Johnny SCOTUS And His Giant Robot

When SCOTUS passed gay marriage for all the land, I was 'happy,' not a happy screaming out windows; "Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last!" Happy. The reason is because I went through years of a long back and fourth tug of war in my own state of California with gay marriage that started back with Prop 8's demon birther Prop 22 when the roller coaster ride first started, in other words I did my time.
My best to all states and tell me where to register for wedding gifts (I hope all the states are registered at the same place and it's cheapy).

Soon after the ruling came in I saw a big spike in social media of anti-gay Christians losing their mind in all kinds of sloppy ways. They made it sound like instead of it being about gays getting married, it was something going out of the way to attack them personally, making it all about them. They were actually angry because gays bypassed them with asking them; "Can I get married with your kind permission?" Like my ability to marry can only be decided by them when I have all the same Constitutional rights they have according to our founding documents as an American. There isn't tiers of citizenship where a Christian American can trump the rights of a gay American, our founding fathers made sure of that with trusting future generations would do good with what they were trying to say.

Justice Kennedy in favor made a point that needs to be printed here and is at the heart of the decision:

"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other."

This saying is Christ-like in echoing God with man not wanting to be alone:

"Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him."
Geneses 2:18.

See this in contrast to the other judges who voted against gay marriage with them saying; "It's old tradition at the sacrifice of the happiness of others."

One thing I'm also noticing are religious leaders asking their followers to defy the ruling, not understanding by telling others to do that, they and those who follow them go against God Himself:

"All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged. If you do what is right, you won’t need to be afraid of your rulers. But watch out if you do what is wrong! You don’t want to be afraid of those in authority, do you? Then do what is right, and you will be praised. The one in authority serves God for your good. But if you do wrong, watch out! Rulers don’t carry a sword for no reason at all. They serve God. And God is carrying out his anger through them. The ruler punishes anyone who does wrong. You must obey the authorities. Then you will not be punished. You must also obey them because you know it is right.
That’s also why you pay taxes. The authorities serve God. Ruling takes up all their time. Give to everyone what you owe them. Do you owe taxes? Then pay them. Do you owe anything else to the government? Then pay it. Do you owe respect? Then give it. Do you owe honor? Then show it."

Romans 13:1-7.

One YouTube comment said this when I quoted the above verses:

"Christians are not to obey any law that contradicts the bible and God's holy nature. In the book of Acts, Peter and John are taken before the Jerusalem Council (Supreme Court) and told not to speak about Jesus Christ. This law by the Jerusalem Council goes against Jesus Christ command in Matthew 28:18-20 to go and make disciples of all nations teaching to obey all that I have commanded you. Peter and John have two commands before them one from God and the other from man. Who will they obey? God. from Acts 4:18; So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." 

My comment back:

"This has NOTHING to do with fair laws that put all American citizens on equal footing with rights that follow; "loving others as yourself." Would you deny yourself marriage? Than if you deny it to another, you break the Golden Rule that we are to seek and follow with all our choices and decisions. Questions like gay marriage the Bible doesn't specifically address? Apply "love another as yourself" before all else to the situation to get your answer that also puts ALL the Laws and what ALL the prophets had to say in the backseat.

Peter and John loved others as themselves enough to share the soul saving message of salvation they themselves had to others and that is why they were able to break the law in good conscious."

He never responded back.

I find it interesting that the same states bucking the most against the SCOTUS ruling are the same states that also fought the hardest against segregation. Somethings never change.


2 Times God Saying He Doesn't Hate You

Two simple and irrefutable points that blows out the water arsenokoitai is the aggressor (man) partner in a gay sexual union and malakoi the passive (girl) partner believed to be condemned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9.

1. If 'arsenokoitai' is the "aggressor" in a homosexual relationship and 'malakoi' the "passive" partner in 1 Corinthians, why is malakoi absent in 1 Timothy? An arsenokoitai would be missing the other half of his relationship. If they are a word pair, no other vice list with either malakoi or arsenokoitai, and there are many with malakoi prior to Paul and many with arsenokoitai after Paul, ever have them paired together.

2. If 'arsenokoitai' can be the catch-all word for both sides of a homosexual relationship, why does Paul bother using malakoi in 1 Corinthians? "Koites" was used centuries before Paul's usage and when used as a suffix in compounds it always indicated the penetrative aggressor, never the passive. That means it can't apply to both partners in an act and cannot be a catch-all term for all homosexual activity.

"And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds."

Jeremiah 14:14


Michael Eric Dyson

"A Princeton PhD and a child of the streets who takes pains never to separate the two."
- The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education.


Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

"One of the most influential Rabbis in all of Judaism."
- NewsWeek
Pray for the peace of Israel.


Baby Got Back?

No decent exegete still sees the Sodom story as anything but a story about a debased people summed up in Ezekiel 16:49 that culminated in a breach of hospitality that was a life or death situation in the ancient world. Most people have a hard time with wrapping their head around it being about the lack of hospitality instead of homosexuality because they go by our 20th century understanding of what hospitality is about. We see the lack of hospitality today as not wanting to open the door for a neighbor who wants to borrow a cup of sugar, the ancient world put the lack of hospitality of such grave importance, the Israeli tribe of Ruben went to war over it.

The rarely mentioned Jude verse talking about Sodom I've already discussed (for a little more detail about Sodom and Jude talking about "strange flesh," go to my 'Sodom' tag post below).

Even with the Roman verses, anti-gay scholars can't really take homosexuality outside of it's idolatry context, so they just meld the two together to where you can't see where one starts and the other finishes.

For the first time I'm seeing that for many people who really want a sincere answer to where they should stand on the homosexuality and the Bible debate, this one argument of Paul's "made up" Greek word arsenokoite from his Greek Bible (LXX) translated from the Hebrew Bible, that's a mashing of the verse in Leviticus 18:22 ("a man shall not lay with a male") into one word and sticking it in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, it look like it's a clear cut case Paul is condemning homosexuality with cleverly using Leviticus.

Correcting the Leviticus passage does a dual purpose. It shows Paul did not intend to make a general condemnation of homosexuality with arsenokoite and it destroys the argument Jesus didn't need to say anything about homosexuality because He expected you to understand He followed Levitical laws, so why would He need to say anything when Leviticus tells you how He feels about homosexuality?
There is no question that Leviticus 18:22 was written in the context of idolatry (Leviticus 20:2,3 tells you that and it's carried over to Deuteronomy with discussing the "quedesh" priesthood that Isn't named in the Leviticus verses) and that if Paul referenced it, he was referencing it's homosexuality in the context of only idolatry, but I will approach this as if it wasn't in the context of idolatry because that is the only argument that can be made to carry that verse as a general prohibition of homosexuality and to carry it to the present day)

To start, read what I say as to why Leviticus is only in the context of idolatry, next read about it's silence on lesbianism (If Leviticus said nothing about lesbians, Christ must have been fine with them too, if you believe the line Christ was following Leviticus as a given) and then go to what I say about the word itself.

Only if we can understand what the Hebrew tongue first said in Leviticus can we figure out what Paul was trying to convey with his new word.2
The literal Hebrew reads the verse like this:

Weth-zakhar lo tishkav mishkevey ishshah

Translated into the literal English it reads; "with a male you shall not lie the lyings of the woman."3

Now since Leviticus 18:22 is only directed at Israeli males and not women, a clear-cut and simple reading prohibiting all male homosexuality would read; "Weth-zakhar lo tishkav (with a male you shall not lie)," but instead we have mishkevey ishshah (lyings of the woman) put into the verse. English translators of the verse also put in "as with," making the verse, wrongly, read; "with a male you shall not lie as with a women." Translators throw in the "as with" because it gives it more of an anti-gay reading instead of "the lyings of a woman" that really doesn't make sense in English. Now it can be said that the translators were only trying to fill in the blanks with putting in "as with," but the author of Leviticus meant it to read as it reads because we know that the ancient Jewish writers were held accountable for "every dot and tittle," so leaving out the two whole words "as with" was not an oversight, besides there are other places in the Bible where the language 'as with' is used, it's just not used here.

Now if we figure out what the term "lyings of a woman" is getting at, it will give light on the actions of the males being discussed that's prohibited.

Mishkevey ishsha (lyings of a woman) is found nowhere else in the Bible, but if you go to Numbers 31:18, we find "mishkav zakhar" (lying of a man)4 with what's coming from the male perspective of penetrating a woman. So "lyings of a woman" in turn must mean it's coming from the perspective of the one being penetrated.
From the Torah with the saying, we go to the Talmud that gives a further explanation of the saying. There are only two ways a woman can have sex according to the Rabbis (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a), vaginal and anal. They saw "lyings of a woman" as either one or the other. Since two men cannot obviously have vaginal sex, the only other act it is talking about is anal sex in strict boundaries that were set for God's people to separate them from those whose in the foreign land they were inhabiting and their practices.

In my first arsenokoite post I show a distinction between the two males who are not to lie down (penetrate) in Leviticus 20:13. A man (ish) an Israeli man who is of age and a male (zakhar) who either has an age distinction or a male with some kind of religious distinction who may or may not be Israeli, the latter is MY argument because I believe Leviticus 18 and 20 (that re-states 18) is in the context of idolatry with saying an Israeli man should not lie with Caananite priests in the pagan service of "Moloch."
Also some translators make the word "woman" (ishshah) that is also translated as "wife" in the verse into the incorrect general gender word "female" (neqevah).
Knowing now the correct Hebrew wordings, we can correctly translate Leviticus 20;13 as; 

 "Israeli man of age shall not have anal sex with Zakhar (a male of some type of distinction) in his wife's beds." 

This is the correct translation and as you can see it narrows down the prohibition from the common believe the verse says;

"A man should not have sex with the same gender like he would have sex with the female gender."

Correctly read, no mention of orientation or desire or love towards the same sex is mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13 in what at best in an unclear verse on homosexuality.5 Anti-gay scholars with the verse like to dismiss the argument from pro-gay apologists who say God didn't know about orientation, I agree, an all knowing God would know about orientation, but if God went above and beyond the restrictive act of anal sex in condemning a love a man has for another man and female homosexuality, you won't find it in Leviticus that in turn you won't find with Paul in his use of arsenokoite and you won't find with Christ in his silence.

This is my counter argument to those who take Leviticus out of it's proper idolatry context and take it to mean a binding prohibition of homosexuality today.

1. Yale Bible scholar Dale Martin also points out the dangers of compounded ancient word and expecting them to have the same meaning in our present day.

2. I purposely leave out the discussion on Paul's Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus here because it gives no further depth of what the Hebrew is saying. 
It was a 1000 years from the Torah before the Rabbis, an elite, wrote on the the Torah and what on Leviticus tried to convey. Unlike the writers of the New Testament, the Rabbis in their commentaries never claimed to be inspired men, so if Paul was reaching to Leviticus to come up with arsenokoite, laws he said are dead to us, he was an inspired man quoting uninspired men with how they interpreted Leviticus 18:22 with what was one of SEVERAL interpretations they were never unanimous in agreeing on. 

3. I won't discuss the term "abomination" (to'ebah) because no matter the degree, it's still putting a taboo on what's taking place in the verse.

4. Mishkevey in the singular. This is one of the times zakhar can be translated to just be 'man' when normally ish would be used. Remember when zakhar is used in the Hebrew Bible, 90% of the time it's in reference to a male, human or animal, that serves some type of religious purpose. Because zakhar is so close in proximity to ish in the Levitical verse, zakhar wouldn't mean 'man' when ish does the job.

5. Various arguments have been put forth as to why only the specific act of anal sex is prohibited to an Israeli male. Some of these arguments are the prohibiting of "mixing of seed" (semen with feces, semen with menstrual blood), the wasting of semen that would have been detrimental to the procreation of a people, or what would be seen as a disrespect of the sacredness of the penis (Israeli men would put one hand on their penis to swear a promise, like we would put our hand on a Bible in court in swearing to tell the truth).


Absence of Malice

One of the most overlooked, if not the most glaring, arguments against a condemnation of all homosexuality from the Bible is the absence of any condemnation on lesbianism.

God is not a God of loose ends to not complete the loop of prohibiting homosexuality with men, but not women, yet that's exactly what you see when you read all the supposed anti-gay Bible passages. God or those he inspired to write like the Apostle Paul, weren't of the mindset of most human heterosexual males in having an abhorrence of only male homosexuality, but is just dandy with the eroticism of two women together. Lesbianism, or lack thereof, is never really addressed by anti-gay Bible apologists because it's a stumbling block for them. They gloss over it in hopes you do to in not seeing the gap.

It starts with Leviticus ("man shall not lay with male") where "woman shall not lay with female" is absent. If you look at all the other Levitical passages on what is prohibited (incest, bestiality, etc) woman are named in a separate catagory covered by all the same prohibitions as the men.*

(I leave out the Sodom story because the obvious is the women of Sodom played no part in how the tale unfolds, minus the daughters of Lot who were offered up and by the way, were rejected also by the women if in fact women were present).

Next we move to Romans. Now many will say this is the 'smoking gun' passage that mentions lesbians. A little history lesson needs to be told here.

No prior writing from a church Father in commentary ever saw lesbianism in the Roman 1 passage. No writing from the the time Romans was written by Paul read lesbianism in Romans 1, that is until John Chrysostom in the 4th century all of a sudden saw lesbians in the passage. This one reading from this one early church father put lesbianism on the map for the first time and centuries later it became as good as Gospel. The Church with bated breath couldn't wait to swallow it fast enough with wanting to close the homosexual loop.

We next go to 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. The word "arsenokoite" is found in both books and is translated as "homosexual" in the New Revised Standard Version edition of the Bible, the version most quote from because it gives a supposed condemnation of all homosexuality without ambiguity. The prefix of arsenokoite is 'arseno,' that in the Koine Greek (Paul's Greek) translates as "male" (koite means "lying the bed"). Now since the word "homosexual" covers both male AND female, we know the word "homosexual" shouldn't be there because it only mentions males with 'arseno.' Those who know the breakdown of the word arsenokoite like to keep quiet about why the word "homosexual" shouldn't be in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy because it suits their homophobic purposes.

Ironically, it's female homosexuality that is the strongest argument against ALL condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible.

*My argument has always been the Levitical prohibition of "man shall not lay with man" is only in the context of idolatry and shouldn't be taken further than that. Since women were not allowed to take part in the worship rites of the Caananites, rites that took the form of male acolytes having homosexual sex with Caananite male priests in service to the "Mother Goddess" and her male counterpart "Moloch," of course there wouldn't be a a mention of women.


Resource Me

Two great sites for LGBT Jews:

ESHEL (Orthodox)
HOD (in Hebrew, also Orthodox)
In the L.A. area, JQ

My friend Terence has a site from the LGBT Catholic perspective.


Gagnon's Poor Passion

David Kyle Foster (who posted this video on youtube) pushes Gagnon videos on his website. He recieved his degrees from evangelical schools and blames homosexuality for the same-sex molesting he experienced as a young boy, a common thread with most "ex-gay" who instead of blaming those who victimized them, blame homosexuality. He won't let anyone re-post this Gagnon video because he's afraid Gagnon is going to be mocked (exhibit: A) and refuted in the comments section he can't control, so he just hoards this video that gives Gagnon the opportunity to lay out his arguments at any length.
Since Foster will delete any dissenting view or negative comment on Gagnon on his youtube channel (see for yourself. If you really believe the truth is on your side, you shouldn't have fear with reasonable comments questioning what's being stated), I thought I'd bring Gagnon here.

(Gagnon pulls the same stunt on his own youtube channel. Gagnon also refuses to debate the audience or answer questions after one of his speaking engagements)

This blog has pointed out the error that is called "moral, ritual and ceremonial" laws enough to what's being presented by Gagnon here. The man thinks Paul speaks from the center of these Old Testament prohibitions with almost everything he wrote, like the old Pharisee Saul didn't really completely die to be the new Paul. He misses the very core message of Paul who said the old prohibitions are dead to us and ignores Paul saying in 2 Corinthians; "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" and again in Romans; "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
It's re-stated in Acts; "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?"
And from Hebrews; "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless," "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves."
Even the ancient Jews believed the new "Messianic Torah" would replace their written Torah; "The Torah that a person learns in this present age is trifling compared to the Law of the Messianic King" (Koheles Rabah 11:8)
Paul also gives a dire warning to those who insist on following old Torah prohibitions (Gal 3:10).

Homosexuality was never 'absolutely' proscribed in the New Testament. You have the homosexuality entwined with idolatry in Romans 1 where Paul patterns his sin list in Romans from other idolatry vice lists popular in his day and from Deuteronomy that mirrors Romans word for word. And you have homosexuality entwined with the exploitive wording in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy Gagnon sees as an "echo" with Paul from the Old Testament. Paul only spoke on homosexuality through the narrow lens of idolatry or exploitation with Gagnon taking these examples to make a blanket statement on ALL homosexuality. He won't take out homosexuality from the idolatry context because it's him being deceptive again and I already brought up Gagnon's error with seeing homosexuality with being equal as exploitive homosexuality, so I don't need to go further with correcting this view he continues with now and later in the video with his sorry interpretation of "Arsenokoites." This is a perfect example of Gagnon's "half-reading." He quotes extensively from David F. Greenberg's book; "The Construction of Homosexuality" in his own book; "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" when Greenberg gives an exhaustive narrative of homosexuality through the ages as a practice without condemning comment or consequence (all documented by Greenberg, all deliberately left out by Gagnon).

Gagnon brings up his two children and what they KNOW is wrong and equating that with how we are suppose to feel about homosexuality, we should KNOW it's wrong. Gagnon believes so strongly and so deeply homosexuality is so contrary to anything right or good or holy, he's incredulous you can't see it. This is a tactic of his to make you feel foolish with what he thinks you should see as a given, this is Gagnon who sees homosexuality as the equivalent of a child touching a hot stove.

He takes apart the easy argument of those who bring up the "abomination" of mixing two types of cloth with the "abomination" of homosexuality in Leviticus, why doesn't he bring up the more complex issue of divorce Christ takes away from Moses? The sin of usury in the Old Testament Christ actually carried over unlike homosexuality? Breaking the Sabbath that also calls for the death penalty? Circumcision the Old Testament says is a "forever" act? Or the other slew of what the Bible calls "abominations" that don't fall in either the ceremonial or purity categories ignored by the Body of Christ today?

Leave it up to Gagnon to make the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to be about the woman's adultery and not about how we are to be merciful with not judging one another and that we are to follow Christ to 'do likewise.' What do we get out of what Jesus did in this story? Saving someone for the "Kingdom of God" (the Scribes did not believe in a "Kingdom of God" so Gagnon's take on the story would have no meaning to them) who might not repent later even with what Christ tells her to do after His intervention of her stoning? Or showing that mercy trumps the letter of the law (James 2:12,13) that made Him an enemy to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ to be stoned according to "The Law?" By implication Gagnon says Jesus would have took part in the stoning if He could, but begrudgingly stops Himself for the singular reason of saving her for "the Kingdom" (This is yet another case of Gagnon not being able to take his head out "Old Testament Laws" weights and balances and missing the mark that Christ did what he did to give an example to those around the adulteress and in turn to us).

Paul called out a man at the church in Corinth with what he was doing that hurt another with what was an incest relationship, Gagnon says it's the same with two non-related homosexuals (ironically, Gagnon has stated that the Corinthian man's incest is preferable to homosexuality even when the Bible gives no such account of Paul taking a stance with a homosexual man in the church). He takes the Greek word "Porneia" (harlotry) in the verse describing the Corinthian man's sin and carries that description to mean all sexual immorality. In all Biblical instances the word is used, without exception, it is either in reference to a breaking of a marriage obligation or prostitution and is never used as a blanket term to mean all sexual immorality that Gagnon then carries over to mean homosexuality.

Gagnon give away his bias with his statement; "Tolerance is not always loving," yet he is the first to show tolerance to the divorced with coming up an excuse for stating it is a; "one time sin" and immediately it stops being a sin or living in a state of sin.

His question of; "Are homosexuals at risk?" He answers his own question because to him there is no other answer. When Gagnon uses the term "Aggressive love" to him that translates as fighting legislation that would stop gay children from being bullied in school and writing letters to church bodies telling then to kick gays out, this is Gagnon's 'love' in action, a love he thinks he sees with Christ. Unlike what Gagnon believes, love does not dishonor others or demands it's way... just ask Paul (1 Cor 13:5), a good disciple of Jesus.

No comment is needed further with Gagnon's claim the only problem the Pharisees had with Christ was because he was pushy with an even more intensified Old Testament ethic while at the same time being loving, I really wonder if Gagnon believes that himself.

This is one of Gagnon's weakest argument, along with the since discredited "science" in his book, that somehow men and women are to be 'complimentary parts' to each other and is a large part of why he believes as he does. I point out this error of his in my review of his book; "The Construction of Homosexuality... " and another reference to his work is another solid treatise on this pagan-based belief. Gagnon goes to bogus science because he can never show the "consequence" of homosexuality he compares to vices that do have notable consequences in Paul's vice lists.

When Gagnon brings up the fact Christ never talks about homosexuality with saying Christ never brought up incest either, he misses the fact Sodom was brought up to Christ. Instead of leading Christ to expand further with what was the sin of Sodom, Christ says nothing other than making it a case for inhospitality.* When Christ comes across the same sex practicing Centurion, He says nothing other than to admire the faith of the centurion, When Christ does speaks on marriage, he's quick to bring up "born eunuchs" Gagnon himself concedes could fit the the historical definition of a homosexual.

His claim that the Christians of Paul's day would have seen homosexuality as a given prohibition from the Old Testament like incest, let's look at that closer.

Gagnon states; "There is no record of a Jew practicing homosexuality in early Judaism," or "There is no dissenting opinion anywhere in Judaism on the subject of homosexuality," he's wrong (see; "Wrestling with God and Men:  Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" by Steven Greenberg and "Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" by Theodore W. Jennings Jr).

Gagnon's false claim of the Greek term "Malakoi" he tries to pass off as meaning an effeminate 'gay' man is easily refuted (see "Love Lost In Translation" by K. Renato Lings with outside sources referenced: 490 - 499).

I quote from my own page on 1 Corinthians about the term "Mishkav Zakur;"
"The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar was a term with no homosexual connotation in any ancient writing prior to Paul, so to say Paul went with that understanding is false." Mishkav zakhar is the Hebrew translation of "lying of a male" from Numbers 31:18 in only describing a male penetrating a female. The term being used as a prohibition on homosexuality was done by latter rabbis.

This is a refutation of Gagnon saying Leviticus is an absolute prohibition on homosexuality even outside of it's idolatry context with outside sources referenced (see; Myth 2# and 2-3 A – Seven Myths in the Homophobic Interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that also addresses Gagnon's other points mentioned in the video.

*Gagnon brings up Sodom in not this video, but elsewhere in an attempt to force the story from lack of hospitality he admits is the jist of the story to homosexuality. My response is here that also covers Jude 1:7. He makes the lack of hospitality with Sodom about homosexuality and then says no ancient Jews never practiced homosexuality, yet Jeremiah 23:14 says this about the people of Israel; "..."They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." You can't have it both ways with making Sodom about homosexuality and saying the Jews didn't practice homosexuality when Israel was like Sodom.
As you can see, Gagnon has thoroughly been refuted with what are his main arguments on homosexuality and the Bible.

It's worth repeating with what scholar Jean-Fabrice Nardelli has to say on Gagnon that needs no further comment:

"Once and for all, let it be said that Gagnon is an inaccurate and poor student of Biblical homosexuality: he is far too opinionated and self-indulging for someone who would have us believe in his impeccable judgement (whence my jibe at his status as an ayatollah), has no grasp whatsoever of the major ancient Near Eastern languages apart from Masoretic Hebrew, never consults scholarly literature in other tongues (German and French Bible studies simply do not exist for him), and he is ridiculously parochial in his selection of primary and secondary sources (they are principally American, and wherever possible come from the Evangelical right). Just consult any piece of his which appears on his website; you will discover that he is all rhetoric and blistering, with virtually nothing in guise of scientific apparatus. I would have been loathe to expose him for what he is had he been decent enough not to charge his opponents with gross dishonesty. So let us not mince words any longer. As a parting shot, I shall like to adduce a point which speaks volumes about his academic credentials: in more than a decade, Gagnon only produced one large book (under, one might add, the covers of a religious publisher, not an academic press) and a handful of papers in peer-reviewed journals; such an output for a senior scholar, coupled with the fact that at well over fifty he is still an Assistant Professor in a second-rate theological seminary, comes on a long way, I think, towards explaining his tooth-and-nail stance as an ideologue and his preference for online preaching over academic work."


Hate in the Name of Christ

I prayed on if I should make this post. I always believed anti-gay theology would grow an ugly fruit that Christians could no longer deny because of it being the Doctrine of Demons that it is. This is it's fruition, it's ugly flower in full bloom. I couldn't call myself a Christian if I turned my back on the horrors done in the Name of my God.


Rev. Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D.

What I love about Pearson is that he's a Bible thumper's thumper, a real conservative and hard liner with the Word of God, he just happens to believe the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
His book on-line.