2.10.16
Trouble Finds Me
C. Wayne Mayhall, who wrote the article, starts with telling us about his meeting with the Reverend Robyn Provis of MCC in Minneapolis. By his account, she stated that the sure fire way to stop inter-faith dialogues is for Evangelicals to bring up the supposed "Clobber Passages," what she believes is an underhanded tactic. First, this is the opinion of one woman. I, and all who advocate gay-affirming theology from the standpoint the Bible is God-breathed, not only want to engage these passages, we HAVE to engage these passages. Second, I believe he only brings this conversation up is because he's implying gay affirming Christians try to avoid having to look at these passages.
This article is big on personality and little with explaining arsenokoitai. I'm asking my self now why am I even at this party?
He next quotes Theologians Douglas Stuart and Gordon D. Fee. Now Fee is a respected theologian giving a sound approach with the quote. What Mayhall might have missed is Fee admits arsenokoitai is 'almost never (?)' used to mean "homosexual" and Paul would have used other terminology if he in fact wanted to convey that. Reading Fee, who's a prominent member in the First Assembly of God Church, you come away with a sense, at least with the 1 Corinthians passage, he knows it probably doesn't mean homosexuality as we understand it today, but his church saying; "Clearly the Bible states homosexual practice is sin" stops him from coming right out and saying it. I wish Fee would man up and be true to the Gospel instead of pandering to the prejudices of men that keeps him in the contented place he has in the AoG church I once belonged to. Only you will answer for your cowardice Gordon. God forgive you.
Not to take away from Mel White being a relevant voice in the dialogue with the Church on homosexuality, but I really don't see why his opinion is here in what should be a hermeneutics discussion on arsenokoitai. He is not a legitimately credentialed "Theologian" as claimed in the article and the only reason I see White here is because it's of his opinion; "... the Greek word arsenokoitai, used for “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, seems to refer to same-sex behavior," what the author if this article wants to establish.
Mayhall then quotes White in saying; "Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to customers of ‘the effeminate call boys’ (White is talking about Boswell).
White says a biased translator put the word "homosexual" in the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages (he's talking about Bruce Metzger, translator and editor of the RSV Bible).
Stanton L. Jones is a Psychologist and is as much as a Theologian as White. As with White, I don't know why his opinion is here in a hermeneutics discussion. Asking an Evangelical Psychologist about asenokoitai is like asking an Evangelical Ear, Nose and Throat Doctor about malakoi.
I do give credit to Mayall with including a gay-affirming theologian with legitimate credentials and who's opinion should be the only one that matters here. It's even stated; "Theologian John H. Elliott has written one of the most thorough studies of 1Corinthians 6:9-10 to date."
This ends on Gagnon giving his 2 cents.
This is yet another example of why of this blog dedicates so much time on Robert Gagnon. Over and over Gagnon will be cited in discussions like these as the final say.
This is my response to Gagnon's 4 "propositions."
1. Ironically, Gagnon is broadening the Levitical prohibition from it's unqualified nature of Moloch worship forbidden to the ancient Jews entering the land of Canaan to narrow the ambiguous nature of arsenokoitai.
Proposition 2 is deceptive. The accounts of arsenokoitai being used outside of vice lists are exploitative acts of homosexual rape or pederasty (Zeus raping Ganymede, Nass sexually exploiting Adam).
3. This is refuted by 1 Timothy's absence of malakoi. Koites when used as a suffix in compounds always denotes a penetrative aggressor, never the passive. A passive homosexual would not be prohibited here.
4. A circular argument (what Gagnon does often). Romans speaks on 1 Corinthians as prohibitive of homosexuality - 1 Corinthians echoes back to Romans prohibiting homosexuality.
Romans should be unpacked according to it's own context. It also begs the question. If Romans prohibits homosexuality Irregardless of it's idolatry context, why doesn't Paul use arsenokoitai in Romans?
Equip also has less than fair article writers like Joseph Gudel who wrote these little tidbits:
" ... even from a secular perspective the unbiased reader is forced to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy nor a natural lifestyle.
"... influencing children at a very early age is part of the "gay rights agenda."
"It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God [italics his]."
Nope, no personal bias from Mr. Gudel here.
I also commented (RQC) on this site and my reply button was yanked away, stopping me from furthering the debate with making me look like I stopped responding. A Catamite is not a type of "homosexual." The closest you can come with catamite to any 'type' of homosexuality is a boy being feminized for sexual purposes or as an insult you are one to a grown man.
Brent Bolin wrote an excellent post on the error of people like Bruce who think Strong's Concordance should interpret the Bible.
29.9.16
Connie Fell On The Icy Sidewalk Again
He starts the post by mentioning Gagnon (Gagnon doesn't believe the Bible is completely inspired, especially the writings of Paul, but that's glossed over by anti-gay Bible believers for the sake of embracing Gagnon), "Brownsville Revival" leftover Michael Brown, THAT Mohler and "Fake On-Line Degree" James White who have all been talked about on my own fine little blog. He then goes into insulting my comrades in arms in this homosexuality and the Bible debate by saying they're part of a “Christian” QUILTBAG mafia (I'll make that my costume for Halloween). He has my man Brownson's book cover on a post for some reason, a book he never read (I can't say anything because I didn't read it either), and bad stock photos that he thinks drive his points home.
Was the Bible unreliably translated by uninspired men who tried their best or other translators who let their bias bleed into what they translated? Absolutely. There isn't a scholar on either side of this debate who would say otherwise. Was Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote? Absolutely. We aren't talking about the words of Paul, we're talking about what happened to those words once they left Paul and fell into the hands of others with the book of Revelations saying what will be the consequences for those who change those words.
I'll just respond to what he wrote on his 5 points and leave you to go to his blog with what I was responding to.
1. Saul, Paul to his Gentile friends, was a Pharisee who became an Apostle to the GENTILES (Galatians 2:8). That’s rather important to this all. Actually, Paul did bow to Greek social convention with terminology and he says so in Galatians 2:15. He used Greek slang and the ironic example is "koitai" which is vulgar slang for f*cking (Paul goes vulgar slang again in Philippians 3:8 saying the Greek slang for "sh*t").
Paul never saw himself as a lofty prophet, just the opposite (1 Corinthians 15:9, Ephesians 3:8).
The fact Paul DOESN'T use any Greek word for a homosexual man or even the slang word for a lesbian (Tribas) common in Paul's day (tribas) proves MY point Paul never meant to condemn homosexuality. If he did, he would first go to words that would have been absolutely clear he was talking about homosexuals (Greek slang Kinaidhos and Kolombaras for passive and masculine homosexuals) and not the mysterious Arsenokoite or the "I have an endless slew of meanings" word Malakoi. Remember, the Hellenistic Jews hearing Paul were as fluent in koine Greek as the Gentiles sitting beside them.
When this blogger writes; "The Spirit wrote in harmony with what he had previously written (which is important to remember)," He's only talking about Romans in the context of idolatry (Romans 1:22,23), that nasty habit man had of worshiping images of Goddesses and animals since he was created.
Now here is why this blogger and almost all anti-gay apologists who breathe think the word means "homosexuals." They say Paul got it from Leviticus 18:22 and to them, this is their "Gotcha!" moment. But this is the problem. If Leviticus doesn't condemn "homosexuality," neither will 1 Corinthians and you can put enough doubt with their claim Leviticus condemns homosexuality as a general rule by going to the actual Hebrew of the Leviticus verse that shows it's not so clear-cut as they want it to be. He links to the verse in the Hebrew that proves nothing and a follow-up link to the poor translation of the verse in the same Hebrew that proves the same nothing. I'm glad he brings up Numbers 31:17-18 and Judges 21:11-12 because it shows the variations of 'arseno' (male) and 'koiten' (beds) found in other places in the Bible have nothing to do with homosexuality, but in fact referenced hetero sex, MY point. I don't picture the Jewish believers pulling the gentile believers aside and saying; "O.K. So Paul is trying to tell you he's getting 'arsenokoite' from one of our ancient books you've never heard of. Thank G-d you had us explain it to you because how would you have known otherwise??? Now pass me the pork ribs I couldn't eat before."
Another blogger made a good point saying; "The idea (Paul got the word from Leviticus) 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."
"Not all scholars are created equal…"
…and not all are honest... including bloggers like yourself
2. What's funny is Unger starts off his 2nd point by saying; "The Bible decides what the Bible means by the terms it uses, not some pagan writers who come centuries later... "
Yet who does he go to later down on his point? Pagan writings that used the word closest to the time of Paul prove the opposite of what he's saying. The Sibylline Oracles puts the word in the category of SOCIAL injustice.
[This is how it works. If you can't find a context of a Bible word in other places of the Biblical narrative, arsenokoite is put in a vice list by Paul that gives it no context, you then go outside the Bible that uses the word at the closest time of it's Bible usage. There isn't one Bible scholar who doesn't do this]
Now this is where the blog author tries to fool you.
He first links to a part of Aristides Apology 13 in saying it's condemning "homosexuality," but this is only talking about Greek Gods who transform themselves into animals to lay with men AND women. It says more about bestiality or God/human sexual relations than homosexuality. Aristides wrote this to the notorious homosexual Emperor Hadrian as a goodwill gesture in explaining the worship practices of those in Hadrian's empire. It would have been stupid to write a condemnation of homosexuality, what Unger believes Aristides is doing here, to the gay emperor who might have pulled a Harod with John the Baptist act on him. This is all shown by Unger in his further examples below of putting what uninspired writers have to say on the level of the Holy Spirit-breathed inspired writers of the Bible, a favorite practice of Ungers' crowd because they expect and get the hatred of homosexuality from the writings of Catholic Church fathers.
He then says; "That would suggest that the usage of the term is in harmony with the previous uses of the term in the Bible (1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10) as well as outside the bible (Sibylline Oracles 2:70-78, the Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians [which is a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9], The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians [again, a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9], the Acts of John 36, Clement of Alexandria’s Instructor 3.11 [again, citation of 1 Cor. 6:9])."
Well yeah, it would put the term in the harmony it was intended, but the Epistle of Ignatius or Polycarp he names give no indication it's about homosexuality. It's just another word put in their vice lists like with Paul's. The Acts of John 36 text reads as; " ...so also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoitēs, the thief and all of this band…” To put "homosexual" between 'robber,' 'swindler,' and 'thief' breaks the flow in the verse, but sex traders (for profit), also linked to the arsenokoitai word, would make perfect sense here. Notice Unger doesn't bring up other Christian writings like The Epistle of Barnabas who uses the word for pederasty or John the Faster who uses it for oral/anal sex between men and women? Unger will leave these and other sources out because they disprove his entire argument it was unanimous in the Church record the word means 'homosexual.'
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae gives nothing on the word other than where you can find its placement in a vice list from Christian and pagan sources.
Boswell wrote:
"It was during the 4th Century the word became confused and lost its original significance, so by the 6th Century it was used to designate activities as different as child molesting and anal intercourse between husband and wife."
If Unger really cared about the Jewish perspective he's always bringing up, he'd know the Babylonian Talmud uses the word in the context of only pederasty with Maimonides doing the same. What? Did he forget to mention that to you? The Talmud is only second to the Torah itself to the Jews even today.
Nothing this blog writer has linked or written or pointed out what others have written indicates that this word means a homosexual or homosexuality as it stands alone, it just isn't there.
I agree with him here in that neither Moicheia nor Porneia would be terms used by Paul to mean homosexual sex.
4. Number 4 says nothing.
"I've convinced myself I'm right, so I must be right. Find me more cheap-looking stock photos!"
- Lyndon Unger.
5. Unger is right and the guy he's refuting on Facebook is wrong. Malakoi (lit; softie) ISN'T in 1 Timothy, but again this proves MY point in grand style by going back to my two points I've put on my blog before.
If arsenokoita' 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. Many with arsenokoitai after Paul, and never are they paired together.
19.9.16
Snowed: James White and Romans 1 Examined
18.9.16
Connie Flipped Out On Shrooms
"To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel... "
Yet this is completely lost on most Christians like the ones above who feel they need to have special round table discussions on homosexuality and THIS is hypocritical to the unbelieving World.
When you discriminate against the LGBTQ community because you think your faith gives you this entitlement, this is bigotry by its very definition YOU think is God-backed and what is "bigotry" everyone can understand? A bigoted belief is one that respects, enforces or socially/culturally maintains enforcement of oppression on a disenfranchised minority for no useful reason other than prejudice, belief, and tradition. But it also is a belief that perpetuates stigma, stereotypes, misinformation, or cruelty to disenfranchised minorities. Even if the person believes their argument is sound, if it hurts, defames, dehumanizes, disenfranchises, stigmatizes, or insults the being of a person, it is BIGOTED.
Bigotry should not even be in the vocabulary of a Christian with another also created in the image of God.
The 3 tries to get around this by saying; "Well the Bible says..." But Paul shuts them down by asking; "What have we to do with the affairs of the world? Nothing." We are only called to live at peace with our neighbor, walk 2 miles when they ask us to walk 1, and love them like a favorite child.
Instead of TRYING to not sound bigoted and getting frustrated when you still come off like one, why not take a good look at yourself and see if the unbelieving world has reason to see you as a bigot? Paul says himself we are to examine ourselves and these men have missed the mark. The "World" isn't irrational and they can see when a wrong is being done to another no matter the reason you give.
I have nothing to say about these two old goats other than they should be put to bed with a big glass of warm milk.
12.9.16
Less Summer, More Here
Backstory
..................................
Triple Double Backflip.
Remember Trey? Now what?
2.9.16
Translating Caelum Aetherum
Like I've said before, somewhere, I think, translators are imperfect men who never claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because they have so poisoned me with what they have done with the Biblical verses on homosexuality, I don't see them (some didn't even bother to hide their (bias) as having the final say on anything. They should be tour guides of the Word, not like how they see themselves, expounders of it. We tend to look at the Bible translators as wise sages in a torch-lit cave writing with a quill pen, holy fire over their heads. The reality is they're just doing paperwork on ancient languages. If you look at the panel of interpreters of the RSV from old photos, you'll see they're just sitting in a circle with their desks in a class school room looking bored, bickering over what means what, and counting the minutes they can go home to have meatloaf while watching the Ed Sullivan Show.
We need to be in the mindset of not blindly accepting what any translator/theologian/teacher/preacher of the Word says to us.
27.8.16
"1946" Movie In 7D
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 Metzger 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 Christians 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 gave the word "homosexual" its proper place in this one translation."
But 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 in a 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, a broad condemnation of homosexuality if Paul is going to Leviticus that narrows down only a male homosexual act for condemnation. The word is wrong in Metzger's translation because the descriptives in prior translations are wrong. The 1940's-50s saw homosexuals as mentally sick deviant child predators who were institutionalized and routinely lobotomized. This was the world Metzger saw homosexuals in his time. This would be the stamp he would put in his translations that would destroy countless by those who just needed that one word, and he couldn't care less.
They find homosexuality disgusting or at some level distasteful is what it really boils down to for most when they give up hiding behind Scripture. They love going to bogus science studies of disease and mortality rates as a reason to hate me. Me going to an early grave racked with disease is a reason to have a problem with me? If anything, that should be making you show me the love of Christ MORE, considering my short and miserable existence on Earth. Or how all humans would die out if we found ourselves on a mysterious island with no heterosexuals to procreate. Like we were somehow air-lifted there in our sleep by unknown entities or all procreation would just stop if all heterosexuals just evaporated off the face of the Earth one day. Statistically, a society can't be all straight or all gay in orientation. I guess bisexuals would also not exist.
All this is very telling and backs what I've always believed. The Bible comes in second with why they have a homosexuality issue. The Bible is the backup they need to justify how strongly they feel against homosexuality, it's a reference, not the reason. They think the Bible is somehow saying to them; "I have your back with whatever else you have on these perverts." For those who say I'm driven by my homosexuality to read the Bible how I read it, aren't you reading the Bible through the lens of your own heterosexuality? Your bias would be stronger than mine because it was drilled into you starting at birth (blue is for boys and pink is for girls) and reaffirmed to you every day of your life.
All I care about is the Word of the eternal and living God to guide me on this subject and I don't need to go anywhere else. Too bad you people can't say the same.
26.8.16
Bad Blood
Whether Andrew knows this or not, everyone pretty much knows Andrew believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. The thing with Andrew is that he stretches the love of Christ message over all of it like it's a big Persian rug of Christian love that he hopes hides what the Bible says on homosexuality for the time being. He thinks about how he feels about this personally he can also sweep under the rug even though it leaves a big, fat, lump that makes you ask; "What's that big lump under the pretty rug he's hiding?" I'm convinced Andrew will never come right out and state how he really feels no matter how much you try to pry it out of him. Now there is something to be said about "FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE! FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE!" But this doesn't answer the big Bible question on homosexuality. Now you have TWO lumps under the rug. One is what the Bible says on homosexuality and the other is Andrew's opinion on it.
One time John and Andrew came to blows on Twitter with what was bound to happen with two Christian powerhouses on the big issue of homosexuality. I understood John's frustration with Andrew because bringing a gay kid into the faith saying; "God loves you and the Church was wrong to say bad things to you, but now look at the fine print of the Bible whenever you have the time" CAN be devastating to the kid with finding out God's love is conditional with their homosexuality. I'm sure Andrew's reasoning is; "Don't let the Bible get in the way of a good witness to dem gays!... They'll learn it later." When the smoke cleared, Andrew left to fight other battles with gays who had suspicions about his motivations AND anti-gay Christians who think Andrew wants to hide their gay condemning Gospel message (they're right). John said on his blog about the exchange with Andrew:
"I don’t expect to hear from him (Andrew) again. But I’m confident that if I do, he won’t say anything beyond how important it is to continue the dialogue, to keep building bridges, to “live in the tension,” to reach out in love, fuzzy, fuzzy, blah, blah, tastes great, less filling. Because selling that kind of sugar-powdered waffle is how Andrew makes his money."
Later, when John received criticism for what looked like a less-than-Christian response to Andrew, he went further stating:
"... folks have made the point that Andrew’s work is valuable because he is “building bridges”—because he is, as one reader put it, “creating stepping stones from one end of the spectrum to the other.” They appreciate Marin establishing a neutral, non-judgmental, values-free middle ground where parties on either side of the gay-Christian debate can meet to together discuss and explore the issue.
And I certainly understand how great that sounds.
But it’s not great. It doesn’t even make sense. Because when it comes to the issue of LGBT equality, there is no middle ground. There can’t be. The Christian/LGBT issue is a moral issue. And moral issues are by definition about right and wrong.
And this particular moral issue is one of no small consequence. There couldn’t be more at stake with it. The Christians on one side of this debate are claiming that, in the eyes of God, those on the other side are less than human."
Whoooosh! Goodbye middle ground.
John goes on...
"No matter how strenuously he or she might deny it, any Christian who fails to forthrightly and unambiguously assert that there is nothing whatsoever inherently immoral about same-sex relationships has chosen a side in this conflict. They’ve chosen to perpetuate the maligning, ostracizing, and degradation of gay people by Christians. If you don’t stop one person from abusing another, what good are you to the victim? To a starving man, the person who can’t decide whether or not they want to share their food is no better than the person who outright refuses to."
... well said, John.
I bring up this incident between John and Andrew because I'm seeing this being played out more and more now. Those like John and myself having to confront the Andrews of the world with hard Scripture (in our case, affirming) over their exuberance of love and acceptance that's hiding a bill of goods that says you have to be alone for the rest of your life or make an opposite-sex relationship work once your foot is in salvation's door.