Gagnon and Anal Walk into a Bar...

This comment is from Jason Westerly, a commentator on my Disqus service, on Robert Gagnon and it's worth repeating here:

Preface: A fan of Gagnon happened to stumble on this post and said he found it offensive. He didn't find any other post offensive that showed Gagnon twisting the Bible like a double pretzel, but THIS post was way too much for him with besmirching the character of Gagnon. It's like Jason Westerly just insulted his school girl crush.

I give Mr. Westerly the floor.


"Reading through several of your published works and discerning your arguments, this is your hermeneutic:

1. God created things to follow a heterosexual order - the natural way biology functions.

2. Anal sex doesn't do this. Therefore it is a serious disorder.

3. Exegesis of all relevant bible passages condemns anal sex.

4. Jesus probably would condemn anal sex.

5. Paul did condemn anal sex.

6. Gay committed loving relationships can involve the practice of anal sex, therefore God condemns them.

7. Gay committed loving relationships are not really loving relationships because men are more promiscuous than women.

8. Though the civil marriage contract reduces male promiscuity, we must prevent homosexuals from engaging in marriage because that would reduce their promiscuity and add stability to their relationships. This is because God does not approve of loving committed homosexual relationships because there is anal sex.

9. Although homosexuals complain that the marriage ban restriction has harmed them and their relationships, making them very difficult to keep together in today's social and economic environment, they must be prevented because God condemns them because of anal sex.

10. Although homosexuals as well as various studies recount that orientation is very difficult to change and that efforts have resulted in enormous psychological damage, we must continue to encourage them to try, provide prayerful help, and provide assistance to maintain celibacy. We must do this because God condemns committed loving homosexual relationships because of anal sex.

11. If we permit the ban on civil marriage rights for homosexuals, then we will fall down the slippery slope to polygamy, incest, pederasty and other horrible things. We must not permit the ban to be lifted because God condemned committed loving homosexual relationships because of anal sex. God spent a great deal of the Old Testament enabling people to prevent people from doing things. Therefore we must prevent the ban on civil marriage for homosexuals to be lifted.

12. Notwithstanding HIV transmission in Africa and the practice of anal sex among heterosexuals in North America, homosexual anal sex must be singled out as the primary vector for sexually spread disease. It is important we place emphasis on homosexual sex practices to the exclusion of others because God condemns loving committed homosexual relationships because of anal sex.

13. Speaking out against homosexuality is fraught with peril. People may yell at you and tell you that your viewpoints cause violence and hatred. You will feel oppressed while you are yelled at while doing the oppressing. But, we must carry on because God condemns loving committed homosexual relationships because of anal sex. We must discourage violence as much as possible so people don't go to Africa like Scott Lively did to help them pass laws encouraging the assassination, murdering, and burnings of homosexuals. We must do everything possible to try and disconnect our rhetoric and the apparent coldness of heart we exhibit toward them from such violence lest our indications of God's complete and utter condemnation make people inflamed, angry and violent.

14. Jesus demanded we love our neighbor. We do this all out of love. Even though they wail and scream and cry and demonstrate enormous personal and group suffering, we must press on because they are sinning horribly by having anal sex. Even though our message brings them to leave the church in droves, except for a pesky few, we must inject ourselves in civil secular society. We must do everything possible to gum up any chance of their lives improving, such as by removing bans allowing their relationships to strengthen, because this encourages more and more anal sex. And, God hates anal sex.

15. Although there are few verses in the Bible regarding anal sex, they are significant. Anal sex is condemned by God and we must, no matter the cost to anyone, continue to do whatever is possible to prevent homosexuals from having stable relationships because God condemns them because of anal sex.

16. Although Jesus says to love your neighbor, the six or seven scriptural passages condemning anal sex mean loving our homosexual neighbors means we must prevent them from having civil rights allowing them to form stable relationships that in any way symbolically or legally equate their relationships with heterosexuals because God hates anal sex.

Conclusion:
We must do whatever is possible to attack homosexuality because the natural law sitting at the base of our hermeneutic says anal sex is gross.

Dr. Gagnon, are you perhaps a goat?

- your happily married (19 yrs together) Christian homosexual fans."

Leviticus Loves Deuteronomy

This post is worth repeating because the argument is being brought up often.

Dark Vision

If anything was a testament I'm on the right track with pointing out anti-gay "Christians" and their crusade against gays they claim not to have, it's the case with the charitable organization; "World Vision."

World Vision was a Christian-based organization that helped the poor and hungry across the world as a Christian-based type of Red Cross. It's not an exaggeration that this group was the face of Christians putting their faith in action with the Gospel in Jesus saying; "Did you feed the hungry? Did you clothe the poor? Because if you do it to the least of these, you do it to Me." It's the largest charitable Christian organization in the world.

Now they started to realize there was no reason to exclude gays because gays were already serving in the organization. The public part was they said a gay Christian working for them could have a partner and that being gay didn't stop you from doing the work of God.

You thought the gates of Hell opened with this public announcement by WV.

It started with Franklin Graham (a little about greedy Franklin) saying WV "doesn't believe in the Bible" with the "ungodly" decision making him "sick in the stomach." The same Franklin called on all Christians to boycott Wells Fargo bank because of a commercial that featured a real-life gay couple and their real deaf daughter who they adopted. This commercial, according to Franklin, was too much in hating of a loving God. He told all Christians to boycott the bank, including pulling the money from his own multi-million dollar organization from Wells.

(Franklin's decision ended up biting him back when he put his money in a different bank that was just as gay-friendly as Wells Fargo if not more so. His new bank sponsored a gay pride parade and made a make-shift wedding chapel in one of their bank branches for the specific purpose of marrying gay couples).

The next thing to happen was Christian after Christian goose-stepped like dumb little birds (another example was "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" which was a direct affront to Paul saying love doesn't demand its way or sow discord with those outside the church) by contacting World Vision saying; "We won't give money to the poor or hungry because you don't have a problem with gays that we do." World Vision was so cut off for funds to the point they had no choice but to reverse themselves and say; "We will exclude gays just to make you happy. You can now go back to feeding the hungry and helping the homeless."

Of course, those who pulled their support justified themselves with the same excuse a wife-beater gives with blaming the victim; "You made me do this to you!"

I wonder how these people will fair when they stand before God and try to justify they stopped doing the work of a Christian because they didn't like the person making string beans in the soup kitchen? 

"It's astounding to me that Christians would take food from starving children because a gay person might have helped in getting it there. I'm also just so, so dismayed that this is yet another instance in which Christians are telling the world that their feelings about gay people are stronger than their compassion, that their anger over gay employees is greater than their anger over starving children."

- Christian Columnist Kristen Howerton on this incident.

 

Bubbeleh Ben

Great discussion on trans/gender identity from the Orthodox Jew perspective in a tiny room.

Bitter Hams

I don't know what is going on with anti-gay Christians and posting questions for people to answer as a gimmick. First Brown did; "6 Questions for a Gay Christian." Then DeYoung went hog wild with; "40 Questions for Christians Waving Rainbow Flags (see that little dig in the title?)." And now Brown is doing more questions because the well doesn't run dry yet with questions from these people. I think the questions need to stop because people aren't looking for questions, they're looking for answers.

First, these are loaded questions, but still answerable without going into the direction the questioner wants you to go if you know how to do it.

---

Matthew Vines was brought up to me by someone and to be honest I've never heard Matthew speak. A while back I debated a man on YouTube who used James White* and others to refute Vine

Now White is cited most by anti-gay lay Christians who can't keep up on the level of a Robert Gagnon. The first thing out of White's mouth in the only debate I saw him in was a lie. He claimed the other written source at the time of Paul to use the word arsenokoite put the word in the context of homosexuality, it didn't. The source (Sibylline Oracles) used the word in talking about an injustice having nothing to do with sexuality and not homosexuality that would have bolstered his point in the debate. I also find out he isn't the scholar he claims to be. White calls himself "Doctor" and this Christian-based website addresses those in ministry who claim that title for themselves (White is a side reference). Now, White has actually talked about this and it's another perfect example of how good he is with turning the tables with an argument an opponent brings to his face. Instead of being defensive, he goes on the offensive with making it about one critic being a Mormon (irrelevant, facts are facts), how he has more hours over the Mormon's own credit hours (again, irrelevant and childish with saying; "I have more than you do!") and makes it sound like you're elitist if you question on-line schools even though he has called out others on their own lack of schooling. White also mentions his degree from Fuller, a seminary only taken seriously by anti-gay Evangelicals that prohibits homosexuality in the school's own "Community Standard's" Policy. The only other school White has received a degree from is "Grand Canyon University," another on-line school who by their own admission are on par with ITT Technical School.

I don't bother with a separate post refuting White* on the "clobber passages" because he brings up the same arguments I've already refuted on this blog and on a video by a YouTube poster, more on that later with my "Mary" post.

White has several YouTube accounts (Alpha/Omega Ministries, DrOakley1689, and probably others) that he's disabled all comments on and states you cannot copy or redistribute any of his videos, a valid concern that's taken place with refutes and was the cause of his wiping out and disabling all comments. I noticed he's also a master debater, his bread and butter. The thing with master debaters is that they can make you believe anything with a half believable line, that's what they do.  

*I've since changed my mind and wrote on White and what he said on the Roman 1 verses on the first page of my site that went viral all over the place

In My YouTube Comments

Hi Frank,
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...

Koitaiarseno

There is a misconception currently held by some Christians that Paul coined the word ἀρσενοκοῖται from Lev. 20:13 as found in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which is the oldest translation of the Hebrew Bible.:

Και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν·

The idea is based upon the existence of the words αρσενος κοιτην in that verse, but this is flawed scholarship. Since αρσενος means male, and κοιτην means bed, ANY Greek sentence that mentions a male and a bed will have forms of those two words in it. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not the only verses in the Septuagint containing those words, as seen below.

και νυν αποκτεινατε παν αρσενικον εν παση τη απαρτια και πασαν γυναικα ητις εγνωκεν κοιτην αρσενος ζωγρησατε αυτας

πασαν την απαρτιαν των γυναικων ητις ουκ οιδεν κοιτην αρσενος ζωγρησατε αυτας

And now kill every male among all children. But every woman who has not known the bed of a male, take them alive. All the women children who have not gone to the bed of a male, take them alive.

Num. 31:17-18

και ουτος ο λογος ον ποιησετε παν αρσενικον και πασαν γυναικα γινωσκουσαν κοιτην αρσενος αναθεματιετε

και ευρον απο των κατοικουντων ιαβις γαλααδ τετρακοσιας νεανιδας παρθενους αι ουκ εγνωσαν ανδρα εις κοιτην αρσενος και ηγον αυτας εις την παρεμβολης εις σηλω η εστιν εν γη χανααν

And this is the word that you will do: every male, and every woman who has known the bed of a male, you will destroy. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known a man in the bed of a male, and the brought them into the camp into Shiloh which is in the land of Canaan.

Judges 21:11-12

In each of these four verses, the phrase “bed of a male” is in relation to women who have not known that location, that is, women who were virgins.

In Leviticus, however, we have a different set up. Lev. 20:13 includes the phrase μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος.

In this verse, αρσενος (a male) is preceded by μετα (with), while κοιτην (a bed) is paired with the genitive γυναικος (of a woman). This agrees exactly with the Hebrew text, that is, with a male (in) a woman's bed.

Ἀρσενοκοῖται, on the other hand, is NOT derived from the word for bed, but from the verb meaning “lie down.” This verb, κειμαι, in some of its forms, uses the construction κοιτ-. Therefore ἀρσενοκοῖται does not mean male beds, but rather, those who lie with males.

From: hoperemains.com 

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.

For people calling this new acceptance of gays into the church heresy, it just doesn't fit the definition. Every heresy will also start to show it's ugly fruit, bleed out it's poison, it can't help itself. The only ugly fruit I see is not from the multitudes of LGBTQ following Christ in their sexuality, it's in the harsh spirit and cold heartlessness from those inside the Church to the homosexual they accuse and demand they leave their sexuality. Debating over years on social media, I have witnessed over and over loving and kind Christians turn into monsters when homosexuality is brought up. The poison that comes from how they believe bleeding out.

For those saying it's a 'new thing' in the Church and that alone makes it suspect, remember that the "Doctrine of (Bible) Inerrancy" started in the 19th Century. "Evangelical Christianity" only started in the 1700s. Even the "Ex-Gay" movement, which critics of gay acceptance love to embrace and legitimatize, only started in 1973.

What you see with gays becoming Christians and straight Christians accepting them is a great moving of the Holy Spirit only He can do, independently, all over the world at the same time. The Presbyterian church just now made the judgment as a church body to accept gays in ordination while gay-affirming Pentecostal churches in Brazil are exploding with new converts, from Evangelical mega-churches in Texas now embracing gays to gay voices within Orthodox Judaism finally being heard. Something is going on with homosexuals that is bringing them to God in a time like never before in countless numbers never seen with a speed that's making those in the Body of Christ head spin.

God is saying to hearts in His "Still Small Voice; "Accept those who are mine because they too hear my voice." The Bible did say God will pour out His Spirit in the last days. I truly believe gays are the last group breaking down the gates to rush into the Kingdom because as a community I believe they were only now mature and willing to accept God's calling to multiply it. Gays being the last group called into the Kingdom was a Prophetic Word given in the 70's by Pentecostals leaders

 

The question now is this, on what side will you stand on? Fighting the Holy Spirit pouring out to these people? Or praising God for those who were lost and now are found?

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