So, Where's the Evidence?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another lesson in futility

Kumtekmeon continues to misunderstand the nature of Scripture, especially in light of the nature of Christ. He seems to be a "red letter" reader, thinking that Christ's words are only those stated in the red letters of a standard Bible, those uttered during His earthly ministry. What he obviously misunderstands is that the entirety of Scripture IS Christ's words, but isn't that the way it goes when attempting to justify sin? I don't mean to sound mean but it is what it is.

Kumtekmeon's words are in brown, mine's in black...

When making a case against a group of people, it would do good to speak SPECIFICALLY to that group of people. Confusing homosexuality with pederasty only goes to show how BIAS and DECEPTIVE you are.

Wrong. Pederasty is still homosexual sex even if it is with boys. Remember, the issue is homosexual sex and not a man with homosexual feelings or tendencies. It is the acting on these feelings or tendencies, whether in thought or in deed, that Secondly, not every citation in the video was “specifically” about pederasty. Pederasty just happened to be the coveted form of homosexual sex at the time. By the way, the only bias and deception being presented is your comments, considering you’re not thinking this through.

Pederasty is what is considered pedophilia today.

Wrong again. Pederasty was “specifically” sex with boys. Pedophilia is sex wth children, both girls and boys.

Where is the evidence to show that homosexuals go about abusing children.

What is the sexual orientation of a man who has sex with boys? It isn’t “straight” I assure you. You do know how to google, don’t you.

You need to be enlighten to the reality that homosexuals ARE NOT only adults. So far we have 5 gay suicides in 3 weeks and they were all youth, NOT adults.

So what is the relevance?

So where is the link?

What “link” is it that you want?

Speaking to sexual immorality in the church and practices of anal sex among males, AND to sexual acts to that of lesbians ARE NOTHING NEW! Paul in Romans 1 pointed to these, BUT in order to support your homophobic agenda, have deliberately changed the context.

Why is it that when someone sees what is evident in Scripture and points it out, they automatically become “homophobes.” I believe the word is used frivolously and to vilify those who see it as sin. I’m no more a “homophobe” than you are. As to your statement regarding Paul, well, that’s odd? On the one hand you admit that Paul speaks of these, but on the other you say that the context has been "deliberately changed." How? I would dare you to consult any of the ancient church fathers who commented on Romans 1. Did they change the context? Rather, it is the gay interpretation that is novel and attempts to "change the context" to solace their lifestyle. Yet, historically, the ancient Jews and Christians understood Scripture to condemn the homosexual act as sin.

Citing men of old, even those who were apostles to John etc proves NOTHING!

LOL! It only proves that this is the way these passages were ALWAYS understood. It only proves that gay theology is nothing more than twisting Scripture. It is a hostile witness against those who claim that Scripture doesn't condemn the homosexual act.

Isn't it a fact that the books of the prophets were known to the Pharisees, YET they failed to recognize Jesus?

The story of the Pharisees is a story of rebellion. They were witnesses of Christ’s ministry, including His miracles, but were revealed to be hypocrites by Jesus. Because they rebelled doesn’t contrast with what the Scriptures state so clearly regarding homosexuality. Even the Pharisees would have agreed with the condemnation in Leviticus 18:22 as, of course, a condemnation of homosexuality. Their “misrecognition” has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with their rebellion. In the same way, those who attempt to use Scripture to validate what Scripture condemns are just as rebellious.

Isn't it a fact that the same bible we have today was had in Pre and Post Slavery time, YET blacks were not fully accepted into the church. Men are prone to mistranslate AND misrepresent the word of God.

That is a fallacious argument. Men using or misusing the Bible has no bearing on the truth that is WITHIN Scripture. Sure, the Bible can be used to validate a host of errors, but proper exegesis of Scripture leads away from the error.

So tell me what Jesus said and not what man said.

SCRIPTURE, the entirety of the word of God, IS WHAT JESUS SAID! I believe I corrected you on this before. Men wrote it as they were moved by God. The word is “theopneustos” which means God literally “breathed” it out as the prophets and disciples wrote His words. It came from the very mouth of God. Have you even read 2 Timothy 3:16? Do you believe that Jesus is God? I assume you do considering your question differentiates between Jesus and “man.” So, if Jesus is God, why is it that you do not recognize ALL of Scripture as being what Jesus "said"?

Isn't it funny how you can neither quote Jesus NOR any of His disciples to support your homophobic agenda!

Rather, it is funnier that you don’t seem to recognize that Scripture IS Jesus talking. ALL of Scripture are the words of Christ. Even the words of Leviticus and Romans. It’s ALL Christ! Have you even read John 1, where it speaks of Christ? It states that “in the beginning was the Word” and that the Word “was with God” and that the Word “was God.” Well, this “Word” became “flesh” and dwelt amongst us. It’s odd that you want specific words from Christ as evidence when the ENTIRE Bible is Christ’s specific words. You see, your argument isn’t with me, but with Christ! You just can’t seem to understand it because it goes against your position.

By the way, once again, there is no "homophobic agenda." You simply toss those words to attack the man and not the argument. You think that vilifying me lessens the impact of Scripture. It doesn't.

It is people like you why hatred and division remains.

There you go again equating disagreement to “hatred and division.” If one holds the conviction that homosexuality is condemned by God via Scripture and that it is rightly sin, he therefore becomes a hater and a divider according to your logic. You seem content in poisoning the well, but a sensible person would understand religious conviction enough to know that there is no wrong intent.

Jesus said ''Come unto me, ALL [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'' MAN cares about sexuality NOT God.

Jesus also inspired the words of Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 and sexuality remains an issue with God. The fact is that all SIN remains an issue with God, irregardless of your Scripture-tossing. Scripture-tossing, as you do here, doesn’t validate right belief and the verse you cite has nothing to do with sexuality and God.

Come on baby! Let's do the Twist...

Kumtekmeon responded to my blog post via a YouTube personal message. It seems that the combox doesn't allow for large responses. This is probably preferable. Comboxes are very limited and not format-friendly.

Most of Kumtekmeon's responses is second-handed considering he sent me a previously written response to an unknown person. Yet, considering the nature of the argumentation, I will have to treat it as if he's asserting that I'm arguing the same way. Why else would he send it to me? The reader will note that his argumentation is not new, but can be found on websites such as the Gay Christian Network or the Metropolitan Community Churches. Please pay close attention to the way Kumtekmeon interprets Scripture. Is it valid? Let the reader decide.

Kumtekmeon's words are in blue, mine's are in black. We begin...

Churchmouse, if my position on homosexuality and the bible was unmoving, you wouldn't have seen the need to address my points in detail. So please desist from undermining my position.

If you read through my blog you will see that I’m details-oriented to begin with, regardless of how strong or weak the counter-argument is. The truth is that I don’t see your argument as valid, especially when the weight of Scriptural exegesis and church history is firmly behind me. Your arguments are not new to me. They are novel, recent, and have been proven to lack exegetically. So, if it seems I’m “undermining”, its not intentional, it’s only because the facts of Scripture are contra your position.

Now (as expected) your FIRST point of reference points to Sodom, a city that was destroyed by God for a multitude of sins, AND NOT for the inhabitant of a few homosexuals who might've been living there at the time. However, you have chosen to follow in the LIE of man that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality. How ignorant can you be?

Whoa! You’re building a straw man. Would you care to show me WHERE I made the argument that Sodom was specifically destroyed for its homosexuality? It’s quite the contrary. Sodom was destroyed for its wickedness. The homosexual act these men attempted to perform was but one of the evils for which it was destroyed. For all we know, the men who attempted the rape might NOT have been homosexual, but the act of homosexuality itself was evidently abominable. Again, I’ll repeat this so you don’t get confused: Sodom was destroyed specifically for its wickedness. The Sodomites were not necessarily homosexual, but attempted to commit a homosexual act. It was the act itself that was abominable. Practicing homosexuals fair no better considering this act is a part of their lifestyle. The story of Sodom accentuates the “male on male” prohibition that was later defined in Leviticus 18:22. Still, God had already planned to destroy these cities BEFORE the men surrounded Lot’s home.

In addition Jesus' response to a specific question regarding marriage in a traditional setting in the [then] Jewish culture, IN NO WAY supports your twisted view on homosexuality. Let me hasten to remind you that Jesus pointed to what Adam said, 'A man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife.' BUT Jesus THEN spoke profoundly and universally by DECLARING that 'who God put together, let no man put asunder'. This is a GENERAL statement…

The only thing “twisted” is what you are doing to divine Scripture. You are clearly taking the Scriptures OUT of their context. Contextually, Matthew states…

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, And said, For this cause shall a MAN leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

What is it that God “joined together”? He joined a man (male) and his wife (female) to be “one flesh” and no man can take them apart. That is the context of the passage and not a “GENERAL statement.” You ignored the CONTEXT of the passage (marriage, divorce, and the created order in Genesis) and then isolated one word to make an argument that is foreign to the context. Doesn’t that tell you something about yourself?

…therefore Who are you to say Mary and Sarah were not joined together by God, especially now when they are celebrating their 50th anniversary of being together?

That’s pragmatism! Just because something “worked” doesn’t mean it is God ordained. If “Mary and Sarah” died in complete faithfulness to one another it doesn’t therefore follow that it was a God-ordained union. It only means that THEY were completely faithful to one another, yet were living in sin because God ordained it as sin.

What then is your measurement to determine the term 'joined together'?

Proper Biblical hermeneutics! Again, you read the CONTEXT of the passage and go from there. God doesn’t join what he doesn’t approve, namely homosexual marriage, due to the prohibitions He gives in His Word.

Churchmouse, I am here to point you to the truth, because for far too long you have been living a lie!

Beating your chest as if you had some form of forsaken “truth” isn’t doing you any favors. Again, one only has to read the Bible without inflicting their own biases to find that your interpretation really doesn’t hold any water. My guess is that you’ve been reading some gay theological material, maybe from some website. Yet, as I’ve said, these arguments are started with the intent of making Scripture fit the gay lifestyle rather than submit the gay lifestyle to Scripture.

Since Sodom is your primary base, let us examine it> (The below points were taken from a response I sent to another sometime ago).Let us examine Sodom. This was an ancient city or a place where people lived. Sodom was one of five cities which included Gomorrah, but these two are famous because of their destruction. Now tell me, HOW do you know someone is from NYC or say Nashville? By their inward and external characteristics.

If you are addressing these points to me (as you said, this response was to someone else), I would have to treat it as if it were to me. That said, I have no idea what it is that you are saying here. Not everyone from “NYC” or “Nashville” share the same “inward and external characteristics.” If you meant that folks in a given city share some sub cultural tendencies, such as accents and lifestyles, that might be true for a large portion, but it’s not the norm for all. For example, if a man from Dallas speaks with a thick Texas drawl and wears a cowboy hat, that might determine that he is from the South, but it’s fallacious to say that all men from Dallas speak with a drawl and wear cowboy garb.

Therefore, when one refers to someone as a Sodomite that person should be exerting characteristics of behavioral patterns existed or common to Sodom.

Well, there is only one commonality that the Bible gives us for Sodom, that being that ALL were wicked and that not even one righteous man could be found. Again, I have no idea what this has to do with our dialogue or how it factors in.

Now homosexual men are WRONGLY referred to as Sodomites in a negative manner (stemming from God's destruction). I specifically used the word wrongly, because the evidence regarding the character of a typical Sodomite DOES NOT lend itself to homosexuality. The story in Genesis did not tell us much about the people of Sodom OTHER than what took place at Lot's house.

Homosexual men are referred to as Sodomites??? In whose world? The word “sodomy”, which finds its roots in the actions of the Sodomites (the citizens of Sodom) means (according to the Merriam Webster dictionary)…

“anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal”

Note that it doesn’t say “a homosexual.” It’s only the act that is relegated to the word. Now, homosexuals engage in sodomy, but it isn’t unique to them. The same can happen between a man and a woman but that doesn't make them homosexual. And what about prisons? Men may rape one another, yet it doesn't mean that they are homosexuals. They are guilty of sodomy, but they surely aren't homosexual. Yet, this remains the stigma of Sodom that a word was formed with their actions (anal sex) in mind. This is also the stigma of homosexuals considering that sodomy is a large practice amongst them, but it in no wise means that the word “Sodomites” strictly pertains to homosexuals. Again, you are beating a dead horse because no one is making an argument for Sodom being a city of homosexuals. I don’t even know why you even brought this argument up.

We have been told from childhood, be it directly OR indirectly, that a group of GAY MEN went to Lot's house wanting to have sex with the 2 male strangers who were staying there, and we have grown to accept this account as true. HOWEVER, if we actually read the bible AND apply basic comprehension, we will see that we have been MISLED.

If one reads the Bible and applies basic comprehension than the account of Sodom stigmatizes the homosexual act, verses such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn homosexuality, Romans 1 condemns it as well, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 becomes blatant. If one gets technical and applies the principles of basic hermeneutics the argument becomes stronger against homosexuality.

No, once again, you are building a straw man. I don’t know what “childhood” has to do with this, but I assure you that no one tucked me into bed and read me the story of “The Evil Gay Men from Sodom.” Again, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in the story and many homosexuals are only guilty in that they practice the sexual actions of the Sodomites. Yet, to correct another misconception of yours, it isn’t the account of Sodom and Gomorrah that is our “ace in the hole” regarding homosexuality, but what Scripture states as a whole. There are passages within Scripture that are more direct in their condemnation of homosexuality than merely focusing on Genesis 19.

God had sent those 2 angels in the form of man to DESTROY Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. In Genesis, the act of wickedness was not specified, and the story went on to climax at Lot's door. NOW, we've always been given the imagery of an all male gay mob at Lot's door, BUT that's a lie, because Genesis 19:4 reads: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter.This clearly tells us that it was not only men at Lot's door WOMEN AND CHILDREN were also there. Why? Because what was taking place was a cultural practice of dealing with strangers; The people of Sodom did not take kindly to strangers coming into their city. Lot lived on the outskirt of Sodom and apparently someone saw the men entering Lot's home and informed the 'officials' who rallied and led the entire town to Lot's door in order to carry out their unkind tradition.

Still, I must point out that your words here are stated with a claim I never made. I never asserted that the Sodomites were all gay men. That is a straw man that you continue to beat. Let’s get some clarity on this: I only pointed out that the actions of the men from Sodom constitute the homosexual act. It is the homosexual act that is abominable to God.

Now we've been told the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the strangers, I have NO OBJECTION, except for the kind of sex intended. If a man rapes a woman, it is still SEX he had with her. This is exactly what the men of Sodom intended to do to the strangers: they wanted to rape them. How do I know this? Genesis 19:9 reads: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now WILL WE DEAL WORSE WITH THEE, THAN WITH THEM. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near TO BREAK the door.

Actually, what you cite here DOESN’T relay what they planned to do to the men. The intent of homosexual rape is found in verse 5, where the men wanted to “know” them. Now, if you attempt to make a case that “know” doesn’t necessarily mean “to have sex with”, walk very carefully because I can prove very conclusively that “know” is a sexual term within this context.

The use of the word worse TELLS that the men of Sodom planned to be abusive to the strangers. From this account can you SERIOUSLY show me how this action relates to the characteristics of Homosexuals. Do gays go about beating down doors demanding strange men be brought out so that they rape them? NO! In fact the mere thought of Lot suggesting his virgin daughters to calm the mob CONFIRMS that those men were not homosexuals, because homosexuals ARE NOT attracted to women, so Lot's (on knowing the 'nature' of the PEOPLE) suggestion CONTRADICTS any idea of the men being gay.

You continue to argue as if I asserted that these were gay men. Please point me to where I made the assertion. The proper exegesis of Scripture proves that the homosexual act is the “worse” part of the story. “Rape” isn’t the key point because Lot offers his daughters to be raped. It is the sex between men that really stands out. How do we know this? Because Lot calls this an “evil deed” and attempts to counteract it by offering his daughters (females) in their stead. So, within that context, rape isn’t the “evil deed” within the passage. Some have attempted to argue that the “evil deed” is the rape of angels, but that can’t be because none were aware that these were angels, even Lot (see verse 5 where the angels were clearly called “men”). Evidently, the “evil deed” is the homosexual act—men having sex with men. Regardless of their sexual orientation, the act is prominent in the passages. Again, context is the key to properly understanding the account.

Furthermore, Judges 19 TELLS a similar story of men from a certain city wanting to rape a strange man, luckily for him they agreed to take his concubine instead and they raped and abused her to her death!

You are only making my case for me. Yes, the same incident happens in Judges 19, but here lies the difference—the homosexual act was NOT carried out. But it wasn’t without consequence because it resulted in a war with the Benjaminites. See the difference? In Genesis 19 the men of Sodom intended to perform the act and were destroyed, but the men in Judges 19 didn’t follow through. Humiliation couldn’t have been the driving force considering that sexual copulation remains the intent of the act or else why would the “certain sons of Belial” settle for the woman. Evidently, sex appeased the men. There are clear differences between the two accounts and the homosexual act remains prominent as the “evil deed” in BOTH accounts.

This is an example of what might've happened to the strangers IF the people of Sodom had their way. Such behavior in no way reflects that of homosexuals. YES there are gay men who have committed rape, LIKEWISE straight men have committed rape. BUT the hypocrisy is that when a man rapes a woman he is a rapist, but when a man rapes a man he is a homosexual?

To the contrary, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in BOTH stories, but is not carried through in the latter, regardless of whether it is forced upon (such as rape) or not. The parallels you make sidestep the real issue. Even the parallels are not properly constructed. For instance, if a man forces himself sexually on a woman, of course! He is a rapist. If a man forces himself sexually on another man, of course! He is still considered a rapist. Yet, I have never heard anyone in any court of law state that the man is guilty of “homosexuality” if the rape of another man occurred. Sodomy, yes, guilty of homosexuality, no. You are way over the top on this one.

So far I have shown you that a Sodomite IS NOT a homosexual, because the character expressed from the people of Sodom does not match that of typical homosexuals.

No one is arguing that a Sodomite is a homosexual, so you really haven’t shown me anything. You really need to pay attention to what I have asserted and stop making up an argument I never made.

So who are Sodomites? Well according to GOD in Ezekiel 16, He identified Sodomites by their sins, as their sinful nature characterizes the people in general, unlike today where you find a mixture of righteous and unrighteous existing 'together' in one city. All the people of Sodom except for Lot and his household indulged in sin which became their character. Thus, God said in Ezekiel 16:49 - BEHOLD, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

The Sodomites were the people of Sodom, plain and simply. God points them out for their wickedness, but he also delineates that they committed an “abomination” (singular). This abomination is alluded in Ezekiel 16:50 and in Jude 1:7. Hmmm…yet, you cite Ezekiel 16, focused on the inhospitable treatment of others, but danced around the “abomination” aspect of it. No one denies that hospitality was an issue, but did you notice verse 50 which reads “…and committed abomination before me.” It isn’t all about “inhospitality” but the conjunction “and” makes a distinction between the other sins and the abomination. There is only one other thing that is clearly abominable in Scripture and we both know what that is.

Here you have it, ACCORDING to God Himself, a Sodomite is someone who is well off , yet unkind, selfish, idle. Is it fair to say such traits are ONLY exhibit by Gays OR isn't it a FACT that Heterosexuals are also guilty of such traits? Bear in mind that Jesus made reference to Sodom on two occasions and AT NO TIME He accused homosexuals of Sodom's destruction. So my question is, Whose report are you following? Certainly, NOT God's!

Once again, this is just bad argumentation. Jesus didn’t make references to many things and the Bible isn't exhaustive. Are we to assume that when Jesus doesn't mention something than it’s not sinful? Just because Jesus didn’t delineate the homosexual aspect of Sodom doesn’t mean that it wasn’t abominable in God’s eyes. And you still seem to ignore that apart from being "unkind, selfish, idle" the Sodomites were guilty of an abomination. Keep that in mind because you are trying to argue from silence.

Churchmouse, you went on to speak foolishly about Leviticus 18:22 referring also to homosexuals. READ THE BIBLE for once in your life! Where is the evidence that being gay is a learnt behavior?

It refers to men having sex with other men. Homosexuals fall in by default. Once again, you are beating a straw man because I never said it was “learnt behavior.” If you cannot see what is so plainly in Leviticus 18:22 then the foolishness falls with you. As for reading the Bible, I would venture to say that our dialogue is public record by virtue of this blog. The reader can determine for himself if my Bible knowledge lacks or if it is spot on. Furthermore, they can determine for themselves if your verbosity (calling me foolish, “blinded your mind”, your condescension, etc.) is warranted. In other words, they can read our dialogue and determine what is being said, bypassing all the verbosity. I’m okay with that.

Who is training boys and girls in the most homophobic countries, BEFORE the advent of Television and internet and other forms of media on how to be gay? RIDICULOUS!

I have never asserted that the media is training our children to be gay. Are you asserting that they are? What is truly “RIDICULOUS” is how you continue on with an argument I never made. Once again, I dare you to show me where I claimed such a thing.

I asked such questions because if you had read the passage you would've seen that the laws God gave in that passage were DIRECT reactions to customs/practices the Jews picked up from the Egyptians and Canaanites, so you need to show me that being gays is learnt in order to render that Leviticus verse valid! In addition the structure of the law itself raises contradictions BUT your desperation to accurse gays have blinded your mind.

LOL!! Once again you show your naïveté regarding Scripture and human nature. God wanted His people to be separate from the practices of the heathen, but still persisted due to their own sinful natures. This included homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be “learnt behavior” but rather succumbing to their sinful natures. I would like to see what you mean by the Law “raising contradictions” because it sounds like you would resort to an “out” if need be. In other words, even if Leviticus does condemn the act (which it does) you will attempt to find a way around it. That won’t happen.

I will continue on your follies tomorrow (hopefully).

It will be just another opportunity to address the issue and show how Christianity and homosexuality are not compatible.

Excuses, excuses....

Over at youtube, a poster by the name of "Kumtekmeon" replied on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. This was after I responded to "dreamequality", a gay man who deleted his first channel only to resurrect it with, yet, another one. "dreamequality" persists in his twisting of Scripture and in his attempts to legitimize homosexuality via the Bible. Considering that Scripture IS VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality, I responded. Yet, Kumtekmeon reiterates the very same novel arguments, by which it seems he is only trying to convince himself.

Kumtekmeon's words in blue, mine's in black...

You saying that the law against homosexuality (which NEVER existed) still reamins in the NT yet you cannot show me where Jesus at anytime uphold such a law! Saying something DOES NOT make it true WITHOUT FACTS! As said before the bible does not condemn homosexuality..

Never existed??? From the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19) all the way to Christ’s reiteration of who marries under the creation order (Matthew 19:4-6), you have nothing but a condemnation of homosexual perversion. Furthermore, regardless of how evil men attempt to twist them, the Scriptures are clear in that men are not to lay with men as they do with women (Lev.18:22, 20:13). Now, I have heard many homosexuals attempt to bypass what Scripture clearly states by claiming that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In other words if Christ didn’t “verbally” state it in the New Testament then there's nothing wrong with it. That’s fallacious at best. Christ wasn’t exhaustive during His earthly ministry. He didn’t say something about everything. Yet, we do know that He always appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures as the Law of God. Furthermore, we also know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is God-breathed (the Greek word is “theopneustos”, meaning that it finds its origin directly from the mouth of God), thus ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is spoken by God. God spoke through men, they being the vessels used to convey what what He breathed out (2 Peter 1:20). The prophets didn’t write what they “interpreted” from God, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what God had said. Now, take this to its conclusion:

1. Jesus is God
2. God spoke through men who, in turn, wrote what God spoke (Scriptures)
3. God condemned homosexuality in various verses (transitioning from the Old Testament—Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 20:13—over to the New Testament—Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
4. Thus, Jesus, who is God, condemns homosexuality.

Of course, this is built on the premise that Jesus is God. If you don’t believe He is than I guess I really can’t help you. Yet, you appealed to Christ as the authority. Which is it?

What you've been taught to be homosexuality IS NOT dealing with homosexuality

Rather, what YOU’VE been taught (by those who which to legitimize this perversion) is not true. Historically, God’s people (the Jews and the early church) understood that it was homosexuality that God speaks of within the Scriptures. The interpretations you’ve accepted are novel at best, attempted by men who seek to justify their sin.

I hope you know that by accepting Leviticus 18 to be speaking to homosexuality, that you are in turn labeling God BIASED and CONTRARY! This is so because what reason is given as to why God then DID NOT condemn lesbianism. I know you love to point to Romans 1, BUT that's centuries after.

Again, ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is inspired by God. Whether it is Leviticus or Romans, it ALL comes from God. To claim that it is men that Leviticus speaks of (at the exclusion of women) is arguing semantics. Again, the Jews always understood this to be perversion and against God’s law. This finds its logical conclusion in Romans 1, where it points out what the Jews (and now the Gentiles) have always understood— that regardless of homosexuality or lesbianism—it remains WRONG.

Also You are saying God did not care about homosexuality among the other nations except the Jews.

What I said that God’s laws were meant to keep a people (Israel) separate from the rest of the world and consecrated unto Him. Salvation belonged to the Jews and they were to be a light to the world. Homosexuality?? Eveyone else was a pagan and these perversions were rampant. Of course, some of these laws have changed in this age of grace, but the condemnation against homosexuality remains.

You have got yourself in a pickle as in Acts Peter declared NOT to put the YOKE around the gentiles neck!

LOL! Where did Peter say that and what has this to do within the context of homosexuality? Are you saying that sin cannot be clarified for fear that it would become a “yoke”??? Are you serious?

In relation to the By-Laws in Leviticus 18, IF you read the entire passage you will see that those laws came about as a DIRECT result of customs and practices the Israelites picked up in Egypt and Canaan, which includes, men sleeping with men AS WITH women.

Firstly, these weren’t “by-laws” but LAWS. Secondly, whether it was a result of “customs and practices” or not, is pointless, considering that it remains a detestable act to God. That’s the point and, to your behest, you are making it for me. Lastly, I sense that you are attempting to draw a parallel between a man who lies with a man versus a man who lies with men and women. Are you saying that bisexuals are what God speaks of here and not pure homosexuals? What is the “abomination” being spoken of here? I think that a cursory reading of the verses shows that homosexuality, in any form, is what is being spoken of here. Why? Because of God’s created order—men and women—and His intent for us (Genesis 2:24-25, which again is reiterated BY CHRIST in Matthew 19:4-6). This is why homosexuality is an abomination to Him and a perversion of His divine order.

Am I to believe homosexuality is a learnt behavior? Are you saying that religious boy back in 1919 in Virginia was trained by his Baptist parents on how to be gay?

Not at all! Is adultery “learnt behavior”? Is stealing “learnt behavior”? It all boils down to the depraved nature of man. Apart from God we are ALL condemned because of sin. We all struggle with sin, some our entire lives, but we consecrate our lives to Him and allow Him to work within us, shunning sin at all cost. Our wills bound by His grace. It all goes to what Paul stated concerning the Potter (God) and the clay pots (men). Are we going to ask God why He made us the way we are? Do we have the right? Have you read Romans 9? God does as He wills and for His purpose. We are at His mercy.

It is not a crime to apply common sense to your logics.

Who said it is my “logics” [sic]? I simply read Scripture and deduce that man is sinful and capable of anything. What makes it worse is when men take God’s Holy Word and attempt to justify their sinful nature. Woe to those who do so. Just as you said, it isn't a crime to apply common Scriptural sense to your logic.

Let me show you that I DO understand scriptures. At NO TIME God condoned sex with animals, this is so because animals are of a DIFFERENT FLESH!

I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say here or how you deduce that “different flesh” is what God means by all this. If I use your line of logic, I can easily say that God doesn’t condone “male on male” sex because they are of the SAME GENDER. I contend that you really don’t know Scripture and are interpreting it at a whim, as you clearly show with the statement above. Again, the prohibitions found in the verses are homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. You would decry incest and bestiality even today, why not homosexuality? Selectivity doesn’t trump truth.

God did not show any objection to Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah, it was in Moses time such a law came into being.

As you stated, this was BEFORE the law and is clearly delineated in Scripture. After all, where did the wives of Adam and Eve’s sons come from? God’s purpose allowed for this at one time, but changed afterward. However, looking at the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God clearly detested this sin even BEFORE the Law came into place.

As you so rightly said in OT God separated Israel from the gentiles BUT this was a failure which is why Jesus had was to come with a new covenant.

BUT Christ reiterates God’s order (again Matthew 19:4-6) and the New Testament (again, which comes from the mouth of God) condemns homosexuality. Thus, the new covenant doesn’t legitimize the homosexual act but condemns it. You are without an excuse, even in the new covenant.

Homosexuality WAS NEVER addressed in the OT you need to prove that!

I don’t know how clear it has to be for you. The verses that I have cited (add 1 Timothy 1:8-10 into the mix as well) are a condemnation of homosexuality. No amount of eisegesis is going to change this sin into an acceptable practice. Furthermore, careful exegesis of Scripture, such as when employing Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16:49-50 (not merely vs. 49 as many gay-advocates love to quote) add to a serious condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, the historical understanding of these verses (the early Jews and the early church) goes against you as well. If you cannot see it, that’s not my problem, but my guess is that you know exactly what I’m talking about. You may not like it, but you know it and, therefore, you're left without an excuse.

Brother Moishe has left the building....

A couple of days ago, May 19th to be exact, a wonderful brother in Christ, Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, entered glory. Moishe left a letter of encouragement and hope that is currently posted on the website. We all praise the Lord God Almighty for the ministry He placed in the hands of His faithful servant. He will be missed by those of us who dwell on earth, but take heart all you saints, he ran the race and has received his reward. Can you imagine the overwhelming joy Brother Moishe felt when he beheld the face of Christ for the first time? O, blessed be the Lord!!

Banned from Catholic Answers: Happy to have a Blog

So, yesterday, I get this message from the Catholic Answers Forum moderator warning me about an infraction I committed. The message stated…














He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...







Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…









Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…



Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…



So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…



Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…



I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.

Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.

Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.

Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...



By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).

CM

Turretinfan Responds to Steve Ray

My online buddy, Turretinfan, has posted a series of responses to Steve Ray's rather loaded "35 Questions for Bible Christians." Turretinfan aptly dismantles each straw man systematically and provides clear responses to each question. When I get some time, I think I'll repost each entry here on the blog in a clear "1 through 35" format. It's a worthy read. You can visit his blog by clicking here.

Silence Isn't Always Golden: the Ignorance of GCN

I posted another video dealing with the Gay Christian Network's misconstruction of the account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). I've responded to their video "Were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for being gay?" by posting in their combox and via other videos I've posted, yet it seems they are very selective in the responses allowed. Oh well.

The following is a shorter video but one I believe nullifies Justin Lee's assertion that the account is merely about gang-rape and violent submission.