Rewriting LGBT into The Bible – 4 Myths & Truths

Getting spin answers to serious questions
Getting spin answers to serious questions
Beating people in the head with a Bible will defeat the goal of Christian witness.  Gay bashing is wrong, and this posting is about quite the opposite.  Since 6-26, there has been an incredible interest in what the Bible says about homosexuality and “gay marriage.” There are many that don’t know why “Christians are haters,” and they don’t just adjust their beliefs. Even the current president’s quotes indicate he doesn’t understand why his thinking doesn’t align with biblical Christianity. Current events have left a target-rich-environment for anti-Christian propagandists to twist and torture the Bible to prey on the unknowing.

Keep reading for some debunking in a moment.

In America, LGBT relationships, same-sex marriage, and gender neutral bathrooms have become legitimate. You may not be able to legislate a ban-christianity-160x160change in people’s minds, but you can legislate restraint upon behavior. Changing people’s deeply held religious beliefs, however, cannot be legislated. Scripture cannot be changed, under peril of eternal damnation. Yes, there is hellfire and brimstone in the Bible. God’s Word is well-rounded and not all “ice cream”.

031-bumper-fan-clubPlenty of Christians have said unloving things about people who identify as LGBT and support a definition of marriage which is unbiblical. The angry outbursts and condescending social media memes from Christians, rather than helping, actually injure the Body of Christ. It is understandable, because the ignorant throw Bible-mocking terms around to deny the sinful nature of homosexuality. LGBT Bible-predators are now a cottage industry.

Bible+Verses+against+homosexuality+++Google+SearchGoogle searches for “What does the Bible say about gay marriage” are one of the top searches of the past month. The bad information, of course, has risen to the top of the stack because people don’t want to hear the “offense of the Bible.” Let’s be clear. The Bible is air-tight on homosexuality, and any manifestation therefrom would be treated the same. Jesus affirmed marriage as between a man and a woman, in red letters, as a direct quote.

Matthew 19:3-6 (NIV)
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Computers eclipsed handling ancient scrolls
Computers eclipsed handling ancient scrolls
We who spend an inordinate amount of time reading Hebrew and Greek practice the art/science of hermeneutics; understandIng the meaning of the language from the original texts. The most important rule of hermeneutics is context. The Bible must be taken in context. When you look at passage of Scripture you consider who is writing, when they are writing, to whom they are writing, and the genre in which they are writing.

HCSB Reverse Interlinear Bible
HCSB Reverse Interlinear Bible
You start with a plain-language reading of a passage. Then you look at each word, and you consider it in context of the sentence. Sentences are taken in context of paragraphs, which then go into the normative language of whichever book they come from and the author’s normal usages of the words. You harmonize the context of the book’s passage with the known history, audience and surroundings that the passage is communicating about. Finally, you look at how the text harmonizes with the Old or the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole. If you take text out of context you can make it say whatever you want to say, and then it is no longer Scripture.

biblehomoSo we can be absolutely sure that the Bible speaks very definitively against practice of homosexuality as a sin against God. Charlatans have tried to hijack the Bible to justify homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Not a single one is telling the truth. Remember, a ½ truth is a whole lie. The final section is my ode to debunking a small fraction of the toxic stupidity claiming that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are biblically condoned. If you want to practice same-sex relations, fine… no one cares. If you want to drag the Bible into it, I will not leave you unanswered.

maxresdefaultLet’s do some debunking:

  • Myth # 1 – Jesus never preached against homosexuality or same-sex marriage
  • Truth # 1 – This is a ½ truth, but a whole lie. In the gospels, Jesus was largely addressing Jewish people, though a few times does He address Gentiles (non-Jews). The Law of Moses required death to any “man who lay with a male as with a woman” (Leviticus 20:13) There would be no reason or occasion for Jesus to specifically denounce homosexuality. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did address homosexuality as “shameful”. Paul did travel amongst the distant Roman empire, addressing non-Jews far away from the where Jesus traveled. BUSTED
  • Myth # 2 – Soon to be King of Israel David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers.
  • Truth # 2 – This is a whole lie. In 1 Samuel 18:1, the King James renders the Hebrew “nephesh” as the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David. In context, crazy King Saul, father of Jonathan, publicly adopted David away from David’s home in the house of Jesse. Jonathan adopted David and loved him as his own brother, which is a foreshadowing of the torn allegiance that Jonathan will have with his father, crazy King Saul. Jonathan runs interference for David to keep Saul from killing him (19:1-7). Eventually, the love that Jonathan has for David leads to betrayal of Saul on the battlefield and Saul’s defeat. -0- language, explicit or implied, that this relationship was anything other than close, platonic, brotherly love. BUSTED
  • Myth #3 – According to Romans 13:1-2, Christians must follow the law of the land, therefore they must accept “gay marriage”
  • Truth #3 – Out of context and untrue.  Let’s look at the passage in context:

Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

As we can see from the context, Paul is giving a general admonishment to the Roman church obey the Roman authorities, culminating in the same “pay your taxes” exhortation that Jesus made in the Gospels. In Acts 5, Peter is commanded by Temple authorities not to preach the Lordship of Jesus Christ. His response is “We must obey God rather than men.” In context, Myth # 3 is absurd. Paul did not instruct the Roman church to flout God’s authority and follow the Roman Emperor Nero, who commanded that Christians confess the emperor’s deity. BUSTED

  • Myth # 4 – In Matthew 8:5-13, Scripture depicts Jesus healing a centurion’s paralyzed slave, who was involved in a homosexual relationship with the centurion.
  • Truth #4 – “Servant” is the Greek “pais”, which indicates a young child slave or servant. There is no language of a sexual nature at all in Matthew 8:5-13. Even if there was, every person Jesus healed in His 3 ½-year ministry was a sinner, so it would not have mattered. BUSTED

Many, many more have been asserted even by people calling themselves “Biblical Scholars”. Every time I research the background of the “scholar”, I find an axe to grind. Sometimes they are LGBT scholars who have invested an inordinate amount of time trying to make the Bible agree with their homosexuality. Others are religion scholars who are atheist, and they make a living as professional “experts” for the History Channel or other anti-Christian media. I would love to get some more of these to dig into. If you run across any more, please contact me through the “Reply” field at the bottom of this posting.



  1. You’re welcome, David, and many thanks for commenting Hugo Baeta’s article about same-sex marriages. That was what brought me here. My own comments there were deleted. The difference in tolerance and openness between a sodomite and a Christian is obvious although sodomites like to believe they are tolerant and open.

  2. “If you take text out of context you can make it say whatever you want to say, and then it is no longer Scripture.”

    I do not think you can make it say anything without the listeners reacting to the distortion but obviously one can get away with a lot.

    As pastor James David Maning has put it regarding the decadent society: “This is what you get when you get the mack daddy.” Homosexual political influence has in the history of mankind been coupled with the destruction of societies. This is now happening in the USA and again here in Europe.

    Regarding the Bible’s view on homosexuality there is also First Corinthians 6:9 and 10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…”

    • The seekers are the ones who suffer when Satan plays with Scripture. Appeasers preach a gospel that is “sin lite” and holiness goes out the window. Blinded, seekers addict themselves to sinfulness misunderstanding the barrier sin has put between them and God.

      Thanks for your comments!

    • Anti-Christian propagandists? The messaging I have seen with the legalization of marriage between any two people, is that the Supreme Court has “chosen love”.

      And that is a hang-up I have with Christianity. 1 Corinthians describes love. Some Christians I have seen describe God as being the embodiment of love and even perfection. Yet, if you look at God’s actions in the Old Testament, he does not fit the description of love in 1 Corinthians. Flooding the world, killing nearly everyone in a bid to start over is very much not patient, kind, and it is God giving up on 99.9% of humanity.

      That’s just one example. Suggestions of stoning people to death in contrast to “thou shalt not kill” seem rather problematic as well.

      I suspect having such unloving actions against humanity done by God while suggesting that God is loving helps to allow some Christians to act with hatred and judgement under the guise of love. I think this may be a significant root of the problem of segments of American Christianity that are quick to judge and slow to love.

      Bottom line, many Christians need to work on showing their faith in God’s judgement and learn to, as I’ve seen being said, “choose love”.

      • I’m always glad to hear from you, Jason. I recall making some of the same arguments when I was an agnostic, and having many of the same questions well after I was saved. Your comments come from an honest place. It took a good bit of study for me to get it, but hopefully I can help.

        Our human nature thinks individually, not globally or universally. We live in the immediacy of the moment, and most live hand-to-mouth. It’s not “bad” thinking, just entirely too small. Our selfish nature wants to put God in a box and dictate terms to him. I certainly did, and still see it in counseling care-seekers as the overwhelming norm… I struggle with it even today. God is far bigger than we can understand. He is the sovereign potter, and we are just the clay. Still, He loves us.

        God is love, and just, and holy, and immutable. He gave us free will, because without it we cannot love. He provided everything we need, and the time to make our choice. We spend eternity with our Creator if we make the right choice. Disobedient as we are, He still accepts us, if we accept His human Son as savior, guiding us to Him. If we reject Him, we have denied ourselves the opportunity to be His. Justice demands we get the outcome we deserve. He is holy, and cannot live eternally with unholiness. He is immutable, so we’re powerless to change His will. Still, His love gives us freedom from the justice we deserve if we accept Christ as Lord of our lives.

        Our collective willingness to be evil as a group has, on occasion, made entire societies a lost cause. He has judged them many times, and I’m sure He will again. Of course we want to reject His justice, but He is sovereign, not you and I. Reject Him and we get what we deserve. Love Him and love flourishes. My humanity doesn’t want to accept authority, but rejecting God always fails.

        To start with understanding, are you willing to get a bigger God?

      • David, as far as my viewpoint goes in regard to if there is a God, I do believe I go with a big God viewpoint. God of the Old Testament seems to have too many human flaws to be a supreme, all-powerful creator. It makes me consider that if it is true, there must be an even greater force that doesn’t allow emotions to get the best of it.

        I do like the thought of a loving God – which is why I think I tend to be more in agreement with universalists. They seem to have a more pure loving God perspective.

        As for justice – that is a concept that seems a bit selfish. It’s more a desire for revenge, rather than an opening for understanding and forgiveness. A lack of understanding and forgiveness plagued me for many years. Learning to let go of such ego was no easy task, but in doing so I do seem to have lost all focus on needing justice.

      • The Jefferson version of the New Testament I suppose might be the best shot for any single text to be my guide. I do have great appreciation for the direction Jesus took in lovingly serving humanity. There is much that can be learned from the way he uplifts others at the fringes of society and calls out the hypocrisy of those in power.

        But I personally believe it is not in anyone’s best interest to lock on to just one version of history. One should continue to find understanding from many perspectives and seek understanding as to how those perspectives each may have come about. Ideally, I think one should be humble with an open ear, a slowness to pass judgement, a desire to connect, and a willingness to ask challenging but thoughtful questions.

      • Essentially, what you’ve described is not Christianity. It sounds nice, seems thoughtful… But it dismisses the deity of Jesus.

        What do you think of this?

        John 14:6 (ESV)
        Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

      • Personally, I hold the Gospel of John to the lowest regard compared with the other Gospels. It comes across to me as trying too hard to make the case of the deity of Jesus. On top of that, it seems to be agreed upon that it was written later than the other Gospels as well, which would account for the additional embellishment it seems to include.

        Case in point, the Gospel of John includes Jesus receiving a spear to the side to ensure he was dead on the cross. Considering the huge importance of the event, it is suspicious that the other Gospels do not include this, and that Jesus’ crucifixion would seem possibly survivable without it, as his legs weren’t even broken to ensure he really was dead after his big dramatic death scene after possibly only 3 hour on the cross. The dramatic death scene seeming a bit much for someone who is clinging to life by a thread.

        Then there are problems of unfulfilled prophesy on top of that. From my understanding, Jesus’ deity is anything but certain. I can see how that conclusion could be drawn though, and the Gospel of John does do a nice job of tying up loose ends in portraying Jesus as God, and Christianity seems to lean on the Gospel of John significantly more because of that.

      • Are you aware of the Ryland Fragment? Archeologically, John is the most reliable. You are correct that John does focus on the deity of Christ. Gnostics had begun trying to twist the story to elevate their own brand of angel worship / Jewish knock-off. John lived his full natural life, which made him the perfect disciple to write the final gospel. John “who loved Jesus” was one of he the in Jesus’ inner circle (see Transfiguration Mark 8). At the last supper, John’s head was literally laying of Jesus’ chest . When you consider God protected John through boiling in oil and years on patmos, it’s obvious John was in position to write his testimony of Jesus at exactly the right time.

        There is a cottage industry of atheist “scholars” who only serve to try to cast doubt on the Bible. 2000-years later, they’re still trying. Have you ever heard of Lee Strobel “The Case For Christ”? Lee is an attorney who set out to debunk the Bible.

      • Just looked up the Ryland Fragment … not seeing a whole lot of significance in relation to our conversation. It seems to be from the 2nd century or later, so at least 70+ years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

        I think you are mistaken in believing that John, Jesus’ disciple wrote the Gospel of John. Common mistake based on a couple of assumptions that were adopted early on.

        Wikipedia actually has a good clarification of that misunderstanding:

        I have heard of “The Case For Christ”. Haven’t heard that it’s very solid though … and actually, the writer is a journalist. Just looking back over reviews of the book and this piece of review by a Christian pretty much says it all: “Christians can read this book and come away from it with the view that it reaffirms their faith; skeptics come away from it with the view that it reaffirms their skepticism.”

        It seems to be not such a good recommendation for skeptics.

        What are your thoughts about pastor Ryan Bell who chose to try to live a year without religion in order to gain perspective?

      • Jason, did you read my About page? In 222 semester hours of painstaking research, every Johanine critic has failed. I’ve written and researched hundreds of pages on John. There are critics who’ve made assertions, but proved absolutely -0-. Every critic’s hypothesis on John has died after an inch deep under the surface.

        Ryland blows up all the nonsense about the “Johanine School” of Gnostics writing John in the late 2nd century. Ryland is also interesting because it is from just 35-years after John died, found in North Africa. Written in Ephesus, that is amazing that it traveled so far, and was immediately considered authoritative at that early date.

        Have you ever heard of C.S. Lewis’s Trilemma?

      • Ah, I was already under the impression that the Gospel of John was written late first/early second century. Even so, if apostle John relayed his story to the writer of the Gospel (or even if John the apostle wrote it himself), after much time passed beyond the event, how can one be certain he still had a reliable memory of the events?

        Have you ever had a grand childhood memory of something that absolutely floored you? Something you could relive … even a TV show, or something like that. Have you ever held such a grand memory, only to re-watch what you saw and have the grandness of that memory deflated?

        After many years of holding those memories, I suspect John could have easily allowed them to become grander than they actually were. Such embellishment wouldn’t be out of line with what we now know about how the human memory functions, and he could have been genuine in his belief that it was as he said.

        Not aware of Trilemma, but have dug into Mere Christianity a bit.

      • Mere Christianity… Great read. Finish that for sure.

        John was 17 when he met Jesus, and spent 3 1/2 years with Him, ending in the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, persecution, and a life of preaching the good news. John fills out places the other gospels didn’t touch on because John, Matthew, and Peter (Mark) each had their own eye-witness experience. Did you notice James and John’s enthusiasm in Mark 3? No, John would definitely not get fuzzy or faded.

        The CS Lewis Trilemma will help you define Jesus. Glad you’re so interested.

      • John likely had a lot of significant events to recall and attempt to separate. It would be a miracle for him not to have issues recalling events accurately, especially if it was years or decades after the events when the Gospel was finally put together.

        Not seeing the enthusiasm in Mark 3, aside from them getting the nickname “the sons of thunder”.

        But it is interesting coming closer to the historicity of the story. I’ve been suspecting that there is a basis of truth to the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels.

      • I think developing your faith from a point of skepticism makes a solid faith. I worked through a lot of questions well after I decided there was a God. Evidentialism is the way I chose, not unlike you’re doing right now. The only caution I would suggest is, before you decide what is or isn’t true, find the other side of the argument, even if you disagree on its face. Heck, I didn’t decide on inerrancy until I was in my senior year of undergrad… $30,000 into my bachelor’s.

      • That’s why I engage in these conversations, I want to test what I’ve learned to see whether it holds water or not, and to fill any holes in my understanding.

        Inerrancy though? That makes my head hurt just to think about it!

      • It comes down to looking at why I disbelieved those few passages that gave me heartburn. That’s when hermeneutics really helped. There are “unicorns” in the 1611 English KJV. When I got language training I discovered that was not from original Hebrew but the Latin Vulgate (Catholic/Roman) text that Erasmus used on KJV.

        The actual word was ראם reym, which can mean a number of large ox-like animals. The Greek Septuagent of 250BC translated the word as μονόκερως monokeros, which is certainly why Erasmus rendered it unicorns. Job is the second most ancient book in the Bible. Most scholars today believe the now-extinct aurochs or another wild ox is what was in view 2000+ years BC, when Job was written.

        This is just one of many points of research I did along the way to accepting inerrancy. Every time I went in hoping to solve the biblical “error”. I really didn’t want to give the Bible authority that
        I wanted to keep for me. It’s kind of like trusting someone close to you. After discovering they’re telling you the truth every time you check, you eventually just trust them.

        Welcome to the club of Bible students.

      • I can totally understand translation errors. I’ve seen it make the difference between Jesus claiming Godliness and Jesus making a snarky comment between different translations. Why, as God, Jesus would even need to make a snarky comment is beyond me, but I suspect that is likely the more correct translation as I can’t imagine such a specific nuance coming from such a direct claim, but I can certainly understand a nuance being simplified.

        The biggest trouble I have is with the conflicting concepts of God. God becomes angry in the Old Testament. It also suggests that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. If God knows everything and can do anything, He has no reason to ever be angry.

        The great flood is especially problematic, as are any notions that Earth’s age can only at the most be measured in thousands of years. I’m assuming those perspectives come along side inerrancy, my apologies if I am incorrect on that notion.

      • Day-age is a favored understanding on Gen 1. (Millard Erickson). With the perception of angry God of the Old Testament, it helps to understand (1) consequences come with defiance (2) humanity always has a choice. We put human parameters on God’s thinking, forgetting He is supreme and sovereign. We try to put God inside our thought boundaries. If He gives us ample opportunity to repent, and we don’t , we deserve the consequences we’ve earned.

        Think of Old Yeller. They dearly loved their dog, but he was too sick and dangerous to let live . Poor example, but gets the point across

      • Consequences coming with defiance goes against the concept of a loving God though, utilizing the definition of love in the Bible.

        I’m not so sure that it is human parameters so much as it is an understanding of cause and effect. Anger occurs when there is a lack of understanding or an opposing threatening aggression. Neither of these should apply to an all-knowing, all-powerful god.

        Consequences of a lack of remorse for one’s hurtful actions tend to occur within Earthly existence as we know it. Why would God even need to intervene in such a way? Why hasn’t He intervened in much worse situations?

        God being too big and mighty to understand, so we should just believe does not seem to be a very strong argument. God could have done a much better job of spelling things out so we could understand them properly.

      • This sounds like you’re struggling with the sovereignty of God. You need to know more about the attributes of God. As a sovereign, He is able to do anything but He chooses to do what He wills. He is immutable, meaning He does not arbitrarily change His will – He is constant. He is holiness, absolute purity and goodness, thus He is and remains separate and apart from anything unholy. He is just, being fair and impartial. He is faithful – He proves to be true. AND… He is the cluster of attributes we assume when we say God is love. His love includes benovence, grace, mercy and persistence.

        Love that doesn’t include justice is mere sentimentality.

        I would love to be able to convey all 1251 pages of my copy of Systematic Theology by Millard Erickson, but that surpasses my capacity. I do, however, suggest you get started with at least a book on Christian Doctrine. Erickson has one, as well as my favorite, Elmer Towns’ Concise Bible Doctrine.

        You’re obviously hungry to fill in the gaps. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to participate in your process of discovery. You are exactly why I write this blog.

      • Love “keeps no record of being wronged”. This runs in opposition to your suggestion that justice is included in love.

        I definitely have been curious to see what gaps can be filled in my understanding, but the divide between the Biblical description of love and God’s supposedly loving actions remains quite wide. Jesus seems far and away much more loving than God of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament does not come across as good, pure, fair, or impartial. He comes across much more human-like than I would expect an all-powerful being to be. Maybe my expectations of God are too high?

        And if He chooses to do as he wills and He loves us, why does he allow so much suffering and twisting of His word in different unloving directions? It just doesn’t add up to me.

      • TPOE – The Problem Of Evil… One of the oldest debates in the Bible. It is impossible to love without free will. If we have free will, everyone else does too. Sin entered the world as you read in Genesis 3, and has been here since. Free will + sin = evil.

        Pride is the mother of all sin… Having gods before God. This is where we decide we are above God. That always leads to destruction, as an individual, and as a nation. Israel was delivered time and again from their sinful train wreck of comportment as a nation, and they continued to have to be left with the consequences of their sin. Had the followed the Law of Moses they could have stayed within the righteousness of God. We have a hard time not abusing free will with our pridefulness.

        Jesus gave perfect instruction on this. Look at who Messiah puts first:
        36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”
        37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
        38 This is the great and first commandment.
        39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
        40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

      • I do agree with that notion, that the greater nature of existence is something we should always be mindful of above all, and then of course our fellow humans, as we all are quite connected.

        Pride is definitely a problem in our world, no doubt about it. It is impossible to love one’s neighbour when pride is standing in the way, and it can be a challenging thing to avoid getting caught up in. It’s so easy to get caught up in thinking that what you feel you know to be true is an objective truth. More often than not though, it isn’t.

        I ended up quite fascinated with Korean culture, and in learning the ways of Korea, my perceptions of how things should be were really called into question. It’s quite an eye-opener seeing things from completely different perspectives. Even when I got involved in learning more about Christianity and attending and helping a church a number of years back, that opened my eyes quite a bit as well. I think the combination of the two shook me of a pride I had previously held and got me back on a better path.

      • “It’s so easy to get caught up in thinking that what you feel you know to be true is an objective truth. More often than not though, it isn’t….”

        And we complete the circle. Fideism is logically incompatible with evidentialism. With a high view of Scripture, one has objective truth… But you don’t get to own that until you really own it. Academically, you have to build your case on the known ground others blazed a trail on. Otherwise, you’re just a dude spinning yarns. That’s if you want to write and maintain credibility.

        I’ve discovered with my blog that keeping it informal and conversational still requires a bit of academic formality to ward off undue critical assertions. I’m happy to respond to, and encourage criticism as long as it’s not baseless or ad hominem. Feelings are real, but their not facts.

        Let me know when you press out a new edition. I look forward to watching you evolve and grow. I do every posting. Cheers!

      • Just read the Wikipedia article you cited. Appears to be a pseudonym for an author, which would never fly in academic circles. Also quotes famous agnostic critic Bart Ehrman who makes a lot of money denying the Bible. They also quote the highly discredited Jesus seminar, a group of non-Christian antagonists. The only actual scholar quoted was F.F. Bruce, who affirms the authenticity of John. But glad you looked into it. Bruce, Hindson, Towns are all solid scholars on John if you want to do some research with credible scholars.

      • Is that idea the mechanism that leads gay Christians to become ministers who end up molesting male children? Makes sense.

        Curious, where does First Corinthians say anything about homosexual love? I thought any Biblical passages denouncing homosexuality were about the sex act or marriage.

      • Jason, did you ever get around to reading my blog on Love Wins… Which One? … cause I know you just hang on every word of them *(insert emogi)*

        But in seriousness, I think it might help you understand where Magnus is coming from.

      • Why would it be that idea? Why does it make sense? I do not see the logic.

        I think it is reasonable to interpret that homosexual love, including its sex act, is what is referred to in First Corinthians, and that it is possible for a homosexual person to be washed, sanctified and justified so he or she can inherit the kingdom of God.

      • That’s not very loving of one’s neighbour. Very passive aggressive toward those who are born with an attraction to the same sex.

        The logic in my previous example is that causing people to repress who they really are can result in them seeking out other ways to explore their natural feelings, other ways where there is less risk of them being judged and looked down on for exploring those feelings. Being passive-agressive toward them leads to their actions involving children as it appears to be the safest path for them to explore and understand themselves. Try to put yourself in their shoes and figure out the best way to explore homosexual feelings without being chased out of your community. In some cases. they aren’t left with many options due to judgemental attitudes that are supposedly based on scripture.

      • On the contrary, it is loving of one’s neighbours to explain what is demanded of them if they want to inherit God’s kingdom; it is not at all passively aggressive. Your logic regarding the homosexual and pedophile priests is very flawed. Priests are not permitted to live a life like that.

      • Exactly why they try to do it in secret. And it is passive aggressive to be in opposition to one’s natural feelings rather than to be open to understanding and connecting with them lovingly.

        A thought that crossed my mind last night after my pet rats demonstrated homosexual behaviour … how do the animals fit into the narrative on homosexuality? They didn’t experience the fall or have their own version of the Bible. How does such behaviour come naturally to them, but for us humans some believe it isn’t natural? Seems like a double standard.

      • What are you trying to prove with sinful priests? Does it make the abomination of homosexuality an accepted one? I do not see the logic here.

        So now it is the homosexual person who is passively aggressive, a state that is a contradiction in itself.

        I do not know about homosexual animals. Is it scientifically confirmed that they really are homosexual in the same sense humans can be?

      • I am saying that causing people to repress who they are is not loving as is actually a far greater abomination. Especially as homosexuality is a natural occurrence. Do you seriously think that people would choose to be gay when they know it is socially unacceptable (of course, less so now) and will make their life a living hell?

        Here’s a brief article on animal homosexuality to give you an overview:

      • The Christian standpoint is not repressing homosexuality but being cleansed from it like First Corinthians say.

        No, I do not believe that generally people choose to be gay, but there might be cases now when homosexuality is an almost popular trend in society that some choose to be it in order to make themselves interesting or improve their status.

        I believe “the living hell” you speak about is primarily the homosexual person’s own notion that his or her sexuality is very wrong. I know of several famous homos that think that their sexuality is deranged; they are not very interested in “pride parades” and such things. One very famous example of a suffering homo was the composer Pjotr Tchaikovskij.

        When it comes to homosexuality among animals I wonder how researchers know that the animals really have the same feelings as homosexual humans have. While homosexual behavior is common, I wonder if it really is homosexuality.

      • A being cleansed from homosexuality standpoint is a form of saying it is wrong, which in turn leads to a negative view of it, which leads to repression by those in the community that thinks of it in that way.

        It’s a shame that your examples lived their life needlessly thinking something was wrong with them.

        How could same sex attraction not be homosexuality? Isn’t that what homosexuality is?

      • Yes, according to Christendom, homosexuality is wrong, but it must not lead to repression.

        Apart from Tchaikovskij my examples are still alive and very successful, and I hope, happy.

        Is homosexuality only attraction now?

      • When something is deemed wrong without any practical reasons why it is wrong, it will lead to repression.

        My dictionary says homosexuality is same-sex sexual attraction.

      • No, Jason, homosexuality is deemed wrong on practical reasons and it will not necessarily lead to repression.

        OK, so it is just attraction according to your dictionary. This explains the notorious promiscuity among homos.

      • Hi Jason,
        I’ve been watch you and Magnus hammer away at this conversation and I thought it looked a whole lot like some of our conversations… I appreciate how level-headed you both have been; thanks!

        I wanted to wedge a question in if that’s ok.

        Some premise to set up the question:
        Christians defaulting to the Bible understand it conveys the history of sin entering humanity, corruption and death. Myriad stories depict broken people doing sinful things, consequences, Grace, forgiveness, and people opting for God’s way, even when it’s difficult. Brokenness is natural, but not the normal God intended… Still, can be overcome with the proper decision-making and God’s grace. Life is a test.

        Natural ≠ Normal or Good. People come out of the womb with amelia, Downs, bi-polar, sociopathic, genetic addictive disorder, etc… All natural, but not “normal”. People with amelia shouldn’t do gymnastics, Downs shouldn’t fly airliners, genetic addicts shouldn’t use potentially addictive substances… It’s not “fair”, God made them perfect just the way they are, but everyone shouldn’t do everything. Everyone has limitations.

        If homosexuality is, as you say, natural, but it cannot produce offspring though its abnormal sexual acts, should you do homosexual acts, or should you abstain?

      • Some interesting examples! Let’s take a look at them …

        1. People with amelia (missing limbs at birth) shouldn’t do gymnastics.

        I’m not sure why they shouldn’t, aside from maybe not being physically able to do some events. Prosthetics may be able to aid in being able to participate – the Paralympics do include gymnastics as an event. Some competitors may beg to differ on this. Even if someone with amelia attempts gymnastics who can’t physically handle it, the worst consequences would be same as anyone without amelia that can’t handle gymnastics – physical injury or having to give it up.

        2. Downs Syndrome airline pilot.

        This makes sense as someone with Downs Syndrome likely won’t have the capacity to pilot an aircraft safely. If it is allowed to happen, there could be dire consequences.

        3. Addicts shouldn’t use potentially addictive substances.

        This also makes sense in that there are potentially dire consequences at hand should someone prone to addictive substances become addicted to something.


        I would say the gymnast with amelia would be the best comparison. Not all facets of sexuality may be able to be accomplished, but there are no consequences of participating in sexual acts that are any more harmful than what anyone else is faced with.

        What harm is being done through homosexual sexual acts that is so troublesome, aside from the discomfort those who don’t understand it may feel because it is less common and opposes their preconceptions?

      • Maybe amelia wasn’t the best example.. It was off the cuff, but you handled the question quite thoughtfully.

        We both know the HIV issue. 6,380,000 total U.S. Homosexual population.

        CDC numbers:

        2013 – MSM – 31,200 diagnoses
        2013 – all other – 8,900 diagnoses

        I’m particularly disturbed by the Black Heterosexual Female stats.

        5300 diagnoses vice 1300 White Heterosexual females. Black people are 13% of the population… That’s a crazy high stat? Who is infecting all these women?

        It’s worth mentioning, CDC study results 76% of MSM report STDs, plus substantially higher Hepatitis and several activity-exclusive diseases.

        There are profound health risks to homosexuality.


      • I suspect the high rates of HIV in the homosexual population may have more to do with a perceived lack of need for protection, as pregnancy is not a risk. Knowledge of the prevalence of STDs is still a fairly recent thing and I would suspect that increasing awareness and education will bring those rates down.

        I think poverty may come into play with the black population. 38.2% of black children live in poverty in the US. I’m sure you have awareness of some of the personal and societal troubles that poverty connects with.

        I wonder if there might be correlation between the disconnect poverty brings with the disconnect homosexually historically has had with it. When people feel disconnected, I think they may be more likely to participate in acts that bring intense fleeting feelings of connection. Being sexually active can accomplish this and may be a common thread tying the connection of the majority of those who become infected by HIV.

        Activity-exclusive diseases I am guessing refers to conditions resulting from anal sex? There are definitely concerns there regardless of orientation, and obviously more prevalent in homosexuality. I’m not so sure it is a health risk that comes with homosexuality so much as it is a health risk that comes with such sex acts. There are plenty of other safer ways homosexual partners can enjoy each other’s companionship of a sexual nature without facing such health risks.

      • Infectious diseases bring tragedy, and I pray your hopes that the infection rates drop becomes a reality. Thanks for offering your point of view. Be well!

  3. Great article, very clear, very concise, and so very true! I cannot say these are the end of days, “no one but the Father knows”, but whatever the case it is definitely the end of our idyllic, peaceful lifestyle, the dogs are snapping at our heels, it is imperative to have your soul in the loving embrace of Jesus. Pray for our nation, and pray for those Christians who are being persecuted around the globe.

Comments are closed.