20.2.16
18.2.16
Helping Francis
Like with my Tim Keller post, I like to give sane and reasonable Christians who differ with me on the Bible and homosexuality a little time on my blog when I can find them.
Que Francis Chan.
I found this little gem from Francis. What he said from the 5:00 mark on made me replay it to make sure I heard him right with saying he can be convinced homosexuality isn't a sin if you can give him the argument from Scripture.
Que Francis Chan.
I found this little gem from Francis. What he said from the 5:00 mark on made me replay it to make sure I heard him right with saying he can be convinced homosexuality isn't a sin if you can give him the argument from Scripture.
31.1.16
Mad*esh Kad*esh
I touched on the Quedesh, also spelled Kadesh, whose spelling I'll use here. The Priesthood from Deuteronomy in this post. Granted, the Leviticus verses don't state directly; "It's the Kadesh cult practices being talked about in Leviticus and not a prohibition of homosexuality as a general rule," but two points, if true, will leave the connection with the Kadeshem to Leviticus without question for the naysayers.
2. That the Canaanites frowned on homosexuality outside of cult worship settings and that the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 can't be anything but homosexuality in the context of ONLY cult idolatry.
The first point is easily proven by the Bible Itself:
1. That homosexual cult prostitution already existed in Canaan before the time the Israelites entered the land.
The first point is easily proven by the Bible Itself:
Leviticus 20:5: "... then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut him off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Moloch."
1 Kings 14:24 and 22:46:
"There were even male shrine prostitutes Kadesh (qā·ḏêš) in the land... "
"He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (haq·qā·ḏêš)... "
This is also backed by the historical record.*
The second point clinches it because Leviticus 18;3 states the Israelites were not to do the practices of the Canaanites:
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Now if it can be shown that the Canaanites did not practice homosexuality as a norm outside of their cult ceremonies or even prohibited homosexual practice, that means homosexuality was not one of the Canaanite "practices" God is forbidding to the Israelites and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 falls ONLY in the 'cult male prostitution' category the Canaanites DID practice.
Records from the Canaanite civilization are silent on homosexuality either way, but In his book "The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship," Frederick Greenspahn states the Canaanite law codes where directly copied from Mesopotamian Law Codes and what do we find in MALC (Mesopotamian Law Code), Tablet A: 19, 20? A rumor of homosexuality being slanderous and a general prohibition of homosexuality outside of idolatry. We can now say homosexuality was not only not a "practice," but it was also prohibited by the Canaanites if they indeed copied Mesopotamian Law.
(note; there was no variance in views within the Mesopotamian Nations on homosexuality. What you read here is all there is on it.)
The Hittites would also have copied the Mesopotamian Law Codes on homosexuality because they lived in the same era and were close neighbors to the Canaanites, but nothing is stated outright about homosexuality either way with the Hittites. What we do have though are several Hittite historical documents that hint at how homosexuality was held by these people. One is the; "Siege of Ursu" text that had a Hittite army commander criticizing his men for acting as "Kulessar," what historians believe is acting like a passive homosexual. The other is an exorcism text called the "Ritual of Anniwiyani" whose purpose was to exorcise an "effeminate" demon.**
As for Egypt? The land the Israelites left to go to Canaan whose "practices" they were ALSO forbidden to follow by God? Even homosexual desire was condemned according to the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and Derrick Sherwin Bailey states the ancient Egyptians regarded homosexual practices as; "... morally objectionable and personally degrading."
So there you have it. Homosexuality was rejected by the Egyptians whom the children of Israel left and from the evidence shown, also forbidden by the Canaanites whose land the children of Israel were going into. This would make "homosexuality" not one of the practices God forbids in Leviticus with the two lands and that would make homosexuality ONLY in the context of Canaanite idolatry the Canaanites probably abhorred as a people outside of idolatry
This is an angle no researcher has gone into as far as I know.
"There were even male shrine prostitutes Kadesh (qā·ḏêš) in the land... "
"He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes (haq·qā·ḏêš)... "
This is also backed by the historical record.*
The second point clinches it because Leviticus 18;3 states the Israelites were not to do the practices of the Canaanites:
"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
Now if it can be shown that the Canaanites did not practice homosexuality as a norm outside of their cult ceremonies or even prohibited homosexual practice, that means homosexuality was not one of the Canaanite "practices" God is forbidding to the Israelites and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 falls ONLY in the 'cult male prostitution' category the Canaanites DID practice.
Records from the Canaanite civilization are silent on homosexuality either way, but In his book "The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship," Frederick Greenspahn states the Canaanite law codes where directly copied from Mesopotamian Law Codes and what do we find in MALC (Mesopotamian Law Code), Tablet A: 19, 20? A rumor of homosexuality being slanderous and a general prohibition of homosexuality outside of idolatry. We can now say homosexuality was not only not a "practice," but it was also prohibited by the Canaanites if they indeed copied Mesopotamian Law.
(note; there was no variance in views within the Mesopotamian Nations on homosexuality. What you read here is all there is on it.)
The Hittites would also have copied the Mesopotamian Law Codes on homosexuality because they lived in the same era and were close neighbors to the Canaanites, but nothing is stated outright about homosexuality either way with the Hittites. What we do have though are several Hittite historical documents that hint at how homosexuality was held by these people. One is the; "Siege of Ursu" text that had a Hittite army commander criticizing his men for acting as "Kulessar," what historians believe is acting like a passive homosexual. The other is an exorcism text called the "Ritual of Anniwiyani" whose purpose was to exorcise an "effeminate" demon.**
As for Egypt? The land the Israelites left to go to Canaan whose "practices" they were ALSO forbidden to follow by God? Even homosexual desire was condemned according to the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" and Derrick Sherwin Bailey states the ancient Egyptians regarded homosexual practices as; "... morally objectionable and personally degrading."
So there you have it. Homosexuality was rejected by the Egyptians whom the children of Israel left and from the evidence shown, also forbidden by the Canaanites whose land the children of Israel were going into. This would make "homosexuality" not one of the practices God forbids in Leviticus with the two lands and that would make homosexuality ONLY in the context of Canaanite idolatry the Canaanites probably abhorred as a people outside of idolatry
This is an angle no researcher has gone into as far as I know.
“Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.”
- Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics; p.130.
*Two more resources on the Kadesh backing my claim:
*Two more resources on the Kadesh backing my claim:
"The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament" by John Grey.
“The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Histoical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew qadesh-qedeshim” by Phyllis Bird.
**To the ancients, a passive male, willingly, was what they would have the closest definition of a "homosexual," at least in their minds. A male who was penetrative in a homosexual act, either to humiliate the defeated in battle or as a sexual outlet was never considered a male desiring other males.
How much the ancients knew about a 'gay orientation' as we understand it today is for another discussion.
**To the ancients, a passive male, willingly, was what they would have the closest definition of a "homosexual," at least in their minds. A male who was penetrative in a homosexual act, either to humiliate the defeated in battle or as a sexual outlet was never considered a male desiring other males.
How much the ancients knew about a 'gay orientation' as we understand it today is for another discussion.
27.1.16
If Your Name Isn't On It Gagnon...
Steven Tuell, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I found him by accident when I stumbled across his blog. What's unique about Mr. Tuell is that he was at the same theological seminary Robert Gagnon went to, but unlike Robert, he is gay affirming with the Bible.
In honor of Mr. Tuell who loves Appalachian music.
In honor of Mr. Tuell who loves Appalachian music.
19.1.16
11.1.16
10.1.16
Scholar James Brownson on Gagnon's "Gender Complementarity"
Reviews of Brownson's book; "Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships:"
*"Brownson does a great job of explaining the difficult verses in context and history. Over the years, as I have had conversations with conservative pastors in hopes that they would consider broader understanding of biblical texts, it is apparent that many of these pastors have relied heavily upon the writings of Robert Gagnon. Prof. Brownson tackles Gagnon's objections with ease. Gagnon is masterful at taking a verse, making a supposition, calling that a fact and creating a "biblical truth." Brownson skillfully confronts those assumptions...
If I were to pick ONE book, and have it placed on the desk of every conservative pastor in the United States, that book would be Brownson's book."
- Barnes&Noble review.
*"This work is the only one I know of that gives such extended attention to dissecting and deconstructing arguments against same-sex relationships based on "gender complimentarity." Brownson clearly defines the different ways of understanding what is at the heart of different gender complimentarity arguments, and then proceeds to dismantle these arguments through very careful and close readings of the relevant biblical texts, especially Genesis 1-3. His critical interaction with the complimentarity arguments of Robert Gagnon, who has written the strongest and most comprehensive work for the traditional view, is worth the price of the book."
- Amazon review.
*"Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can’t think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed (bold italics by author). True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” terms that incite more than they describe but as “traditionalist” and “revisionist.” And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon’s focus on the gender non-complementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon’s argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner)."
- Christian author Matt Rogers.
*"Brownson does a great job of explaining the difficult verses in context and history. Over the years, as I have had conversations with conservative pastors in hopes that they would consider broader understanding of biblical texts, it is apparent that many of these pastors have relied heavily upon the writings of Robert Gagnon. Prof. Brownson tackles Gagnon's objections with ease. Gagnon is masterful at taking a verse, making a supposition, calling that a fact and creating a "biblical truth." Brownson skillfully confronts those assumptions...
If I were to pick ONE book, and have it placed on the desk of every conservative pastor in the United States, that book would be Brownson's book."
- Barnes&Noble review.
*"This work is the only one I know of that gives such extended attention to dissecting and deconstructing arguments against same-sex relationships based on "gender complimentarity." Brownson clearly defines the different ways of understanding what is at the heart of different gender complimentarity arguments, and then proceeds to dismantle these arguments through very careful and close readings of the relevant biblical texts, especially Genesis 1-3. His critical interaction with the complimentarity arguments of Robert Gagnon, who has written the strongest and most comprehensive work for the traditional view, is worth the price of the book."
- Amazon review.
*"Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can’t think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed (bold italics by author). True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” terms that incite more than they describe but as “traditionalist” and “revisionist.” And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon’s focus on the gender non-complementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon’s argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner)."
- Christian author Matt Rogers.
14.11.15
Pastor Randy Morgan
A powerful sermon from a Pentecostal Pastor.
I'm taking a break from putting up new postings. I'll still check my blog on a daily bases for any new comments.
"By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you."
Amen.
Proverbs 24:3-4, Cor. 13:11.
I'm taking a break from putting up new postings. I'll still check my blog on a daily bases for any new comments.
"By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you."
Amen.
Proverbs 24:3-4, Cor. 13:11.
10.11.15
Charles Stanley
Lay Christians like to listen to "Preachers" rather than real Bible "Teachers." The latter can go to the Bible languages of Christ and Paul to get what both were saying. Having a familiarity with the ancient texts outside the Bible is also a tool they go to that shines a better light on certain passages. We know the story of the good Samaritan, but if you go to the outside sources of the Bible, you'll know that the Jews and the Samaritans were mortal enemies, and knowing that gives more depth to the Samaritan story with making him different from the previous two passerby's who saw the robbed man on the side of the road.
Old school "Preachers," like Charles Stanley, talk from a cursory read of the Bible that they picked up at a local Christian book store and that's the extent of their knowledge of the passages. Bible scholars are just too involved and they need you to invest in studying with them and the average Pew Christian just doesn't want to bother when they can have people like Stanley around to spoon-feed on subjects they don't have a vested interest in like homosexuality. It helps Stanley in that he comes off like a kindly grandpa who must know what he's talking about because he's been around longer than you.
Stanley did a segment on his "In Touch Ministries" show about a gay Christian whose parents are having all kinds of problems with him because he won't follow the Christianity of his parents' preachers who condemn him, instead, he follows the Christianity taught by teachers and that doesn't sit well with Stanley at all who makes it sound it's all about the gay Christian's "feelings." Stanley believes gays have no joy or happiness no matter what gays say. He once gave this corny line; "(Homosexuality) leads to one place of extreme emptiness where wind and sorrow breach the soul," what he would LIKE to believe. He hints the son of this couple is going to Hell, unlike a Tim Keller I just posted on, and that the parents should make the life of their Christian gay son miserable, bringing a misery, ironically, that isn't coming from homosexuality, but coming from his Christian parents with not accepting him and if they don't? They are disobeying God Himself according to Stanley.
A little story...
A few years ago a gay pride parade had a route going past his church. Needless to say, Stanley was furious and told his churchgoers to stand outside on the church steps and scream Scripture and condemnation at them (the media reported they screamed anti-gay slurs). Across the street was Methodist church St. Marks who instead of screaming and accusing, passed out plastic cups of water to the parade passerby's because it was a hot day. Who was the greater of the two with the witness of the Gospel?
Don't ask Stanley.
Old school "Preachers," like Charles Stanley, talk from a cursory read of the Bible that they picked up at a local Christian book store and that's the extent of their knowledge of the passages. Bible scholars are just too involved and they need you to invest in studying with them and the average Pew Christian just doesn't want to bother when they can have people like Stanley around to spoon-feed on subjects they don't have a vested interest in like homosexuality. It helps Stanley in that he comes off like a kindly grandpa who must know what he's talking about because he's been around longer than you.
Stanley did a segment on his "In Touch Ministries" show about a gay Christian whose parents are having all kinds of problems with him because he won't follow the Christianity of his parents' preachers who condemn him, instead, he follows the Christianity taught by teachers and that doesn't sit well with Stanley at all who makes it sound it's all about the gay Christian's "feelings." Stanley believes gays have no joy or happiness no matter what gays say. He once gave this corny line; "(Homosexuality) leads to one place of extreme emptiness where wind and sorrow breach the soul," what he would LIKE to believe. He hints the son of this couple is going to Hell, unlike a Tim Keller I just posted on, and that the parents should make the life of their Christian gay son miserable, bringing a misery, ironically, that isn't coming from homosexuality, but coming from his Christian parents with not accepting him and if they don't? They are disobeying God Himself according to Stanley.
A little story...
A few years ago a gay pride parade had a route going past his church. Needless to say, Stanley was furious and told his churchgoers to stand outside on the church steps and scream Scripture and condemnation at them (the media reported they screamed anti-gay slurs). Across the street was Methodist church St. Marks who instead of screaming and accusing, passed out plastic cups of water to the parade passerby's because it was a hot day. Who was the greater of the two with the witness of the Gospel?
Don't ask Stanley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
copyright
