video.

It's worth repeating with what scholar Jean-Fabrice Nardelli has to say on Gagnon that needs no further comment:

"Once and for all, let it be said that Gagnon is an inaccurate and poor student of Biblical homosexuality: he is far too opinionated and self-indulging for someone who would have us believe in his impeccable judgement (whence my jibe at his status as an ayatollah), has no grasp whatsoever of the major ancient Near Eastern languages apart from Masoretic Hebrew, never consults scholarly literature in other tongues (German and French Bible studies simply do not exist for him), and he is ridiculously parochial in his selection of primary and secondary sources (they are principally American, and wherever possible come from the Evangelical right). Just consult any piece of his which appears on his website; you will discover that he is all rhetoric and blistering, with virtually nothing in guise of scientific apparatus. I would have been loathe to expose him for what he is had he been decent enough not to charge his opponents with gross dishonesty. So let us not mince words any longer. As a parting shot, I shall like to adduce a point which speaks volumes about his academic credentials: in more than a decade, Gagnon only produced one large book (under, one might add, the covers of a religious publisher, not an academic press) and a handful of papers in peer-reviewed journals; such an output for a senior scholar, coupled with the fact that at well over fifty he is still an Assistant Professor in a second-rate theological seminary, comes on a long way, I think, towards explaining his tooth-and-nail stance as an ideologue and his preference for online preaching over academic work."



*Gagnon brings up Sodom in not this video, but elsewhere in an attempt to force the story from lack of hospitality he admits is the jist of the story to homosexuality. My response is here that also covers Jude 1:7. He makes the lack of hospitality with Sodom about homosexuality and then says no ancient Jews never practiced homosexuality, yet Jeremiah 23:14 says this about the people of Israel; "...They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." You can't have it both ways with making Sodom about homosexuality and saying the Jews didn't practice homosexuality when Israel was like Sodom.
As you can see, Gagnon has thoroughly been refuted with what are his general arguments he condensed in the above video on homosexuality and the Bible.

Hate in the Name of Christ

I prayed on if I should make this post. I always believed anti-gay theology would grow an ugly fruit that Christians could no longer deny because of it being the Doctrine of Demons that it is. This is it's fruition, it's ugly flower in full bloom. I couldn't call myself a Christian if I turned my back on the horrors done in the Name of my God.

Rev. Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D.

What I love about Pearson is that he's a Bible thumper's thumper, a real conservative and hard liner with the Word of God like your dad, he just happens to believe the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
His book on-line.

Michael Craven

I made the big mistake to write a comment to Michael Craven on his site. I should have known better when he thinks all of America is going into some moral morass because I get googly eyed with boys and because of "secular humanists" (I thought that terminology went out in the late 80's with Evangelicals). Apparently Michael missed the Scriptures that we are to be set apart from the world and not in a tug of war with it. We are to live at peace with our neighbor, not demand our way with them, we are to preach the "Good News," not force un-believers to act like they were.
This is what I first wrote him and his response:
http://www.battlefortruth.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=236&rr=1#resp

The actual article is harmless enough with coming from an anti-gay Christian, but how does Michael really feel when in a different article on homosexuality he says:

"In short, social acceptance of deviant sexual behaviors (homosexuality) represents the final stages of a society working to rid itself of all traditional mores related to sexual conduct. The jettisoning of sexual morality renders the individual and its attendant society devoid of its productive energy. Such societies diminish because their collective creative energies are redirected toward the fulfillment of their personal sexual appetites (hedonism)."

Of course what you don't see is my final comment to Michael he didn't want to post with what he wrote me back so it looks like I had no response to him or the Scriptures he brings up (in one part of my post I say I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, breathed by God and is inerrant. I guess that popped his bubble of claiming I'm a "Liberal Progressive," so he just rather not post it).

Michael loves to put people in boxes who he believes are picking fights with Christianity in what's  his made-up; "Culture War." People he labels; "Secularists," "Homosexuals with an agenda," "Liberal Progressives" and a list of others with scary titles who are either fighting Christianity coming into the world or kicking out of the world the Christianity it still has left. Notice his fighting words (battle, war)? People like him are always needing to see a spiritual enemy behind individuals and "Homosexual Activists" are one of his combatants (Any homosexual who has the nerve to demand the same rights as a heterosexual is an "activist)." It's lost on Michael that there are not tiers of citizenship in America where you being a Christian American citizen somehow trumps the citizenship of a Gay American in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution in, like it or not, a secular society we all have to live in.

I DO believe in spiritual enemies, but not the ones Michael believes in, gay men and women. To Michael, the simple, and you could even say the boring way, of 'Loving your neighbor as yourself' just isn't thrilling or enough for him. Jesus wants us to love one another like we were in a love story movie, Michael wants to make it into a movie for boys with explosions and knife fights and kicking Satan's ass. To him, why should it be about anything else when he's all geared up and ready to go with fighting battles that will turn the tide in what he sees as a war of good and evil on a grand scale? Even accusing me of; "... attempting to transform the world to accommodate my behavior." I can do that??? This is my response to him saying to me; "...most Bible scholars agree” with the argument of omission, suggesting that since Jesus doesn’t directly condemn homosexual behavior then homosexual behavior must be okay. This is an oft quoted and erroneous rebuttal when trying to align homosexual behavior with Christian faith."

I love his last line of him saying he sees an "inner conflict" with me. He knows he doesn't see this, it's just a little trick to make his brittle followers second guess anything I have to say.

American Theologians and Bible Scholars who do not see an anti-gay reading from the Bible

Victor Paul Furnish, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Yale University.

Laurel C. Schneider, Professor of Theology, Chicago Theological Seminary.

David L. Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary.

Virginia Burrus, Professor of Early Christianity, Drew University Theological School.

Jim Brownson, Professor of New Testament, Western Theological Seminary.

William McDonough, Associate Professor of Theology, St. Catherine University.

Dale B. Martin, Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University.

J. Philip Wogaman, Professor Emeritus of Christian ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary.

Jennifer Knust, Associate Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Boston University.

Ted A. Smith, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt Divinity School.

Ted Grimsrud, Professor of Theology, Eastern Mennonite University.

William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University.

William Schoedel, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Illinois

Dan O. Via, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Duke University Divinity School.

David Brodsky, Associate Professor of Judaic Studies, Brooklyn College. 

James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities. 

Jack Bartlett Rogers, Professor Emeritus of Theology, San Francisco Theological Seminary.

Saul Olyan, Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University.

William Stacy Johnson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary.

Frederick Parrella, Professor of Theology, Santa Clara University.

Phyllis A. Bird, Associate Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.

Walter Brueggemann, Professor of Old Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary.

Eric Barreto, Professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary.

Gale A. Yee, Professor of Biblical Studies, Episcopal Divinity School.

Neil Elliott, Professor of New Testament Theology, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.

Alan F. Segal, Professor of Judaic Studies, Barnard University.

Jeffrey S. Siker, Professor of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University.

David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University.

Ken Stone, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible, Chicago Theological Seminary.

Daniel Boyarin, Professor of Talmudic Culture, University of California at Berkeley.

Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, Westminster Theological Seminary.

L. William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley.

Bernadette J. Brooten, Professor of Christian studies, Brandeis University.

David E. Fredrickson, Professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary.

George Riley Edwards, Professor of New Testament Studies, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Robin Scroggs, Professor of Bible Theology, Union Theological Seminary.

David L. Balch, Professor of the New Testament, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary.

Orlando Espin, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of San Diego.

Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological School.

Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Baylor University.

Marten H. Woudstra, Old Testament scholar, Calvin Theological Seminary.

Richard Hays, Professor of New Testament, Duke Divinity School.

Robert L. Brawley, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, McCormick Theological Seminary.

Karen Labacqz, Professor of Christian Ethics, Pacific School of Religion.

George R. Edwards, Professor of New Testament, Lousville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Mark D. Jordan, Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School.

Patrick S. Cheng, Assistant Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Episcopal Divinity School.

Steven Tuell, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

I didn't even tap into the Bible scholars worldwide who don't read the Bible as prohibitive of homosexuality or those who remain silent for fear of losing their employment.

I did this list back in 2014. Now I can't keep up with affirming theologians. Though it is enough for Robert Gagnon to admit his view with the Bible and homosexuality is now in the minority (that must sting).

Biased Bible Translators

The whole crux of who's right and who's wrong in the Bible/Homosexual debate can be found in the translations of the Biblical texts. Anti-gay proponents of the Bible, when they aren't taking words or verses out of context, insist no bias worked its way into the translations of the Bible from the translators with their readings.
They can now be proven wrong.
Link

"The question could be asked... whether the proverbial “whore with a heart of gold” may also be permitted to seek ordination while still plying her trade?"

- Bruce Metzger on gays within the church he compares to 'whores.' The supposed unbiased translator and editor of both the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible who first put the word "homosexual" in an English Bible translation for the first time in 1946.

Of Romans and Reptiles

One day I'll do a treatment of Romans 1.* Jeramy Townsley's (popular) paper makes an exhaustive case that the homosexuality in Romans is in an idolatry aspic. He even gives the name of the specific cult Paul is talking about (He's updated it since).


I want to add a few things.

Look at Romans 1:22-23:
"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

Now look at Deuteronomy 4:16-18:
"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground..."

Now there is not a Bible scholar in the world who doesn't read Deuteronomy 4:16-18 as anything but talking only about idolatry, it's a given. Yet when Paul repeats Deuteronomy word for word in Romans, Romans is only talking about homosexuality apart from idolatry?

Another instance of Paul putting homosexuality in Romans 1 in only the context of idolatry is his quoting the 'idolatry part' of the book "The Wisdom of Solomon" (a book well known to Paul). Francis Watson in his book; "Paul And The Hermeneutics Of Faith" makes the comparison:

"Romans 1:18-32 follows Wisdom 13-14 not just at individual points but in the whole construction of the argument. Both writers argue that the true God might have been known by way of the created order, but that the opportunity has been wasted; that the most fundamental error is the manufacture and worship of idols; that idolatry is the root of all other evils; and that those who commit such sins are subject to divine punishment."

To take homosexuality outside of the context of idolatry in Romans 1, you would have to reverse the text with how it unfolds. It's not:
Homosexuality = Worship of animals, it's Worship of animals = Idolatrous homosexuality:

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools AND exchanged the Glory of the immortal God FOR (for what?) IMAGES RESEMBLING MORTAL MAN AND BIRDS AND ANIMALS AND CREEPING THINGS.
THEREFORE (because of it) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, BECAUSE they exchanged the truth about God for a lie (Idols are called 'lies' in the OT) AND worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
FOR THIS REASON God gave them up to dishonorable passions..."

See how idolatry brought a group to a debased nature that included idolatrous homosexuality in worship? To take it any further with condemning a monogamous and loving homosexual marriage bond sanctified and given in Christ is pure eisegesis.

*I've since done this in my post refuting James White.

Charisma's Folly and His Name is Michael

I think one of the biggest obstacles to reaching Christians to change their mind about homosexuality and the Bible is because of the place they are coming from right out the gate. Instead of listening to me with what I have to say with what I explain from Scripture, AS explaining Scripture to them. They see it as; "How is this homosexual going to try to make a case for himself and other homosexuals that's NEVER going to cut it with me?" If you start off seeing me as that, ANYTHING I say will fall on deaf ears because they'll just see it as an interesting thing I have to say and nothing that should change their minds.

Charisma is an on-line magazine geared to the charismatic community. I saw a challenge by this twit with questions he posed to a gay Christian, any gay Christian, he wanted to get answers from. I met that challenge and the Charisma moderators deleted my comment not once, but twice. These are the questions posed by Brown and my answers before they were deleted because they really never expected or wanted a response.

As an actual gay Christian, I'd like to answer Michael's challenge.

"1. Are you 100 percent sure that your interpretation of Scripture regarding homosexuality is correct?"

Absolutely.

You come across a few gay Christians in leadership positions and you believe from those encounters we are all 'iffy' on the Bible and homosexuality debate with where we stand. I'm so confident in my belief, I've made it a duty to hear all the argument, including yours Michael, of leaders in the 'anti-gay because of the Bible' side of the debate (Albert Mohler, James White, Ravi Zacharias and even your 'Grand Leader' Robert Gagnon) to see just how solid they are with what they had to present. Let's just say I was floored at what these men try to pass off as coming from truth.

Now let me turn it around and ask you the same question. Are you 100% sure that your interpretation of Scripture regarding homosexuality is correct?"
Are you so confident the Bible condemns in one large stroke every practicing gay man and woman with the Bible giving nothing in the negative on homosexuality outside the contexts of the Sodom attempted rape, idolatry in Romans and the exploitive terminology used in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? I know my exegesis is spot, prove me wrong. If you believe I am deceived with my own willful justification, excuse, in this deception, understand only my soul will suffer and I will quote my defense for how I believe before the very Throne of God in confidence, but if YOU are wrong, the blood of all gays you have offended against Christ will be on your head including your kind I name above and all those who use the Bible in an inflammatory way against homosexuals. Want to take that gamble?
By the way Michael, you give yourself away with saying "I'll pray for you" if a Christian doesn't agree with your Bible interpretation on homosexuality and it shows you really aren't here to listen with truly open ears.

"2. Do your beliefs start with certainty about the authority of Scripture, or do they start with certainty about your “sexual orientation”?

Always the Word of God and only the Words of the inspired Word of God matters, NOTHING ELSE. The irony is that I give more authority to Scripture than most Christians because I actually searched them like a Berean and not just blindly followed what was told to me by Pastors, church leaders, political Christian organizations or people like you who have no love or mercy for homosexuals and have no interest with going deeper into the Bible with what is an eternal life or eternal question with gay men and women. Know without one hint of doubt what you speak as speaking for the Living God and those words will be held accountable.

3. What do you say to those people who are genuinely ex-gay or to those who are still same-sex attracted but have chosen to separate themselves to the Lord unless He changes them?

I've read and heard many testimonies from "ex-gays." A common thread with them is the horrific same-sex experiences they have had with everything from molestation to same sex prostitution that lead them into deep addictions and self destructive behaviors. I question if many of these people were even gay. Once these people are healed from these same-sex traumas and are delivered from their addictions they go back to their true orientation, some gay, some straight. Most blame homosexuality instead of blaming what was the true cause of their descent, what was sexually done to them by others that warped their sexual feelings. If others have separated themselves for the Kingdom with not having a same-sex relationship as those heterosexuals who choose celibacy for themselves do, that is fine and preferable in these last days, but do it for that reason and not because of the fear of going to Hell believing Scripture prohibits homosexuality even in a monogamous relationship dedicated to the Lord.

4. If you were convinced that God opposed all forms of homosexual practice, would you follow Him anyway?

Yes. I care about my soul and where I will spend eternity too much to be swayed by any personal desire or swallow whatever is given to me by either side. I came to this years ago with an open heart to go by what I found. I found my answer and the fruits of my life are a testimony to that.


You end your article with a question Michael and I'll end this with a question. Are any of you really open to changing your mind on the Bible's view of homosexuality if a clear case was laid out before you, can it revise your current opinion with what you were always led to believe? Or would you put on blinders, dig your heels in the sand, and continue to believe as you do because it is something that you cling to so strongly that you've made your living off of it? Search your soul Michael because one day you will stand before God and give an account to you saying; "I'll keep on going on with this."

1946

A doc is coming out called "1946." The filmmaker shows how Bruce Metzger, interpreter, and editor of the RSV and NRSV translations of the Bible, thought maybe putting the word "homosexual" in the translations might not have been such a great idea from a letter he sent to a seminarian student Metzger thought would never see the light of day. The problem I have is the filmmaker makes it sound like it was an honest mistake. I know how Metzger felt about homosexuality along with several of the interpreters on his panel which shows it wasn't an honest mistake with those on his panel either going along with it or staying silent with their objections. They had the chance to change that mistake with the NRSV, but didn't even when they started to see the damage it was doing with Churches now being able to use the word "homosexual" for the first time. Further proof of this is that Metzger and his panel had over 70 years of chances to publicly say they were wrong and never did.

The anti-gay are already jumping all over this by saying; "So what? The descriptives of homosexuality in past translations finally give the word "homosexual" its proper place in this one translation."

My Rebuttal:

The heart of the meaning of a verse in a translation of the Bible is carried over from prior translations. If a mistake was made with that verse and is not corrected, that mistake will be in the next translation and the one after with the only difference being the words of the era the translation was written in. I go directly to Paul saying arsenokoite and there isn't, can't be with the word "arseno," a broad condemnation of male and female homosexuality. The word is wrong in Metzger's translation because the descriptives in prior translations of the word homosexual are going off of are wrong. The 1940s-50s saw homosexuals as mentally sick deviant child predators who were institutionalized and routinely lobotomized. This was the world Metzger saw homosexuals in, what a homosexual was in his time he put in his Bible.

The Narrow Gate

[work in progress]

If you were able to go inside the mind of a Christian and see what's really at its core, you'll find percentages like this of what they think being a Christian is all about:
50% Loving God, 30% doing what the Bible tells you to do, 15% Loving your neighbor, and the other 5% Prayer, seeking God, a meditation on God and His Word, and whatever else.
As I said the percentages might be off by 1 or 2 between "loving your neighbor" and "doing what the Bible tells you to do," but pretty much in those percentages. We get the biggest percentage with loving God because He does say to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind after all.

I beg to differ with those percentages because the Bible does. If you were to put the Bible in the most accurate percentages from summing up all the Bible messages from front to back cover (let's take out the equation of God loving us because when it comes right down to it, the whole of the Bible is a living love letter from God to us, the creatures He created), you'll have 99% of loving your neighbor and 1% of everything else and I'll tell you why.

Let's first go to the Hebrew (OT) verses. The Bible says only Jesus can forgive you of your sins; sins that once were, are now gone, blotted out like they were never there. But the Bible gives us another example of what can happen to our sins in Isa 1:8: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
If you look at the context of that verse you see why God will do this with your sins in the previous verse 17: "Learn to do good (for others); Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow."

Love for others is the key to this verse. It's even in Proverbs 10:12: "...love covers all sins."

Now this is not FORGIVENESS of sins with these verses, it's a covering, a translation of a verb word from the Greek that means continuous hiding, a veiling of sins that are still there, they just can't be seen. The love talked about comes from the command of; 'Loving your neighbor as yourself'." This love is so strong, so powerful, this love will hide your sins from the very eyes of God, a love so powerful, Paul says it is greater than having a faith that moves mountains and better than all wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor 13:2).

Christ says ALL the Laws that were given to man by His Father, ALL of what the Prophets spoke, hang on loving God and what Matthew 22:39,40 says is the same as; "Loving your neighbor as yourself."

Is the author of this post writing, "Loving your neighbor is the same as loving God," when that Scripture says loving God is the greatest? Yes.

The ancient Jews have a popular word trick (Gezera Shava) in that if two separate announcements had the same word or phrase, they were equal. It was this word trick that Jesus used against the Pharisees who tried to trap Him in Matt 22:34-39:

"But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Now if Jesus would have answered them by saying loving God was the greatest commandment, it would have taken away from what the Pharisees understood was the whole message of Jesus, loving your neighbor as yourself, but if Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself was the greatest commandment, the Pharisees would have stoned Him for blasphemy for not placing God first. What does Jesus do? He uses the Jewish word 'trick' (Gezera Shava) to show both are equal:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Jesus putting both commandments as being the same is what get's Him out of their snare. He does it again in the parable of the Good Samaritan with the follow-up explanation; "Who IS my neighbor?"

What about the Laws we as Christians are to keep and follow? Jesus says:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)

But what is "The Law?" Laws from the Old Testament? No. Paul even goes as far as saying those who follow the old law are under a "curse" (Gal. 3:10). The answer is found in Matt 19:16-19 with what Jesus tells the rich man and it's found again with Paul in Romans 13:8,9. The 'Law' we are to keep is to be found in the commandment in Leviticus 19:18; "...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

To many, it looks like Christ is reading laws off the top of His head to give you a general idea that old laws are to still be followed with what he says to the rich man, but every single prohibition He states is said for a reason and those prohibitions He did not include were left out on purpose.

To the rich man:

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied; "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,* you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Paul repeats it:

^"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments; “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Each prohibition listed by Christ and each prohibition listed by Paul is breaking the general rule of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" From Leviticus 19:18. NOW we have the answer with the seeming contradiction Paul is saying in Romans 2:13: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"
what Paul is saying in the following chapter has perplexed the church for ages with what looks like Paul contradicting himself in Romans 3:20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law..."

AND Jesus seemingly says we are to keep the Old Testament Laws in Matt 5:17 saying:

"...Think not that I am come to destroy the law..."

Paul and Christ, two learned Jews of the Torah, treated the Torah the way the ancient Jewish nation did, they divided the laws that were between man and man (mitzvoth bein adam lachaveiro) that involved loving and doing kindness to your neighbor that we are to keep as a general law from Leviticus 19:18, and laws that were everything else (mitzvoth bein adam lamakom) that involved Laws between God and man that Christ said is fulfilled with loving and doing kindness to your neighbor. So the answer to what looks like Paul contradicting himself with Romans 2:13 with Romans 3:20 is Paul saying the 'works of the laws' (Old Testament laws and rules) will not make you right with God, it is only the 'works of the law' (Leviticus 19:18 in our actions with loving our neighbor) that will make you right with God.** 
If you stay within that commandment of Leviticus 19:18 in all you do, Christ says you fulfill ALL the Laws and Prophets in the Old Testament (Matt 7:12):
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Now we know what SPECIFIC law Jesus said He will not destroy in Matt 5:17, the law found in Leviticus 19:18. Christ fulfilled the rest of the Old Testament rules and regulations in the complete work of His sacrifice on the cross.

In Luke one man understood this with Jesus confirming his interpretation when Jesus asked the man; "What is YOUR interpretation of the "Law?" The man answered; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said; "You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.” To say the 'Law' are the prohibitions in the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible, is calling Christ a liar.


John 13:35 says loving your neighbor shows the world you belong to Christ:

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”


Christ gives an example of what loving your neighbor is with the action of showing servitude in John 13:8, 12-15:

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them.  “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

Loving your neighbor shows a physical outward proof you have passed from death into Salvation according to 1 John 3:14:

"We know that we have passed from death to life because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."

James 2:8 says if you do this, you're doing good with everything else:

"If, however, you are fulfilling the Royal Law (a ROYAL LAW was a law decreed by the King Himself (Christ) that trumped ALL previous laws in the Kingdom) according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.


If you truly love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, you will 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Jesus said if you truly love me, you will 'love others as I have loved you.' It will be the ONLY thing we will be held accountable for when we stand before the very Throne of God when all works and faith have passed away and it will be the ONLY thing that will that will decide whether we go to Heaven or be cast in Hell (Matt 25:31-46):
 
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

And always remember, the mercy you show others will always trump the judgment of God you show and say to others:

"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:12,13)

...




note: V'ahavtah L'rey-acha Kamocha (Love your neighbor as yourself) is steeped in Jewish tradition as is Gemilut Chassadim (bestowing loving kindness) which is supposed to be given with "no fixed measure." 

*Adultery is a sin that breaks the command of "loving your neighbor" in that it's an offense against another (wife, husband, mate, an extension of your fellow human being) as themselves. The Jews saw sleeping with another man's wife as an extension of violating the husband. Now since one man loving one man does not constitute breaking "Loving your neighbor as yourself," homosexuality wouldn't fall in breaking that command with two people edifying each other in a relationship of mutual love and respect without a 3rd party being hurt.

**I owe a great debt to author Michael Wood who explains in more detail how the ancient Jews divided their laws with the terms mitzvoth bein Adam lachaveiro and mitzvoth bein Adam lamakom in his book "Paul and Homosexuality" and not this Christian invention of how we divide Jewish laws (ritual/purity/moral) now.