The Homosexuality Question, Answered: Not A Sin

“God DOES state that homosexuality is DETESTABLE” Bible Gay Hat

I read those words today on my computer screen within a comment that mostly centered on talking up how loving the commenter actually was. “It’s not ME who hates fags, it’s GOD!” so, so many Christian believers say, in a bewildering variety of verbiage.

Not so fast, lady. Here was my response:

The biblical passages you are thinking of when you say, “God DOES state that homosexuality is DETESTABLE” are Genesis 19:1-5, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 in the Old Testament, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Romans 1:21-31 in the New Testament.

Let’s take a look at these, shall we?

Genesis 19:1-5, in which the townspeople of Sodom want to “know” the angels. First of all, rape is not equal to homosexuality. Rape is equal to violence, domination, control, and humiliation. Second, Sodom’s fate had already been decided at the time these angels were in town. Ezekiel tells us the real reason: “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NIV) The “detestable things” are further explained in Hebrew sources as a whole laundry list of cruelties to strangers, and toward anyone displaying compassion for another. Much killing and maiming is described.

Leviticus 18:21 (NIV) “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 (NIV) “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

This is most probably the place where you think that God said homosexuality is detestable, but there are several problems with that. First off, the prohibitions in Leviticus are specifically for the Levites, not everyone. Second, Jews decided a long time ago that all of them had a little Levite in them and have been following these rules, but not like you’d think. In Greek times, many Hellenized Jews participated in the Greek system of pederasty. But instead of having anal sex, they had intercrural intercourse (between the closed legs). In modern times, many loving gay Jewish couples only explore their love orally. In other words, God doesn’t hate homosexuality, just butt-sex, and then only if you’re a Levite. Third, who listens to Leviticus anyway? Certainly not Christians! How many anti-immigration “fencers” do you think are Christian? Considering the rhetoric I’ve heard from that side of that political issue, I’d think a whole lot. Yet, in between two of the most (in)famous passages in the bible, there is this little gem: Leviticus 19:34 “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” This isn’t some dumb restriction on blended fabrics or shellfish. This is about being kind to strangers, a Jesus-approved sentiment. Yet many Christians still cannot follow this tenet. Why should we pay attention to Leviticus while you yourselves seem to feel quite free to ignore it? EVEN when the N.T. backs it up??

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NAS) “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJ) “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”

The word that was translated in these two passages as “homosexual” and “sodomite” is arsenokoitais. It is a slang term used in the bible only in these two places. Here’s what Paul R. Johnson wrote about this word, for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue):

“The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy.”

In other words, God’s not keen on male sluts.

And lastly, we have Romans 1:21-31, the meat of which is contained in Romans 1:26-27:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Once again, there are several considerations here. First off, this extensive description of behaviors contained in the entire 10 lines is the SYMPTOMS of idol worship. Second, you should note that the women “EXCHANGED natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” and the men “In the same way the men also ABANDONED natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. In other words, the idol worshipers WERE STRAIGHT. Third, Romans 2 offers you up some pretty stiff penalty for getting all judgey after reading Romans 1: Romans 2:1-4:

“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”

This is pretty much everything the bible has to say about gay stuff, and as I just showed, it’s all refutable. You’re actually on much firmer ground (excuse the pun) if you believe based on the Bible that the world is flat, as there are over 75 passages in both testaments describing the earth as flat, fixed, or at the center of the universe. Go figure.

EDIT 8/21/21: I should’ve done this earlier, but I should attribute Matthew Vines as a reference for this blog post. I didn’t actually re-watch his speech The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality when I answered this person in a comment and inadvertently wrote my first blog post. I did it from memory, and a few additional references on-the-fly. But the effort I made WAS essentially a re-hash of his awesome speech, and he should be credited.

Part II:  Jesus DID Say Something

Part III: Pro-Marriage Equality…Because the Bible Tells Me So?

About these ads

About thomsense

Just a domesticated housemonkey with too much time to think about stuff.
This entry was posted in Bible, Clobber Passages, Living, Politics, Prejudice, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to The Homosexuality Question, Answered: Not A Sin

  1. Neither Mr. vines nor you apparently have the facts…

    Lately Matthew Vines has been making waves, claiming to be a Christian that loves the Bible and Christianity, but as Jesus said…

    Matthew 7:16-20
    16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
    17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
    18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
    19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
    20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

    Lest someone think that I am saying that he is a false prophet (as in one who foretells the future), the term prophet in the Greek can mean either one who foretells, or forthtelling…which means expounding upon something. Mr. Vines, according to the Scriptures, is not a Christian. I have no doubt that he claims to be one, but his fruit demonstrates otherwise.

    In an article published on “Upworthy” (a web-based article chauffeur of supposed truth, but apparently they don’t check the articles published on their web site for factualness – otherwise Mr. Vines’ article would not be included), claiming only 6 passages of Scripture in the Bible that deal with homosexuality. Not only is he wrong on that basic tenet, but his conclusion and means of explicating the Scriptures he uses, are both out the window as far as any real and sound examination goes. Vines claims that he did “intensive study” on the issue and came to the conclusion that God does not speak against homosexual acts in Scripture, but against other sexual based misbehavior.

    His first point in the article in trying to make us believe that homosexuality is not a sin in God’s eyes, is the story in Genesis 19 where God sends angels disguised as men into Sodom to pull Lot and his family out before God rains down destruction upon it. Vine’s claims that:

    For centuries, this story was interpreted as God’s judgment on same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described is a threatened gang rape.

    Maybe it escapes Mr. Vines’ reading comprehension, but gang rape behavior was same-sex, homosexual behavior, while both rape and homosexual behavior are both condemned by God as punishable by death…so exactly how he thinks the fact of “gang rape” homosexual behavior is any less homosexual than a one-on-one homosexual rape encounter is any different, is beyond any sense or soundness of mind. Case in point, his first claim that the story of Sodom does not mean “God’s judgment on same-sex relations” is based upon his bias leading his mind where he wants to go, NOT where the Scriptures lead us.

    His next attempt at decrying God’s judgment upon Sodom for homosexual lifestyles, is in quoting Ezekiel 16:49…might I add, out of context…

    Ezekiel 16:49
    Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

    Vines tries to tell us that the sin of Sodom was “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,” and not aiding the poor and needy. The problem with Mr. Vines’ exegesis is, however, that he breaks several hermeneutical principles of bible interpretation, especially that of Context. When we read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 16 we come to see that God is addressing Jerusalem, and in His address He uses the term Samaria as a figure of speech for the northern kingdom of Israel, and He uses the term Sodom as a figure of speech for the southern kingdom of Judah…which together made up the nation of Israel.

    Before Mr. Vines tries to exegete any more Scripture, he really needs to first drop his homosexual-based bias and then learn Biblical Hermeneutics (and apply some common sense). God was not addressing the city of Sodom which had been destroyed now for over 1,500 years – He is addressing the sins of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which He does quite often and refers to them as sisters, among other things. In short, Mr. Vines’ second attempt at making homosexual behavior likable to God’s standard of obedience flies in the face of Scripture, biblical hermeneutics, and common sense rendering of the text he uses.

    Mr. Vines next attack comes upon Leviticus 18:22, where God says…

    Leviticus 20:13
    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

    He goes on to claim that…

    Other things called abominations in the Old Testament include having sex during a woman’s menstrual period, eating pork, rabbit, or shell fish, and charging interest on loans, but they’re part of the Old Testament law code, which was fulfilled by Jesus.

    Part of the issue here is that Mr. Vines doesn’t know part of what he is talking about, or else is he purposely deceiving those who might read his article. Christ did NOT come and fulfill the ceremonial laws of “unclean foods,” neither does He have anything to do with fulfilling sexual intercourse with a woman on her menstrual period, nor charging interest on loans. The law code which Jesus came and fulfilled was the covenant law of the Old Covenant, which is the Decalogue (the 10 Commandments). All of the other laws stemming from these were social and ceremonial laws, and nothing which Christ fulfilled.

    By his inference, Mr. Vines is trying to tell us that Christ took up into Himself homosexual sins and fulfilled any law speaking against it, and I am sorry to say that he does not understand what he is claiming nor trying to make us believe. Since homosexuality is against nature as God created it, Christ would not take up into Himself and fulfill a sinful behavior so that people may go around committing homosexual acts and be forgiven when they ask, yet continuing practicing a homosexual lifestyle. It seems to me that Mr. Vines wants to eat his candy and go to heaven too, but God does not work like that, and Mr. Vines is perverting the Scriptures in his attempt to make the general public (and worse, Christians) accept his thesis.

    He continues with Hebrews 8:13 where he correctly (to my great surprise) reads the verse as saying that Christ is the end of the law of the Old Testament. He is correct there, but then sadly fails to understand that when Christ came on the scene and fulfilled the old law of the Old Covenant, He also established the new law of the New Covenant, which is called the Law of Christ (which I am surprised he did not try to twist in his efforts here, but perhaps he does somewhere else that I have not read yet).

    Vines goes on in another failing attempt to exegete Romans 1:26-17…

    Romans 1:26-27
    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
    27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were inflamed for one another, men in men committing shameless acts and receiving in themselves the natural recompense for their actions.

    …he tries to make us believe that what Paul is REALLY talking about here is lust…not homosexuality, but lust. He says that “the behavior he condemns is lustful. He makes no mention of love, commitment, or faithfulness,” meaning that if a man just lusts to have sexual intercourse with another man, without loving him, or committing himself to his partner, or being faithful to his partner, then it is sin. But, if the two homosexual partners love each other, commit to each other and are faithful to each other, then God does not condemn them to hell. Exactly where he gets this from the text is anyone’s guess, but he does not get it from the text, and that is the main issue here with this failed attempt. Paul’s CLEAR implication is homosexual behavior, but Mr. Vines cannot see that because he falls victim to the first part of Paul’s full statement…

    Romans 1:18-22
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
    19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
    20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
    21 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.
    22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

    Vines goes on in his attack on the Scriptures by claiming…

    His description of same-sex behavior is based solely on a burst of excess and lust. In the ancient world, same-sex behavior mainly occurred between adult men and adolescent boys, between masters and their slaves, or in prostitution. Most of the men engaged in those practices were married to women, so same-sex behavior was widely seen as stemming from out of control lust and vice of excess, like gluttony and drunkenness. And while Paul labeled same sex behavior unnatural, he says in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that for men to wear their hair long also goes against nature, and most Christians interpret that as a reference to cultural conventions.

    First, his claim that homosexual behavior was seen “as stemming from out of control lust and vice of excess, like gluttony and drunkenness” is no where supported in any research that I have been able to locate. This claim appears to be a fabrication…although I must also point out that this article is found on an internet source and not in a religious or science journal of any kind, which simply means that one can claim anything he wants to and does not need to supply any kind of reference material where he supposedly gleaned this information from.

    Second, the link between Paul calling homosexual behavior unnatural, and men wearing long hair as unnatural, is a leap in the extreme. Homosexual acts are unnatural because God created man and woman, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…and if He had, we would not be here to argue the point because sexual intercourse has two purposes: (1) for procreation (and no homosexual couple has ever produced a child – BECAUSE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS UNNATURAL), and (2) for sexual pleasure. Homosexual acts are unnatural because God created the male organ (A) specifically for the female organ (B), NOT for the excretory system (C). That may be a bit graphic, but those are the facts.

    When a male engages in a homosexual sex act with another male, he chooses to engage in an act which is as unnatural as human beings sprouting wings and flying. A man can strap on a pair of man-made wings and flap his arms and perhaps fly artificially, but that does not make the incident a natural one. When Paul addresses long hair he addresses men who might let their hair grow out down to the floor, and as he says, a woman’s hair is given to her as a covering. If she grows it out long enough, and pulls it to the front of her body, it covers her…but that really isn’t the point here. While hair may have been a cultural convention as Vines states, homosexual behavior was not. What’s more, Paul was addressing Romans, not Jews. God’s people already knew that homosexual behavior was a vile and gross act, but in Rome – in the spiritual darkness and void of God’s truth – they practiced such things, and so Paul was addressing those practices according to the revelation God had given to him. In short, Mr. Vines fails again, both in his exegesis of the Scriptures and in applying solid methods and principles of biblical interpretation.

    Vines goes on to say…

    In the last two likely references to same-sex behavior in the Bible, two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are included in lists of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom. Many modern translators have rendered these terms as sweeping statements about gay people, but the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world.

    First, malakoi does not specifically mean homosexual behavior, so I will not address it.
    Second, the second word is arsenokoites, not arsenokoitai (which is the plural masculine form of the word). It is formed from two words; arsen (male) and koite (bed, bed-chambering), in which bed-chambering means sexual intercourse. This word specifically deals with a male who “beds” or “bed-chambers” another male: Homosexual acts. Vines is correct in repeating that those who engage in homosexual acts will not inherit God’s kingdom (and yet he appears to be living that very lifestyle…so what is he really saying), but then he goes off and makes a straight up lie to his readers when he claims that “the concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in the ancient world,”

    If it did not, then, what was Paul talking about in Romans? I hope that people reading Mr. Vines’ articles are smart enough to see the obvious confusion in which he swims, and rejects his surmisings…but obviously my hope is thwarted, for the person who apparently posted his article claims to believe his nonsense, and also claims to be a Christian. It is sad to see people who have obviously been acquainted with church in their lives yet never come to know Christ personally, because such people go out of the church (or even worse, remain within the church) and listen so the nonsense such as what we have been discussing here. Yes, modern translators (in Vines’ words) render these terms as sweeping statements against homosexuals – because that is EXACTLY what they are.

    Vines goes on…

    Yes, Paul did not take a positive view of same-sex relations, but the context he was writing in is worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships. The Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason why faithful Christians can’t support their gay brothers and sisters. It’s time.

    First, Paul’s words are NOT “worlds apart from gay people in committed, monogamous relationships,” that is what Mr. Vines has come to believe based upon his bias for homosexuals. The homosexual sex act is not blurred, softened, nor tempered by “committed, monogamous relationships,” and to claim as such demonstrates just how far his claimed love for the Scriptures and God goes. Just as in Romans 1, men become lovers of themselves and what they want, and so set God aside, all the while claiming to put God first. The homosexual acts of a woman with another woman, or a man with another man, is what God commands is an abomination in His sight, and no committed or monogamous homosexual relationship is sanctioned by God as righteous.

    Second, the bible does address sexual orientation (but definitely not same-sex marriage, because addressing homosexuality IS addressing same-sex marriage – it is an abomination and a sin in God’s eyes), and to say that it doesn’t is Mr. Vines’ bias speaking again, NOT the Scriptures. If a man’s bias is strong enough, it will cause him to see the color red as blue, and in psychology that is called schizophrenia (a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements).

    Third, a person who is practicing homosexual behavior is not a Christian, for a Christian practices obedience to Christ and the Scriptures, and one who is practicing homosexual behavior is not walking in obedience to God or Christ according to the Scriptures. Therefore, no Christian has a homosexual “brother” or “sister,” Mr. Vines is out in left field with that statement.

    Vines states in the beginning of his article that his slant on the Scriptures he presents to others actually changed his parent’s minds on God’s stand against homosexual behavior. I have seen this before, where a parent or parents just can’t deal with the thought of their child going to hell for the rest of eternity for their chosen lifestyle (for whatever reason), so they make friends with the sin, disregard God’s Word on the subject, and choose against the facts to believe the lie. Otherwise its just too maddening to think of your child burning for all eternity.

    However, Jesus said that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and that His teachings would set a father against a son, and a daughter against her mother…and that is what we are witnessing in these last days. The only thing I can say is this…the Rapture is coming, and when believers are taken out of this world in a moment, in the blink of an eye, that will be the last sign to those like Mr. Vines and all of the others who will be left behind to go through the Great Tribulation, that the Scriptures are correct and that God is real.

    When the facts are separated from one’s biased mindset, the truth can clearly be seen…until that time, one can imagine what they will from the facts…evolutionists do the same thing on a daily basis, and Mr. Vines is no exception there. Blessings.

      • “pastor” Danny Cortes is a prime example of a person filling the position of a Pastor, who doesn’t have the indwelling Spirit of God, and for that reason he cannot discern between truth and error…1 Corinthians 2:14 “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” He doesn’t understand what he is talking about. I hope the Baptist convention takes his credentials and kicks him out of the church. And just in case that sounds harsh, the same goes for any pastor who goes out and commits adultery.

        • allydavidstevens says:

          And here, sir (or madam), is where you and I will disagree. I will not debate the Bible with you, there is no doubt that your knowledge of it dwarfs mine profoundly. But Pastor Cortez displays the kind of fierce and courageous love that exemplifies the spiritual life. He has risked all of his earthly benefits that the church gives him to proclaim the truth God has revealed to him. That is a mark of true faith in the living God.

          • And that is exactly what my point was…he is not proclaiming the truth of God because God did not reveal that to him. When one is void of the Spirit of God in order to lead and guide him into His truth, what he gets is from his own natural mind, NOT from God. The mark of true and living faith in the living God is this: abiding in Christ in the manner in which God has given us to do, thereby being in a position spiritually to be able to hear and discern the voice of His Spirit as He leads us. When one does not abide in the New Covenant, in Christ, then he does not have the Spirit of God indwelling him, and in that case he is not hearing from God but from his own mind…or worse.

            That is Scripture. That is what true faith is all about. That is proclaiming the Word of God…just as the Scripture says, in the last days people will depart from the Faith of Christ, because they give ear to seducing spirits of antichrist and begin teaching false doctrine. Some do so because they are simply deceived because they do not walk with God, perhaps this is “pastor Danny.” Others preach this heretical nonsense because they want to cling to both Christ and homosexual behavior which God explicitly condemns…sorry, a man cannot embrace both light and darkness, it is impossible, both physically and spiritually.

            Just in case my position isn’t clear, I only hold to Scripture…therefore all forms of sin are condemned by God, be it homosexual behavior or lying, or stealing or cheating…adultery, fornication, child molestation, child pornography…WHATEVER. Sin is sin, and one can come to Christ and be forgiven of any sin as long as he walks in obedience to God. One cannot claim that God is love and will forgive me as long as I walk in obedience to Him in every area but this one thing…God is not mocked.

            Yes, Christ died for humanity so that we could come to Him in faith, but before faith can amount to ANYTHING one must first repent from living a lifestyle of disobedience to God – that means EVERYTHING. Yes, we still fall everyday, sometimes many times a day, but the point is lifestyle. Are we living a life marked by obedience with some failures here and there? Or are we walking a life marked by sin with some self-attributed “good works” here and there? That is the main issue.

            A person may be a Christ follower and have some issues with homosexual behavior…just as a man can be a Christ follower and have some issues with porn, alcohol, or lying…etc. What God looks at is the heart response – if a man honestly tries to follow Christ and is trying to walk in obedience to Him, then His blood covers those “haratano” sins (missing the mark of obedience)…but when one’s heart is set for sin and does not care about striving not to commit that sin (hamartia), then he is not following Christ. He is still spiritually dead in his sin and on his way to hell…where I might add that God is not happy about.

            The plain truth of the matter is that God condemns homosexuality…He didn’t create Adam and Steve, He created Adam and Eve (no pun intended). It is abhorrent and unnatural relations and leads to all manner of diseases and illnesses (case in point, the rectum cannot handle the proteins contained within sperm, it breaks down the tissues – the body looks at the sperm as a foreign invading germ or virus because that is not where sperm is supposed to be). Of course, unless you are a physician you won’t find that anywhere because they are forbidden to release that kind of information, just like they were forbidden to release to the general public that one can get AIDS from a mosquito bite back in the 70’s and 80’s. Now, however, that is common knowledge to the educated.

            Have a nice day!

        • allydavidstevens says:

          Did you just say that mosquitoes can transmit AIDS? Can you give a source for that information? Thanks!

          • Drew says:

            Only if they’re gay.

          • There are a number of resources on the internet, most will tell you that the mosquito digests the AIDS virus along with the blood that it takes in from its victim, but what they do not tell you is that it take up to 48 hours (two full says) for the mosquitoes body to digest the virus. If a mosquito that bites an AIDS infected person turns around within that 48 hour period and bites another person, that person has a 50/50 chance of now becoming infected with the virus.

            People have contracted the disease who claim they were not homosexual and never had contact with others infected with the disease and had no kind of blood transfusions and could not explanation how they contracted the illness. As I stated, the government has passed legislation against medical personnel bleeding this information to the public. Back in the 1980’s there was a female physician in a San Francisco hospital that told the media you can get the virus from the insect, and she was promptly fired after the hospital received a call from a governmental agency. That story was all over Good Morning America for a week afterwards…but I cannot remember the name of the physician.

            Here is one source I found…but again, you have to read it carefully. He at least tells you some of the facts straight up, even though he comes to a less than truthful conclusion…pay attention to the statement that transmission of the virus from such an insect is “HIGHLY UNLIKELY”…not IMPOSSIBLE…

            http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/aids.htm

            Have a good day.

          • allydavidstevens says:

            So, the article you quoted says specifically, “results clearly show that mosquitoes cannot transmit AIDS.” You keep saying that there is this big cover-up, etc. Please give me ONE reputable source that backs your claim.

  2. Drew says:

    Your article was shared on my Facebook page. Here’s how I responded:
    I actually can see how, on the face of it, without in-depth analysis, the bible condemns homosexuality. But then I have to step back and ask myself what I’m going to do with the Bible itself. It says a lot of wonderful things. It says a lot awful things too, things that just don’t line up with my internal moral compass. Many Christians take great pains to explain away or rationalize those things, letting God of the hook, or so it would appear. Let’s face it: even ardent literalists STILL end up picking and choosing what Biblical edicts they’ll hang onto and which ones they won’t. They perform the same mental gymnastics that they accuse “liberals” of in justifying their interpretation. IF God exists and the bible is God communicating something of himself, the filter that I choose to read it through is compassion, kindness, justice and common sense. Big “if”…

  3. Follower of Christ says:

    The word of God is for Yesterday, Today and Forever (hebrew 13) So to say God only meant homosexuality to be detestable to the Levites is wrong. You’re reading the bible as a history book not as Gods word..
    arseno-koitais does not mean man with many beds instead of homosexuality , why would Paul preach the word of God and leave that out when it comes to adultery and sexuality. it is Gods word. HOMOSEXUALITY is a SIN, just as if I were to cheat on my wife or have premarital sex..

    • thomsense says:

      Parts of Leviticus were indeed intended expressly for the Levites, the priestly caste within Judaism. Of COURSE the Jews of the O.T., priests and laymen, had special rules that set them apart! To use Hebrews 13 to misread God’s specific instructions in other parts of the Bible is problematic, to say the least, Follower of Christ.

      • SJB Music says:

        The *Laws* there may have often been only for the Levitical priests, but the commentary on homosexuality being detestable is not part of the law; it is God’s proclamation on the matter that homosexuality is detestable. It isn’t the law that makes it detestable; it is the fact that it is detestable that makes it outlawed. Not that that should be necessary – the priests should be living Godly, clean lives and not need to be told not to do things that are detestable, but we all as humans seem to struggle with such. And we all, too, should be trying to live as pure a life as we can, even if we aren’t Levis, not going on sinning that grace should increase.

        Your twist on Romans is a new one for me. I can see how you could get “They were straight” out of that, but it is a stretch. Regardless, it is still the “unnatural” homosexual acts that are condemned. Sure, the context of idol worship is often found in many places, and is part of the bigger picture, but that does nothing to dismiss the fact that “shameful” and “unnatural” acts they committed with one another is wrong there. In many other places, several forms of sexual impurity are listed; here, just this one. But make no mistake – *all* sexual impurity is wrong! And not just for those who are worshipping idols. For anyone who is engaged in such activities.

        • Traci R. says:

          ” Regardless, it is still the “unnatural” homosexual acts that are condemned”

          What acts are those, exactly? And how do you know all homosexuals perform such acts, without peeking into others’ bedrooms and private lives? If so, what the hell are you doing peeking into others’ bedrooms and private lives uninvited? Isn’t that voyeurism? Is uninvited voyeurism sexually immoral? If so, aren’t you violating Romans 2:1-4? Condemning homosexuals on their sexual immorality while you yourself commit it by imagining “what we do” (love one another, the same as straight people do, is ‘what we do’ by the way)?

        • “it is God’s proclamation on the matter that homosexuality is detestable. ”

          And yet it is not.

          “it is the fact that it is detestable ”

          Yet Paul says that nothing is intrinsically unclean. You just get off on calling our loving relationships detestable. Your obvious sadism is sin.

          “Regardless, it is still the “unnatural” homosexual acts that are condemned.”

          Homosexuality, and homosexual sex, is natural for homosexuals. It is only unnatural for heterosexuals. And trying to equate unnatural with sin is a bad idea, you engaged in many unnatural acts just by posting here. Written language is unnatural, so are computers.

          Since homosexuality is not intrinsically ‘sexual impurity’, you are a slanderer, and as such, barred from the Kingdom of Heaven unless you repent.

      • The problem here with your assessment is that the Scriptures addressing homosexuality is not specifically addressing Levites – it pertains to ALL people…but nice try.

    • ” So to say God only meant homosexuality to be detestable to the Levites is wrong. ”

      Since God never declares homosexuality to be detestable, your premise is wrong. The two passages in Leviticus do not describe homosexuality, neither in Hebrew, nor in English. They do describe husbands cheating on their wives with temple prostitutes. There is no ‘mishkap ishshah’ in the lives of gay men, but it is in both passages.

      “arseno-koitais does not mean man with many beds”

      No, literally, it means man bed. That’s it. And greek of Paul’s day had seventeen words for homosexual, none of which Paul used.

      ” why would Paul preach the word of God and leave that out when it comes to adultery ”

      Oh, how about because Paul was more moral than you, and recognized the difference between a consensual, natural relationship (homosexuality) and someone lying to and cheating on his or her spouse.

      Further, by equating homosexuality with stealing, and adultery, and murder in the I Tim version of the list, you are a slanderer, and as such, you are barred from the Kingdom of Heaven unless you reepnt.

      “HOMOSEXUALITY is a SIN, ”

      No, it is not. It cannot be. Because God does not show favoritism, God does not favor heterosexuals over homosexuals, no matter how badly you need him to. But you are a lawbreaker, because you do show favoritism.

      And Jesus taught that false teachers are revealed by their fruit, and the fruit of those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ is entirely evil – rape, murder, torture, violence of every kind, systemic injustice. All the things Jesus rebuked, those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ do day in and day out. And to such people, no matter how much they call themselves “Follower of Christ “, Christ said he will tell them “I know you not”.

      • You said…”Since God never declares homosexuality to be detestable, your premise is wrong.” You are mislead, friend. God most surely does say that homosexuality is a sin, just as He also says that bestiality is a sin. I don’t know what bible you are reading, but you are either led astray or are outright lying. Which is it? Then you say that homosexuality is not a sin because…”Because God does not show favoritism, God does not favor heterosexuals over homosexuals, no matter how badly you need him to. But you are a lawbreaker, because you do show favoritism.”

        Nice try again, but you fail, and miserably. All of your argument is based upon idiocy in the least…you basically try to push people back into a corner with your brutish words, but in the end, homosexuality is a sin, just like stealing, lying, murder and a whole host of other things. The problem here is that you push a homosexual agenda and have that biased mindset…so no matter how much you hear to the contrary, you will not give up your stand.

        Just know this, anyone not walking with God will end up in the Lake of Fire…both those who claim to be christian and who are not, and those who practice what God commands us not to practice. God commands that you do not practice homosexuality…therefore, if you practice lying or stealing or cheating or bestiality or homosexuality or murder…or simply sitting on your couch watching TV all day long…you will end up in the Lake of Fire, and you will have no one to blame but yourself and the twisted bias you choose to cling to. Not because you were born that way, because no one is born that way…but simply because as Paul says in Romans 1, people want to do what they want to do rather than what God commands us to do. No one is his own master, we are all His creation and by that fact alone He has the right of a Creator over His creation to command you.

        Those who fight that fact will all end up in the same place, no matter what sin they are guilty of….

        Revelation 21:8
        But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

        Sexually immoral…that includes homosexual behavior and acts, male or female. It has nothing to do with the so-called “love” aspect. A man having the same feelings of “love” for another man that he can have for a woman is inordinate affection (Romans 1 again), that is not natural, and therefore is sexual perversion – no matter what you cry and pout about. The plain fact is that God condemns homosexuality just as He condemns liars, there is no difference except for the grossness of the act. “A” was meant to go into “B”, not “C”…it is plain and simple. Homosexuality goes against the very nature of life, for sex was designed for reproduction. The instant a homosexual (male) couple becomes anally pregnant, then you might possibly have an argument (not really).

        If you claim to be a Christian, I do hope that you wake up when the Rapture hits and you are standing there with your jaw dropped open wondering why you were left…because if you are practicing homosexual acts then you will most definitely be “Left Behind.”

  4. Chris says:

    If you can read the Bible and think that homosexuality is not a sin then you have the ability to twist even the simplest of things. Even nature lets you know homosexuality is wrong. If it didn’t this wouldn’t be a controversial issue. So keep twisting the word of God for your own edification because in the end it will not be justified and if you tell people it is not a sin and they listen to you then you have condemned them to their eternal judgement and you will be held accountable have no doubt in that. Tell them the truth even if it hurts or isn’t what they want to hear. God said love the sinner hate the sin. Therefore I do not hate the homosexuals, just the act. You can’t take something black and white and make it gray without hurting many people in the process. What is wrong is wrong. Thinking that God would say that homosexuality is detestable but then sat but come on in anyway is ridiculous.

    • anonymous says:

      So when was the last time you read the bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek? If you’re reading the English version (and I assume you are) you are only reading a translation of the text. The translation of language is not black and white. Essentially you are only reading what some white dude thinks the Bible says, not the true text.

    • nicoladelle says:

      “Even nature lets you know homosexuality is wrong.”

      Yes, all those documented cases (over 1,500 species ranging from apes to worms) obviously lets us know exactly what nature feels about homosexuality…

      Furthermore, I’d like to know exactly what you think the “act of homosexuality” is.

      • That is totally ridiculous…but nice try. It does not matter what animals do because they do not have a mandate from God like humans do. It does not matter if giraffes and monkeys or apes stick their penis’ into other animal’s anal cavity, it is STILL against nature because sex is for reproduction, and no male animal of any kind has ever become pregnant in his anal cavity from having sperm injected therein.

        The fact that you THINK that is a “point” for your argument is so far out in left field that it is beyond sad. Care to try again?

    • allydavidstevens says:

      Hey Chris,

      Couple things…it was actually Gandhi (a Hindu) who said “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

      Also, how do you know the Bible is right?

      Thanks!
      Dave

    • Follower of Christ says:

      Amen!!

    • Traci R. says:

      “God said love the sinner hate the sin”

      That was St. Augustine. Nice try though. Wow. Talk about being deceptive.

      “Therefore I do not hate the homosexuals, just the act”

      I’ll copy and paste an earlier response I wrote since it’s nearly 4 A.M. and I’m tired:

      What acts are those, exactly? And how do you know all homosexuals perform such acts, without peeking into others’ bedrooms and private lives? If so, what the hell are you doing peeking into others’ bedrooms and private lives uninvited? Isn’t that voyeurism? Is uninvited voyeurism sexually immoral? If so, aren’t you violating Romans 2:1-4? Condemning homosexuals on their sexual immorality while you yourself commit it by imagining “what we do” (love one another, the same as straight people do, is ‘what we do’ by the way)?

    • JN says:

      The Bible, a book of history written by many many people, does not say, love the sinner hate the sin. It was St. Augustine saying “with love for mankind and hatred of sins,” but in Latin of course. The more modern translation is apparently from Mohandas Gandhi in 1929. And since all people are sinners (we can’t help it) perhaps it’s better to say “love the sinner, hate your own sin.”

    • “If you can read the Bible and think that homosexuality is not a sin then you have the ability to twist even the simplest of things. ”

      In other words, you cannot refute the material presented. Your claim is slander, and it is the sin of pride at work in your life.

      ” Even nature lets you know homosexuality is wrong.”

      No. In fact, homosexuality occurs in nature, in more than a thousand known species so far. But homophobia, the sick bias against homosexuals, only occurs in humans, it is unnatural.

      Additionally, nature seems to be making it clear that our modern, unnatural technology, is very wrong.

      “So keep twisting the word of God for your own edification ”

      Your false accusation is sin, and a sign of incompetence and hate in your heart. Please repent.

      “God said love the sinner hate the sin. ”

      Not in the Bible.

      “Therefore I do not hate the homosexuals, just the act.”

      False, you hate us. And that means that you hate many of God’s children.

      ” What is wrong is wrong. ”

      And you are doing what is wrong, evil, vile and abominable, to’ebah, detestable:

      16 There are six things the Lord hates,
      seven that are detestable to him:
      17 haughty eyes,
      a lying tongue,
      hands that shed innocent blood,
      18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
      feet that are quick to rush into evil,
      19 a false witness who pours out lies
      and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

      Proverbs 6.

      You’ve committed all seven of these in thought and word.

      • Quite honestly, DS, your reply is pathetic indeed. You cannot win an argument by presenting the facts because you twist the facts, and then all you do the rest of the time is play the devil’s role in charging those who don’t see things your way with sins…because you have no other means of argumentation. Pretty sad, dude. Why don’t you just come to God on His terms and be made free? We will all bow the knee to Him one day soon, and it is far better to bow down to Him willingly than as His enemy…

    • Patrick says:

      I hate that phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin”. The misconception is that God or Christ said it, when it was really Ghandi who said it.
      I love it when people try to get all judgy using the bible and they don’t even know what the hell they’re talking about.
      How about this, quit worrying about something that obviously doesn’t concern you? If you’ve never struggle with same sex attraction they have to try and defend yourself against self righteous assholes who use their religion as a weapon to beat someone else to death with.

  5. momsomniac says:

    Re-blogged. Hope that’s OK.

  6. Pingback: temp « stasis online

  7. Pingback: This guy studied his Bible « Ripening Thoughts

  8. zero says:

    I can’t tell anyone whether being gay is a sin or not. Everyone has to make up their own mind. Being a gay man, the issue is never far away. As a non-denominational Christian I have come to accept that I will not know the true answer until I meet God face to face. The author has made some good points, but I can not say with certainty that he is correct either. I have read all the aforementioned verses many times and if correct I stand accused. I have also read Luke 12:10-12 and know that homosexuality is NOT the unpardonable/unforgivable sin. There is enough sin to go around, let God do the judging as none of us are capable. Above all else, love God no matter what.

    • thomsense says:

      Loving God may be commandment #1, the most important for Christians to fulfill, but it is also the commandment that most Christians find the easiest. Loving an absent, but perfect being is a lot easier than loving your jerk-face neighbor! Therefore it is actually “love others”, N.T. commandment #2, that Christians should be focusing on as it is the commandment they fail at the most.

    • Follower of Christ says:

      Love God Zero, but God wants you to have a relationship with him and seek him now not when you die and meet him face to face. I am a firm believer in the scriptures, and I truly believe what the scripture say.
      I wish you well..

      • “. I am a firm believer in the scriptures, and I truly believe what the scripture say.”

        Please don’t lie like that. The Scripture does not condone your slanders of GLBTQ people, and warns us that people like you are false teachers.

        • DS you are a straight up liar here by your own words. God commands that homosexuality is a sin, therefore those like yourself who teach that it is not …YOU are the false teachers, and from what I have read of your replies, you have put no intellectual work into what you claim. You are either arguing from ad adnauseam, regurgitating what you have heard others (in error) say, or you argue simply from your own bias. Either way, your stand is out the window as far as both evidence and Scripture is concerned.

  9. Pingback: A More Conservative View On Same Sex Marriage | Running Wolf

  10. lizandsteve says:

    The comments here are just as interesting as the blog post! Way to bring in an interesting crowd! Very fascinating how people choose to debate this issue. Can’t wait to read more post….and more comments! Great work!

  11. Serena says:

    Goddess Bless you and for sharing your thoughts with us, thomsense. Though it would seem that many read just to attack, just know there are those out there who read and take away something from the topic. I look forward to your next posting. Keep them coming!

  12. Brian Kusiak says:

    At Robw77 It doesn’t matter what you think. You don’t like my comment that is way too darn bad. I tell like it is. People’s opinions, thoughts and statement doesn’t matter to me at all. So say what you want to say. But again it doesn’t matter what you think. Have a great day.

    • Erika says:

      I wonder how old you are Brian. you make a comment full of judgement and then when people reply to your comment you come back with “It doesn’t matter what you think”. REALLY????

    • robw77 says:

      Hi Brian,
      Thank you for the thoughtful adult conversation. Please feel free to continue when you are open to a sharing of ideas. Until then, good luck on the path you have chosen. You sound like you are in a lot of pain. I sincerely hope you find yourself.

    • GeeGee says:

      Oh, so you “tell it like it is”. Really… No, you tell it like YOU think it is. Not impressed.

  13. robw77 says:

    Hi Bill E,

    Thanks for your own brand of Bible twist. You have creatively infused concepts that are not in the Bible. The Bible has many forms of marriage…what you cite is its description of divorce.

  14. robw77 says:

    Hi Brian, Thanks for opening a discussion here. I am confused by your post since it contains much of the attitude about your self that you accuse the blogger of. Your point of view does not seem to be biblically based at all (another accusation you make of the resources in this article). I would reference Romans 2 to you about your perspective. You seem to be the stoner who thinks he is without sin and that Christ is therefor an exclusive property of yours. You seem angry and resentful and while you claim to have some “recovery” in your life, the way you express yourself implies that is more a matter of denial than true transformation.

  15. Brian Kusiak says:

    I am 29 years old and a former Homosexual. Number 1 Matthew Vines only used his own knowledge and not God knowledge what so ever. His view points is his own thinking. His thinking has been corrupted like God gave Gays over to a reprobate mind. There are several other sins that comes with Homosexuality and none is good at all. Number 2. People are believing what other people are saying instead of reading God’s word. I don’t believe what this guys post has to say at all. It doesn’t matter what degree he has in college. He thinks he knows it all and he thinks that we can be deceived by his thinking. This guy blog is his ” Own thinking and Not God’s way”. Every one is going to be deceived in the last days and it is happening every where. I don’t believe what pro- gay people has to say because they don’t follow the Lord and his ways. Instead they follow their own corrupted thinking. Which is very sad to say the least. There are many others like me who got delivered from this life style. Matthew Vines is just another false teacher with false information. He really twist God’s word around just to justify his life style like so many other gay Christians does. There is no such thing as a gay christian. Just like there is no such thing as an fornicator christian or a thief christian. This blog is only base on his thinking and his own knowledge. How sad that people will believe that this blogger has to say. I will never ever believe what this blogger has to say because their thinking is very corrupted when you don’t read the word of God and when you decide to believe your way instead of the Lord’s way. I don’t care who is against me in this statement. Their opinions and statement doesn’t matter at all. Go ahead and stone me all you want. In the end I will still be standing strong in the Lord. I will have my head up high. Only True Followers of Jesus Christ will always be against any sin and that also includes Homosexuality. I had enough with people believing man’s words instead of the Lord words. In the end, true followers of Jesus Christ will be saved and be in Heaven. Those who continue to live in Homosexuality without repentance will be in the pit of Fire that will never ever go out. You be the judge and you decided which word will you follow. Either follow the whole entire God’s word and believe everything in there. Or don’t follow him at all. Stop being cherry pickers and start believing every single word in the bible. Then you will know where truth comes from and the truth will always set you free. Thank you and God Bless you.

    • apeene says:

      Good luck in your “former homosexual” life. I have done months of research about homosexuality, and I do like the opportunity to interview and talk to all kinds of people, including those who say they are former homosexuals. I would love to ask you some questions about yourself if you’d like to contact me by email at APeene@gmail.com. If not, I understand. In all seriousness, I wish I could talk to you again in 10 years and see how that worked out for you.
      Meanwhile, the fact remains there ARE different interpretations of Bible verses, and not even all Christians or churches agree on the interpretations.
      And furthermore, there are Christians, such as myself, who is a strong believer in the message of Jesus Christ. Loving, serving, caring for others– that is what I choose to do to honor the God that I have a relationship with. Judgement against thy fellow man is prettyhigh up on the sin list, so, maybe rethink your position, and perhaps go about it in another fashion. Just a suggestion.
      Do consider contacting me privately.
      Best Wishes to you.
      AP

    • thomsense says:

      For someone who is so protective of the Bible, you sure don’t quote it much! I quoted it plenty in my blog, and had relevant, logically constructed commentary about each quote. You can’t knock that down just by declaring it false. You need to actually make a case.

      While you were busy not making a case, you made a comment, “There is no such thing as a gay christian. Just like there is no such thing as an fornicator christian or a thief christian.” The Bible contradicts itself about the issue, but most of modern Christianity defines a Christian as someone who has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. What that means is that there ARE “fornicator Christians” and “thief Christians”. There are gay Christians, fat Christians, pornstar Christians, addicted Christians, deadbeat Dad Christians, all kinds of people, are Christian. Possibly what you might think isn’t a very GOOD Christian, but that’s actually between them and God.

    • Erika says:

      You seem to think Christians are perfect. Remember no one is without sin. Christians aren’t perfect just forgiven… If no sinner can be a Christian then I guess there is no such thing as a christian by your definition. And that being said since u judged everyone who has commented then I guess you aren’t a Christian since judging people is a sin….

    • James C. Emmert says:

      Tell me when are you going to stop judging. If they make it illeagal to be a homosexual, then they mihgt as well take the Bible, the old testament to be exact, and turn it into the law. The Bible states that he gave them over to their lusts. What the Bible says is important, but what it does not is just as important.

      • “The Bible states that he gave them over to their lusts. ”

        Ah, Romans 1. Where Paul writes that God gave idolaters over to do things that were unnatural for them, as idolatry is unnatural.

        Paul describes people abandoning their natural, instinctive, inborn, physikos sexual use of the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not have this, so they cannot abandon it. Bisexuals don’t need to, since they naturally are attracted to either gender. Paul can only be talking about heterosexuals.

        The tragic thing is that those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’, are actually trying to get homosexuals to do the very thing Paul complains about – abandon their innate, physikos sexual attraction, to order to obey the idol of heterosexism.

    • friend says:

      How can you believe every single word in your bible when many of the words have been translated inaccurately? Do you know Hebrew and Greek fluently? My guess is you do not, as I do not, and most of us who read our bibles do not. A new commandment I give to you to love one another as I have loved you…that sums it up Brian. That is what Jesus said. Jesus did not say to only love those without sin (which of course we all know only he is without sin) . We all sin and that is why Jesus paid the ultimate price for us on the cross. It is all about love.

    • kcadigan says:

      This blogger is quoting the bible. More to the point this blogger is pointing out where Ancient Sumerian which has been translated into Ancient Greek and then into Latin has then been translated into English and that there were many choices for what word to be used in some cases. Did you know that in Ancient Greek a single word can have 3-5 translation options and when providing a translation the person doing the translation picks the one that they feels is best? So did God mean homosexual or did God mean slut? When the bible was translated a human picked what word they wanted to use for that and put it into English. God didn’t do that. That is what this blogger is saying. This is not an attack on God.
      I’m so sorry you have somehow gotten so much hatred against homosexuals that you have this hatred against yourself and are lying to yourself about being straight. Just because you don’t have sex with someone of the same sex as you doesn’t make you straight. If you’re born gay than you’re gay and you just came out on this blog and told everyone here that you’re gay. Don’t worry because God already knows it. That is how He made you. The real test is if you can follow the bible and learn to love yourself and love others and then forgive yourself for all of the hatred you have been spewing.
      God does not make mistakes in making homosexuals. God loves us all. God even loves confused people like you. You are so confused that you think those who sin (thieves or fornicators cannot be Christian. All people are sinners which is why God’s forgiveness is infinite.
      What’s likely going on here is you’re miserable pretending to be straight. Like so many bullies who are gay you are trying to bully other gays to make yourself feel better. Well it might work in high school but it doesn’t work with adults. From what I’ve read everyone here just feels badly for you. Forgive yourself the lies you’re telling about being straight. We all know the thoughts and dreams that you still have. God knows them too so to whom are you lying? I hope you find your forgiveness.

      D.G.

    • Beka says:

      The main thing we have to remember is our sins are never as bad as others sins. It really doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a sin because we all for short of Gods glory, only by his grace are we saved. It is just ironic that Mr Kusiak can firmly say that there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian, or thief, etc butt there are plenty of judgmental Christians, hateful Christians, but thats ok even though God says it isn’t.
      Everyone elses sins are the only ones that matter.

    • Traci Rowland says:

      I’m sorry for what happened to you. Whoever did this to you lacks compassion and humanity. I’m so sorry Brian.

      Hugs

      Traci

    • “and a former Homosexual.”

      No such thing exists. So we know that you have a tendency to lie.

      “Matthew Vines only used his own knowledge and not God knowledge what so ever. ”

      Your false accusation is sin, and again, shows that you have a tendency to lie.

      “His thinking has been corrupted like God gave Gays over to a reprobate mind. ‘

      Your slander is sin, arising out of ego and pride. Please repent.

      “He thinks he knows it all ”

      Actually, that could be a very apt description and dismissal of your own post. After all, Mr. Vines actually backs up his argument with Scripture and citations, you simply spout your prideful and slanderous assertions.

      ” In the end I will still be standing strong in the Lord. I will have my head up high.”
      Nice display of the sin of pride there.

      But Jesus was quite clear in Matthew 7:15-23 – false teachers are revealed by their evil fruit, and the fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is entirely evil. People are raped as the direct, purposeful and intentional expression of ‘homosexuality is sin’. People are tortured, bullied, beaten, murdered as the direct, purposeful and intentional expression of ‘homosexuality is sin’. All of that evil proves that you and your peers do not serve Christ in this matter.

      Now, I do understand. To please other people you have amputated an important part of yourself, your God given sexuality, and now you need to revile and slander other GLBTQ people so you can feel that your worthless, needless, sinful sacrifice was not a self-destructive act of disobedience against God and personal violence.

      “Those who continue to live in Homosexuality without repentance will be in the pit of Fire that will never ever go out. ”

      No, but no doubt, typing that made you feel very good inside.

  16. Bill E says:

    You really don’t need twist the scriptures to provide any Excusegesis for homosexual sin. Marriage is defined by the scriptures as existing between man and a women (Matt 19:4-6). Sex outside of marriage is sin and worthy of God’s wrath against sin. Those that practice sexual unrighteousness in whatever form will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).

    • thomsense says:

      How very interesting that you mention Matthew 19:4-6. I referenced Matthew 19:1-12 in my third blog of this series! Perhaps you should’ve read a little more. As for the rest of what you had to say, all of it completely ignored what I had to say in my blog, even used one of the same quotes I discussed, with a completely un-argued difference of use, and therefore was full of “sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Feel free to come back with a real argument. Until then, I wish you the very best.

    • “Marriage is defined by the scriptures as existing between man and a women (Matt 19:4-6). ”

      Nice fraud there, skipping the question from the Pharisees that establishes the context of Christ’s reply: 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

      Jesus is asked about heterosexual divorce, He answers that question. Then you dishonestly twist that into a condemnation of same-sex marriage. What you’ve done here tow-ebah, detestable, abomination,

      16 There are six things the Lord hates,
      seven that are detestable to him:
      17 haughty eyes,
      a lying tongue,
      hands that shed innocent blood,
      18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
      feet that are quick to rush into evil,
      19 a false witness who pours out lies
      and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

      Your false assertion falls under several of these things God hates. Homosexuality does not.

      “Those that practice sexual unrighteousness in whatever form will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).”

      It is sad how those who quote this always ignore the condemnation of slanderers in this passage, as they use it to slander GLBTQ people. The article pointed out the translation fraud involved in the standard interpretation of this passage, but you are not excused.

      See, everything else on the list causes harm, homosexuality does not. When you equate homosexuality with stealing and addiction, for example, or murder as appears in the I Tim version, you accomplish two things:

      First, you indicate that you either do not understand the concepts of consent and harm, or dismiss them as irrelevant. That is a huge moral failing on your part.

      Second, you slander millions of human beings. That bars you from Heaven according to Paul.

      But that is not the worst of your mistake. See, you are making salvation, in your religion, contingent on sex. Your theology here essentially rejects Christ’s death and resurrection, and “justified by grace through faith” and replaces it with “saved by putting a penis in a vagina”. Under all the scolding egotism, you’ve turned Christianity into a sex cult.

    • Traci Rowland says:

      ” Those that practice sexual unrighteousness in whatever form will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).”

      What about voyeurism? I’d say uninvited voyeurism (imagining what others whom you don’t know do in their beds and private lives) is pretty sexually immoral. Wouldn’t you say? How about a little less judging, and a lot more Romans 2:1-4.

    • “You really don’t need twist the scriptures to provide any Excusegesis for homosexual sin. ”

      Actually you do. That is the only to provide any justification for the evil belief ‘homosexuality is sin’.

      “Marriage is defined by the scriptures as existing between man and a women (Matt 19:4-6). ”

      Nice fraud. What happened to verse 3?

      3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

      Jesus is asked specifically about heterosexuals divorcing. To make that into a limitation against homosexuals marrying, is dishonest.

      ‘ Those that practice sexual unrighteousness in whatever form will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).’

      Slanderers, such as yourself, are barred from the Kingdom of Heaven in verse 10.

  17. Erika says:

    I have always said if you don’t like gays then DON’t be gay… What you do in life is between you and God not you and me or whoever else likes to tell you what GOD wants. They aren’t God so they have no right to tell you anything. You be you and I will love you for you!!!!

  18. Scarlet Syn says:

    I wonder how often people use their own interpretations in order to justify their hatred for other people. Often times what I see from so-called Christians who feel the need to pull out their various translations is an attempt to say about what God disapproves. I can think of a few other men who did this in Jesus’s time. I always look at the rhetoric in the comments to learn more about the person who is commenting. The purposes of this blog was to tell people their hate is unjustified because God commands us to love. Frankly it doesn’t matter how you refute it or what Greek words you want to interpret, if you’re trying to say the Bible justifies hate, you should probably spend some time in prayer and ask God what he thinks about the subject.

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

    If you are speaking and it’s not in the spirit of love, is it from God?

  19. Pingback: The Homosexuality Question, Part III: Pro-Marriage Equality…Because the Bible Tells Me So? | evoL =

  20. Pingback: Pro-Marriage Equality: Because the Bible Tells Me So?… The Homosexuality Question, Part III | evoL =

  21. robw77 says:

    apolgeistica, did you have any substantive information to add? You seem consumed in meta-speak but have not provided any counter information other than unrelated citation of what you consider your credentials to be. Your concerns over the piece are noted, although stating the obvious since this is a blog piece after all and not presented to be anything else. You seem to have confused it as a resource for your doctoral thesis… sorry to disappoint.
    The best way to really convince anyone that you actually know something on this subject would be to share information yourself.

    • I do indeed have information to add, and will do so shortly. What I was getting at with Thomsense was that he presented information in his blog in an authoritative and academic way. He is responsible for the information regardless of whether it is in blog form or not. I am criticizing his rhetoric as being incomplete and eisegetical in nature. He knows what this means and I was trying to give him the opportunity to amend or explain why he did so considering it is poor form for someone who purports to be informed enough to write such a piece as this. I am responding on the same level that he presented. He has yet to respond in a way that demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about and has instead relied upon feigned offense at criticism (something that yet again only demonstrates that he is not informed enough on this topic to explain his eisegesis or perhaps exegesis if he would provide me with one). Stay tuned, I will be responding to him shortly.

      • And yet, you really did not provide anything of substance.

        ‘I am criticizing his rhetoric as being incomplete and eisegetical in nature. ”
        Your accusation is based on ego.

        “He has yet to respond in a way that demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about ”

        Nor have you, frankly.

  22. Did you use any sources that weren’t already biased to your position? Would you be so kind as to provide some sources? I am working on my Ph.D and can read both koine and ancient Hebrew, and your exegesis of these passages leaves much to be wanted.

    • thomsense says:

      Best of luck to you on your thesis! The lion’s share of the information contained in this blog entry is found in “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality”, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY It’s about 67 minutes and does a much better job than I did, refuting those six passages. But too many people don’t have 67 minutes, so I severely condensed it for the blog.

      • Thank you very much. I will watch the debate later on tonight and then I will most definitely be wanting to discuss your exegesis, or rather eisegesis of these Scriptures.

      • thomsense says:

        “Eisegesis”?! Throwing around casual insults like that doesn’t make you look very good to other people, nor does it make me wish to have any sort of a debate with you. What have I ever done to you, other than have a different opinion, that I blogged about, that makes you want to talk in such a way to a complete stranger? If you want a debate, then show some respect.

      • For whatever reason, I was not able to reply to your last comment, so instead I have done so here: my comment of “eisegesis” was not intended as a jab at you in the slightest. Because you did not provide any references but merely applied your own opinion to the Scriptures you quoted, you have necessarily made an eisegetical pronouncement. There was nothing disrespectful in what I said at all. Your blog did not provide any exegesis whatsoever. If you disagree with me then I am sure you are more than capable of using hermeneutics to exegete the Scriptures you failed to do in your original blog posting.

      • thomsense says:

        Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς “into” and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι “to lead out”) is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. (Wiki) In other words describing someone else’s work as “eisegesis” without including your concrete thoughts and proofs about WHY you think it’s esiegesis is assuming misinterpretation and bias without proof, therefore insulting. Anyone who does that to another shows their OWN bias. And you have another bias I’d like to address; your themes and points are obfuscated by your lapidarian expostulations. I don’t mind a big word or two and use plenty of them myself, especially when I am speaking off-the-cuff. But when I am writing with any kind of thought in my head about more than churning it out, I try to go for the smaller words, for clarity. And save the big ones for when the smaller ones just won’t do.

      • You have a blog where you have presented an analysis of Scripture. I have criticized the way you went about doing so. There is no smaller word for hermeneutics, so you will have to put up with that, sorry. I’m sure that your readers have a firm enough grasp of the English language to be able to understand what I am saying. You belittle their intellect in assuming otherwise.

        I have done nothing to cause you offense besides questioning your analysis. You have not done any exegetical analysis of these Scriptures, but have instead presented half-truths, and an extremely exaggerated single-source methodology for presenting ἀρσενοκοίτης. As you can see, exegesis was not accomplished but eisegesis was. I assume that you know how to do exegetical work or else you would not have presented yourself as a source for the accurate understanding of Koine Greek. All I am asking for is some genuinely accurate academic analysis of the texts that you have presented yourself as an expert in analyzing. It is entirely fair for another academic to question your analysis. But since you seem to wish to dwell in feigned offense and sarcasm, I suspect that this may be due to your having simply parroted another’s work, but that should be fairly easy for you to disprove when you give your exegetical analysis of these Scriptures.

        • Traci Rowland says:

          “I’m sure that your readers have a firm enough grasp of the English language to be able to understand what I am saying. You belittle their intellect in assuming otherwise.”

          Yes, this is true. I, and I’m sure others do have quite the firm grasp of the English language; however there are many in the world who do not, who may read this blog and the resulting comments. Using big words on a blog’s comment section makes it harder for them, and makes you look like a pompous ass. I’m just saying.

        • Traci Rowland says:

          I believe, and if you would be so kind as to chasten me if I am incorrect in my presumption, but I think that the Pharisees conversed in such ways as yourself. Using superfluous verbiage as a result of arrogant egotism? I say, it really didn’t end well for them, if I am not mistaken. I very well could be, as I am quite often. Once again, if I am incorrect in my presumptions, I beseech that you chasten me forthwith.

      • thomsense says:

        I have not presented a thesis here. I have presented a blog post. I have said what I needed to say and your issues with what I have to say remain quite vague. You finally got a little more specific in your last comment. You criticize my mostly-single-source origin for the post (never mind the additions. Vines never had anything to say about Leviticus 19:34, for instance), but you don’t go after the source itself for anything specific. In fact I do not put myself out as an expert in Koine Greek, as I actually attributed that part of the blog, which I’ll copy-paste here: “Here’s what Paul R. Johnson wrote about this word, for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue).” At no time have I presented myself as an expert. As you HAVE. Yet, you’ve said nothing specific about my POINTS, therefore there’s nothing for me to grab onto, other than your five-dollar words when a two-dollar word would suffice and the sensation that I’m either being taken in by a fraud or someone who doesn’t want to do a little homework of HER OWN and call me out on some actual STUFF.

      • Alright, since we are both keen on the Greek Language, let’s begin with a breakdown of ἀρσενοκοίτης:

        ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]).

        Since ἀρσενοκοίτης is already in the male, plural form, the word is already speaking of plural males engaging in the act of sharing beds with other males hence the noun form found in both 1 Corinthians as well as 1 Timothy:

        Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν;” (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10)

        εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσιν καὶ ἁμαρτωλοις, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούση διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται (1 Timothy 1: 9-10)

        An exegetical analysis shows that the immediate context of these verses is speaking of general men who sleep in the beds of general men. So it is not just promiscuity that is being spoken of when the greek text is examined, but is instead the Apostle Paul (or whomever wrote the text) condemning in general, men who sleep with other men. The sexual nature of the “sleeping with other men” aspect of the word comes from its placement alongside sexual perversity πόρνοις (found immediately before the term ἀρσενοκοίταις) thusly making ἀρσενοκοίταις to mean men who sleep in the beds of other men in a sexually perverse way. Hence why when the word πόρνοις is translated singularly, it is translated as Sodomite. I am not attempting right now to imply sodomy, I am simply sharing the fact that your source completely overlooked basic Greek textual analysis before presenting what you have said he presented in his article. It’s as though he simply googled “ἀρσενοκοίτης” and never actually did any work examining the word in the context he wished to comment on.

        My sources for this is a mere opening of my (koine) Greek-English dictionary (any will do) as well any as any copy of a (koine) Greek New Testament. All you have to do is open yours to verify. See what I mean when I say that your blog’s analysis (or rather the gentleman you quoted’s analysis was eisegetical?) An agenda to show that ἀρσενοκοίτης was not to be understood as homosexual was already at hand and then evidence was sought to verify. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis. That isn’t meant to be insulting, but it is meant to remain accurate on this issue because it is so very important to so. And hence why I expect that someone who knows the difference between eisegesis and exegesis would not present such an obviously eisegetical analysis of these Scriptures.

        • EricW says:

          Yes, when discussing the Greek NT it is advisable that the person doing so have some knowledge of Greek vocabulary and grammar and syntax, as well as familiarity with the LXX.

        • “A man who lies in bed with another male,”

          Nice fraud there, taking ‘man bed’ and inserting the concept ‘with another male’. It really proves that how deceitful your entire line of argument is.

          ‘An exegetical analysis shows that the immediate context of these verses is speaking of general men who sleep in the beds of general men. ”

          No, and certainly because you say so.

          ‘I am not attempting right now to imply sodomy, I am simply sharing the fact that your source completely overlooked basic Greek textual analysis before presenting what you have said he presented in his article.”

          No, you are simply making false assertions without any substance to back them up other than your word.

      • thomsense says:

        Thank you for “doing some homework”. It’s appreciated! I basically told you to “put up or shut up”, and you put up! Excellent! However, you are still being insulting. I already told you that I made no claims on being any kind of an expert on ancient Greek, and had to borrow and cite another’s work to cover that portion of my writing, yet you still could not resist saying, “All you have to do is open yours to verify”, referencing a Koine-English dictionary and/or the Koine version of the N.T., neither one of which I would have SINCE I’M NOT AN EXPERT.

        Since I’m not an expert, this commentary might not be worth much, but I noticed in your analysis of arsenokoitais that you think both males and beds are pluralized, but my source sees only “beds” pluralized, with “man” given an article (‘o’, given to mean “the man”). That you would apply the pluralization to the entire compound word instead of just the part pluralized, and not address the article at all, leads me to believe that my source is better.

        • Unfortunately, apologeistica put up a load of unsubstantiated noise.

          As this source articulates, http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html,

          greek of Paul’s day had seventeen words to communicate the concept ‘homosexuality’. Paul used none of them. Instead, he coined the word ‘arsenokoite’. And despite the noise from apologeistica, for centuries afterwards, there is no text that definitively defines it as a reference to homosexuality.

          As this source:http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#arsenos points out, the more reasonable translation is trader is sex slaves, based on the relationship of the word within in the list, and subsequent uses of it.

          Further, for all of his bullying, apologeistica failed to address the heart of the issue – homosexuality has nothing in common with anything else on the lists, but by reading arsenokoite as homosexual, apologeistica is equating homosexuals with thieves and addicts, and murderers though the I Tim version of the list. This makes apologeistica a slanderer, barred from the Kingdom of Heaven. And if apologeistica were right, his argument would make Paul a slanderer as well, barred from Heaven as well, and thus, not a credible witness about God or sin.

          The reality is, those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ cannot be right, for the belief they teach bears only evil fruit, it destroys human lives, and according to Christ, it must then be an evil and false belief.

    • Greek doesn’t work the same way that English does. And even if you were to assume that it does and Paul was referencing a specific man then the Greek would read that one should not be akin to this (singular) man who shares multiple beds with other men in a sexually perverse way. No matter what, the Greek doesn’t support the position that you have presented.

      Now, as for the “put up or shut up” comment. My making my own case was due to one of your reader’s comments, not yours. I was trying to allow you, on your blog, to actually present something that was not just fluff or exaggerated bias. Although, as you have pointed out, you are not writing a thesis, you are still responsible for what you write in your blog. This blog can be read by anyone, anywhere, at any time. It is not a private diary. You have written a piece of work that is public and in doing so you have placed yourself in amongst the ranks of readers such as myself. It is entirely fair for me to scrutinize, criticize, and attempt to debunk such dishonest presentations of so-called exegetical analysis of Scripture. I do not believe that were being malicious in doing so hence why I have stated I had no intention of offending you. All I wanted to do was give you an opportunity to demonstrate whether you knew what you were talking about on this subject or not. You’ve made it quite clear what the answer to that question is.

      In the future it is my hope that you consider doing your own research before presenting material that you are unfamiliar with enough to not be able to defend the very arguments you presented. Also, if you are personally offended by general academic criticism, consider buying a diary. This keeps you from having to deal with people like me with big words and Greek and whatnot. I will be praying for you. Cheers.

    • Ono Kono says:

      Wow a big bundle of apologeistica arrogance is a sign of someone that is either a student and unseasoned and feels the need to feel bigger than her britches, because she is insecure. I think you need to start reading and comprehending what God had to say about arrogance. Also read his words about loving your neighbor. I recommend going back to the prayer closet and asking God for a good dose of humble pie. Might be easier on you, then if he decides it for you.

    • allydavidstevens says:

      Hi apologeistica,

      What do you hope to accomplish here with your comments?

      Thanks!
      Dave

    • ” I am working on my Ph.D and can read both koine and ancient Hebrew, and your exegesis of these passages leaves much to be wanted.”

      Nice fallacy of appeal to personal authority, but you cannot prove either claim, and frankly, your anonymity makes it impossible to believe you.

  23. Pingback: The Homosexuality Question, Part II: Jesus DID Say Something | evoL =

  24. APeene says:

    Outstanding Thomsense! Very well written and great points made!

  25. DrAnneR says:

    Just to add a little Jewish scholarly flavor to the discussion. The word “foreigner” in Leviticus 19:34 is translated as “stranger” in the New JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text of the Torah. Many rabbis & Jews (at least Reform Jews, which is the largest Jewish denomination in the US), would define “stranger” more broadly than “foreigner.’ The “stranger” in our midst may be the gay person, or the person who deviates from the norm in some way. (In the Everett Fox Translation, often regarded as more “poetic,” “foreigner” is “sojourner.”)

    • thomsense says:

      That’s really an interesting bit of detail! Translation is tricky, and too often inexact. Scrutiny is the only effective way to combat that. Thank you for yours!

  26. Michael says:

    Bottom line, we are all mere humans, as such do we not all who believe hear the words of our creator in our minds. The words that heal us and help us. The men of God that have writen in the bible heard the word of God and heard what they heard their God tell them. They being humans and not God.
    My God is your God is our God. I hear love tolerance and acceptance from God. I here my salvation from the wretched addict I was. Thank God.

    • thomsense says:

      I am glad to hear that your faith has delivered you from a life you hated and turned you toward good fruits! I sincerely hope that you return the love, tolerance and acceptance you get from God to your fellow man as often as you can. It’s my opinion that Christians who actively evangelize do more harm than good, more often than not. It is the ones who are such incredible people that they just shine like a light without having to say much at all, who make Christianity attractive to the world. Be a light!

  27. robw77 says:

    Very good! Can’t wait to see your NEXT installment! I especially liked your succinct commentary on Romans. (One interesting addendum to the Romans passage– not really about the passage itself– is the passage in ROMANS 2 immediately following. That passage condemns people who hold themselves superior to the people described in Romans 1 (no matter what one interprets their shortcomings to be…).

  28. kzottarelli says:

    love it Thomas..and I saw that comment this morning too, nearly sent me over the edge! I had a thing or two to say myself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s