28.9.15
In My YouTube Comments
Thank you for posting these videos. They have changed perspectives, answered life-long questions & liberated gay Christian people longing from guilt who value committed, faithful, nurturing, loyal, fulfilling relationships.
This makes all my effort worth it if even one...
20.9.15
Koitaiarseno
From: hoperemains.com
19.9.15
Why Now?
This is the first time I've heard this question that begs a response from me; "Why after over 2000 years is the argument only now being made for the acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity?
I think this is a legitimate question with a few answers.
The first thing you have to understand is this question is asked on the assumption the Body of Christ has always gotten it right with the way of looking at and treating others. Church history will tell you they've done the exact opposite when it came to Scriptureally seeing "others." The exploitation of animals God told us to be shepherds over, persecuting Jews, Protestants, Catholics... the persecution of Jews again... and again... and again, seeing women as less than a man, a black man and woman as less than a human. Religious persecution in England is what founded this country. The list goes on and on and ALL had their justification from the Bible. I see nothing different with what is happening with homosexuals now.
Also remember that the Catholic Church had the monopoly on Scripture for
a good chunk of history and told the masses on how to believe on
homosexuality with decrees and putting Church Father opinion, men who never claimed to be inspired, at the level of inspired Scripture.
The early church that was persecuted for their faith in Christ would rend their garments in grief and disbelief if they knew the Church would turn the tables and now be the ones doing the persecuting.
16.9.15
Edward Dalcour
My response to Edward Dalcour in the comments section:
Dalcour would be hard-pressed to make his points if you took his lexicons away, the base of his arguments. Someone makes an excellent point that's worth repeating:
"For the most part, your (Dalcour's) argument consists of summaries of three lexica entries: Thayer, Louw & Nida, and BDAG. These are the best available lexica of the New Testament, and I refer to them regularly. However, it must be remembered that a lexicon gives the judgment of either a single scholar or a committee on the meaning of any word. The best lexica gives a list of the ways that any lexeme is used in the known literature so that the reader can form an educated judgment, and even be critical of the lexicon’s own conclusion. The lexicon may also put forward suggested meanings which would account for all the usages, but ultimately the meaning is determined by the usages, not the authority of the lexicon."
Dalcour's only response to this statement is more or less; "Give me more lexicons!"
He states (to the blog author who started this whole discussion) that it's irrelevant; "... that the term “homosexual” was a “fairly new word, and was not even invented until 1892.”
The fact is it is a very relevant point because the majority of lay Christians go along with the reading of this word (homosexual) in 1 Corinthians that also could be construed to include lesbians in the text, it doesn't and it never did.
Translators who would use the term "Sodomite" in anything other than referring to the inhabitants of Sodom shows the error with what was THOUGHT to be the late historical sin of Sodom, homosexuality. Unlike what Dacour would like to believe, they are no Semitic equivalences to the Greek text in translations.
When talking about 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, Dacour's true, nasty, colors come out with his statements of the blog author's "(gay) lifestyle," whatever that means, and his Biblical interpretations coming from a; "Concordance you got at the local WalMart." I notice anti-gay proponents of the Bible love to pepper these little personal jabs in debates, it's like they can't help themselves (when James White debated GCN founder Justin Lee he mentioned Lee's "flailing hands" just to take a jab with what many believe is a gay male trait with exaggerated talking with the hands).
I covered arsenokoite enough on this blog to refute what he's saying.
Dalcour pulls a camel through a needle eye with trying to make malakoi an effeminate gay man in 1 Corinthians, but a simple look at the first 4 Bible translations of the word show's he's wrong with what isn't even a hint at homosexuality in this order:
Koine Greek = Malakoi.
Vulgate = Molles, plural of mollis (soft, flexible, pliant, a slew of meanings).
Wycliffe = puts molles as; "lechourious ayen kynde."
Tyndale = "weakling" The word is carried over to Coverdale and the Bishops Bible.
Geneva = "wantons."
It wasn't until the 16th century when all of a sudden we find "effeminate" in the Douay-Rheims translation and even then the term had many connotations ranging from being a spineless coward to loving women TOO much.
The irony is Dacour quotes James White (I think he's also a buddy) who sees the homosexuality of Romans in idolatry.
A challenge was given of naming Bible scholars who don't see the anti-gay reading Dacour clings to for dear life (he makes it sound like it's only Boswell and Barr), well I'm happy to meet that challenge:
http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2014/05/american-theologians-and-bible-scholars.html
13.9.15
Kevin DeYoung
Listening to DeYoung speak in a video really surprised me with what were elementary arguments (Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, etc.) I didn't see in anyway challenging (I later refute his attempt to refute Boswell in my "Late Nite Tapas" thread).
Like Brown's 9 questions, DeYoung goes the umpteenth mile with coming up with 40 to those who would affirm homosexuality with the Bible. Apparently, this was a clarion call to tons of bloggers who decided to take up his 40 question challenge and now he has shut up because of the countless responses that rained down on his head like rocks he never expected.
This is a response in a comment forum of yet another blogger who answered the challenge, worth repeating, about what DeYoung tried to accomplish with his 40 questions:
"I think Kevin DeYoung is quickly going to get tired of seeing all of these "40 Answers" blogs - for one simple reason: when he posed his asinine list of questions, he thought he was asking tough questions we wouldn't be able to answer in some sort of "Ha, GOTCHA!" fashion that has become the favorite weapon in the heterosexist arsenal of late.
12.7.15
Johnny SCOTUS And His Giant Robot
My best to all states and tell me where to register for wedding gifts (I hope all the states are registered at the same place and it's cheap because I'm not made out of money).
Soon after the ruling came in I saw a big spike in social media of anti-gay Christians losing their mind in all kinds of sloppy ways. They made it sound like instead of it being about gays getting married, it was something going out of the way to attack them personally, making it all about them. They were actually angry because gays bypassed them with asking them; "Can I get married with your kind permission?" Like my ability to marry can only be decided by them when I have all the same Constitutional rights they have according to our founding documents as an American. There isn't tiers of citizenship where a Christian American can trump the rights of a gay American. Our founding fathers made sure of that with trusting future generations would do good with what they were trying to say.
Justice Kennedy who favored in the ruling made a point that needs to be printed here and is at the heart of the decision:
"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other."
This saying is Christ-like in echoing God with man not wanting to be alone:
"Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him."
Geneses 2:18.
See this in contrast to the other judges who voted against gay marriage with them saying; "Let's keep it just for us and not lovingly broaden this for others."
One thing I'm also noticing are religious leaders asking their followers to defy the ruling, not understanding by telling others to do that, they and those who follow them go against God Himself:
"All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged. If you do what is right, you won’t need to be afraid of your rulers. But watch out if you do what is wrong! You don’t want to be afraid of those in authority, do you? Then do what is right, and you will be praised. The one in authority serves God for your good. But if you do wrong, watch out! Rulers don’t carry a sword for no reason at all. They serve God. And God is carrying out his anger through them. The ruler punishes anyone who does wrong. You must obey the authorities. Then you will not be punished. You must also obey them because you know it is right.
That’s also why you pay taxes. The authorities serve God. Ruling takes up all their time. Give to everyone what you owe them. Do you owe taxes? Then pay them. Do you owe anything else to the government? Then pay it. Do you owe respect? Then give it. Do you owe honor? Then show it."
Romans 13:1-7.
One YouTube comment said this when I quoted the above verses:
"Christians are not to obey any law that contradicts the bible and God's holy nature. In the book of Acts, Peter and John are taken before the Jerusalem Council (Supreme Court) and told not to speak about Jesus Christ. This law by the Jerusalem Council goes against Jesus Christ command in Matthew 28:18-20 to go and make disciples of all nations teaching to obey all that I have commanded you. Peter and John have two commands before them one from God and the other from man. Who will they obey? God. from Acts 4:18; So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."
My comment back:
"This has NOTHING to do with fair laws that put all American citizens on equal footing with rights that follow; "loving others as yourself." Would you deny yourself marriage? Than if you deny it to another, you break the Golden Rule that we are to seek and follow with all our choices and decisions. Questions like gay marriage the Bible doesn't specifically address? Apply "love another as yourself" before all else to the situation to get your answer that also puts ALL the Laws and what ALL the prophets had to say in the backseat.
Peter and John loved others as themselves enough to share the soul saving message of salvation they themselves had to others and that is why they were able to break the law in good conscious."
He never responded back.
I find it interesting that the same states bucking the most against the SCOTUS ruling are the same states that also fought the hardest against segregation. Some things never change.
12.5.15
Missing Lesbians on Milk Cartons
1. If 'arsenokoitai' is the "aggressor" in a homosexual relationship and 'malakoi' the "passive" partner in 1 Corinthians, why is malakoi absent in 1 Timothy? An arsenokoitai would be missing the other half of his relationship. If they are a word pair, no other vice list with either malakoi or arsenokoitai, and there are many with malakoi prior to Paul and many with arsenokoitai after Paul, ever have them paired together.
2. If 'arsenokoitai' can be the catch-all word for both sides of a homosexual relationship, why does Paul bother using malakoi in 1 Corinthians? "Koites" was used centuries before Paul's usage and when used as a suffix in compounds it always indicated the penetrative aggressor, never the passive. That means it can't apply to both partners in an act and cannot be a catch-all term for all homosexual activity.
19.1.15
Baby Got Baby Back Ribs
The rarely mentioned Jude verse talking about Sodom I've already discussed (for a little more detail about Sodom and Jude talking about "strange flesh," go to my 'Sodom' tag post below).
Even with the Roman 1 verses, anti-gay scholars can't really take homosexuality outside of its idolatry context, so they just meld the two together to where you can't see where one starts and the other finishes in the hopes you don't see what they're doing.
I want to answer the argument that many sincerely want to be answered. The argument goes that Paul "made up" the Greek word arsenokoite in 1 Corinthians with compounding words 1 in Leviticus 20:13 ("a man shall not lay with a male") into one word and sticking it in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, it looks like it's a clear-cut case Paul is condemning homosexuality with cleverly using Leviticus.
Correcting the Leviticus passage has a dual purpose. It shows Paul did not intend to make a general condemnation of homosexuality with the compound word arsenokoite and it destroys the argument Jesus didn't need to say anything about homosexuality because He expected you to understand He followed Levitical laws, so why would He need to say anything when Leviticus tells you how He feels about homosexuality already?
There's no question that Leviticus verses were written in the context of idolatry (Leviticus 20:2,3 tells you that and it's carried over to Deuteronomy with discussing the "quedesh" priesthood that isn't named in the Leviticus verses, but are the Moloch worshippers Leviticus is referencing) and that if Paul referenced it, he was referencing their homosexuality in the context of only their idolatry practices, but I will approach this as if it wasn't in the context of idolatry because that is the only argument that can be made to carry this verse as a general prohibition of homosexuality to the present day)
To start, read what I say as to why Leviticus is only in the context of idolatry and then go to what I say about the word itself (you'll find argument after argument from me on this blog refuting the claim arsenokoite means a homosexual).
Only if we can understand the exact Hebrew wording in Leviticus can we figure out what Paul was trying to convey with his new compound word arsenokoite if that was really what he was doing 2.
The literal Hebrew reads the verse like this:
Weth-zakhar lo tishkav mishkevey ishshah
Translated into literal English it reads; "with a male you shall not lie the lyings of the woman 3."
Now since Leviticus 20:13, like 18:22, is only directed at Israeli males and not women, a clear-cut and simple reading prohibiting all male homosexuality would read; "Weth-zakhar lo tishkav (with a male you shall not lie)," but instead we have mishkevey ishshah (lyings of the woman) put into the verse. English translators of the verse also place in "as with," making the verse, wrongly, read; "with a male you shall not lie as with a women." Translators inserted "as with" instead of "the lyings of a woman" because "lyings of a woman" was not a term they understood because the it's found no where else in the Bible. Now it can be said that the translators were only trying to fill in the blanks by putting in "as with" so the reading of it flows better, but the author of Leviticus meant it to read as it reads. Besides, there are other places in the Bible where the two words 'as with' is used, it's just not used here.
Now if we figure out what the term "lyings of a woman" is getting at, it will shed light on the actions of the males being discussed that are prohibited.
In my first arsenokoite post I show a distinction between the two types of males who are forbidden to be penetrated in Leviticus 20:13 with the word 'zakhar,' a boy (pederasty) or a male cult priest with what would be an act of idolatry. In the CONTEXT it is given in Leviticus (Moloch worship), the prohibition is saying an Israeli man should not lie with cult Canaanite priests.
Also, most translators make the word "woman" (ishshah) which is also translated as "wife" in the verse into the incorrect gender word "female" (neqevah) that broadens the verse to make it even more of a general prohibition on "homosexuality" when it shouldn't.
"An Israeli man of age shall not have anal sex with Zakhar (a male of some type of religious or age distinction) in his wife's beds."
1. Yale Bible scholar Dale Martin also points out the dangers of compounding ancient words and expecting them to have the same meaning in our present day.
2. I purposely leave out the discussion on Paul's Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus here because it gives no further depth of what the Hebrew is saying.
It was 1000 years from the Torah before the Rabbis, an elite, wrote on the Torah and what Leviticus tried to convey. Unlike the writers of the New Testament, the Rabbis in their commentaries never claimed to be inspired men, so if Paul was reaching to Leviticus to come up with arsenokoite, laws he said are dead to us, he was an inspired man quoting uninspired men with how they interpreted the Leviticus passages with what was one of SEVERAL interpretations they were never unanimous in agreeing on then or even today.
3. I won't discuss the term "abomination" (to'ebah) because no matter the degree, it's still putting a taboo on what action is taking place in the verse.
4. Mishkevey in the singular. This is one of the times zakhar can be translated to just be 'man' when normally ish would be used. Remember when zakhar is used in the Hebrew Bible, 90% of the time it's in reference to a male, human or animal that serves some type of religious purpose. Because zakhar is so close in proximity to ish in the Levitical verse, zakhar wouldn't mean just 'man' when ish does the job.
5. Various arguments have been put forth as to why only the specific act of anal sex is so strongly prohibited to an Israeli male. Some of these arguments are the prohibiting of "mixing of seed" (semen with feces, semen with menstrual blood), the wasting of semen that would have been detrimental to the procreation of a people, or what would be seen as a disrespect of the sacredness of the penis (Israeli men would put one hand on their penis to swear a promise like we would put our hand on a Bible in court in swearing to tell the truth) with uncleanliness. Paul visits the sacredness of the penis in Romans verse 27 verse as I showed when he talks about the Galli priesthood with their practice of castration.
8.1.15
Absence of Malice
God is not a God of loose ends to not complete the loop of prohibiting homosexuality with men, but not women, yet that's exactly what you see when you read all the supposed anti-gay Bible passages. God or those He inspired to write like the Apostle Paul, weren't of the mindset of most human heterosexual males in having an abhorrence of male homosexuality, but is just dandy with the titillation of two women together. Lesbianism, or lack thereof, is never really addressed by anti-gay Bible apologists because it's a stumbling block for them. They gloss over it in hopes you do too.
It starts with Leviticus ("man shall not lay with male") where "woman shall not lay with female" is absent. If you look at all the other Levitical passages on what is prohibited (incest, bestiality, etc) woman are named in a separate catagory covered by all the same prohibitions as the men.*
(I leave out the Sodom story because the obvious is the women of Sodom played no part in it)
Next we move to Romans. Now many will say this is the 'smoking gun' passage that mentions lesbians. A little history lesson needs to be told here.
No writing from a church Father in commentary ever saw lesbianism in the Roman 1 passage, that is until John Chrysostom in the 4th century all of a sudden saw lesbians in the passage like it appeared out of thin air when it wasn't there before. This one reading from this one early church father put lesbianism on the map for the first time and centuries later it became as good as Gospel. The Church with bated breath couldn't wait to swallow it fast enough with wanting to close the homosexual loop. Paul DID have several word choices to describe lesbians (hetairistria, tribas), but they are never used by him in Romans or in anything he wrote.
We next go to 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. The word "arsenokoite" is found in both books and is translated as "homosexual" in the New Revised Standard Version edition of the Bible, the version most quote from because it gives a supposed condemnation of all homosexuality without ambiguity. The prefix of arsenokoite is 'arseno,' that in the Koine Greek (Paul's Greek) translates as "male" (koite means "lying the bed"). Now since the word "homosexual" covers both male AND female homosexuality in a broad term, we know the word "homosexual" shouldn't be there because it only states males with 'arseno.' Those who know the Greek breakdown of the word arsenokoite like to keep quiet about why the word "homosexual" shouldn't be in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy because it fools you into thinking women are included.
Ironically, it's female homosexuality that is the strongest argument against ALL condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible.
*My argument has always been the Levitical prohibition of "man shall not lay with man" is only in the context of idolatry and shouldn't be taken further than that.