Sunday, August 28, 2011

1Timothy 1:10 Neither Alludes to Leviticus 20:13 nor Condemns Homosexuality.


Jews reject the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the original Hebrew Scriptures, as their authoritative Scriptural text; we see it merely as an uninspired translation.

Referring to 1 Timothy 1:10, you contend ἀρσενοκοιτης, was coined from ἄρσενος κοίτην in Leviticus 20:13 (LXX). Actually, ἀρσενοκοιτης is non-existent; the authentic word is “ἀρσενοκοίταις.” Leviticus 20:13 threatens capital punishment upon a nondescript subject: “whoever” (ὃς) - “if he is bedded with” (κοιμηθῇ μετὰ) “a man” (ἄρσενος) as “he would bed a woman” (κοίτην γυναικός). Following grammatical convention, the nominal complement of the verb, “κοίτην,” is properly a woman: “γυναικός,” not a man: “ἄρσενος” as you suggest.

Closer examination shows the passage condemns filial incest, not homosexuality.

The Hebrew text of Leviticus 20:13 specifically condemns “a man,” or “אִישׁ” who commits incest with his “male offspring,” or “זָכָר” Hebrew scholar, Wilhelm Gesenius notes that “זָכָר,” is “a male, as being he through whom the memorial of parents is continued.” a sense which is lost in the LXX and English translations.

Each of the following verses speaks to “זָכָר” as referencing male progeny while employing variant forms of “ἄρσην” in the LXX - thus validating Gesenius’ claim:

Genesis 17:10, 12, 14; Exodus 12:48; 13:12, 15; Leviticus 6:18; 12:2, 7; 18:22; 20:13; Numbers 1:2, 20; 3:15, 39, 40; Numbers 26:62; Joshua 17:2; Every verse in Ezra 8:3-14 mentions “sons of” various chiefs in the Babylonian exodus; Isaiah 66:7 and Jeremiah 20:15.

1Timothy 1:10 neither alludes to Leviticus 20:13 nor condemns homosexuality.

--ez duz it ©2011

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Genesis 19 Condemns Sexual Brutality Within a Military Context, not Homosexuality

Genesis 19 doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but rape committed within a military context.
What occurred in Genesis 14-18?
The Jordan Valley city-states constantly warred for control of regional resources, setting the stage for Genesis 19.

What key strategy was used to attack ancient cities?
The book of Joshua and others recount scouts entering enemy towns to survey strategic weaknesses for the purpose of facilitating military assaults.

What was Lot’s error?
Lot was a foreigner residing in Sodom. He failed to allow the town elders to scrutinize his out-of-town visitors. Lot’s actions exposed the entire community to possible capture or military annihilation.

Who assaulted whom? Why?
“ALL the people, from every quarter” of the town of Sodom, men and women, young and old, demanded to “know” Lot’s visitors. They wanted to sexually brutalize these potentially threatening visitors. Why? Rape is a violent assertion of power designed to bring shame on Lot and deal with his unexamined interlopers.

Would this happen today?
Sure. Confronted with suspected foreign threats, male and female American soldiers attached electrodes to Iraqi prisoners’ genitals, stacked them unclad like cordwood forcing them to wear waste-soiled undergarments over their heads. Also, five New York police officers used a broomstick to rape Haitian-born Abner Louima.

Were the offenders homosexual?
No! The residents of Sodom, the American soldiers and police officers who sexually assaulted their prisoners were motivated by unbridled rage, fear and a desire to humiliate perceived foreign enemies by sexually brutalizing them.

--ez duz it © 9 August 2011

Friday, July 29, 2011

Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 19:3-10: Spousal Complementarity - Not a Prohibition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage

Hi, JPaulNorton--

Errant, heterosexist interpretations of Scripture have been used far too long by christianists to unjustly repress Gay people.

The Genesis creation accounts aren’t about invalidating the love of same-sex couples, or affirming a doctrine of complementary bio-plumbing as a criterion for civil marriage.

The only time they note that something was “not good” was man’s solitude. As a corrective, Genesis 2:18 reads: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

In Hebrew, “help meet,” or “עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּ,” speaks to the suitability of spouses to complement their mates’ unique needs. Though I’ve a keen appreciation for, and close friendships with, women…having been Gay my entire life, it’s impossible that a female spouse could meet my unique needs.

This idea coincides with Romans 1:27 which speaks of “men, leaving the natural use of the woman.” This verse addresses heterosexual Christian men seeking extramarital gratification because the “natural affection” (verse 31) for their spouses grew cold. The verb for “left,” “ἀφέντες,” (verse 27) is in the active voice, indicating the agent’s participatory involvement in performing the verb. Having never been attracted to women, it’s logically impossible for me to have “left their use.” I cannot “leave” a place I’ve never been.

Your “leave and cleave” quip referencing Genesis 2:23-24, or Matthew 19:3-10, is an Adamic interjection, not a divine command or a legally restricting condition limiting civil marriage to heterosexuals.

--ez duz it © 29 July 2011

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Romans 1:18-32 Really IS About Married Heterosexual Christians...


Romans 1:18-32 is about adultery, not homosexuality. It doesn't condemn Gay people but straight (v27) married Christians (v21) who let the natural affection (ἀστόργους, v31) for their spouses grow cold.

The women (v26, Matt19:4) exchanged intimacy with their men for erstwhile gratification. The men (v27, Matt19:4) followed suit, meeting their needs apart from their women. Spouses broke their marital covenants (ἀσυνθέτους, v31) by coveting (πλεονεξίᾳ, v29) illicit sexual relations (πορνείᾳ, v29).

Deception (δόλου, v29) of oneself, spouse and others characterize people trapped in loveless marriages: pretending no elephant’s in the room; boasting (ἀλαζόνας, v30) to others how great the sex is – when there is none, at least with one’s spouse; devising (ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, v30) trysts, lying about one’s whereabouts. They clear exchanged Biblical teaching about marital fidelity for a lie (v25).

Virulent anti-Gay heterosexual Christian politicians and preachers seeking man-on-man (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν, v27) action come to mind: Former Alabama Attorney General, Troy King; Former Florida House member and former Florida chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, Bob Allen; Former Senator Larry Craig; Former Spokane, Washington Mayor, Jim West; Former Washington State Representative, Richard Curtis; Reverend Paul Barnes; Reverend Roy Clements; Reverend Ted Haggard…ad nauseam. Apparently, they preferred satisfying their smoldering longings (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει, v27) on the down low, rather than with their wives.

Teach your children the truth about Romans 1:18-32...indeed It’s about spousal infidelity, not Gay people.

--ez duz it © 28 July 2011

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Genesis 2:4-25 Does Not Preclude LGBT People From Marrying

Hi, Jason Bowen--

You wrongly manipulate Scripture to condemn Gay people and deny us the right to civilly marry the person we love. Your objections erroneously presume Genesis 2 insists on biological complementarity and production of offspring as marital prerequisites.

The only time the Biblical creation accounts note that something was “not good” was man’s solitude. As a corrective, Genesis 2:18 reads: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

The Hebrew expression “help meet” “עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּ” speaks to the suitability of spouses to complement their mates’ unique needs. Being a Gay male the entirety of my life, it’s impossible that a female spouse could meet my unique needs.

This aligns perfectly with Romans 1:27 which talks of “men, leaving the natural use of the woman.” This passage addresses heterosexual Christian men who sought gratification “on the down low” outside their marriages because the “natural affection” with their spouses grew cold. However, because the verb for “left” – “ἀφέντες” – in Romans 1:27 is in the active, not passive, voice it’s logically impossible for Gay people to have “left their use.” One cannot “leave” a place where one’s never been!

The production of children isn’t part of the Genesis 2:4-25 creation narrative. Furthermore, “עַל־כֵּן,” translated “wherefore” or “for this cause,” indicates a thematic transition and isn’t legally constricting – a notion that’s in perfect agreement with Matthew 19:3-10.

-ez duz it © 20 July 2011

Romans 1: Straight, Married Christian "Natural Affection" Grown Cold - NOT Gay people

Hi, Jane Bond--

Romans 1:17-32 is about Christian (v 21) couples trapped in loveless marriages and who pursue gratification outside their relationships, not Gay people or our committed love.

What’s “unnatural” is not to love one’s spouse. Nonetheless Paul addresses this theme regularly.

He orders Christian spouses not to hold out on each another’s physical needs in 1Corinthians 7:3-4. It’s ironic, since he permits Christians to marry only as a way of controlling their lusts (verses 1-2). He’s compelled to command Christian couples to love each other in Ephesians 5:22, 25 and 28. While spouses should have “natural affection” for each other, clearly didn’t have it in 2Timothy 3:3. St. Paul says repeatedly that heterosexual Christian couples have intimacy problems!

Christian wives were turned off by their husbands in Romans 1:26. Since they were largely confined to the home, extramural adulterous liaisons were generally not an option. They seem to have taken their satisfaction literally into their own hands.

Because men could move more freely, unsatisfied husbands could seek outlet at bathhouses, brothels or temples. The verb “ἐξεκαύθησαν” implies the glowing cinders of a dying fire, not flames of passion in v27. Also, “among one another” is a legitimate translation of “εἰς ἀλλήλους.”

Romans 1 speaks to married heterosexual Christians, preachers, politicians and “family advocates” who’ve lost their “natural affection” for their spouses, not Gay people and our committed love.

--ez duz it © 20 July 2011

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Fundamentalists Have a Hard Time Letting Go: Romans 1:17-32 Condems...Married Christian Heterosexuals

Hi, Bryan358--

Your anti-Gay theology is unsupportable.

You say, the word Greek for “knew” in Romans 1:21, is ginosko, a singular, first-person, present active indicative verb. Actually, it’s “γνόντες,” a plural nominative masculine second active aorist participle.

Do the following refer to anything but “knowing about God”: John 1:10, 8:55, 17:25; 1 Corinthians 15:34? Do these verses speak of anything but “knowing God” through personal relationship: John 6:69, 8:3, 10:14, 14:7, 17:3; Colossians 3:10; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Timothy 3:7; 2 Peter 1:2-3, 20? You haven’t answered these questions to avoid the inevitable refutation of your position: To know God is to be in relationship with God.  

Hebrews 10:26 and 2 Peter 2:20 indict Christians, as does Romans 1:17-32. Because “they knew God,” v21 categorically condemns heterosexual Christian couples for seeking sexual gratification independent of their spouses (vv26-27). You can’t scripturally disprove me. If you could’ve, you would’ve.

You insist, “There are many people who were straight and are now gay, and those who were gay and are now straight.”


Every Gay man I know socially (200+) and me were never – ever – sexually attracted to women. Precisely because the verb for “left” – “ἀφέντες” – in Romans 1:27 is in the active, not passive, voice it’s logically impossible for us to have “left their use.” One can’t “leave” a place where one’s never been!

Three “Ex-Ex-Gay” leaders apologize for the harm they caused Gay people through so-called “reparative therapy”:

--ez duz it © 16 July 2011

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Romans 1 17-32 Condemns Christian Heterosexuals

Hi, Bryan358--

Regarding Romans 1, it’s you who’ve distorted the original meaning to fit your anti-Gay hermeneutic and theology.

You write, “It clearly says that men abandoned natural relationship with women and committed shameful acts with men.

To say the word “ἀφέντες” in v27 means “abandoned” is irresponsible on two counts:

First, it’s a second aorist active participle; the frequency and duration of the action cannot be defined. The most that can be said is that the action simply occurred. The KJV does a fair job when it says, “left,” rather than “abandoned.”

Secondly, because “ἀφέντες” is in the active voice, it expresses the subject’s active, willful and purposeful intent in “doing” the action. Since, from my earliest memories, I was never sexually attracted to women. This has been the experience of every Gay man I’ve ever met. It’s logically impossible for us to have left their “use,” as Paul clinically frames it.

Contrary to what you say, Romans 1:21 most certainly speaks of Christians, because they “knew God.”

There’s the theoretical “knowing that God is God:”
Psalm 46:10;
John 1:10, 8:55, 17:25;
1 Corinthians 15:34

Then, there’s the experiential “knowing God:”
John 6:69, 8:3, 10:14, 14:7, 17:3;
Colossians 3:10;
1 Timothy 2:4;
2 Timothy 3:7;
2 Peter 1:2-3, 20

There’s an exact parallel between Romans 1:21 and Hebrews 10:26 and 2 Peter 2:20.

I’m not buying your Biblically errant anti-Gay theology!

--ez duz it © 14 July 2011

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Christianist Sites Pretending to Know Hebrew

Hi, detroitblkmale30—
What are the specific names of the rabbis you say discuss different kinds of eunuchs and the source they appear in? The reason I ask is because no 13 year-old Jewish boy celebrating his bar mitzvah, much less a true rabbi, would mangle the Hebrew the way you indicate.

Dude, you’re in way over your head and you’re still in the wading pool…

The expression “eunuchs of the sun” would be written “הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ סָרִיסִֽים”, not “סריס חמה” as you wrongly say. Also, “eunuchs of man” would be written, “הָאָדָֽם סָרִיסִֽים”, not “סריס אדם” as you incorrectly say.

You’re bad Hebrew isn’t impressive – at least in a positive sense.

My advice: stay away from those fundamentalist christianist sites [1] that you copy and past from without citing and have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.



Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Romans 1:21-32 – The Love of Christian Heterosexual Married Couples Grown Cold

Hi, Ameer Gittens--

Romans 1:21-32 isn’t about Gay people or their committed love. It’s about Christian (v 21) couples in loveless marriages pursuing satisfaction outside their relationship.

Chilled affection between spouses is a recurring Pauline theme.

In 1Corinthians 7:3-4 Paul is compelled to tell Christian spouses not to hold out on one another’s sexual needs. Such an enjoinder is as fascinating as it is ironic, because he allows Christians to marry only as a way of controlling their lusts (verses 1-2)! In Ephesians 5:22, 25 and 28, Paul tells Christian couples to love each other. Spouses, who should have natural affection for each other, clearly didn’t have it in 2Timothy 3:3. It seems heterosexual Christian couples have intimacy problems.

In Romans 1:26 Christian wives forsook relations with their men. Since women were largely homebound when unaccompanied by a man, adulterous affairs regardless of gender were mostly out of the question; the women likely took matters into their own hands…literally.

Having greater mobility the men sought release wherever they could: bathhouses, brothels or temples. They weren’t enflamed in lust toward one another in v27. The verb “ἐξεκαύθησαν” paints a sad picture of the glowing cinders of a dying fire, not flames of passion. Also “εἰς ἀλλήλους” is legitimately rendered “among one another.”

Romans 1 is about today’s married heterosexual Christian preachers, politicians and “family men and women” who’ve lost their love for their spouses, not Gay people and their committed love.

--ez duz it, © 12 July 2011

Dueteronomy 21 - Virgins as the Spoils of War: Were They Really Married by their Captors?


Caps-screaming sarcasm just belies your weak position.

In Deuteronomy 21, a female whose parents and male siblings were killed or executed during a military campaign was given a month to mourn their deaths. Not only that, but she was taken by a man who likely had a hand in destroying her family, home and community. Hardly endearing.

You say, “She must be betrothed; you can't touch her until you actually marry her.” You’re wrong. There was no betrothal dowry and gift (Genesis 34:12). The man merely seized the woman, or women, he chose.

Your implication that her “modesty” was protected until the end of her first month of captivity is naïve. The marauding soldiers inspected the females to verify their virginity. Failure to pass inspection meant execution:

Read Judges 21:10-12: “Go and smite the inhabitants…with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this [is] the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp…”  

If, after deflowering her, he wasn’t satisfied, the captor could merely “let her go” and wasn’t obligated to feed, clothe or house her (Exodus 21:10).


--ez duz it, © 2011

Monday, July 11, 2011

Relativizing the Scriptures to Condemn Gay People and the Committed Love of Same-Sex Couples is Wrong!

Hi, Bystander--

You say homosexuality is “condemned in the Bible.” Actually, the Bible neither condemns Gay people nor the committed love between same-sex couples.

Do you believe that the Bible is the fully inspired word of God, or not? Do you believe that it is inerrant or, not? Do you believe Jesus says that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” in Matthew 5:18, or not?

If you answered “yes” to even one of my questions, how can you refer to any of these assertions, irrespective of what they are, and say, “Not all of the truths of the Bible are of equal weight in their consequences and rewards”?

When I asked you by what argument you use to defend your position, you wrote, “The Bible is all the defense I need.” Please cite one Scripture that says even one word of God of less value or weight than another, especially in light of Luke 4:4: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

 Your unjustified relativization of the Scriptures is curious especially when you wrongly claim – and without corroborating evidence in a later post – that homosexuality is: “condemned in the Bible.”

--ez duz it, © 11 July 2011

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who's who? What's what?

I’ve already discussed Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Here’s the link to avoid reposting:

Of the two Levitical passages, only 20:13 invokes capital punishment for a man, “אִישׁ,” lying with his son, “אֶת־זָכָר.” Beside my comment above, the following reinforce that “זָכָר” in this context refers to male offspring: Genesis 17:10, 12, 14; Leviticus 12:2; Numbers 3:15*, 3:40, 26:62, Joshua 17:2, etc.

You say, “The next part involves large rocks.” Leviticus 20:2 specifies stoning for anyone who “giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech.” Similar punishment is mandated in Leviticus 20:27 for “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard.”

However, since the method of capital punishment wasn’t specified in Leviticus 20:13, the death penalty imposed must be by hanging on a tree (Deuteronomy 21:22).

Torah is binding only on Jews: Deu 4:44: “And this [is] the law which Moses set before the children of Israel.”

If you’re not Jewish, it’s not your Law.

I was born and raised a Jew. Observant Jews must obey not one commandment, or mitzvah (מִצְוָה), but are bound to live by all 613 Torahic and 7 rabbinical commandments, or mitzvot (מִצְווֹת). Picking and choosing isn’t an option.

If you want to pretend you’re Jewish, forsake Jesus, become Hasidic and study to become a rabbi. Then, you can teach Halakhah (Jewish law) and tradition to other…Jews.

--ez duz it, © 2011

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: A Condemnation of Incest, Not Homosexuality

Hi, bannorhill--

Regarding Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Apart from 18:22 addressing the second person, and 20:13 addressing the third, the whole of the former is nearly identical with the first clause of the latter. Also, the subjunctive or conditional forms appearing in a number of the English translations relative to chapter 20 don’t appear in the Hebrew.

Chapter 20:11-21 deals primarily with incest, albeit prohibiting bestiality in 16-17. Though violating the commands in verses 11-17 result in the certain deaths of all parties concerned, the capital penalty seems to be withheld from those in 18-21.

A man, “אִישׁ” is commanded to refrain from “lying with” certain familial relations in verses 11-13 and 20 or, “taking” others in 14, 17 and 21. A complicated Hebrew grammatical construction more akin to the Latin dative versus any English convention is used to show acquaintance or relation. Without knowing Hebrew, but understanding it’s read right-to-left, the construction becomes apparent:

Verse 11: his father's wife :: “אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו
Verse 12: his daughter-in-law :: “אֶת־כַּלָּתֹו
Verse 13: his man-child, i.e., son :: “אֶת־זָכָר
Verse 14: his wife and his mother-in-law :: “אֶת־אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ
Verse 17: his sister :: “אֶת־אֲחֹתֹו
Verse 20: his aunt, i.e., uncle's wife :: “אֶת־דֹּדָתֹו
Verse 21: his brother’s wife :: “אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו

Your “proof text” doesn’t refute my claim: The Bible neither condemns Gay people nor the love to which same-sex couples commit themselves.

--ez duz it, © 11 July 2011

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Eve and Athena

Hi, LintLass--

I wasn't drawing a strict parallel.

First, what struck me most significantly was the loose similarity between the geneses of Eve and Athena.

Secondly, I specifically did not use the terms “husband” or “wife” for two reasons. The first was to steer clear of the anachronistic superimposition of the 21st century Christian fundamentalist marriage meme onto the Biblical creation myth. The second was to avoid such a metaphor relative to Zeus and Athena.

Additionally, the definition of "consort" isn’t limited to marital affiliations, nor does explicitly imply the sexual relations that might occur in them. It can also evoke connotations of association and partnership – the very thing I intended in my comment. The power enjoyed by Eve in her partnership with Adam in stewardship over animal and plant life the Genesis 1 creation myth narrative (albeit lacking in Chapter 2) is what impressed me – an impression that also seemed to strike a chord when I thought of Zeus and Athena enjoying exclusive power over the lightning bolt and the aegis.

I find it repugnant that Christian fundamentalists have regularly misappropriated Biblical myth and narrative with the end often resulting in the politically sanctioned abuse of power over nature, women, Blacks and other people of color, the poor, LGBT people, and….

It’s regrettable you presumed more from my comment than what I intended.

--ez duz it, © July 2011

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

God's First Word to Man...

RE: rg825, comment Jun 29, 2011 at 15:14:57:

Hi, rg825--

Do you people ever read your Bibles? No….Really?!

You say: “The first words God spoke to man was “to be fruitful and multiply.””

However, the first words the “Lord God” supposedly spoke to man are actually found in Genesis 2:16-17 not, in Genesis 1:28, as you suggest. There, Adam – still alone – is given permission to eat of every tree in the garden except for “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” along with its threat of consequent death.

The next words in Genesis 2:18 read: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” BTW, for you Biblical purists, the word for “help” in Genesis 2:18 “עֵזֶר,” pronounced “‘ê·zer,” is a masculine noun….  

In fact, the only thing in the Biblical creation narratives where it is noted that something God created was “not good” was man’s solitude.

Most importantly, the Creator doesn’t say “It is not good that the pen!s should be alone, I will make it a vag!na meet for it.” However, while it seems to be – and indeed is – a ludicrous thought, this is the essential argument of the opponents of civil marriage equality.  

If God intended anything, it is relationship, intimacy, comfort and support between spouses, not complementary bio-plumbing!

--ez duz it Copyright © 29 June 2011

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Some Straights Just Can't Get Over Gays

Hi, Lara Biden--

It’s odd when people refer to my existential reality – the one I’ve had since my earliest memories – as a “lifestyle” or a “choice.” Perhaps, if the tables were turned, and insisted that you merely have a straight “lifestyle” that is a “choice” and must be changed, you might feel what I do :-)

The discovery of my sexual self was similar to yours. Having a crush on, or thinking about kissing, much less marrying a female seemed just as strongly and instinctively mismatched with me - as your orientation as a heterosexual woman toward another woman seems would be. I don’t think heterosexuality is wrong, it’s just not right for me.

My sexuality has never transitioned from one thing in my youth to another thing in my adulthood.

What has transitioned has been my acceptance of my sexuality. I took an MA in Theology at St. Louis University with dual concentrations: Ethics as well as Biblical Languages and Literatures because I wanted to make sense of my ideological, theological and sexual worlds. Eventually I came to see that one world was not opposed to any other.

When people throw out “proof-texts” without historical and philological contexts, they’re merely pretexts to justify their anti-Gay bigotry.

I may never change anyone's “feelings” or “faith presumptions” about Gay people. However, I will insist on the right to be treated equally under the law…including civil marriage.

Take care...

--ez duz it Copyright © 26 June 2011

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Dialogues with the Dull -

Hi, jf12—

For the record…I’ve no fear, or disgust, of gender differences and I resent your false accusation!

The only thing I’ll concede is your apparent difficulty reading.

My prior comments on Matthew 19 and elsewhere convey my exact position regarding gender and civil marriage. Your miscomprehension of them is your issue. Again, I’m not concerned with any ecclesiastically sectarian doctrine relative to marriage, including yours – or, your divorce.

Also, if you use Greek, use it correctly.

In Romans 1, “unseemly” in v27 is not “ἀσχημοσύνη,” as you wrongly say, but “ἀσχημοσύνην” because it’s in the accusative case. Also, the term translated “not convenient,” in v28 isn’t “μήκαθήκω” as you incorrectly claim, but two words comprised of the negating particle and the plural accusative neuter present active participle: “μὴ καθήκοντα”. There’s no need to debate either term because, as I’ve explained, they don’t apply to me.

You mention the “laws of physikos.” The term never appears in Scripture.

Regarding I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say “sleeping is the activity” discussed. Reread my comment until you understand it. If you have literary or philological evidence from Classical or Koine Greek to contravene my argument, give it.

When discussing Scripture, precision is critical for me. You say, “jots and tittles are kind of Phariseeical” (sic)? Take it up with Jesus; he’s the one who stressed their importance in Matthew 5:18.

BTW, it’s “n’est-ce pas”!

--ez duz it Copyright © 25 June 2011

Friday, June 24, 2011

Romans 1:17-32: Not a Condemnation of Gay People

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:22)--

Regarding Romans 1:17-32:

I’ve not made idols, “like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” I’ve never had a woman; hence, she couldn’t “change the natural use into that which is against nature”.

Covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murderousness, deceitfulness, despitefulness, backbiting, inventing evil things, disobedience to parents, arrogance, boastfulness aren’t my style.

I’m “argumentative” and “whisper,” but only when necessary. Clearly, I do “retain God in [my] knowledge” as is evidenced in my comments.

Verse 27 says “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman…” The Greek word for “leaving,” “ἀφέντες,” is in the active voice. It expresses the subject’s active, volitional agency in “doing” an action. Because I NEVER was attracted to women, it was logically impossible for me to have left their “use,” as Paul so romantically puts it.

I don’t burn in lust toward other men (the verse is very “plural” specific); I have eyes only for my true love and life partner.

Whatever it might say, Romans 1:17-32 doesn’t condemn Gay people. Given that, and the christianists’ contention sexual relations are permissible only within marriage, it’s all the more reason why the passage should not be used as a pretext to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011

I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9: Not Condemnations of Homosexuality

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:57)--

You appeal to I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 suggesting that God condemns homosexuality and should be used as a pretext to deny same-sex couples access to marry civilly. 

The word “homosexual” wasn’t even invented until the late 1800s. There is no correlative in Biblical Greek.

The words “ἀρσενοκοίταις” in I Timothy 1:10 and “ἀρσενοκοῖται” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 occur only once in the Bible with no other variants. Etymologically, they derive from “ἄρρην,” (male) and “κοίτη” (bed).

Also, the terms appear in no other literary references that predate, or are contemporary with, the Greek NT – the claim that they can be defined with the degree of precision that christianists contend is unjustifiable. Despite whom these “man-bedders” actually may have been, the conjecture that the Greek means “homosexuals” is presumptuous and inaccurate. 

Since the definite article is missing from these two nouns with no other instances of these words, or their variants, elsewhere in Scripture, only their declension, number and case can be verified. It is impossible to determine the gender of these of these nouns.

Furthermore, since males and females comprise the homosexual population, concluding that a homosexual woman is a “man-bedder” is logically impossible.

Your contention that “ἀρσενοκοίταις,” or “ἀρσενοκοῖται” = “homosexuals” is wrong!

I won’t be silent while christianists distort Scripture to vilify Gay people and deny us civil marriage.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011

Ephesians 5:31 and Matthew 19:5 - Don’t Exclude Same-Sex Couples from Civil Marriage

Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 22, 2011 at 15:58:43)--

Ephesians 5:31 nearly mirrors Matthew 19:5. You contend these verses restrict civil marriage to opposite-sex couples. I say, not so fast…

The Matthean passage, which consequently illuminates Ephesians 5:31, isn’t a discourse in which Jesus elaborates upon who may marry, but touches precisely on the subject of divorce.

To appreciate the tension in Matthew, it’s critical to understand that the Pharisees parallel modern Christian fundamentalists in key ways. They were religious separatists (Ezra 10:11), and prided themselves on their ideological conservatism, as well as knowledge of, and adherence to, the Scriptures (Read Matthew 23:7, 13-33, where Jesus blasts them for their presumed theological orthodoxy and moral superiority!).

Jesus, addressing this sect of religious lawyers, the Pharisees, employs prudent legal restraint and precision.

Speaking to lawyers, he provides the minimum, yet, requisite information, thus enabling him to satisfy their query while preventing his own legal entrapment.

Speaking as a lawyer, Jesus cleverly answers their question with a question.

Verse 5: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife…?” Certainly, this must frustrate opponents of marriage equality. Why? Jesus’ question does NOT use the specifically restrictive legal language “for this cause and this cause only….”

Jesus doesn’t pronounce an injunction against same-sex couples seeking civil marriage, but does respond to the condemnatory, legalistic and hypocritical Pharisees quite handily.

--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Rev. Amy DeLong, Methodist Pastor Married Same-Sex Couple in Violation of Methodist "Book of Discipline"

Hi, Michael Hallmark--

Please help: Where does it say that Rev. DeLong did not agree with the "Book of Discipline" in matters pertaining to sexuality at the time she was ordained?

That aside…

Referring to the General Rules, the Methodist Church stated in 1858, “‘the buying and selling of men, women and children with an intention to enslave them,’ is ambiguous in its phraseology, and liable to be construed as antagonistic to the institution of Slavery, in regard to which the Church has no right to meddle, except in enforcing the duties of masters and servants, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures.”

The General Conference also stated, “There is nothing here to warrant any construction looking toward a repeal of the laws of the United States in regard to the African Slave trade.”

Tell me, were the abolitionist ministers who opposed the Church’s official stance as articulated in the “Discipline” not within their right and duty to do so?

Is a faith that blindly and legalistically follows the letter of the law, but not its spirit, authentic? Is a faith that fails to critically and constantly evaluate its Scriptural and doctrinal tradition, viable? Is a faith that fails to challenge oppressive social structures within the Church, as well as the political life of the nation, a legitimate one?

--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011

The Archetypal Argument Against Marriage Equality? Really?!

Hi, Milrepa --
Your argument against civil marriage equality is based on archetypes?

You say, “Archetypes are the true language of our species, and transcend culture, they are ubiquitous among mankind.”

Your archetypal universe is static, leaden and limited.

I enjoy Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell as well as their work relating to myth and archetype. However, I don’t see either concept as legitimate predication for denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry civilly.

One of the salient components of language - archetypal or otherwise - is its lack of stasis. There is an innate quality to language permitting evolution and diversification over time. Your particular model lacks this dynamic quality.

The symbols and rules of all language are, by nature, largely arbitrary. While thoughts can be represented acoustically, physically or in graphical symbol systems, the symbols are not universally experienced, utilized or expressed culture-by-culture.

While certain archetypal motifs emerge in different cultures, their number and semiotic quiddity are all not identically perceived, articulated, or interpreted, across all cultures.

Happily, Jung noted that there is no fixed number of archetypes. As the psyche operates in the realm of the infinite, its expression ought to necessarily do the same.

Finally, the Gay person in many respects IS the hypostatic union - the archetype of united opposites (Jesus as “Christa” or Avalokiteshwara as “Kuan Yin,” etc.).

Civil marriage would enable two people of archetypal complementarity to be legally joined.

--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Matthew 19:3-5: Not an Injunction Against Same-Sex Marriage

The passage in Matthew 19:3-5 is not a discourse in which Jesus elaborates on who may marry, but talks precisely on the subject of divorce. Jesus, addressing the sect of religious lawyers, the Pharisees, employs prudent legal restraint and precision.
Speaking to lawyers, he provides the minimum requisite information; enabling him to satisfy their query while preventing his own legal entrapment.

Speaking as a lawyer, Jesus cleverly answers their question with a question.

Verse 5 reads “for this cause.” Certainly a disappointment for opponents of marriage equality, Jesus’ question does not use the specifically restrictive language “for this cause and this cause only.”

Because of this, Jesus does not pronounce an injunction against same-sex marriage, but does respond to the legalistic Pharisees quite handily.

--ez duz it Copyright © 22 June 2011

Monday, June 20, 2011

Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:17-32

Some say the Bible condemns homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:17-32.

They’d never say anyone should observe Mosaic Law to be righteous, except when it comes to Gay people. What about King David’s declaration of love for Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1:26 “Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Just buddies? Ummhumm…

Concerning Romans 1:17-32:

I haven’t made idols, “like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.” Also, my woman never did “change the natural use into that which is against nature” because I’ve never had a woman.

I’m not: Covetous, malicious, envious, murderous, deceitful, despiteful, backbiting, inventing evil things, disobedient to parents, arrogant, boastful.

Am I: Argumentative? When necessary. Whispering? Sometimes during movie previews. A hater of God? Can’t be bothered.

Romans 1:27 says “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman…” The Greek word for “leaving,” “ἀφέντες,” is in the active voice. It indicates that the subject is the willing agent, or doer, of the action. Because I was NEVER attracted to women, it’s logically impossible for me to have left their “use” as Paul so romantically puts it.

Also, I don’t burn in lust toward other men (the verse is very “plural” specific). I only have eyes for my life partner.

Whatever it might say, the Bible doesn’t condemn LGBT people.

--ez duz it Copyright © 20 June 2011

Monday, April 25, 2011

Genesis 19 and the Gate to the City of Sodom

Hi, JeremiahA--

Your assessment of Sodom’s gate in Genesis 19 is interesting.

However, Ray Vander Laan notes, “The gate was the center of city life in biblical times. Originally designed to defend a city against attack, this massive structure soon became a combination of community center, city hall, and marketplace…Lot sat in the gate of Sodom.”

Dr. Walter D. Zorn of Lincoln Christian University writes: “The biblical literature and ways of talking about war included the city gates. Note the following references. Ezekiel describes how Jerusalem’s gates were attacked by the Babylonians: “I have stationed the sword for slaughter at all their gates. . . . . to set battering rams against the gates, to build a ramp and to erect siege works” (Ezek 21:15, 22). Earlier Deut 28:52ff. had warned about this: “They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

““To possess the gate” was to possess the city (Gen22:17; 24:60)”, according to Zorn.

The citizens of Sodom had every right to suspect the possibility that Lot’s unknown guests were enemy scouts who posed a real threat of military attack.

--ez duz it Copyright © 25 April 2011

Josephus - J.BJ 4.9.10§562 and Ἀσελγείας: More Nonsense from G. Thomas Hobson

Hi, JeremiaA--

You and G. Thomas Hobson refer to “Simon the Zealot” in Josephus.

If Simon was “the Zealot” why does Josephus write, “This success of Simon excited the zealots afresh; and though they were afraid to fight him openly in a fair battle, yet did they lay ambushes in the passes…” (cf. J. BJ 4.9.8§538ff)? The question is not rhetorical.

Josephus writes: “And thus did they roll themselves up and down the city, as in a brothel-house, and defiled it entirely with their impure actions; nay, while their faces looked like the faces of women, they killed with their right hands; and when their gait was effeminate, they presently attacked men, and became warriors, and drew their swords from under their finely dyed cloaks, and ran every body through whom they alighted upon.” (J. BJ 4.9.10§556ff). Notice that §562 reads “ἐμιμοῦντο καὶ δι᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἀσελγείας.”

The word “ἐμιμοῦντο” is critical because Simon and his band “mimicked,” imitated and play-acted as ladies of commerce. They did so for one reason only. Despite your protestation, the male soldiers dressed - and comported themselves - as female prostitutes to allure and mortally attack their enemy. The events were not disparate, but concomitant!

The idea that soldiers dress as women to attack an enemy is not an ancient one. It occurs in our own time, as well. See the Fox News report: “U.S. Troops Kill Taliban Commander Clad in Woman's Clothing” at,2933,459025,00.html  

--ez duz it Copyright © 25 April 2011

G Thomas Hobson: His Anti-Gay Rhetoric and Misuse of Ἀσέλγεια Relative to Jewish Mishna

Hi, JeremiahA--

G. Thomas Hobson cites T. Levi 17,11 attempting to defame Gay persons by equating us to “licentious persons…the lawless, pederasts, those who practice bestiality.”

He says ἀσέλγεια “may have been used to refer to what were regarded as the most shameless violations of the sexuality taught in the Torah.” The key phrase is “may have been used.” Hobson doesn’t advance a definitive statement because he can’t.

For Jews, the clarifying teaching of Torah is made in Talmud. Mishna neither uses the term “ἀσέλγεια” nor does it discuss Genesis 19 in terms of homosexuality - another fact Hobson conveniently omits.

He says, “Jewish writers almost always use this word in its sexual sense” appealing to the pseudepigraphical “Testament of Levi” to make his case. However, T. Levi has never been embraced by the Jewish community and its attribution either to Jewish sources which have been emended by Christians - or solely to Christians who foisted as a forgery is highly debated (see J. Davila, 1997). In any event, Hobson fails to cite the primary source, much less the actual Greek quote. Given his record, I’m unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, I’ll have to wait until summer break to counter the misinformation in Hobson’s article.

Thank you though, for making me aware of the anti-Gay rhetoric of Hobson and “The Presbyterian Coalition.” It’s good to know one’s opponents.

--ez duz it Copyright © 25 April 2011

G Thomas Hobson and his (Disappointing) Article on Ἀσέλγεια (Aselgeia)

Hi, JeremiahA--

As a reputable, scholarly discussion of “ἀσέλγεια,” G Thomas Hobson was disappointing.

Significantly, Hobson opens his article with the statement that Mark’s use of ἀσέλγεια “could easily [be used] as a synonym for homosexual activity.” He did not, in the end, prove that Jesus definitively referred to homosexuality at all!

Though attempting to frame ἀσέλγεια as a synonym for homosexuality, Demosthenes doesn’t support Hobson’s cause. He “accuses a man of treating his slave-girl ἀσελγῶς by having sex with her openly at parties (Neaer. 59.33.1).…he also speaks disparagingly of a gang of men who violated all standards of wantonness (ἀσελγεστάτα) with the wife of a certain man (Vit. Apoll. 3.20.40).”

Hobson refers to the Aquilan and Symmachean retranslation (ca 125 CE) of the LXX to support his thesis that Hosea 7:14 leads to a Biblical condemnation of homosexuality (ἀσελγῶς ἐλάλησαν). Nonsense! The original LXX (ca 130 BCE) says (ἐν ταῖς κοίταις).

He appeals to the “OT Apocrypha” which the Jewish tradition rejects and from which Jesus never quoted.

To equate homosexuals with effeminacy, cross-dressing and extreme womanly lasciviousness (ὑπερβολὲν ἀσέλγειαν), Hobson cites Josephus - known for his inaccuracies and biases. Hobson conveniently omits the fact that they did so for military advantage: “while their faces looked like the faces of women, they killed with their right hands; and when their gait was effeminate, they presently attacked men, and became warriors.”

Inconsistencies in Hobson abound. I’m unimpressed.

--ez duz it Copyright © 25 April 2011

Saturday, April 23, 2011

2 Peter 2:7, The Town of Selge (Σέλγη) and its Supposed Moral Excellence

Hi, JeremiahA--

Why respond to yourself rather than to my comment along this thread? Doing so makes it difficult for me to respond in a timely way.

You say: ““In 2 Peter 2:7, Lot was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipld (sic) men.” The word for “sensual” does come from the name of a city whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals and, with the negative particle, is translated as “licentiousness,” sensual,” or “sensuality.””

Despite your unattributed quote of Thayer’s Lexicon, you haven’t demonstrated that the citizens of Σέλγη “excelled in strictness of morals.” Indeed, if the residents of Σέλγη excelled in “morals” as you and Thayer say, why are they and their affiliated tribes renowned for piracy? [1]

Furthermore, as Spartans, the citizens of Σέλγη openly embraced extramarital relations [2]

As I said in a prior post, there is nothing in the ancient sources that supports Thayer’s comment, or gives credence to the notion that Σέλγη was noted for its sexual primness, or the translation of “ἀσελγής” as having anything to do with the notions of “sensual” or, “sensuality.”

If you can produce primary source evidence from Classical Greek or first-century Talmudic literature to the contrary, please give it. Otherwise, your position concerning 2 Peter 2:7 doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

--ez duz it Copyright © 04-23-2011
[1] ΣΤΡΑΒΟΝΟΣ: Γεωγραφικών ΙB'  XII, 7, §3 - 
[2] ΞΕΝΟΦΩΝ: Λακεδαιμονίων Πολιτεία 1, §7-9,

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

2 Peter 2:7 and Genesis 19: Are "the wicked" only men? What's "ἀσελγείᾳ"?

Hi, JeremiahA--

When 2 Peter 2:7 speaks of the “wicked,” the word used is “ἀθέσμων,” a plural masculine genitive adjective and functions as a substantive masculine generic. It’s important not to conclude as you do when you write, “notice that only the men are mentioned.” It would be equally unjustifiable to conclude that the “sinners” or, “ἁμαρτωλῶν” for whom Christ died in Romans 5:8 are only “men” -- since “ἁμαρτωλῶν” is a plural, masculine, genitive adjective. However, using your reasoning, one would be forced to conclude that such is the case -- though it’s clearly not.

Genesis 18:20 is straightforward in its indictment: “the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and…their sin is very grievous” That’s it. The verse doesn’t mention anything about “sensual conduct” as you claim. Your citation of 2 Peter 2:7 translates “ἀσελγείᾳ” as “sensual.” Thayer’s lexicon explains it’s “the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής.” It is comprised of the alpha-privative and Σέλγη, a town in Pisidia settled by the Spartans and renowned for its industry, constitution, independence…and relentless military aggression. There is sufficient etymological, lexical as well as classical Greek and 1st century Talmudic literary witness to reasonably reject “unbridled lust,” “sensuousness” or “lasciviousness” as legitimate translations for ἀσελγείᾳ.

I’ll happily respond to your other questions once you do me the courtesy of refuting my arguments here as well as at  and not merely ignoring them or changing the topic.

--ez duz it © Copyright 2011