tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11757567632387342552024-03-13T08:23:53.420-07:00ez duz itJust a few reflections from a quiet, middle-aged teacher and Gay activist who also posts comments on “The Huffington Post” under the same name.ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-41589136127953385042012-09-01T12:31:00.000-07:002012-09-01T12:42:57.576-07:00Jonathan and David and Solomon and the Shulamite<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Hebrew Bible affirms the love between David
and Jonathan in 2Samuel1v26 just as it does the love between Solomon and his
Shulamite bride in Songs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As the writer of Songs7v6 says his beloved is "delightful," or
"pleasant" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">נָּעַמְתְּ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> - na‘amt), David declares that Jonathan is just as so to him (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">נָעַמְתָּ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> - na‘ahmta). However, David expands the intensity of the word
with the qualifier: "exceedingly" or "very" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">מְאֹד</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> - meh’oth).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As Solomon extols the Shulamite as his "love" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אַהֲבָה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> -
’ahavah) in Songs7v6, so David lauds "thy love" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אַהֲבָֽתְךָ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> -
’ahavatekha) when speaking to Jonathan in eulogy. Again, David qualifies the
intensity of that love as even "surpassing the love of women" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">מֵאַהֲבַת נָשִֽׁים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> - mé’ahavat nashim). Interestingly, the word "<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">נָשִֽׁים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span> </span>- nashim" is more often translated "wives"
than it is "women." The phrase noting the relationship between David
and Jonathan can also be legitimately translated as, "thy love to me was
wonderful, passing the love of wives" - notable, considering David was
polygamous.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">David calls Jonathan, "brother" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אָחִי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> - ’achi)
and the writer of Songs4v10 refers to his beloved as, "sister" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">אֲחֹתִי</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> - ’achoti). In this type of Semitic literary convention, the allusion
to one's darling within the context of sibling relationship in both verses
negates neither the quality of affection nor the real amatory experience
connoted between the parties involved. Incidentally, in Songs8:1, the Shulamite
also uses "brother" (<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">כְּאָח</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span> </span>- ke’ach) in referencing her beloved.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">© 1 September 2012, ez duz it - the accidental theologian</span></div>
ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-28213328353059504542011-08-28T14:24:00.000-07:002011-08-28T14:24:37.701-07:001Timothy 1:10 Neither Alludes to Leviticus 20:13 nor Condemns Homosexuality. <span style="font-family: Arial;">StevenM--</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">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.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">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” (</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">ἄρσενος) as “he would bed a woman” (</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">κοίτην </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">γυναικός). </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Following grammatical convention, the nominal complement of the verb, “κοίτην,” is properly a woman: “</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">γυναικός,” not a man: “</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">ἄρσενος</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">” as you suggest.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Closer examination shows the passage condemns filial incest, not homosexuality. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Hebrew text of Leviticus 20:13 specifically condemns “a man,” or “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אִישׁ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span dir="LTR"></span>” who commits incest with his “male offspring,” or “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">זָכָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span dir="LTR"></span>” Hebrew scholar, Wilhelm Gesenius notes that “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">זָכָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span dir="LTR"></span>,” 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. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Each of the following verses speaks to “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">זָכָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span dir="LTR"></span>” as referencing male progeny while employing variant forms of “ἄρσην” in the LXX - thus validating Gesenius’ claim: </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">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.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">1Timothy 1:10 neither alludes to </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Leviticus 20:13 nor condemns homosexuality.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: HE;">--ez duz it ©2011</span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-25915832982866870542011-08-09T00:05:00.000-07:002011-08-09T00:05:55.599-07:00Genesis 19 Condemns Sexual Brutality Within a Military Context, not Homosexuality<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Genesis 19 doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but rape committed within a military context.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">What occurred in Genesis 14-18? </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Jordan</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Valley</st1:placename></st1:place> city-states constantly warred for control of regional resources, setting the stage for Genesis 19. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">What key strategy was used to attack ancient cities?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The book of Joshua and others recount scouts entering enemy towns to survey strategic weaknesses for the purpose of facilitating military assaults.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">What was <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place>’s error?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Lot was a foreigner residing in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city>. He failed to allow the town elders to scrutinize his out-of-town visitors. <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place>’s actions exposed the entire community to possible capture or military annihilation. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Who assaulted whom? Why?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">“ALL the people, from every quarter” of the town of <st1:city w:st="on">Sodom</st1:city>, men and women, young and old, demanded to “know” <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place>’s visitors. They wanted to sexually brutalize these potentially threatening visitors. Why? Rape is a violent assertion of power designed to bring shame on <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place> and deal with his unexamined interlopers.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Would this happen today?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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 <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state> police officers used a broomstick to rape Haitian-born Abner Louima. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Were the offenders homosexual?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">No! The residents of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sodom</st1:place></st1:city>, 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.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it © 9 August 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-78999498989813136352011-07-29T13:15:00.000-07:002011-07-29T13:15:25.207-07:00Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 19:3-10: Spousal Complementarity - Not a Prohibition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, JPaulNorton--</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Errant, heterosexist interpretations of Scripture have been used far too long by christianists to unjustly repress Gay people. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.” </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">In Hebrew, “help meet,” or “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>,” 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. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it © 29 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-51938456095421702132011-07-28T20:01:00.000-07:002011-07-28T20:01:25.454-07:00Romans 1:18-32 Really IS About Married Heterosexual Christians...<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">JPaulNorton--</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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).<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Teach your children the truth about Romans 1:18-32...indeed It’s about spousal infidelity, not Gay people.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it © 28 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-39762042433616506552011-07-20T12:25:00.000-07:002011-07-20T13:03:44.307-07:00Genesis 2:4-25 Does Not Preclude LGBT People From Marrying<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, Jason Bowen--<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.” <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The Hebrew expression “help meet” “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>” 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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The production of children isn’t part of the Genesis 2:4-25 creation narrative. Furthermore, “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">עַל־כֵּן</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>,” 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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">-ez duz it © 20 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-77025360164411300542011-07-20T09:03:00.000-07:002011-07-20T09:03:53.746-07:00Romans 1: Straight, Married Christian "Natural Affection" Grown Cold - NOT Gay people<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, Jane Bond--<o:p></o:p></span> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">What’s “unnatural” is not to love one’s spouse. Nonetheless Paul addresses this theme regularly. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">St. Paul</st1:place></st1:city> says repeatedly that heterosexual Christian couples have intimacy problems!<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it © 20 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-26222480285147772011-07-16T06:48:00.000-07:002011-07-16T06:48:36.069-07:00Fundamentalists Have a Hard Time Letting Go: Romans 1:17-32 Condems...Married Christian Heterosexuals<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, Bryan358--<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Your anti-Gay theology is unsupportable. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">You insist, “There are many people who were straight and are now gay, and those who were gay and are now straight.” <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hogwash! <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Every Gay man I know socially (200+) and me were never – ever – sexually attracted to women. Precisely because the verb for “left” – “</span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EL;">ἀφέντες</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">” – 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! <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Three “Ex-Ex-Gay” leaders apologize for the harm they caused Gay people through so-called “reparative therapy”: <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo&NR=1"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo&NR=1</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it © 16 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-82791443863995893022011-07-14T16:47:00.000-07:002011-07-14T16:48:34.406-07:00Romans 1 17-32 Condemns Christian Heterosexuals<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">Hi, Bryan358--<o:p></o:p></span></span><span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">Regarding Romans 1, it’s you who’ve distorted the original meaning to fit your anti-Gay hermeneutic and theology.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">You write, “<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">It clearly says that men abandoned natural relationship with women and committed shameful acts with men</span>.</span>”</span> <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">To say the word “</span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EL;">ἀφέντες</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">” in v27 means “abandoned” is irresponsible on two counts: <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Secondly, because “</span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EL;">ἀφέντες</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">” 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.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">Contrary to what you say, Romans 1:21 most certainly speaks of Christians, because they “knew God.” <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">There’s the theoretical “knowing that God is God:” <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">Psalm 46:10; <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">John 1:10, 8:55, 17:25;<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">1 Corinthians 15:34<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">Then, there’s the experiential “knowing God:”<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">John 6:69, 8:3, <span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">10:14,</span> </span>14:7, 17:3;<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Colossians 3:10;<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">1 Timothy 2:4;<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">2 Timothy 3:7;<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">2 Peter 1:2-3, 20<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">There’s an exact parallel between Romans 1:21 and Hebrews 10:26 and 2 Peter 2:20.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">I’m not buying your Biblically errant anti-Gay theology!<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">--ez duz it © 14 July 2011</span></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-69918302976202507292011-07-13T11:07:00.000-07:002011-07-13T11:07:52.781-07:00Christianist Sites Pretending to Know Hebrew<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, detroitblkmale30—<o:p></o:p></span> <br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Dude, you’re in way over your head and you’re still in the wading pool…<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The expression “eunuchs of the sun” would be written “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">סָרִיסִֽים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>”, not “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">סריס חמה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>” as you wrongly say. Also, “eunuchs of man” would be written, “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">הָאָדָֽם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">סָרִיסִֽים</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>”, not “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">סריס אדם</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>” as you incorrectly say. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">You’re bad Hebrew isn’t impressive – at least in a positive sense.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">[1] <a href="http://www.godvine.com/bible/Matthew/19-12"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.godvine.com/bible/Matthew/19-12</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-32115895264606120042011-07-12T09:37:00.000-07:002011-07-12T09:39:09.817-07:00Romans 1:21-32 – The Love of Christian Heterosexual Married Couples Grown Cold<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, Ameer Gittens--<o:p></o:p></span> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Chilled affection between spouses is a recurring Pauline theme. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.” <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">--ez duz it, © 12 July 2011</span></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-38084786480577257532011-07-12T06:03:00.000-07:002011-07-12T06:03:13.397-07:00Dueteronomy 21 - Virgins as the Spoils of War: Were They Really Married by their Captors?<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, MCWAY--<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Caps-screaming sarcasm just belies your weak position. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">In <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Deuteronomy </span>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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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…”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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). <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Barbaric…<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it, © 2011<o:p></o:p></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-67413962745289836682011-07-11T11:25:00.000-07:002011-07-11T11:26:14.370-07:00Relativizing the Scriptures to Condemn Gay People and the Committed Love of Same-Sex Couples is Wrong!<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">Hi, Bystander--<o:p></o:p></span></span><span style="color: black;"> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">You say homosexuality is “condemned in the Bible.” Actually, the Bible neither condemns Gay people nor the committed love between same-sex couples.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">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, “<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Not all of the truths of the Bible are of equal weight in their consequences and rewards</span></span>”? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">When I asked you by what argument you use to defend your position, you wrote, “<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">The Bible is all the defense I need</span>.</span>” 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.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: black;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: black;">--ez duz it, © 11 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="color: black;"> </span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-49004983190659722332011-07-11T08:32:00.000-07:002011-07-11T08:32:48.439-07:00Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who's who? What's what?<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, MCWAY--<o:p></o:p></span> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I’ve already discussed Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Here’s the link to avoid reposting:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ez_duz_it/presbyterian-church-ordain-gay-clergy_n_893210_96584234.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ez_duz_it/presbyterian-church-ordain-gay-clergy_n_893210_96584234.html</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Of the two Levitical passages, only 20:13 invokes capital punishment for a man, “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אִישׁ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>,” lying with his son, “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־זָכָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>.” Beside my comment above, the following reinforce that “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">זָכָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>” 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Torah is binding only on Jews: Deu 4:44: “And this [is] the law which Moses set before the children of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region>.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">If you’re not Jewish, it’s not your Law.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I was born and raised a Jew. Observant Jews must obey not one commandment, or mitzvah (</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">מִצְוָה</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="AR-SA" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">), but are bound to live by all 613 Torahic and 7 rabbinical commandments, or mitzvot (</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">מִצְווֹת</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>). Picking and choosing isn’t an option. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it, © 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-53438574239995838212011-07-11T00:45:00.000-07:002011-07-11T00:49:15.190-07:00Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: A Condemnation of Incest, Not Homosexuality<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, bannorhill--<o:p></o:p></span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Regarding Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">A man, “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אִישׁ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>” 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:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 11: his </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">father's</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"> wife :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 12: his daughter-in-law :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־כַּלָּתֹו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 13: his man-child, i.e., son :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־זָכָר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 14: his wife and his mother-in-law :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 17: his sister :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־אֲחֹתֹו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 20: his aunt, i.e., uncle's wife :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־דֹּדָתֹו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Verse 21: his brother’s wife :: “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Your “proof text” doesn’t refute my claim: The Bible neither condemns Gay people nor the love to which same-sex couples commit themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it, © 11 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-59013382321181378832011-07-03T06:43:00.000-07:002011-07-03T06:43:27.065-07:00Eve and Athena<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, LintLass--<o:p></o:p></span> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I wasn't drawing a strict parallel. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">First, what struck me most significantly was the loose similarity between the geneses of Eve and Athena.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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….<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">It’s regrettable you presumed more from my comment than what I intended. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it, © July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-57511915998347389612011-06-29T14:57:00.000-07:002011-06-29T16:45:38.475-07:00God's First Word to Man...<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">RE: rg825, comment Jun 29, 2011 at 15:14:57:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">---------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, rg825--<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Do you people ever read your Bibles? No….Really?!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">You say: “The first words God spoke to man was “to be fruitful and multiply.””<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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 “</span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-language: HE;">עֵזֶר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span dir="LTR"></span>,” pronounced “‘ê·zer,” is a masculine noun…. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">If God intended anything, it is relationship, intimacy, comfort and support between spouses, not complementary bio-plumbing! <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it Copyright © 29 June 2011<o:p></o:p></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-74028965525396938802011-06-26T12:59:00.000-07:002011-06-26T18:41:04.572-07:00Some Straights Just Can't Get Over Gays<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, Lara Biden--<o:p></o:p></span> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">t’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 :-) <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">My sexuality has never transitioned from one thing in my youth to another thing in my adulthood. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">What has transitioned has been my acceptance of my sexuality. I took an MA in Theology at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">St. Louis</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place> 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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">When people throw out “proof-texts” without historical and philological contexts, they’re merely pretexts to justify their anti-Gay bigotry. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Take care...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it Copyright © 26 June 2011<o:p></o:p></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-21625494568233418722011-06-25T19:25:00.000-07:002011-06-25T19:51:19.632-07:00Dialogues with the Dull -<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, jf12—<o:p></o:p></span> <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">For the record…I’ve no fear, or disgust, of gender differences and I resent your false accusation!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The only thing I’ll concede is your apparent difficulty reading. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Also, if you use Greek, use it correctly.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">You mention the “laws of physikos.” The term never appears in Scripture.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">BTW, it’s “</span><span lang="FR" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: FR;">n’est-ce pas</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">”!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it Copyright © 25 June 2011</span></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-2983542571474528382011-06-24T06:50:00.000-07:002011-06-24T06:50:50.055-07:00Romans 1:17-32: Not a Condemnation of Gay People<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:22)--<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Regarding Romans 1:17-32: <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murderousness, deceitfulness, despitefulness, backbiting, inventing evil things, disobedience to parents, arrogance, boastfulness aren’t my style. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I’m “argumentative” and “whisper,” but only when necessary. Clearly, I do “retain God in [my] knowledge” as is evidenced in my comments.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-85825791283092587972011-06-24T06:48:00.001-07:002011-06-24T06:48:52.591-07:00I Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9: Not Condemnations of Homosexuality<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 23, 2011 at 23:57)--<o:p></o:p></span> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The word “homosexual” wasn’t even invented until the late 1800s. There is no correlative in Biblical Greek.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Furthermore, since males and females comprise the homosexual population, concluding that a homosexual woman is a “man-bedder” is logically impossible. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Your contention that “ἀρσενοκοίταις,” or “ἀρσενοκοῖται” = “homosexuals” is wrong!<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">I won’t be silent while christianists distort Scripture to vilify Gay people and deny us civil marriage.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-73263221686817630222011-06-24T06:47:00.001-07:002011-06-24T06:47:57.595-07:00Ephesians 5:31 and Matthew 19:5 - Don’t Exclude Same-Sex Couples from Civil Marriage<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, jf12 (RE: Jun 22, 2011 at 15:58:43)-- <o:p></o:p></span> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Ephesians 5:31 nearly mirrors Matthew 19:5. You contend these verses restrict civil marriage to opposite-sex couples. I say, not so fast…<span style="color: red;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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!).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Jesus, addressing this sect of religious lawyers, the Pharisees, employs prudent legal restraint and precision.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Speaking to lawyers, he provides the minimum, yet, requisite information, thus enabling him to satisfy their query while preventing his own legal entrapment. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Speaking as a lawyer, Jesus cleverly answers their question with a question.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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….”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it Copyright © 24 June 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-51820945251176377972011-06-23T11:36:00.000-07:002011-06-23T11:36:38.570-07:00Rev. Amy DeLong, Methodist Pastor Married Same-Sex Couple in Violation of Methodist "Book of Discipline"<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">Hi, Michael Hallmark--<o:p></o:p></span> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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? <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">That aside…<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">The General Conference also stated, “There is nothing here to warrant any construction looking toward a repeal of the laws of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> in regard to the African Slave trade.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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? <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">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? <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;">----------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0912F83E581B7493C6A9178DD85F4C8584F9"><span style="color: blue;">http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0912F83E581B7493C6A9178DD85F4C8584F9</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-49095690053580167662011-06-23T07:22:00.000-07:002011-06-23T07:22:51.354-07:00The Archetypal Argument Against Marriage Equality? Really?!<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hi, Milrepa --</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Your argument against civil marriage equality is based on archetypes? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You say, “Archetypes are the true language of our species, and transcend culture, they are ubiquitous among mankind.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Your archetypal universe is static, leaden and limited. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While certain archetypal motifs emerge in different cultures, their number and semiotic quiddity are all not identically perceived, articulated, or interpreted, across all cultures. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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.). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Civil marriage would enable two people of archetypal complementarity to be legally joined. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--ez duz it, Copyright © 23 June 2011</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175756763238734255.post-16286006308958808172011-06-22T21:05:00.000-07:002011-06-22T21:07:17.819-07:00Matthew 19:3-5: Not an Injunction Against Same-Sex Marriage<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The passage in Matthew 19:3-5 is <u>not</u> 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.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Speaking to lawyers, he provides the minimum requisite information; enabling him to satisfy their query while preventing his own legal entrapment. </span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Speaking as a lawyer, Jesus cleverly answers their question with a question.</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">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.”</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Because of this, Jesus does not pronounce an injunction against same-sex marriage, but does respond to the legalistic Pharisees quite handily. </span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">--ez duz it Copyright © 22 June 2011</span></span>ez duz ithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09597840509501657526noreply@blogger.com0