An open letter to Rosie O’Donnell.

Dear Rosie:

After watching the exchange between you and the street preacher in the brief video clip below, I felt compelled to respond.

I am not privy to the conversation between you and the men before the video began rolling so I do not know what was said, but honestly, what took place beforehand is irrelevant and does not justify what was said to you by the one with the microphone. How you were treated was appalling, despicable, and reprehensible.

It is obvious that the man insulting you and calling you names was speaking from a position of prideful arrogance and as one who does not fully understand the pit from which God saved him from (although his behavior would lead me to seriously question if he truly has been saved from anything).

On behalf of Christians, I want to publicly apologize for how you were treated. This man does not speak for, nor did his actions represent genuine, biblical Christianity. Instead, he displayed a sinfully self-righteous attitude reminiscent of that of the Pharisees.

I see very little difference between his behavior and that of the clan from the Westboro “Baptist Church.” Both come from a position of I’m superior to you because you’re a sinner, instead of coming from a position of I am a sinner saved by God’s undeserved grace and was facing God’s justly deserved wrath until He saved me for His glory.

God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5). The man insulting you showed absolutely no humbleness nor concern for your soul, but instead displayed an abundantly self-righteous attitude revealing that the impetus behind his behavior was nothing but sheer pride. His harsh and demeaning words to you exposed not only his utter lack of understanding of  God’s grace and God’s mercy, but it also revealed what was in his heart (Luke 6:45) as well as his astounding ignorance of the very gospel of Jesus Christ that he claims to represent.

I seriously have to question the salvation of any professing Christian who revels and delights in the prospect of someone facing Hell–ridiculing and insulting them–instead of grieving for that perishing soul. For not even God takes pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefers for the sinner to turn from their ways (Ezekiel 18:23).

Now, does any of this mean that you have nothing to worry about? On the contrary. This man’s prideful treatment of you does not change the fact that you are still a sinner in need of a Savior. Before you die in your sins you need to know that God will bring every one of your acts to judgment (Ecclesiastes 12:14) and He will judge you without pity (Ezekiel 7:3-4). This is why we are told that it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).

Every person born (including you, the man with the bullhorn, and me) have all sinned against an infinitely holy God and we all deserve God’s just punishment. But knowing that we could never save ourselves because we could never obey His law even if we wanted to (Romans 8:7), God provided a way. He sacrificed His own Son as a substitute to pay the price for our sin. He didn’t have to; He doesn’t owe it to us; and we don’t deserve it. 

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (Romans 5:6-9)

This is why God’s grace is so amazing, Rosie, and it’s available to you this very day. 

If the man who spoke so harshly towards you was truly a recipient of God’s grace, there should be nothing for him to be prideful of, but instead it should cause him to fall on his face in sheer awe that a holy God would save a wretch like him in spite of all that he’s done, and it should cause him to lament for those who are currently without God’s grace; not insult them.  Those who have been forgiven much, love much (Luke 7:47).

Please know, Rosie, that in spite of our vast ideological, religious, and worldview differences, I am not your enemy. And what you experienced in this video was not Christianity. It was simply the sin of religious pride cloaked under the guise of Christianity. But never forget that this man’s actions do not absolve you of your need to repent and turn to Christ for the forgiveness of sins, for God has fixed a day when He will judge the world (Acts 17:30-31), and he has provided a way to save you from the coming wrath, Rosie, and that way is only through the sacrifice that He provided, His Son, Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

- Pilgrim



80 thoughts on “An open letter to Rosie O’Donnell.

  1. Very well said, Pilgrim. I cringed at the “Christian’s” behavior on here. There is truth…and then there is, as you said, prideful arrogance.

  2. wow. Calling her a pig? This guy is horrible. He needed to love her first, not call her names. This kind of behavior will make her hate the gospel and Christians and close her mind off from any witnessing whatsoever. Shame on you, street preacher! I was no different than Rosie. And neither were you (preacher).I was dead in my trespasses and sins. I need a Savior as she needs one. How about understanding she lost her mother at a young age? How about mercy and love. I’m disgusted.

    colassians 4:6
    Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone

  3. Mickey Merrie says:

    She got him dead to rights with Jesus wept and you don’t get the meaning… She gave him more scripture then he gave her, and her context was right too!
    Pilgrim, I appreciate you and your work here brother! But most of all I appreciate your heart for His will!

  4. Good call Pilgrim. So-called christians are given to extremes …. either ignoring sin and promoting licentiousness, or condemning everyone in sight from a position of pride and arrogance. I’m wondering, were you able to get this message to Rosie?

    Kevin Kleint

    http://www.honorofkings.org

  5. @Kevin (and Pilgrim and everyone else):
    I don’t *follow* Rosie on Twitter…but I did tweet the link to her. Maybe she will read it and know that not *all* Christians act as that man did!

  6. Linda says:

    Why in the world would anyone want to trust in the Lord Jesus by being jeered, called names in a condescending manor? I have to SERIOUSLY question anyone who claims to be a Christian if this is how they act. God is just, holy and righteous but he is also merciful, gracious, loving and kind.

    It is God’s kindness leads us toward repentance-Romans 2:4.

    I hope and I pray this letter will reach Rosie.

    thanks for taking the time to write her Pilgrim and for your compassion and love that compels you to all because of Jesus Christ reaching down to you

  7. as a hollywood prayer network supporter who prays for a few celebs. I like this article and I pray rosie does read it.

    we have too many christians (myself included at times) who dont act christ-like and we should be showing by example.

  8. Amen, hope this link is posted on this preachers Youtube channel as well, He needs to repent as much as Rosie, if not more so, For Jesus spoke harshly to the self righteous pharisees who had ‘some light’.

  9. Nearly every person who acknowledges an aversion to homosexuality does so on the basis of what he or she believes the Bible has to say. In their mind, there is no doubt whatsoever about what the Bible says and what the Bible means. Their general argument goes something like this: Homosexuality is an abomination and the homosexual is a sinner. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture we too must condemn homosexuality. Needless to say, this premise is being widely debated among evangelicals today and seriously challenged by biblical scholars, theologians and religious leaders everywhere.

    It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview. In light of your posting above and since I happen to speak and write on this very topic, I thought you might find some of these posts of particular relevence. You might particularly appreciate the following: Leviticus 18: “What Was the Abomination?,” “Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?”, “Romans 2: Paul’s Bait and Switch” and “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality.” You can find links to these and others on the “Archives” page (link below).

    -Alex Haiken

    http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com

  10. DavidW says:

    Alex,

    While I stand with those here who utterly reject the behavior of the person that treated Rosie in an un-Christlike manner, I also stand against distorting the Scriptures. Your assertion “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality.” reflects either an unawareness, or rejection of the Greek words used by Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9. When our modern versions list homosexuals among those who would not enter the kingdom of heaven, it is no mistranslation. The Greek word which is used is “ἀρσενοκοίτης” (arsenokoites) which directly refers to a male engaging in same gender sexual activity. Breaking down the word into it’s components we see “aseno” (from the root “arrhen” referring to a male, “arsen” being a more descriptive term for male meaning “strong, made for lifting”) and “koites” (from “koite” referring to the marriage bed, or frequent sexual intercourse). Thus the Biblical word used in Paul’s time did indeed have a word for “homosexuality”. The very same word is used by Paul again in 1 Tim. 1:10 as being among those who are ungodly and sinful, and against sound doctrine.

    Paul goes on to say “Such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11)

    Those in the church at Corinth contained former homosexuals . But they repented. They were washed of this (and the other mentioned sins), sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ.

  11. fleebabylon says:

    “Wow! This man was a disgrace to the name of Christ!”

    Amen – I had to turn it off when he told her to go home and do the dishes. That man had neither the love or wisdom of Christ in his words. How shameful, I pray he will be brought to deep repentance over it.
    ——————–

    Alex said “It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview. ”

    Alex – that is like the guy who cheats on his wife saying that the verses in the Bible that speak on that are out of context. Why not forsake your sin and follow Jesus. He died to set us free from sin, whoever lives in sin has not seem Him or known Him (1 John 3). I pray that you would know Him like the woman caught in adultery – be overwhelmed by His grace and leave your life of sin in response.

    -Jim

  12. DavidW,

    I beg to differ with you. In all due respect, it would appear the one distorting Scripture here is you. The meaning of these passages depends entirely on the translation of not one but two Greek words in question: “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai”. The variation in the translations of these two words is so widely debated that no two English translations of the Bible can agree on what these two Greek terms mean. The way we decide is not by the individual doctrines of various denominations and sects, it is by doing sound exegesis — and this includes an examination of the original language among other things.

    MALAKOI

    The first word “malakos” (the plural is “malakoi”) literally means “soft”. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, the same term is used to describe the softness of fine expensive clothes. The same word could also be used to describe warm butter or an overripe banana. While translated as “male prostitutes” in the English NIV as above, early English translations render malakoi by terms that denote a general weakness of character or degeneracy, e.g., “weaklings.” From the end of the 16th century to the 20th –and as it appears in the King James Version — the preferred translation was “effeminate”. When used as a term of moral condemnation, the word refers to something perceived as “soft,” such as laziness, degeneracy, decadence, a lack of courage, or to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, the “unmasculine.”

    In various European and ancient cultural traditions, men could be designated as “soft” or “unmasculine” because they were womanizers or because they deviated from masculine gender norms insofar as they preferred the soft option of love to the hard option of war. In the culture of the military elites of Europe, at least from the Ancient world through the Renaissance, normative masculinity often entailed austerity, resistance to appetite, and mastery of the impulse to pleasure. The once fashionable American ideal of the “big man on campus,” or phrased differently, the football jock who gets to indulge limitlessly in his love of hot showers, cold beer, fast cars and faster women, for example, would appear in this context, not as an emblem of masculinity, as seen in our own modern culture, but of its denigrated opposite, as the epitome or embodiment of effeminacy. A man displayed his true mettle in war and more generally in struggles with other men for honor in politics, business and other competitive enterprises. Those men who refused to rise to the challenge, who abandoned the competitive society of men for the amorous society of women, those who pursued a life of pleasure, who made love and not war, as it were — they incarnated the classical stereotype of effeminacy. This stereotype seems to live on in the American South, where a “redneck queer” is defined as “a boy from Alabama who ‘laks’ girls better ‘n football.” It is also alive and well in Anglo-Celtic Australia, where a real bloke supposedly avoids the company of women and prefers to spend all his time with his mates; that’s how you can be sure that he’s straight. For the Ancient Greeks and Romans, a man who indulged his taste for sexual pleasure with women did not necessarily enhance his virility but often undermined it.

    With words that are so widely debated that no two English translations of the Bible can agree on what these two Greek terms mean we need to consider not just what the language says but also what it supposes, doesn’t say, and implies. We speak a different language, we live approximately two millennia later, and we bring different expectations to the text.

    As words are used over time, they take on various additional shades of meaning, which we call “connotations”. For instance, the name “John” comes from a Hebrew word meaning, denotatively, dove. It therefore has connotations of peace. It can also be viewed as a shortening of a Hebrew sentence name that means “gift of Yahweh.” But “john” in English can have other connotations too. It may mean nothing more than a toilet. Or it might mean the male partner of a prostitute who was caught by the police, and so forth. These various meanings constitute the “semantic range” of a word, and are essential for understanding crucial Bible passages.

    ARSENOKOITAI

    The second word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and that also appears in 1Timothy 1:9-10 is the Greek word “arsenokoitai”. The word has no use in the Greek literature of Paul’s day. It means, literally “a man, a bed.” Because it occurs only here in all of first-century Greek writing, biblical scholars have repeatedly indicated that it is difficult to give its precise meaning. The NIV translators are so uncertain of the word’s meaning that they translate it as “homosexual offenders” in one instance (1 Cor 6) and “perverts” in the other (1 Tim 1). The RSV translates it as “pederasts.” Of the four Greek New Testament Lexicons I checked, I cannot find two that agree about the meaning of the word and one explanation borders on the ridiculous.

    At any rate, it is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To “understand,” for example, does not mean to “stand under.” In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either “stand” or “under” has any direct bearing on the meaning of “understand.” To conclude that the meaning of any compound word is simply the sum of its independent parts is not always a justifiable conclusion or method.

    The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. A word means according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Unfortunately, we have very few uses of arsenokoitai and most of these occur in simple vice lists, thus providing no explanation of the term, no independent usage and few clues from the context about the term’s meaning.

    Biblical scholar Robin Scroggs has stated: “Paul is thinking about pederasty” and adds that other than cult prostitution “there was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which could come to mind.”

    SUMMARY

    In short,

    (1) arsenokoitai is a compound word. Any claim that this word “obviously means homosexual” defies linguistic evidence and common sense.

    (2) Its usage before Paul: I Cor 6 and I Tim 1 may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. There are no known instances before Paul.

    (3) Its usage after Paul: They are few and far between and in virtually every instance, the term appears in a list of sins (like Paul’s) without any story line or other context to shed light on its meaning.

    (4) Its context: It is set in “vice lists” without any context to help and the only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible.

    I submit what’s really going on here is that you are blinded by your reifications and canonical interpretations. A reification is when we use a concept or doctrine so often and for so long that it comes to be a distinct “thing” to us, something that’s really there, a piece of our mind’s furniture. Fact is we are often greatly unaware of how much of our mental furniture consists of reifications. A canonical interpretation, of course, is a way of looking at a biblical passage or doctrine that we’ve become so accustomed to that the interpretation has become indistinguishable in our minds from the text or the passages themselves.

    It’s been said that a healthy dose of self-examination to see where our fears, prejudices and/or past experiences may be controlling our thought can be an antidote to the moralistic misuses of biblical authority that seem to abound in discussions of homosexuality. When we presume that the Bible is perfectly clear on a moral issue — so clear that only a fool or dishonest person could possibly differ from our view of things — then that over confidence should alert us to the possibility that our egos, fears, prejudices and/or past experiences may be clouding our interpretations.

    -Alex Haiken

  13. Alex,
    There is no doubt, the Bible condemns sexual immorality, as well as homosexuality.

    What defiles a man according to the Lord Jesus Christ? From Matthew 15:19-20, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man”.
    We start by defining ‘defile’- from the Greek word koinoō – Strong’s definition ‘to make (or consider) profane (ceremonially): – call common, defile, pollute, unclean.’

    Thayer Definition:
    1) to make common
    1a) to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane
    1b) to declare or count unclean

    We know no one who is defiled will enter God’s kingdom, “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life. ” Revelation 21:27

    Next, we need to define ‘fornications’; in Greek it’s porneia which means-
    Thayer Definition:
    1) illicit sexual intercourse
    1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
    1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
    2) metaphorically the worship of idols
    2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
    Part of Speech: noun feminine

    This covers a pretty wide base of sexual immorality, including homosexuality. So to try and say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is a lie that will cast the one who believes this lie into the lake of fire {again, see Rev. 21:27}.

    Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. – verse 11 – And such were { this is the KEY WORD, which means forsaking your sins, repenting} some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

    We will look at ‘effeminate’ – Greek – malakos
    Thayer Definition:
    1) soft, soft to the touch
    2) metaphorically in a bad sense
    2a) effeminate
    2a1) of a catamite
    2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
    2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
    2a4) of a male prostitute

    ‘Nor abusers of themselves with mankind’ – arsenokoitēs
    Thayer Definition:
    1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
    Part of Speech: noun masculine

    Gill commentary concerning ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ – sodomites.
    Barnes commentary on the same phrase – Paederastae or Sodomites. Those who indulged in a vice that was common among all the pagan. He then refers to Romans 1:27, where he comments ‘The sin which is here specified is what was the shameful sin of Sodom, and which from that has been called sodomy. It would scarcely be credible that man had been guilty of a crime so base and so degrading, unless there was ample and full testimony to it. Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one “to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.” And yet the evidence that the apostle did not bring a railing accusation against the pagan world; that he did not advance a charge which was unfounded, is too painfully clear. It has been indeed a matter of controversy whether paederastry, or the love of boys, among the ancients was not a pure and harmless love, but the evidence is against it. (See this discussed in Dr. Leland’s Advantage and Necessity of Revelation, vol. i. 49-56.) The crime with which the apostle charges the Gentiles here was by no means confined to the lower classes of the people.
    It doubtless pervaded all classes, and we have distinct specifications of its existence in a great number of cases. Even Virgil speaks of the attachment of Corydon to Alexis, without seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Maximus Tyrius (Diss. 10) says that in the time of Socrates, this vice was common among the Greeks; and is at pains to vindicate Socrates from it as almost a solitary exception. Cicero (Tuscul. Ques. iv. 34) says, that “Dicearchus had accused Plato of it, and probably not unjustly.” He also says (Tuscul. Q. iv. 33), that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practiced, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. (Tuscul. Ques. v. 20.) Xenophon says, that “the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws.” – Albert Barnes

    It seems historical Christianity had no problem calling homosexuality what it is…S I N.
    One more quick note on Romans 1:27, “and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Notice here how men left what was ‘natural’ – Greek – phusikos
    Thayer Definition:
    1) produced by nature, inborn
    2) agreeable to nature
    3) governed by (the instincts of) nature
    Men left what comes natural at birth, instilled by God, in exchange for what is ‘indecent acts, men with men’; now you might not see the word ‘homosexual’ spelled out here, but there is no denying the Apostle Paul was speaking of same sex encounters.

    How can you possibly misconstrue what the Bible states very clearly here? Even if you deny what the Bible clearly says about homosexuality, you cannot deny this verse ” Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18. What does it mean to flee? Does that mean we continue practicing sexual immorality of any kind? To flee means {Greek -pheugō}

    Thayer Definition:
    1) to flee away, seek safety by flight
    2) metaphorically to flee (to shun or avoid by flight) something abhorrent, especially vices
    3) to be saved by flight, to escape safely out of danger
    4) poetically, to flee away, vanish

    Homosexuality is a sin, as is all sexual immorality outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman {Genesis 2:24}. As a former lesbian saved solely by God’s grace made available through the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, I urge you to cry out for mercy…it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    God’s word does not change over time, only those who try and twist it to make it fit their sins make such a claim.

    Here is a link concerning Romans 1:27-28

    http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=405

    as for 1 Corinthians 6:9, this covers it very well

    http://apprising.org/2011/02/23/homosexuality-and-1-corinthians-69/

    Here is a brief sample…’Indeed, at times, when the LXX differed in its wording from the Hebrew text, Paul would choose the LXX, knowing that his audience would have a familiarity with that version. It is a fundamental axiom in all scholarly study of Paul that the LXX is central in the determination of his motives and vocabulary. Truly, no serious challenge can be raised to this simple fact.

    The relevance of this truth however, is seen when we consider the terms that are used in the LXX at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus 18:22, when transliterated from the LXX Greek into English, in stating that a man shall not be with a man as one lies with a woman reads,

    meta arsenos (arsenos—male) ou koimethese koiten (koiten—to lie with sexually, have intercourse) gunaikos.

    But even more striking is the wording of Leviticus 20:13 in the LXX:

    hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.’…

    I highly recommend reading the article in its entirety.

  14. Alex,

    I took a little time to read through some of your blog. I carefully read through the post on Leviticus 18 & 20 and I must say that it is obvious that you have put a lot of work into the issue and have done an excellent job in defining exegesis, eisegesis, and the basics of historical/grammatical hermeneutics. Very well stated. I agree with 90% of what you say in your post regarding pagan rituals, fertility, baal, etc. You are right about all of those things being serious contextual concerns in the OT. What I am most concerned about is that with such great effort to explain actual truths, you use them incorrectly to make the point to justify your lifestyle. This is particularly concerning in that your horrendous misapplication is surrounded with really great truth.

    The passages that your are reverencing, Lev 18:22 and 20:13 definitely have components that relate to the ritualistic fertility sexual sins as well as the other basic relations sexual sins of having sex with your neighbors wife, or the woman on menstrual cycle, or uncovering the nakedness of your father’s wife, your sister, mother, etc, etc…mixed into this (as you mention) is that they are to not sacrifice their children as PART of their sexual sin, they are not to lie with men as a form of sexual sin, and woman are not to lie with animals and another form of sexual sin. These things are all forbidden. Forbidden. Again in chapter 20, don’t lie with the neighbor, father’s wife, daughter, adulterer, the mother, the animals, the men, yada yada. All Forbidden together. These are all sins forbidden by our Holy God. They are not forbidden in the “pagan act”, the are forbidden in themselves because they are unclean in the eyes of our Holy God. Otherwise it would be ok to sacrifice your children for other reasons…NO! that is murder. Or it would be ok to have sex with animals for non-pagan ritual reasons like love…NO! sex with animals is a sin. Or it would be ok to have homsexual sex if it wasn’t for pagan-ritualistic fertility reasons…NO! just like the others it is a sin. Period.

    Trying to force this very simple and clear display of forbidden sinful acts into a qualified position of “if it is done in the form of pagan worship for fertility” to justify your lifestyle is the worst form of exegesis failure and down right sinful. We don’t need to analyze the Hebrew and the grammar to see that the conclusion your are making is false, flawed, and poorly applied to justify a sinful idolatrous position and desire. There are no qualifiers on anything in these passages otherwise it would be acceptable to sleep with your neighbor, your mother, and animals as well as the same sex. Your are taking the historical reality of homosexual behavior and qualifying it as only wrong in the case of a pagan fertility act. That is the definition of eisegesis…your are reading something into the text that isn’t there and is frightfully wrong in the context of these several chapters defining forbidden sexual sin and the punishment for it. We are talking about sexual sins that have a punishment of death in God’s eyes. There is no room for this sort of conclusion.

    The other important parts of context that you failed to mention is not only the verse and the historical relevance is the whole book context (Leviticus), all the author’s work (Moses in this case), and the Bible as a whole, which do not allow for this slippery move at the conclusion.

    Finally, due to the level of work and clear knowledge you have displayed in the word, I’m sure you are familar with this verse, but I am concerned enough to remind you:

    James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

    You are on a very small and lonely island with the conclusion that homosexuality is only wrong under certain circumstances and you would be wise to accept the traditional, commonly held understanding of these passages…the conviction that comes with the overwhelmingly believed and educated opinion is God’s grace on each of our lives.

    In the immeasurable love of Christ,
    -abidingthroughgrace

  15. John Bayles says:

    This shows the state of apostate Christianity when Christians side with Rosie over street preachers.

  16. John, Christians are not siding with Rosie over street preachers, Christians here are pointing out that all reproof and correction shall be done gently and with love. This in no way condones Rosie’s lifestyle and it doesn’t condone this street preachers actions either. Being obnoxious and offensive toward someone in sin is just self-righteousness and requires repentance always.

    in the love of Christ,
    -atg

  17. Wow, John Bayles. We’ve been accused of a lot here, but rarely have we ever been accused of being part of the collective apostate church.

    Did you read the entire post? Have you read all the comments?

    The only person who can be considered to be “siding” with Rosie is commenter Alex Haiken, and his misuse of Scripture is being addressed in this thread.

    The original post, if you read it, still addresses the fact that Rosie is a sinner in need of a Savior, (and that the man with a bullhorn is too . . . as well as you and me).

    Since when is name calling, ridicule, and mocking the unsaved part of the gospel? Jesus and others were only harsh to the religious leaders, not the thieves, prostitutes, murderers, liars, and such.

    This post was about the reprehensible behavior (supposedly in the name of Christ) of the man with the microphone. A behavior that cannot be easily excused by pointing a finger at Rosie. And the post was equally clear that Rosie’s sin cannot be easily excused by pointing a finger at the bullhorn guy. Anyone who’s read the post will have a hard time buying your accusation that we are “siding” with Rosie. Your accusation distorts what the original posts says and is a terribly dishonest mischaracterization of us.

    I think the more accurate observation would be (borrowed from your own comment):
    This shows the state of apostate Christianity when Christians can ridicule and insult those who they are supposed to be preaching Law and Grace to.

  18. Mickey Merrie says:

    Just a thought from the Holy Spirit as I wrote a letter to friends who are much like John above.
    @ John, who do I side with, brother!?

    “We don’t need to be relavant to speak to the world today, we need to be
    biblical, and make the biblical christian reality of denying self picking up our
    cross and following Him, relavant again. We can not be that by trying to buddy
    up to the world so they will like us…The Word (of God) calls that being a harlot…”

    I can assure you that from my reading of Pilgrim, my spirit bears witness to his spirit, and as St.Paul aptly put it…”and I think that I too have the Spirit of Christ in me.”

  19. Abidingthroughgrace,

    Your first faux pas is at the get-go when you refer to what you call my “lifestyle”. We have to stop taking about the “gay lifestyle” as if to imply that all gay people think the same way, live the same way, and have the same values.

    I won’t argue with you with you about some of the outlandish behavior and dress the media select to show us whenever there’s a parade. But if, for example, the straight pimps and prostitutes that line some of the seedier parts of our cities would have a parade, would we conclude that this is indicative of the “heterosexual lifestyle” or all heterosexual people?

    All gay people do not wear designer clothes, do designer drugs or have multiple sex partners. The term “lifestyle” is at the heart of a serious category confusion. Mother Theresa and Madonna are both heterosexual women. But can we say their “lifestyles” or values are even remotely similar? We can’t use “lifestyle” and “sexual orientation” interchangeably.

    Fact is increasing numbers of people (evangelicals, Bible scholars, theologians and others) with a high regard for Scripture, and who are prayerfully committed to ordering their lives in accordance with it, are honestly divided over this issue. Fact also is that many gay Christians are doctrinally orthodox believers who display indisputable piety and holiness. I can personally testify that many of them pray, study their Bibles, love their neighbor and generally grow in godliness in an exemplary manner that any pastor would be proud to observe in his flock. You simply may not use “lifestyle” and “sexual orientation” interchangeably if you wish to speak with I integrity.

    As for your other comments above, I’d strongly suggest you begin by reading my post, “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality.” It speaks to many of the issues you raised.

    You play fast and loose with semantics when with your use of the term “lifestyle” in referring to gay people. And you play even more fast and loose with the biblical text with your presuppositions of what Moses sand Paul (the only two biblical authors who have been attributed as having said anything pertaining to or about homosexuality) were referring to in those few passages that get appealed to as addressing “homosexuality.”

    To the extent that you superimpose your reified and imparted view of homosexuality or heterosexuality onto the Bible’s pages, we will almost certainly miss the point of the passages we so violate. Those passages are talking about something quite specific and we evade them by reducing them to generality.

    How often we are blinded by our “reifications” and “canonical interpretations”. A reification, as you might know, is when we use a concept or doctrine so often and for so long that it comes to be a distinct “thing” to us, something that’s really there, a piece of our mind’s furniture. We are unaware of how much of our mental furniture consists of reifications. A canonical interpretation is a way of looking at a biblical passage or doctrine that we’ve become so accustomed to, that the interpretation has become indistinguishable in our minds from the text or passages themselves.

    -Alex Haiken

  20. Alex,

    I won’t be spending any more time on your blog because of the reasons stated above. You are teaching that sin can be justified if you use enough theological words and historical realities out of context. Your justification of sin by misusing the historical context is unacceptable. I also won’t waste time with superfluous issues such as “lifestyle” arguments, vocabulary, or whatever. You cannot explain away the overall context of the multiple chapters by claiming it is not sin to engage in homosexual activities. Setting a flawed conclusion on the clear and concise Word of God does not reduce the seriousness of the command. Sin requires repentance, period. The commands in Lev 18-20 are describing an offense to God and He requires repentance. Continuing knowingly in sin and justifying it with hermeneutical gymnastics is a dangerous place to be. Teaching false conclusions and misleading the precious sheep of God is a very scary place to be in the face of your holy, infinite, and eternal God. Again, you are on a lonely, lonely island all by yourself with a very very small group of Christian theologians who believe with you. 4000ish years of Biblical truth and careful study by the endless supply of men GIFTED BY GOD TO DO SO, do not agree with you. There is an endless supply of men who are a 100 times the expositor with a 100 times the exegesis skills compared to you and me both, who disagree vehemently with you on this subject. Stop wandering down the wide path of the world and focus in on the gifted teachers God has used for centuries to hold the line on this point to His Glory.

    But, there is good news! Christ died on the cross for all these sins. Your sin is no worse than my sin or anyone else’s. My sin is horrendous and a great offense to God and I pray daily in repentance of my sin. But praise be to Him, He has forgiven us of these things because of His Son’s work. Do not remain in sin, repent and fall on Christ. Fall on infinite mercy and steadfast love of Christ for this sin as with any sin.

    in the mercy of our savior,
    -atg

  21. Mickey Merrie says:

    Alex, what is it you are looking for from this site? If you were to get approval for your decision to trade what is “natural for the un-natural” from 10,000 men in christianity, you would gain nothing in the sight of God. Why appeal to us? Pilgrim is 100% right when he states that his sins are horrendous, as are mine in my past. Appeal to the Living God and not the one of man’s imagination for His Truth, and then conform to Him by His power!
    I tell you the truth because I do care!
    In the year King Uzziah died I saw the Lord high and lifted up, and his trane filled the temple…What happened next Alex?!?!

  22. Commenting here late, however …..

    Alex said… “Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture we too must condemn homosexuality. Needless to say, this premise is being widely debated among evangelicals today and seriously challenged by biblical scholars, theologians and religious leaders everywhere.”

    Liberal “Christians” that allow homosexuals to join the ministry and deny it is a sin against God are not “biblical scholars, theologians and religious leaders everywhere.”

    The word of God says :…… “Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! “

  23. Abidingthroughgrace,

    Call it what you like, my brother. And whether you wish to read the post I strongly suggested (“Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality”), that is entirely your call. But what is NOT your call is that as agreed, exegesis is about seeking to draw out from the text what it originally meant to the author and to the original intended audience, without reading into the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it.

    In contrast to this, what many do instead (and what I submit you are guilty of) is what theologians refer to as “frontloading”, that is to say, you read your own personal, political or prejudicial beliefs back into the Bible, instead of reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. This process of reading one’s own ideas into interpretation of the Bible is called “eisegesis” — which is precisely what we’re supposed to avoid. Why? Exegesis is reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. Eisegesis is reading one’s own ideas or prejudices back into the Bible. Exegesis is about getting out of the text what is truly there in the first place. Eisegesis is about putting into the text something never intended by the author.

    Therefore the question you must be asking ask is: What did the author and his intended audience think they meant? That’s how we do exegesis; that’s how we arrive at a correct interpretation without reading our own ideas — good or bad –into the Bible. But if you’re unwilling to read the post I suggested where this has been addressed in detail and just shrug off as “justification through use of theological words,”, so be it. But like it not, that’s how responsible exegesis is done — even when it challenges some of our long-held and most cherished beliefs.

    ———————-

    Mickey Merrie,

    What is it I am looking for from this site? Excellent question! Firstly, let me say that I fully agree that our sins are horrendous. The big question here however is: Is what the Bible calls sin and what some here are calling sin the very same thing? I spent the first 17 years of my Christian walk believing just as many of you — and taught it and preached it to others. But like the ever-growing number of evangelicals, Bible scholars, theologians and others, I ultimately discovered that when the few passages of Scripture that generally get appealed to in this debate are examined more closely and in detail, they simply don’t hold up to scrutiny.

    Some can deal with that. For some they find such a truth too costly. As a Jewish believer in Christ for 30 years, I’ve witnessed time and again a similar trend with rabbis and other Jewish leaders who have been unable to demonstrate open-mindedness on the issue of Christ as the Jewish Messiah.

    Fact is when a rabbi comes to terms with the notion that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, they won’t let him be a rabbi any longer. He needs to find a new way to make a living, support his family, pay his mortgage, put his kids through college, and so on. He is keenly aware that acknowledgement would almost certainly mean his financial and social ruin, destroying not only his career but his perceived good standing in his faith community as well. That’s a high price to pay. Christian leaders and others face similar losses in coming to terms with the notion that, as one of the vice presidents and professors of the seminary I attended phrased it on his own blog: “our reasons for opposing [homosexuality has] more to do with our own cultural backgrounds than with any biblical argumentation.”

    What am I looking for? Respectful dialogs with others who love God and have the courage and integrity consider areas in which the doctrines we were taught are simply wrong. The Church has been there many times before.

    Though some here have been quick to try and malign me, fact is I happen to love the Bible. In my handling of Scripture, I am, as in other areas of my life and outlook, very conservative. As a Christian, I consider myself both conservative and evangelical. If I were accused of twisting the Scriptures to justify sin, it would cut me very deeply. My love for God’s Word will not let me twist it or otherwise do it any harm. But when people are quick to say homosexuality in any form or expression is sin, I say not so fast, let’s take a closer look. You might say I challenge people to think more deeply.

    Lord knows, throughout 2,000 years of Christian history, Christians who have condemned others were usually acting in good faith. They believed they were defending against an attack of “the clear teachings of Scripture,” aas some here have been quick to proclaim. But history has revealed that way too often what well-meaning believers were actually defending was their presumption of what the Bible teaches, not the truth of Scripture.

    One of the lessons we can learn from these experiences is that reading and interpreting Scripture is not quite as simple as some would like to believe. A text does not simply “say what it says” despite the rational good intentions of some readers. For reading Scripture is not only a matter of what is written there, but also what we expect to find there, what we bring to the text, and what we take away from it. Reading Scripture then is by no means a clinical or a neutral affair. And we must not forget that while it may seem evident to us that others did terrible things in the past, it isn’t always so easy to see that we ourselves may be doing terrible things today.

    I hope this answers your question.

    -Alex Haiken

  24. fleebabylon says:

    Many, many words Alex to justify your sin! Like I said earlier:

    Alex said “It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview. ”

    That is like the guy who cheats on his wife saying that the verses in the Bible that speak on that are out of context. Why not forsake your sin and follow Jesus. He died to set us free from sin, whoever lives in sin has not seem Him or known Him (1 John 3). I pray that you would know Him like the woman caught in adultery – be overwhelmed by His grace and leave your life of sin in response.

    -Jim

  25. DavidW says:

    Alex,

    As I read what you’ve written, some things sounded very familiar, like I’ve heard it all before. And I have. They are standard arguments from those who claim to be “Christians” and yet Homosexual. They’re the same because they come from the same worn out arguments of the likes of Dale Martin, and Catholic priest Daniel Helminiak. Several of your arguments come straight out of Martin’s book “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.”, even going so far as to use his arguments one after the other. Your claim that breaking up arsenokoites into it’s component parts as invalid is his argument as well. Right down to using his use of “understand” as the same example he gives (that it does not mean “stand under’). But, as is the case with Martin, your argument falls short and conclusions lack weight, (for instance, ignoring the fact that there are many words, Greek, German, English, and other languages that are also compound words conveying reasonable meaning to a given audience. Ever hear of “Snowball”? “Mailbox”?). Your allegiance to this man, and your reliance on seemingly intellectually impressive wording (particularly your multiple cut and pastes of your paragraph on “reifications” and “canonical interpretations”) leave me very disappointed that you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the lies of others, which distort and disregard God’s Word in attempted support of homosexual behavior.

    I don’t believe I can offer anything more that will change your mind, as you will believe what you choose, and thus further attempts will be a waste of time. I, Lyn, and ATG have directed you to the Scriptures and have given you enough to show you what you need to see. I encourage you to put aside the works of men which attempt to provide support for what you want to believe, and take heed to the pure Word of God and what it says.

  26. Linda says:

    The objection that people keep making is that language is not capable of conveying absolute truth anymore.—it is not an objection that you can find in the pages of Scripture though. It comes from an alien philosophical origin. It does not mean that it does not assert the omnipotence of God-and how limited we are.

    But, We don’t get into Genesis chapter 2 and wonder if Adam can have a conversation with God, or if he can understand the command that God has given him.—he clearly can and did. And even after the fall, God talks to us. And he assumes that we can understand him, in fact he’ll say to Moses and his people– I’ve not told you something that’s high above the heavens. I’ve come (right up to you and whispered it into your ear). God’s word is understandable. He’s not asking us to scale mountains and cross rivers to understand what he’s saying to us.

    God spoke loudly and clearly at the CROSS through his Son-Heb.1:2. Our SINS were paid by our sinless savior Jesus who if anyone didn’t deserve to be treated wrong, it was Jesus not us. We deserve whatever God allows in our lives or permits. We’ve offended God, we’ve rebelled against Him.

    The smallest lie, the lustful thoughts, the fact that we are incapable of loving God every moment with all our heart, soul, mind and strength” is SIN. homosexuality is by no means not the only sin in a person’s life who is struggling. That little lie or adulterous thought in your heart will separate you from God forever. A homosexual can spend his whole life justifying homosexuality and never come to the truth that if you recorded your whole life laid bare before a Holy righteous just God he or she is guilty and will go to hell.

    We are born sinners that’s our nature and we must be born again by God from above. We are not sinners because we SIN, no we SIN because we are sinners. We cannot take our nature away by accommodating God’s word like Procrustes. It still doesn’t change our nature. Whenever a person works all his life to try and NOT do bad things,,, all those works no matter how good and pious are like “filthy rags to God” because we are still by nature sinners. We MUST surrender to God’s word completely and repent that we have sinned against God and be born again so that we are given the new nature of God as one of his Children.

    God says Repent and trust in my Son with your whole life….

    He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all, how much more along with him will he give us all things”

  27. Rose says:

    All the arguments about semantics and culture in the Bible aside, Alex, where the rubber meets the road is here: Genesis! It is as plain as the nose on your face that God made man and woman for each other… exclusively. They fit together perfectly physically/naturally ….to complete each other and become one in a way no two men or two women ever can. Same sex partners can never achieve real martial/sexual union…their bodies are simply not designed for true union with each other. And when they try, their ‘union’ is unnatural and in some of their practices unhealthy and sometimes even life threatening. If God had intended men to have sex with men and women with women…why did He create us the way He did?.. a man’s body fits the woman’s body perfectly…go together, right?

    “And the Lord God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2: 20) He didn’t give him another man to be his help meet. God’s plan right from the beginning was one man with one woman. He set the pattern for us right then… in the beginning. Anything else that came after is not His plan, but something sinful man devised on his own.

    “And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Not two men…they cannot become one flesh. Not two women…not one flesh there either. God instituted how it was to be…man and woman together… a perfect match in every way. Right there, sir, back in Genesis…simple as pie. Try to explain that away if you can. Nothing “colored by our own cultural context and worldview” there. Just plain as the words on the page.

  28. Hi Rose,
    I am glad you enjoyed this, it made me cry when I first watched it! All praise and glory go to the Father, who alone is worthy.

    May we all strive for holiness and to live solely for Him
    Lyn

  29. On one hand, we’re told that “arsenokoites” means “man-bed”. On the other hand, in clear contradiction, we’re told that you can’t determine the meaning by breaking it down into its component parts. Partly true. For a hapax legomenon, etymology is a very strong clue, especially if there are no extra-biblical usages of the word. It is very possibly a “coined” word, and coined words are always closely related in meaning to their etymology.

    I’ve discussed the question of understanding such words on my blog at some length when discussing the etymology and meaning of theopneustos. You have to look at connotations as well, for instance. The clear connotation, as indicated over and over again in Scripture (and outside of Scripture, for that matter), of koites is sexual intercourse. The word in question is a masculine word, so it is talking about men. It means men who have sexual intercourse with men. Any other interpretation is linguistically indefensible.

    If someone wants to try to make silly claims that other forms of homosexual activity are not forbidden by I Corinthians 6, they could at least argue from linguistics that the word doesn’t explicitly refer to other actions. There is no way around this as a direct condemnation of sodomy. Alex wants to claim that there is no general word for homosexual orientation, that the concept was unknown (that’s directly from his blog), and that the Scriptural condemnations are very specific. In this case, he is correct — this verse does not condemn “homosexual orientation” — it condemns sodomy.

    Alex does not realise how his own arguments condemn themselves. It is entirely true that there is little evidence for the concept of “homosexual orientation” before the 19th century. The actions were always there, and are condemned. The “orientation” argument is a modern invention. We are “oriented” to sin in many ways. It is no excuse.

  30. DavidW,

    I am not familiar with Dale Martin. But I am familiar with Daniel Helminiak. That said, I never claimed that anything I present here is unique. Fact is much scholarly material has been published on this subject in recent years and we all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. As I stated above, I used to believe as you did (taught it, preached it, etc.), until I learned that I was wrong.

    It would appear though that where the rubber meets the road is: Can you (or anyone here) demonstrate exegetically where anything I have said is not biblically sound? Or do you just say, “No, I’m right and you’re wrong because that’s what I have been taught and believe the Bible says.” If our doctrines — no matter how long-held and treasured they may be — are exegetically unsupportable, what then is the biblical basis for clinging to them?

    -Alex Haiken

    ________________________________________________________________

    Rose,

    You said: “All the arguments about semantics and culture in the Bible aside, Alex, where the rubber meets the road is here: Genesis! It is as plain as the nose on your face that God made man and woman for each other… exclusively.”

    To argue that Genesis privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible: the argument from silence. The creation story is indeed about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as critics of homosexuality like to admonish. But thought heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality.

    The authors of Genesis were intent on answering the question: Where do we come from? Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman. This text celebrates God’s deliberate and equal creation of man and woman: God created both the males and the females. The creation story does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state and yet we know that singleness is not condemned. The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society. The creation story is the basis, and not the end, of human relationship and thus to regard it as excluding everything it does not mention is to place much too great a burden on the text.

    Notice also, our canonical interpretations to the contrary, that this passage does not say a word about marriage. The human race will indeed be fruitful and multiply, much as did the fish and birds in Genesis 1:22. But the notion that this passage restricts sex to heterosexual marriage is ours and not the author’s. The text simply does not say it.

    The argument from the creation order is also hazardous on several other fronts. Virtually all churches reject the notion that God created sex for procreation only. Churches don’t teach that the “lifestyle” of married couples who choose not to have children is prohibited by Scripture despite the fact that the first man and woman were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Undoubtedly the male and female sex organs are designed to complement one another and are necessary to produce babies. But sexuality means much more than reproduction. This insight seems to be confirmed by the complementary account of creation provided in Genesis 2. God, we are told, was strangely sympathetic to the loneliness of Adam, observing that within the universe he had so conspicuously pronounced “good” there was, nevertheless, a significant omission. “It was not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18). Significantly this was declared by God in paradise, before the Fall, and while man was still in unbroken fellowship/relationship with God. In the following verses we are given another account of the purpose of sexuality: not procreation this time, but companionship. In other words, a primary creation purpose of sex is inter-personal intimacy, not just procreation. Sex as a profound expression of love and mutuality is something most of us accept gratefully as a good part of God’s good world. It is a marvel, a mystery and a grace that babies can come from ecstasy, but the ecstasy does not require babies to justify it.

    Re your secondary argument, as noted in Gen 2:18 we have the first appearance of the expression “not good”. God Himself, in His judgment, declares something as not being good. What is it? It is not good for man to be alone, to be all by himself. This is the first thing in the history of the universe that God declares is not good. Everything up to this point had been prepared for life, and certainly for the life of humanity. And suddenly there is but one human, and that’s not good. You need somebody specifically suited for you — so God says He will make a helper suitable for you. The meaning is not of a work mate. Complementarity is what is in view here, someone matching him – “like-opposite” him, i.e., appropriately complementary – “fascinatingly other” vis-à-vis your own sense of self — not a question of genitalia. You’re looking for a persona, complementarity, companionship in the fullest sense of intimacy – someone who is a fully matched person utterly suitable for you in every way — that actually fit the needs in question. Not simply for procreation, but a companion. In fact, procreation isn’t even mentioned as a reason why God was creating a companion for the man.

    Yet in anti-gay rhetoric, Jesus seems to have died so an anatomical technicality might be tweaked and trumped. It’s what a couple does with two penises or two vaginas instead of what another couple does with one penis and one vagina that constitutes the sin in the antigay argument. As Robert Gagnon argues: “The complementarity of male and female sex organs [is] the most unambiguous” indictment against homosexuality. But surely sexual complementarity is a bit more complicated than tinker toys. In both heterosexual and homosexual attraction, what draws two people together is the fascinating otherness that each sees in the whole persona of the other, not the shapes of genitalia. It would appear you fail to appreciate the complexity of the one-flesh phenomenon, a union that surely has more to do with two persons than with two body parts.

    -Alex Haiken

  31. Alex,
    I recommend my prior comment to you, posted at 9:51 pm.

    I also recommend 1Jn 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 1Jn 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
    1Jn 3:8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 1Jn 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
    1Jn 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

    As a former lesbian, I urge you to repent, to flee your sin, and cry out for His mercy. You are trying to justify what God, who is holy, abhors. What does God command us to do concerning our sins? Eze_18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.”
    Mat_3:2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
    Mat_4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
    Luk_13:5 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
    Act_17:30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent”

    You simply cannot justify sexual sin, it must be confessed and forsaken. If you think otherwise, you will perish.

  32. DavidW says:

    Alex,

    Well if you aren’t familiar with Martin, yet have presented his arguments nearly word for word, then it’s truly an amazing coincidence. Here’s where we differ: Whereas you “stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before”, I attempt to merely take the Bible for what it says (along with Greek and Hebrew helps such as Strong’s for word study). According to your testimony, you once believed as I do, even taught and preached it, but have LEARNED you were wrong. And that’s my concern for you. Somewhere along the line your mind was turned into rejecting what you once knew was true. You can’t possibly have come to the conclusions you have presented, heavy as they are with the philosophies, even the phraseologies and rhetoric, of other homosexual activists, by Bible study alone. Your thesis is loaded with the presuppositions of those whose shoulders you have chosen to stand on.

    Your challenge has already been met by several here (especially by Lyn). Yet your sweeping rejection of all evidences given to you from the Scriptures, relying on the same arguments voiced by your chosen mentors, displays a bias through which you now view the Scriptures, and a closed mindedness to what you once believed from the Scriptures. Just so we’re clear, I do not believe “we’re right and you’re wrong because that’s what we’ve been taught the Bible says”. Rather, I believe what I see taught in the Scriptures (not what others say it says), and I do not see any credible evidence from the Scriptures in support of your chosen beliefs on this issue. I do not condemn you, as I am not your judge. But I desire, I plead, for you to repent, and return to the Scriptures, return to what you once knew to be true.

  33. Alex,
    I’ve already shown you that your exegesis is flawed because you make a flawed conclusion…in order to clarify this, let’s boil this down simply…from your point of view please by answering TRUE or FALSE. Don’t qualify or justify your answers…simply answer true or false to each of these as related to your Leviticus blog exegesis:

    1. True or False? – It is acceptable in GOD’s eyes to offer your children to Molech if you are not doing it as related to a fertility ritual.

    2. True or False? – It is acceptable in GOD’s eyes to to perform sexual acts with animals if you are not doing it as related to a fertility ritual.

    3. True or False? – It is acceptable in GOD’s eyes for a man to lie with a man like with a woman if you are not doing it as related to a fertility ritual.

    in our savior’s grace,
    -atg

  34. Lyn,

    I wholeheartedly endorse every one the Scriptures you quoted above. My question to you however is: By what great exegetical rule or miracle do you read these passages and then conclude, “Um, it’s homosexual; that settles it, let’s move on.” In all due respect, this is eisegesis (reading things into the text that are not there) in the highest order.
    ————————
    Abindingthroughgrace,

    Answers to your questions as requested:

    1. True or False? – It is acceptable in GOD’s eyes to offer your children to Molech if you are not doing it as related to a fertility ritual.

    Answer: It is not acceptable in GOD’s eyes to offer your children to Molech.

    2. True or False? – It is acceptable in GOD’s eyes to perform sexual acts with animals if you are not doing it as related to a fertility ritual.

    Answer: It is not acceptable in GOD’s eyes to perform sexual acts with animals

    3. True or False? – It is acceptable in GOD’s eyes for a man to lie with a man like with a woman if you are not doing it as related to a fertility ritual.

    Answer: I can appreciate your desire to make this a slam dunk case. However, the argument you are setting up is not a sound one. Here’s why. It is true that in the Leviticus passage’s context these acts are prohibited because of their association with pagan idolatry. Hence Lev 18 begins with a strict caution to avoid retaining the idolatries of Egypt (from where the Israelites had come) and of receiving the idolatries of Canaan (to where they were now going).

    According to the Matthew Henry Commentary, this strict caution to avoid these idolatries “sums up the whole chapter of Leviticus 18.” However, common sense also tells us that the illegitimate taking of a human life (child sacrifice/Lev 18:21) and the sexual abuse of an animal (bestiality/Lev 18:23) are additionally indisputably exploitive and abusive under ANY context or circumstance, whereas the same does not hold true for what we know of today as “homosexuality”, which often encompasses a committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership or marriage.

    Remember, as we discussed, the purpose of exegesis is not to reduce the biblical passages to ordinary text, but to determine the true, objective meaning of each passage, quite apart from the various traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it. That means we must try to avoid reading into the text our own opinions and prejudices (i.e., eisegesis).

    Jesus also provided a very important hermeneutic tool to help his followers negotiate their way through moral debates about OT law. He identified one Levitical command as the key to understanding the rationale behind all the others. Quoting Lev 19:18, He said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” This suggests that when trying to determine why an OT law was given and what its relevance is to a modern Christian, two vital questions must be asked: (1) What HARM to neighbor was this command intended to PREVENT? And (2) what GOOD to neighbor was this command intended to PROMOTE? And though Lev 19:18 was not all that popular in the days of the OT, it is the verse from the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, that is the most frequently cited in the NT. It’s a summary and a fulfilling of the Law that was repeatedly referred to by Jesus, Paul and James.

    Hope this helps.

    -Alex Haiken

  35. Alex,

    I have laid out plainly from Matthew the teachings of Christ, going into the original language and defining His words. The Bible repeatedly condemns ALL sexual sin outside the covenant of marriage…period. You have no argument to state otherwise unless you can lay out an exegesis, not an eisegesis, that shows different.
    What I laid out was indeed exegesis, for I did not add to or take away from what the text said. Your accusation is faulty concerning your claim. When Christ said ‘fornication’, he covered all the forms/types of sexual sin, so it isn’t as though you can exclude homosexuality just because ‘homosexuality’ was not mentioned specifically. Your argument does not hold water because it is based on your opinion, you are looking for loopholes to justify your sin. Again, the definition of ‘fornication’ is key in understanding what Christ was defining as ‘defiles’…in Greek it’s porneia which means-
    Thayer Definition:
    1) illicit sexual intercourse
    1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
    1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
    2) metaphorically the worship of idols
    2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
    All of the above are considered ‘fornication’ and are defiling, if not, Christ would have said so. You are the one who in fact who is misinterpreting the text…prove me wrong using God’s word, otherwise, you have no argument.

  36. Pearls before swine.

    Alex asked for exegesis, but did not respond to my post dealing with arsenokoites. He understands the weakness of an argument from silence, but his whole position is based on trying to prove there is silence so that then he can use an argument from silence. Because the Bible never endorses or approves homosexual behaviour in any way, shape or form, while it repeatedly and emphatically endorses heterosexual marriage. So the best he can get is “argument from silence”, but he has to wiggle and squirm to try to get anywhere near that.

    Alex claims to be a Christian, yet is sexually active outside of marriage. Alex wants there to be gay marriage, which is never seen in the Bible or remotely hinted at, so apparently he thinks sex should be within marriage, yet his actions are contrary to that. If he thinks what he is doing is ok, he doesn’t need gay marriage. If he thinks gay marriage is needed, then he knows what he is doing is wrong.

    Alex claims to believe in exegesis and seeing what the Scriptures say, yet he denies the sufficiency of Scripture, for God apparently forgot, in Scripture, to give us any hints that marriage and sexual relations between men are ok. Every positive statement about sexual intimacy and marriage in the Bible involves heterosexual marriage. There is not one positive statement or positive example of homosexuality anywhere in the Bible. It seems God just forgot….

    Alex teaches the doctrine of Balaam (Revelation 2:14), teaching people to commit fornication. The Gospel of Christ involves salvation from sin. Alex teaches that a sin which God calls an abomination is acceptable and consistent with Christianity. This is a false gospel. It is hard for me, Biblically, to find any justification for discussion with him beyond what has already been said. It appears the bases have been covered.

  37. Alex, it is a slam dunk case as your “ya, but…” justification shows. Your answer continues to be an offense to our Holy God. Referring to “common sense” as a hermeneutic tool doesn’t give you the authority to pluck a special case out of the middle of these chapters full of sexual sins an their punishment. You’ve lost the exegesis authority with appealing to “common sense” and evident that your answers are really: “yeah, but it’s self serving if I twist the context of these passages.”

    As one sinner to another, I pray you will flee from these things and not continue in sin and not continue to endorse and support sin.

    In the mercy of our savior,
    -atg

  38. Linda says:

    Jesus was God(is God),the same God who gave the Old Testament Scriptures. Now,since Jesus being God gave the Old Testament , then Jesus unambiguously, unequivocally condemned homosexuality. The passage in Leviticus is very clear. God calls a man laying with a man an abomination PERIOD!

    Alex, you stated the reason why the ACTS were prohibited were ,,,” because of their association with pagan idolatry. Hence Lev 18 begins with a strict caution to avoid retaining the idolatries of Egypt (from where the Israelites had come) and of receiving the idolatries of Canaan (to where they were now going).

    No that is false. The acts were not condemned because of their idolatry, the acts were and ARE STILL condemned because the LAWS -specifically (the moral laws) such as “thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not lie”, are a reflection of God’s CHARACTER. It is an offense against God’s HOLY CHARACTER. These moral laws still apply to this day because God condemns such wickedness. They are repugnant and Jesus shed his blood to wash away such wickedness.

    Lev 20:13 “‘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.” Condemned to death

    By the way, Jesus was responsible for those laws. Also, Jesus said the whole Law was valid-Matthew 5:17-20. This will include the passages in Leviticus that condemn Homosexuality etc..Therefore Jesus agrees with the condemnation of homosexuality. Also, in Matthew chap. 19 Jesus made very specific comments on what God intended on marriage. He said that God created male and female-2 sexes and one is made for the other–One flesh..<<<this leaves no room for Jesus affirming same sex relationships whatsoever. Jesus was an observant Jew who endorsed the entire law.

    Jesus would tell homosexuals the same thing he tells all unrepentant sinners: "REPENT!"

  39. Alex, I know it has been said by many here that you practice eisegesis. I’m going to repeat what has been demonstrated here about proper exegesis of the O.T. passages and hopefully have it simple enough for you to see that you haven’t a leg to stand on.

    Let‘s look at the first passage. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Lev. 18:22

    Now, this is pretty strong in the verbiage used to describe how God sees the act of homosexual behavior – an abomination. Now let’s look at the context.

    Chapter 18 starts with God saying, “I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. From this point God lists all sorts of sexual practices which were done in Egypt and Canaan, and which God found detestable.” There are no other topics in this chapter; God just says don’t do any of these things because these are a reason why God is punishing the nations by having Israel drive the people out of the land. It was these practices which made the land unclean. The Scripture is very, very plain: God says all the listed sexual behaviors are an abomination to Him, and that those who practice these things are worthy of severe punishment.

    Now here is the second passage: 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” Lev. 20:13

    Notice the same strong verbiage God uses to explain His revulsion to such behavior; it is an abomination. Again, let’s look at the context.

    Beginning at 20:10, God again lists numerous sexual practices which He forbids. And again, God gives the reason why at verse 23: “And you shall not walk in the customs of the nations that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things and therefore I detested them.” God said that the pagan lands where he was bringing them were detested – another strong word – because of these sexual practices.

    Leviticus has many ceremonial laws and social order laws which are meant only for Israel as a way to set the nation up as holy – separated – to himself. Scripture tells us these laws were just for Israel (Deut. 4:7-8; Lev. 27:34; Ps. 147:19-20, et al). However, in His discussion about sexual practices He found abhorrent, God says these are behaviors that those outside of Israel are even disallowed, and because they practice such abominations they are being destroyed.

    The point is, that the Leviticus passages aren’t just relegated to some ancient prohibition for some people. These passages speak of these sexual practices as something that God detests among people no matter when or where.

    As to the claims by those such as yourself, who are promoting homosexuality, that we misunderstand these passages: you say that it is only about homosexual behavior in conjunction with idolatry. But this leaves a problem: Does God then condemn incest, adultery and bestiality ONLY if they are done in conjunction with idolatry – that at any other time they are okay?

    The O.T. passages are very perspicuous, and only by twisted eisegesis can one come to the conclusion that they do not condemn all homosexual behavior.

  40. I am the preacher who SCRIPTURALLY rebuked RO and it seems none of you have any understanding of the Bible. 1. Jesus was not always nice (John 8:44) and neither was Paul (Acts 13). 2. At times we are to warn and rebuke without even giving the gospel (Stephen and Jonah and again, Paul with Elymas) 3. At times we are to rebuke with NO compassion, see Prov 17:11. The word cruel means destitute of compassion. See also Jude 23. 4. I ask any of my critics 1. Are you genuinely saved, born again, washed in the blood. 2. Have you EVER preached on the streets, particularly at aggressive events. I was correct in my rebuke of her, in the eyes of the Lord, He HATES the wicked (ps. 5:5, 7:11 and 11:5) and she got what she needed. Remember also that it may be too late for her to be saved. Also understand that no sodomite goes to heaven unless they repent and turn the the LORD Jesus Christ! You have been corrected!

  41. Lyn,

    Words often have different meanings defending on the specific context in which they are used. Therefore you may not simply take every single meaning of a word and the apply each and every meaning in every case you see the word — not if you want to interpret the text responsibly. That would be ludicrous! You must look at the context. Context is something you appear to prefer avoiding like the plague.

    What happens when you ignore the historical context of Scripture? As the old time radio teacher, Dr. J. Vernon Magee, used to say, “A text without a context is a pretext.” The dictionary defines a pretext as, “An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.” In other words, unless you consider the context of Scripture — I mean the entire context including the historical setting — we are, purposely or not, engaging in a strategy to conceal the teachings of the Bible.

    While the biblical word often translated into the English as “FORNICATION” is indeed sometimes used to describe general sexual impropriety, as Easton’s Illustrated Bible dictionary explains:

    “THE WORD IS MORE FREQUENTLY USED IN A SYMBOLICAL THAN IN ITS ORDINARY SENSE. IT FREQUENTLY MEANS A FORSAKING OF GOD OR A FOLLOWING AFTER IDOLS (E.G., ISA 1:2; JER 2:20; EZEK 16; HOS 1:2; HOS 2:1-5; JER 3:8, 9).”
    - Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary

    The primary dictionary definition of a word is its “denotative” meaning. But as words are used over time, they take on various additional shades of meaning, which we call “connotations”. Case in point: the name John. It comes from a Hebrew word meaning, denotatively, dove, and therefore with connotations of peace. It can also be viewed as a shortening of a Hebrew sentence name that means “gift of Yahweh” and that’s why you sometimes see the other meaning given. But “john” in English can have other connotations too. It may mean nothing more than a toilet. Or it might mean the male partner of a prostitute who was caught by the police. And so forth. These various meanings constitute the “semantic range” of a word, and are essential for understanding crucial Bible passages.

    I don’t suppose you would apply “toilet” and “partner of a prostitute” every time you see “John” now, would you? Why do you think you can have such leeway with the term “fornication” — especially when we’re told “IT FREQUENTLY MEANS A FORSAKING OF GOD OR A FOLLOWING AFTER IDOLS?”

    Again Lyn, if you wish to interpret the Bible responsibly, the name of the game is EXEGESIS, not EISEGESIS.

    -Alex Haiken

  42. Sueliz1 says:

    James.

    Shame on you. You called her a pig and told her to ” go do the dishes.” what kind of preaching is that? You are the one who needs rebuking. You are acting prideful here. Remember where you were when Jesus rescued you. Did your pastor call you a pig when in spiritual need?

    Do you partner with Westboro Baptist church that pulls splinters out of everyone’s eyes while having logs in their own? You need to come down a peg and beg forgiveness.

    You must remember if you have not love you are nothing. Nothing but a clanging symbol.

  43. Alex,

    You accuse me of – “You must look at the context. Context is something you appear to prefer avoiding like the plague.” Show me, biblically, where I did this.

    You still have not used God’s word to show my ‘error’. As for context, I already covered it, Christ was pointing to what defiles, in so doing, He covered all types of sexual sin when He said ‘adultery, fornication’, why? So sinners could not try and claim their sexual sin is okay, like you are doing.

    Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? Why or why not?

    —————————

    Here is another article concerning Matthew 15:19 and Christ Himself condemning homosexuality…

    “you say, “Where in the New Testament did Jesus ever mention homosexuality?” Open your Bibles and find out; because contrary to what the gay church says, He not only spoke against it—He went out of His way to make it very clear [so] nobody’d misunderstand Him.

    Of course, you do have to study your Greek New Testament to come up with it. Most homosexual theologians, so-called, that I have talked to don’t even know the Greek alphabet, much less their Greek exegesis so they miss it completely—but it’s here in the passage and it should be looked at. Matthew, chapter 15, Christ is speaking, verse 19, “For out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, murders,” notice the differentiation, “adulteries, fornications,” plural, “thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”

    “These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” “The word homosexual is not there; what are you arguing about?” I’m arguing about the use of the word porneus, which was found written over the wall, and the doorway, and the arches, in excavations [by] archaeologists of Roman brothels. And the word porneus did not mean “sex before marriage” alone.

    It meant homosexuality, bestiality, and all forms of degraded sex. And it became well known to everybody in the culture, if any of them ever did their homework, that porneus referred to anything goes. Jesus well knew the Roman brothels. He well knew the culture of His time; and when He said adulteries and fornications—plural—He was making a direct reference to the practices of the Romans and the Greeks and the pagans of the time who prostituted themselves to all forms of evil.

    He knew it; He condemned it. It’s not just the matter of the word, it’s a matter of the culture; and Jesus certainly understood the culture of His time—if He didn’t, nobody did. And therefore, when He used the word fornications, He obviously was making reference to all forms—all forms, inclusive forms—of that which was the deviation from the norm of Jewish law.”

    Read the entire post at http://apprising.org/2011/03/21/jesus-does-condemn-homosexuality/

  44. Brothers and sisters, the original post was not about the topic being debated here. It wasn’t even mentioned in the original post, which was about the Gospel, and communicating it clearly. There is a transparent attempt here to divert the discussion into a debate — the person who diverted this thread was the first person to even mention the topic. Suddenly, the whole post becomes, instead of a wonderful message of the Gospel, a debate.

    This WAS a post to which I would have gladly referred anyone who asked me about this event, or Fred Phelps, etc. I would have said this is the message I preach. Now, I would be hesitant to do so. Sinners (of all kinds) do not need debate, they need the Gospel.

    If the person who diverted the thread really believes the Bible as he claims, he would have wanted unsaved people, homosexuals and otherwise, to read a Gospel presentation like this. Instead, he diverted it, and his actions in doing so speak as much to the error of his ways as anything he has said. Eventually I also fell into his trap, for which I apologise.

    The nature of this site is to refute error, and that is a valuable and necessary ministry. But we need to recognise that the adversary wants to draw us into arguments to distract from the message which is truly dangerous to his hold on enslaved people. There is a time and place to refute strongly the errors that have been proposed here. A Gospel thread is rarely, if ever, that place. In a Gospel thread, it is a mere diversion.

    Blessings to you all.

  45. Glenn,

    You are correct that Lev “Chapter 18 starts with God saying, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you.” You are also correct that Lev 18:22 is referred to as “toevah” which is commonly translated in the English as “abomination”.

    What you miss, however, (and again here’s where exegesis comes in), is that the term “abomination” is abominably misunderstood. The Hebrew word “toevah” (commonly translated “abomination”) functions in a very precise way in priestly literature. It ALWAYS means a practice that is unacceptable because it is one of the cult practices of the pagan religions surrounding God’s people. The thing may be innocuous in itself, but in order for Israel’s faithful to be safeguarded, even otherwise innocent practices were forbidden. Or it may be something that is intrinsically evil. The key is that it is part and parcel of the cult practice of the pagan religions. Remember that the next time someone tells you that this or that is an abomination to God. Toevah = practices used specifically as part of the ritual and cultic acts of the pagan Canaanite religion, often to seek fertility.

    You and I do not get to make things up as we go along, and we’re stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as the primary meaning.

    ______________

    Lynn,

    You said: You accuse me of – “You must look at the context. Context is something you appear to prefer avoiding like the plague.” Show me, biblically, where I did this.

    Me: See my reply time stamped here as March 9 @ 5:01 PM

    -Alex Haiken

    ________________

    Jon,

    (1) Actually I did respond to the post concerning “arsenokoites.” Moreover, some here then replied to my comments and I, in turn, replied to them. Feel free to go back and reread.

    (2) I would argue your point but firstly, why do you presume that I am not married? As you should know, New York is one of the ever-growing number of states where gay marriage is indeed legal.

    (3) As for your use of the word “fornication,” I responded to Lyn’s misuse of the word in detail. I’d suggest you read what I wrote before you wield the word around so easily.

    (4) I’d also suggest you read my post titled “Why No One in the Biblical Wold Had a Word for Homosexuality,” which addresses your other points in more detail.

    Respectfully,
    -Alex Haiken

  46. Linda:

    You said: “The acts were not condemned because of their idolatry, the acts were and ARE STILL condemned because the LAWS -specifically (the moral laws) such as “thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not lie”, are a reflection of God’s CHARACTER. It is an offense against God’s HOLY CHARACTER. These moral laws still apply to this day because God condemns such wickedness. They are repugnant and Jesus shed his blood to wash away such wickedness.”

    Me: You must be careful about tossing everything into one grand bucket called “moral law.” Fact is many things the Bible considered normative we would consider grossly immoral today and what you may consider “moral law” the biblical writers considered otherwise.

    Again, ignore exegesis here and your understanding will continue to be misunderstanding. For example, are you aware that during biblical times men (and the kings) of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Male on male rape was a way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes and a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. If we miss this we not only miss what was going on in the renowned Sodom and Gomorrah passage (Genesis 19), but we also miss the meaning in such passages as 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4 where Saul, gravely wounded by the Philistines, instructs his armor-bearer to “Draw your sword and thrust me through with it lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me.” Are you going to try and convince me now that all these armies were gay?

    There is also a famous picture from Greece that celebrates the victory of the Athenians over the Persians in 460 BCE. In the picture a Greek soldier with erect penis in hand approaches from the rear a distressed, defeated Persian soldier who is bent over waiting to be raped by the Greek. The picture was intended to show, through the imagery that the Greeks now dominate the submissive Persians. This picture was not pornography; it was politics. In myth, law, treaties, monuments, and pottery decorations, political and military domination was often conventionally symbolized by sexual domination between men.

    Again, what you may read as “moral” the biblical writers were communicating otherwise. The biblical writers knew nothing of sexual orientations, mutual erotic relationships, or sexuality as the expression of a passion for equality. Our world is not their world and theirs is not ours. (This was addressed in greater detail in my post “Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality.”)

    It’s the AUTHOR’s intentions and meanings we’re supposed to be going after here, not yours or mine. What did HE and his intended audience think they meant? You will remember, that’s how we do exegesis; that’s how we arrive at a correct interpretation without reading our own ideas — good or bad — into the Bible.

    -Alex Haiken

  47. Mickey Merrie says:

    Whether a man be homosexual or bisexual, he breaks God’s law Alex! You are now justifying sin with sin and by sin. Your gospel is the gospel of “Let your conscience be your guide.”
    That is the gospel of Jimminy Cricket.

    I am embarrased for you on your piece to Glenn. At least you should see that your sexual preference is pagan according to your own words. This bunny trail leads to sin also Alex, by your own admission which you base on God’s Word!

  48. Linda says:

    Alex, thank you for your reply. However,

    I’m not misunderstanding God’s moral laws here because it’s based on His holy character. You see, God is reflected in those laws and God’s holy character does not change.-”I the Lord do not change”-Malachi 3:6.

    One of the mistakes many people make and that I see you falling for is- Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records. For example, the bible accurately records some of the lies of Satan -Gen. 3:4, Jn. 8:44. Or that Peter lied 3 times and betrayed Jesus. But that doesn’t mean that the Bible condones or approves of those statements just because it records it.Just because men raped men, doesn’t mean God condoned it.

    So men raped men and that didn’t make them gay. Being gay or a homosexual is not the issue at all. That’s a wag the dog argument—Sin is the issue. They committed sin and will go to hell if they didn’t repent for their ins and receive the perfect righteousness of God . Can God do evil and condone it?—”So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong. He repays a man for what he has done; he brings upon him what his conduct deserves. It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice. -Job 34:10-12,
    .
    Alex, God did not condone men raping men even if they were not gay. All fornication is forbidden by God and that encompasses but is not limited to the LITERAL ACT> The Lord Jesus made it very clear that Sin is committed in our hearts-Mat 15:19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander”. The pharisees were guilty of such hypocrisy. They actually thought they were innocent. Jesus said, “,, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice. ‘For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” -Mt. 9:12-13. The Pharisees were the ones who thought they didn’t need Jesus they had their self- righteousness and were innocent.”

    And Alex, that’s the problem most people have that I’m sure you would agree. That’s the problem that (I) had before God saved me. I actually thought I was a good person morally because I didn’t commit the literal act of sin, I went to church, I knew the bible and was very moral and kind to people ethically. But I was condemned already and didn’t know it because we are born that way-John 3:18 we are (already condemned) if we refuse to repent and believe in Jesus and on the broad road to hell. God sends no one to hell we are already going there and only those who believe(fully trust in God’s Standard of perfect righteousness-His SON will he save.

    “There is no one righteous no not one, no one who seeks God and no one who is good”.

    God ALONE is good.
    His righteousness demands justice
    the Only way justice is satisfied is with perfect righteousness -sinlessness–Only Jesus was sinless. We are sinners. God cannot have not even one atom of sin near him-not one.

    It’s not about homosexuality it’s about that we ALL are sinners.
    The BEST thing you can do for yourself is to go through the 10 commandments and ask if you were to stand before GOD as your judge, would you be guilty or innocent?

    Have you ever lied even once in your life? what does that make you?
    Have you ever once stolen anything? what does that make you?
    Have you ever used God’s name in vain?
    Have you ever lusted in your heart after women/men? Remember Jesus set the standard much much higher in the New Testament- He said if you lust after a woman/man in your heart you have ALREADY committed adultery
    Have you ever been angry with someone? Remember again Jesus set the standard much higher that if you have been angry you have murdered them.

    So with all this I implore you in your very own privacy please Alex go before God and ask Him-sincerely,,, would he consider you innocent or guilty if you have broken even ONE of his laws? Remember James says “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”-James 2:10.

    Remember God is Righteous and Just and cannot ignore sin. If he’s a good judge which he is, he has to punish sin.

    Believe me Alex, I KNOW what sin does—it’s torturous, it’s empty, it’s bitter and it’s a lie.Sin will give you pleasure but leave you very lonely because Sin NEVER brings us Joy.

    I know that lifestyle, Not because I practiced (the literal act) it but because before I was saved my own dad molested me when I was a little girl. Because of what my father did to me, I was very confused about my sexuality and began to make the wrong choices trying to placate those hurts and pains and found attractions towards the same sex as the solution. problem was it was MY WAY not God’s way and I found God’s way quite repugnant. At the time I thought I could fix my life and be happy.
    If you’d like to read my testimony it’s here—-http://jehovahmekoddishkem7.blogspot.com/2011/11/hi-my-name-is-linda-and-i-want-to-share_19.html

    I apologise for giving you a truckload to read. I cannot help but have compassion towards you and well wanted to sinncerely with all my heart implore you in hopes that you would see the light of the glorious gospel in the face of Christ shine in your heart and lead you to true contritedness of heart…

    I won’t get into it all but to make a long story short I was a dirty rotten to the core(heart) no good rebellious person who had broken God’s law and deserved hell

    if’ you’d like to read my testimony I’m glad to share it—

  49. James,
    Your behavior is a disgrace to the name of Christ. I do street preaching and would never, ever abuse people that way. You turn them away from the Lord by your insults. Truth must be spoken with love or it is worthless to the hearer.

    ———————-

    Alex,

    You trying to make the Levitical passages apply only to cult and pagan practices won’t wash. In your worldview, all the centuries of teaching by the Jews prior to Christ, and all the teachings of Jews and Christians since that time, which teach that homosexuality is a sin and an abuse of human sexuality, were all wrong and only the latest studies by liberal and homosexualist teachers have the truth. Well, the old saying applies: “If it is new, it isn’t true. If it is true, it isn’t new.” Your new “understanding” of Scripture has been developed only to justify what is not justifiable – homosexual behavior.

  50. Spot on , Jon Gleason!

    I was thinking the same thing.

    If you notice, I never mentioned “homosexuality” in the original post. That was purposeful. I did not want any particular pet sin (above that of all other sins) to distract from the core message of the post.

    Sadly, as you say, the message of the original post (I am afraid) has been lost in the distraction.

    I am asking everyone that wishes to continue the debate, to please do so on another thread. I am asking that you continue this on tomorrow’s upcoming sermon of the week (on this very topic) as it will be a much more apropos place to do so.

    Thank you very much.

  51. Mickey Merrie says:

    See all on Monday!
    Pilgrim, it didn’t go off track till Alex took it there, that is why i called his work bunny trails. Everybody prior understood that it was the heart of the street preacher as reflected in his fruit.
    He knows more then the Apostles when it comes to figuring out who the elect are and aren’t. I guess he forgot the judging another’s servant scripture. We are to judge fruit, and in the context of the video, shall we say she knew more scripture then he at that point, and showed more compassion then he. The scripture that relates to “you fool” also would apply to those yelling “you pig.”
    Alex on the other hand has been handed over to the delusion of his choice. I apprecite the godly, caring and accurate rebukes of my brothers and sisters here on this blog, and they stand out in sharp contrast to James, who apparently, like Saul of Tarsus, fancies himself as the more important name of scriptural renoun and rebuke.

  52. @ Mickey:
    I understand, and I in no way fault you and the others in their attempts to defend the authenticity of the biblical text from those who justify their sin by offering “hath God said?” I just think that the thread moved from the point of the original post to a side issue that would be better discussed on another post. Thus, I am requesting this debate be continued on tomorrow’s scheduled sermon of the week.

    @ James:
    I was surprised how long it took to hear from you, but I am not surprised by your response. Your comment attempting to “correct us” presumes that we somehow don’t recognize homosexuality as a sin. That is a ridiculous assertion on your part, and leads me to come to one of two conclusions:
    1). You either did not read my entire post (and the subsequent comments), or
    2). You ignored what I wrote (and the subsequent comments).

    The post is dealing with sin in general, and encompasses everything from the sins of homosexuality, adultery, lying, theft, blasphemy, gossip, apostasy, idolatry, murder, and even self-righteous pride that leads someone to call a perishing sinner a “pig” as if they’ve forgotten the mire out of which God saved them. Apparently the point was lost on you.

    So, please, James, repent of your pride and humble yourself before the Lord. You might be amazed at what the Spirit will do with your street ministry when it stops being about you and what sins of others you particularly dislike, but becomes about Jesus Christ and how God’s grace can save even the most vile of sinners, such as Rosie, you, and me.

    Sincerely,
    - Pilgrim

  53. Sueliz1 says:

    Lyn.
    Thank u for sharing such a personal horror u have endured. And thanks for your heartfelt witness. Xoxo
    Sue

  54. Sueliz,
    I had an opportunity to witness to my neighbor this very day; he made an accusation about my past homosexual life and said something very inappropriate that I cannot repeat here; I have to admit, at first the accusations stung like rubbing alcohol on an open cut – but praise be to God this was an open door for me to use to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I responded by telling him ten years ago his accusations would have been right on target, but then I told him what my Jesus has done for me: the grace and power of God has freed me from my sins. Before I left, he apologized for his filth; as for him being saved, no, not yet. But I trust in God for the results of this man’s eternal destiny. I also spoke to his wife, who told me about her brother who is gay, and another family member who is in bondage to drugs. I pointed out scriptures that spoke of drug use and alcohol use as sin, not diseases that are genetic in nature. I told her how the world labels everything because they gain financially by doing so, for instance, rehabs. No man can free another from sins’ bondage, but they can drain your wallet or insurance! She replied how much sense that made; if nothing else, they both have ‘food for thought’. Only the finished work of Christ can free one from sins’ bondage; I did tell her to cry out to God for mercy…please pray for this young couple with young children.

    Thank you dear sister for your kindness, as you know, God receives all praise and all glory for however He chooses to use His vessels.

    Lyn

  55. Dear sirs,

    While comments sent in to this blog today have already been posted (e.g. Sueliz1′s dated March 11, 2012 at 12:59), it appears that my reply to Glenn in which he wrote to me and perhaps inadvertently misrepresented what I have been saying here, has been awaiting moderation almost two days now. Would be so kind as to post it please?

    Thank you,
    -Alex Haiken

  56. Sueliz’s comment was thanking Lyn for sharing her story, she was not continuing the debate which I’ve requested continue on today’s sermon of the week (03/11/12) instead of on this thread.

  57. Pilgrim, if my position was grossly misrepresented, which in fact it was, though I’m sure it was not intentional, I would like the opportunity to correct the misrepresentation. Hence, the reply was regarding Glenn’s specific comment to me.

    -Alex Haiken

  58. Linda says:

    Yes you are Lyn. May God richly bless you precious sister washed and cleansed by the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ….. Your sister in Christ, Linda

  59. God wasn’t just spouting when He told us, “All things work together for good to them that love God.” God can even use our past sins, and the sins of others in response to those sins, as Lyn has described with her recent experience, to accomplish His good and perfect will. That’s just how good, powerful, and wise our God is, that He can take the very worst thing in all the universe (rebellion against Him on a massive scale) and yet turn it to accomplish His good purposes.

    The most evil thing man has ever done was to crucify the Lord of glory. The greatest good man has ever seen was that the Lord of glory was crucified. The more it looks like evil is winning, the more God is turning evil to accomplish His good purposes. If you have a hard time believing that, just look at the Cross, and you can see it clearly there.

  60. Linda says:

    Amen, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but for those who are being saved it is the power of God unto salvation” .

    For James,,, as a sister in Christ I implore you to please surrender to God’s word and I pray you let the loving-kindness of God grace your lips, tongue and heart–

    Eph 4:15 we are to (speak the truth (in LOVE)”

    Pr.17:27 A man of knowledge uses words with restraint, and a man of understanding is even-tempered.

    Pr.16:32 “Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city.

    Pr.15:1 “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

    Pr 15:2 The tongue of wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.

  61. mitch says:

    It’s preachers like this that make me mad when I hear about them because they disgrace the name of Christ.

    Thank you for writing/your comments on this Pilgrim. God Bless you

  62. Well, I see that I either take your oiipnons about the nature of homosexual desires on faith in their correctness, or I take the oiipnons of those I linked on faith in their correctness. I will stick with my skepticism about the settled nature of such claims.I also realize that I failed to mention the other reason I am hesitant to jump on that bandwagon. I know from my studies of church history that there have been many times when the believers of the world espoused certain moral behaviors (often with Scripture to back them up!), yet the believers of the next generation (or century) repudiate that claim. Each such generation had their reason clouded by the spirit of the age. The only advantage that this generation has is that our minds are not clouded by the spirits of past ages; our minds are clouded by the spirit of the current age.I am a strong proponent of the use of reason to sort out the details of such issues, but I hesitate to elevate the moral sensibilities of any age above the eternal moral sensibilities of Christ, to the best that I understand them. Thus, I fully agree with you when you say that a response to homoseuxal driven by hate and prejudice (the kind of response that ended the artistic career of Oscar Wilde, as well as the scientific career of Alan Turing) is wrong.However, in knowing that past generations have only seen through a glass darkly, I also note that this generation does also. Thus, I agree with Moses (and a nutty converted Pharisee who took up the name Paul) when they say that homosexual behavior is an abomination before God–like adultery, fornication, lying, thieving, blasphemy, and a host of other sins.Some men are born with a predilection towards great physical courage, coupled with the ability to do fearsome deeds of violence. They can use that in the role of a sheepdog, protecting society from predators–or they can use it in the role of the wolf, preying on the defenseless.Likewise, some men are born with a predilection to be attracted to other men. I do not hold that his means I must encourage any sexual behavior that they wish to engage in. (Just as I do not hold that my significant attraction for many members of the fairer sex gives me the right to engage in any sexual act I wish with any of them. Nay, even my enjoyment of their beauty must not –and I have that straight from the mouth of Jesus.)We are all as God made–and some of us are worse, in that we use these gifts to serve the self rather than to serve God.

  63. Perhaps the largest quieston is whether gays are made that way, and have any choice in their sexual behavior. Admittedly, our culture tells them to follow their feelings, and hypes any indication of any possible genetic source for the behavior.Trying to figure out if it is a learned behavior or a genetic “defect” pre-assumes that there is something wrong with them, rather than that they are living as God made them. It’s an effective means for those who wish to not accept their fellow man as God made them to neatly avoid doing so— “Sorry, we’re just trying to find out if you’re sick first”.There are also claims, both secular and religious, about people who have altered their sexual preference with outside help. There is no such thing. You can shame someone into suppressing an urge, but you cannot change who or what they are genuinely attracted to. I’m a heterosexual male; There is nothing anyone could say or do that would change my mind about that. Assuming that gay people can be “changed” preassumes that their love is a lesser one than mine, and I think that’s a dangeous road for Christians to travel.Simply put, I suspect the “hate/resist” and the “love/accept” dichotomy is a false dichotomy. No, it’s not. You either believe in accepting your fellow human beings as God made them, or you do not. Jesus was pretty clear on what side of that particular fence he came down on. I notice that the abortion part has been left alone, too….what are your thoughts on that? I believe in a woman’s right to choose. Until there is something inside her that can breathe on its own if exposed to the outside world, then the choice is about her body and what she wishes to do with it. Once that mass inside of her is actually viable as a human being, I believe in protecting it.So I believe in a woman’s right to choose. That does put me at odds with my own church— I’m Catholic too. But what I’ve found is that the Vatican is increasingly out of touch with the wishes of its parishioners on this and many other matters.

  64. Jaqueline,
    Your first statement has the main problem. Perhaps the largest quieston is whether gays are made that way, and have any choice in their sexual behavior.

    EVERYONE has a choice in their sexual behavior unless they are raped. No one has to have sexual relations, everyone can choose to do so, and choose whether or not to abuse human sexuality in doing so. Those who behave homosexually are indeed acting against God, and that is not an assumption to it is therefore “something wrong with them” just as we can say there is “something wrong” with people committing adultery or having sex with animals. God did not make anyone “homosexual.” In fact, God only “made” two people – Adam and Eve – and the rest of us came about by procreation. Homosexuality is a sin cause by our fallen nature, inherited by Adam and Eve after the Fall. It is a defect from the original design of God.

    Your belief “in a woman’s right to choose” ignores the right of the child to choose to be born. And life begins at conception, as proven by medicine and science. If the woman didn’t want to be a mother, then she shouldn’t have sex. And the old canard about rape or incest uses an extreme rarity to defend an abomination. Even in rape and incest you punish the child with death just because one or both parents sinned.

  65. To those who think homosexuality is genetic, this is absolutely wrong. It is no more genetic than an adulterer, or a rapist. We are all born with the natural way instilled at birth, the desire for the opposite sex. From Romans 1:26-27, ‘For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural {produced by nature, inborn} function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.’ Why do homosexuals abandon the natural way? ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness’- Romans 1:18

    I wouldn’t blame God for sin if I were you; from James 1:13-14, ‘ Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.’ Sin is birthed within each and every one of us, even sexual sin.
    I lived this sinful choice for years until the grace of God saved me through the finished work of Christ. We must call this what it is….sin. Sin must be repented of, forsaken to be a follower of Christ. I care little what the world thinks or how it embraces sin, I care for sinners enough to tell them the truth.

  66. Amen Unworthy1!! Continue to stand fast in the faith. The world will always try to find ways to justify its sin! If they ever conclusively proved that homosexuality is NOT a gene strand found in the brain, they would come up with some other hair-brained idea to try and explain what God simply calls wickedness.

    And an Amen to you as well Glenn! The fallen nature actually explains a great deal, but if science were to accept this as the problem, it would have to acknowledge that God is alive and well. This they cannot afford to do for then they must come face to face with the reality of hell and the coming judgment!

  67. Linda says:

    I speak from one who was a (NON-practicing) homosexual before the Lord Jesus Christ saved me. So I KNOW the harmful effects of homosexuality.

    I know beyond a shadow of a doubt we are NOT Born that way. They are choices we choose to MAKE.

    For me and I’ll be open with my personal life– my dad sexually molested me when I was a little girl. Did that in and of itself cause me to be homosexual? It definately contributed to it. But NO,,, Absolutely not. There are girls who are abused who CHOOSE to be premiscuous with men. So it’s not the act itself but the CHOICE made to try and FIX what I thought (I) could fix-self-righteousness. I chose in my thinking and rationality the WRONG choices and decisions to try and FIX my hurts and pain. For many it might be they just didn’t fit in as they were growing up and ended up having a desire filled that they “thought” could be filled by the same sex. Or for many maybe they just didn’t see the correct model of a mother and father and latched onto identifying with the wrong gender while growing up. I dunno. I do know we are not BORN that way but I do grant that we are born with a SIN nature and have a naturally sinful proclivity towards sin and that includes homosexuality. However sin is sin and God has not changed with what he says about homosexuality. Morality reflects God’s very character and he hates all sin.

    Sin is passed on from Adam just like Paul says- “For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”-1 Cor.15:21-22.

    When Christians and God’s word tell us that we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”-It means we ALL are pronounced DEAD —terminal cancer as an analogy to SIN. If you read Romans chapter 1 and 2 at least we should get an idea of our utter state of depravity and that we are all going to hell. Telling the BAD news is not a means to an end to try and be mean. Certainly, there are people out there who do not speak the truth in love and are very jeering with name calling and mean. Noooo True Christians love the lost homosexuals, love the lost adulterer–(see how Jesus treated the woman at the well)-John chapter 4—because we were ONCE lost as well. WE say it in love to let you or anyone God brings in our lives or the forums we go to that we need to let people know their true condition so people will receive the Good News-the Gospel and be saved.

    And, the GOOD NEWS is this. When we finally see that we need to be saved and we cannot save ourselves and there’s only ONE Savior and only ONE WAY, and we see our true condition for the first time and call sin for what it truly is (sin) and agree with God, if we truly humble ourselves and repent God will save us. God will change your heart and give you new desires and take away those hideous desires that imprison you. We cannot EVER change ourselves. Only God when he reaches down and grants his mercy and grace will give you a new heart.

    We must come into agreement with God’s WORD. WE must submit and SURRENDER to GOD.

    The good news is, there IS a cure-only one physician Jesus and that is what the Gospel is the Good news that God in his love and mercy has provide a Way so that we will not be condemned to hell.
    Telling people the truth is very loving in that we hope people will turn away from their sins and repent and that God will save them. Eternity in hell is a long time to be wrong and it’s not loving for someone to think they can keep their sinful lifestyle and God will okay it.

    “It is appointed unto men once to die and then the judgment”_Heb.9:27.

  68. J.M.,

    To God be the glory as we all boldly proclaim His truth. May His blessings be upon His people, no matter what He’s called us to; we are all one in Christ united through His finished work and God’s grace. As our brother Manfred says, ‘press on brother’!

  69. Sadly I have had to deal with Mr. James repeatedly online, thankfully never in real life. So I must also apologize for ALL TRUE Christians around the world and HOPE Rosie does not judge the truth of God’s Word by this UNGODLY man that needs himself to go home and read the Word of God in which he claims he is preaching. The Word of God is NOT a hate message, nor is it for us to call people names. “Your a pig!” WOW I mean seriously this is not a message from the mouth of a man that preaches the True Christ of the Bible.

    As a street minister myself I am also appalled, ONCE AGAIN, at the depths this man will go and the self righteous attitude he has. It sickens and angers me in the spirit greatly.

    May God open HIS (James the ‘Preacher’s) eyes SOON. May God share His truth with Rosie as well. Take care.
    Ron Godwin

  70. Linda says:

    All we can do is pray God will have MERCY and grant people like Rosie ears to hear and a “trustworthy envoy”-Pr.13:17.

    I honestly consider it God’s (indirect) judgment on people such as Rosie when they encounter such warped and distorted messages and messengers from so called Christians. I am no better than Rosie or anyone and know that it’s the pure grace and mercy of God as to why he reached down to me and granted me the “light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ to shine in my heart”. Compassion just fills my heart to cry out to the LORD to have MERCY and send to her -Rosie someone with the true Gospel someone whose fruit is to win souls and to open her eyes and ears to the truth…

  71. Doris says:

    God Bless you Pilgrim. I read your whole post and it was awesem! We are to love the sinner, but hate the sin and you did a perfect job of just that.

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