Pyrnia May Cuttlecourt

The "I have a Problem with Pentecostals" blogger Mennoknight (AKA Lyndon Unger) wrote on my favorite word "arsenokoite." It's like the 3rd site that comes up when you Google the word and that alone makes it worth a response. I'm sure when he posted it the anti-gay crowd did hand jives on Facebook thinking he got it down.

He starts the post with mentioning Gagnon (Gagnon doesn't believe the Bible is completely inspired, especially the writings of Paul, so I don't know why he mentions him), Brown, that Mohler and "On-line Degrees" James White who have all been talked about own my own fine little blog. He then goes into insulting my comrade in arms with saying we're part of a “Christian” QUILTBAG mafia (I'll make it my Halloween costume next month). He has my man Brownson's book cover, a book he never read, on the post for whatever reason and cheesy pics that he thinks drive his points home (No cute little koala bear, only anti-gay scholars believe they've figured out what the word means and Mennoknight just proved it).

Was the Bible unreliably translated by uninspired men who tried their best or let their bias bleed into what they translated? Absolutely. There isn't a scholar on either side of this debate who would say otherwise. Was Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit in what he wrote? Absolutely. We aren't talking about the words of Paul, we are talking about what happened to those words in the hands of others.

I'll just respond to what he wrote on the 5 points and leave you to go to his blog with what he was responding to. 

1. Saul was a Jew who became Paul, an Apostle to the GENTILES (Galatians 2:8). That’s rather important to this all. Actually Paul did bow to Greek social convention with terminology and he says so in Galatians 2:15. He used Greek slang and the ironic example is "koitai" that is vulgar slang for f*cking (Paul goes vulgar slang again in Philippians 3:8 with saying the Greek slang for "sh*t").
Paul never saw himself as a lofty prophet, just the opposite (1 Corinthians 15:9, Ephesians 3:8).
The fact Paul DOESN'T use “paiderasste” or any other Greek word for a homosexual or even mentions lesbians (tribas) proves MY point Paul never meant to condemn homosexuality, male OR female. If he did, he would first go to these words first (Since we know Paul used Greek slang, he would have used the words kinaidhos and kolombaras for a passive and masculine homosexual that would have been absolutely clear he was talking about homosexuals and not the mysterious arsenokoite or the "I have a bunch of meanings" malakoi). Remember, the Jews hearing Paul were as fluent in Koine Greek as the gentiles sitting next to them because they were Hellenistic Jews.
When this blogger writes; "The Spirit wrote in harmony with what he had previously wrote (which is important to remember)," He's only talking about Romans that's in the context of gentile idolatry (Romans 1:22,23), that bad habit they had of worshiping images of Goddesses and animals.

Now here is why blogger and almost all anti-gay apologists who exist think the word means "homosexuals." They say Paul got it from Leviticus 18:22 and to them this is their "gotcha!" moment. But this is the problem. If Leviticus doesn't condemn "homosexuality," neither will 1 Corinthians and you can put enough doubt with their claim Leviticus condemns homosexuality as a general rule by going to the actual Mishnaic Hebrew of the Leviticus verse that shows it's not so clear-cut as they want it to be. He links to the verse in the Hebrew that proves nothing and a follow up link to the poor translation of the verse in the same Hebrew that proves the same nothing. I'm glad he brings up Numbers 31:17-18 and Judges 21:11-12 because it shows the variations of 'arseno' and 'koiten' found in other places in the Bible have nothing to do with homosexuality, my point. I don't picture the Jewish believers, and neither do you, pulling the gentile believers aside and saying; "O.K. So Paul is trying to tell you he's getting arsenokoite from one of our ancient books you've never heard of. Thank G-d you have us to explain it to you because how would you have known otherwise??? Now pass me the pork ribs I couldn't have before." Someone else made a good point with saying; "The idea (Paul got the word from Leviticus) is based upon the existence of the words αρσενος κοιτην in that verse, but this is flawed scholarship. Since αρσενος means male, and κοιτην means bed, ANY Greek sentence that mentions a male and a bed will have forms of those two words in it. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not the only verses in the Septuagint containing those words."

Not all scholars are created equal…

 …and not all are honest... including bloggers who don't know the difference.

2. What's funny is bloggy starts off his 2nd point with saying; "The Bible decides what the Bible means by the terms it uses, not some pagan writers who come centuries later... "
Yet who does he go to later down on his point? Pagan writings that used the word closest to the time of Paul that proves the opposite of what he's saying. The Sibylline Oracles puts the word in the category of economic injustices.

[This is how it works. If you can't find a context of Bible word in other places of the Biblical narrative, arsenokoite is put in a vice list by Paul that gives it no context, you then go outside the Bible that uses the word at the closest time of it's Bible usage. There isn't a Bible scholar in the world who doesn't do this including the ones he names at the start of his post]

Now this is where the blog author tries to fool you.

He first picks out what Aristides wrote in his Apology 13 in saying it's condemning of "homosexuality," but the Apology is talking about Greek Gods who transform themselves into animals to lay with men AND women. It says more on bestiality than homosexuality ("... and some transformed themselves into the likeness of animals to seduce the race of mortal women and some polluted themselves by lying with males").

He then says; "That would suggest that the usage of the term is in harmony with the previous uses of the term in the Bible (1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10) as well as outside the bible (Sibylline Oracles 2:70-78, the Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians [which is a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9], The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians [again, a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9], the Acts of John 36, Clement of Alexandria’s Instructor 3.11 [again, citation of 1 Cor. 6:9])."

Well yeah, it would put the term in the harmony it was intended, but like with the Epistle of Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement he names, it gives no indication it's about homosexuality, it's just another word put in their vice lists like with Paul's (I'm suspicious of Acts of John 36 because the word used is "Sodomite." That tell me the translation is wrong when a Sodomite in all ancient writing was only an inhabitant of Sodom. The Sodom/anal sex/homosexuality associations didn't happen until centuries later after this work). Notice he doesn't bring up other Christian writings like The Epistle of Barnabas who uses the word for pederasty or John the Faster who uses it for anal sex between men and women? He'll leave these and other sources out because they disprove his entire argument it was unanimous the word means 'homosexual sex.' The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae gives nothing on the word other than where you can find it's placement in a vice list from Christian and pagan sources.

If this blog writer really cared about the Jewish perspective he's always bringing up, he'd know the Babylonian Talmud uses the word in the context of only pederasty. What? Did he Forget to mention that to you?

Nothing he's linked or written or pointed out what others have written gives any indication this word means a homosexual or homosexuality as it stands alone, it just isn't there.

3. I don't know of one scholar who thinks Paul was; “likely referencing an earlier Scripture about men sleeping with people that weren’t their wives.”  It was neither Helminiak or Boswell because I've read what they wrote (they make it about prostitution and pederasty for good reason. I'll touch on that later). I think he's just throwing names out of gay-affirming scholars in wanting you to think he's read their books and found them unconvincing.

I actually agree with him here in that neither Moicheia or Porneia would be terms used by Paul to mean homosexual sex. You just can't prove arsenokoitai does.

4. Number 4 has no points, just him being pissy.

"I've convinced myself I'm right, so I must be right."

 - Lyndon Unger.

5. Blogger guy is right and the guy he's refuting on Facebook is wrong. Malakoi (lit; softie) ISN'T in 1 Timothy, but again this proves MY point in grand style with going back to my two points I've put on my blog before.

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.

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.

Now, what 5 points again? The blog author needs to take his blog title to heart or take up long haul trucking because he isn't good at this.


5 Salamis and an Atheist

I went back and forth on if I should put up these videos because the source is from an Atheist by the name of Peter Thurston and the little digs against how I believe are a little much. But I can take because I'm a big boy and Peter isn't going to stress God out with what he has to say here. These are arguments, from 3 anti-gay powerhouses, even an Atheist can refute using just simple reasoning. It also shows a cunning from these men with how they try to figure out how to undermine arguments for equality. The second video is a refute of the New Atlantis mag touting a bogus anti-LGBTQ study (remember the debunked Regnerus study?). These types of arguments are in the secular domain and are free to be taken apart even by non-believers.

I think most Christians underestimate the unbelievers in the world. If they see what is bigotry, it will be bigotry in a real sense anyone can grasp and it's not coming from a place of not believing in a God or lack of morals, unlike what the 3 above would have you believe. It comes from seeing one group of people having a prejudice against another group of people just for being who they are. This looks hypocritical when this group with the the display of prejudice are having premarital sex and covet. Practice these or other sins and you have no place to quote Romans to a homosexual. Paul said image was everything to the unbelieving world:
"To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel... "

Yet this is completely lost on most Christians like the ones above who feel they need to have special round table discussions on homosexuality and THIS is hypocritical to the unbelieving world.

When you discriminate against the LGBTQ community because you think your faith gives you this entitlement, this is bigotry by it's very definition YOU think is God-backed and what is "bigotry" everyone can understand? A bigoted belief is one that respects, enforces or socially/culturally maintains enforcement of oppression on a disenfranchised minority for no useful reason other than prejudice, belief, and tradition. But it also is a belief that perpetuates stigma, stereotypes, misinformation, or cruelty to disenfranchised minorities. Even if the person believes their argument is sound, if it hurts, defames, dehumanizes, disenfranchises, stigmatizes, or insults the being of a person, it is BIGOTED. 
Bigotry should not even be in the vocabulary of a Christian with another also created in the image of God.

The 3 try to get around this with saying; "Well the Bible says..." But Paul shuts them down with asking; "What have we to do with the affairs of the world? Nothing." We are only called to live at peace with our neighbor, walk 2 miles when they ask us to walk 1 and love them like a favorite child.
Instead of TRYING to not sound bigoted and getting frustrated when you still come off like one, why not take a good look at yourself and see if the unbelieving world has reason to see you as a bigot? Paul says himself we are to examine ourselves and these men have missed the mark. The "world" isn't irrational and they can see when a wrong is being done to another no matter the reason you give.

I have nothing to say on these two old goats other than they should be put to bed with a big glass of warm milk.


One more thing before I put on my sunscreen...

When critics of gay marriage were bringing up reasons to be against it in the media, one of the arguments was that it would start a 'slippery slope' with anyone could marry anything. You could marry your right hand or a broom stick handle, but it never happened. It didn't happen here and it didn't happen with all the other countries that had gay marriage for years before here. Later, these same critics pushed for "Religious Exemption laws (RFRA)" they could run to with lawfully discriminating against gays. Guess what's now starting a real slippery slope that never happened with gay marriage? Read this again.

I'm a strong presence on YouTube (I stopped uploading vids and putting what I write on Google + and now I just stick with comments). One thing I can say in all honesty out of the endless people I've come across who've ranged from a top shelf theologian to a cook at a greasy spoon, is that, give it time, their debating with me always goes from the Bible, to other issues, the real core of the problem they have with homosexuality.
They find homosexuality disgusting is what it really boils down to for most. They love going to bogus science studies of disease and mortality rates as a reason to hate me. Really? Me going to an early grave racked with disease is a reason to have a problem with me? If anything, that should be making you show me the love of Christ MORE, considering my short and miserable existence on Earth. Or how we'd all die out if we found ourselves on a mysterious island void of straights. Like we were somehow air-lifted there in our sleep by unknown entities and woke up on an island or all straights just evaporated off the Earth one day. Statistically it's impossible for a society to be all straight or all gay in orientation. They only do this "what would end the human race?" scenario with gays and not straights who might, for instance, be genetically sterile. They also don't see the problem that being celibate for the Kingdom also would bring about our extinction.
All this is very telling and backs what I've always believed, the Bible comes in second with why they have an issue with homosexuality. The Bible is the back-up they need with justifying how strongly they feel against homosexuality, it's a reference, not the reason. They think the Bible is somehow saying to them; "I have your back with whatever else you have on these perverts." For those who say I'm driven by my homosexuality to read the Bible how I read it, aren't you reading the Bible through the lens of your own heterosexuality? Your bias would be stronger than mine because it was drilled into you starting at birth (blue is for boys and pink is for girls) and reaffirmed to you every day of your life.
All I care about is the Word of the eternal and living God to guide me on this subject and I don't need to go anywhere else. To bad you people can't say the same.

Personal heroes I can count on one hand. One being Bruce Gering. I'll see you one day in Glory my brother.


Bad Blood

John Shore is a prolific writer and a personality well known in Christendom. He is also gay affirming til it hurts. There is no middle ground with John. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, black not white, shut your mouth. I love the man. Now there is Andrew Marin, also a prolific writer, a darling of the media with his "I'm Sorry" campaign (get it? It's a campaign to say to gays; "I'm sorry for how the Church has treated you?"), but you can't get out of Andrew if he's affirming or not, he'll straddle the fence all the way til his pants split and he's chaffed. Andrew once gave his reason that is neither here nor there. I give the man credit, not love.

Everyone knows Andrew won't say what side he's on because everyone knows he believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. The thing with Andrew is he stretches the love of Christ over all, like it's a big Persian rug. He thinks how he feels on this personally he can sweep under the rug even though it leaves a big, fat, lump that makes you ask; "What's that big lump under the pretty rug?" I'm convinced Andrew will never say how he really feels as long he's alive. Now there is something to be said about about the mantra; "FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE, FOCUS ON ONLY LOVE," but this doesn't answer the Bible question on homosexuality, now that too goes under the rug with Andrew's opinion and now you have two rug lumps.

Four years ago John and Andrew came to blows on twitter as what was bound to happen. I understood John's frustration with Andrew because bringing a gay kid into the faith with saying; "God loves you and the Church was wrong to say bad things to you, but now look at the fine print of the Bible whenever you have the time," can be devastating to the kid with finding out God's love is conditional. I'm sure Andrew's reasoning is; "Don't let the Bible get in the way of a good witness to them gays. They'll figure it out later." When the smoke cleared, Andrew left to fight other battles with gays who had suspicions about his motivations AND anti-gay Christians (one being Gagnon who can't keep his nose out of anything gay) who think Andrew wants to hide their hateful Gospel message on homosexuality (they're right). John said on his blog about the exchange:

"I don’t expect to hear from him again. But I’m confident that if I do, he won’t say anything beyond how important it is to continue the dialogue, to keep building bridges, to “live in the tension,” to reach out in love, fuzzy, fuzzy, blah, blah, tastes great, less filling. Because selling that kind of sugar-powdered waffle is how Andrew makes his money."

Later, when John received criticism for what looked like a less than Christian response to Andrew, he went further stating:

"... folks have made the point that Andrew’s work is valuable, because he is “building bridges”—because he is, as one reader put it, “creating stepping stones from one end of the spectrum to the other.” They appreciate Marin establishing a neutral, non-judgmental, values-free middle ground where parties on either side of the gay-Christian debate can meet to together discuss and explore the issue.

And I certainly understand how great that sounds.

But it’s not great. It doesn’t even make sense. Because when it comes to the issue of LGBT equality, there is no middle ground. There can’t be. The Christian/LGBT issue is a moral issue. And moral issues are by definition about right and wrong.

And this particular moral issue is one of no small consequence. There couldn’t be more at stake with it. The Christians on one side of this debate are claiming that, in the eyes of God, those on the other side are less than human.

Whoosh. Good-bye middle ground.

No matter how strenuously he or she might deny it, any Christian who fails to forthrightly and unambiguously assert that there is nothing whatsoever inherently immoral about same-sex relationships has chosen a side in this conflict. They’ve chosen to perpetuate the maligning, ostracizing, and degradation of gay people by Christians. If you don’t stop one person from abusing another, of what good are you to the victim? To a starving man, the person who can’t decide whether or not they want to share their food is no better than the person who outright refuses to."

well said

I bring up this incident between John and Andrew because I'm seeing this being played out more and more now. Those like John and myself having to confront the Andrews of the world with hard Scripture (in our case affirming) over their over exuberance of love and acceptance that's hiding a bill of goods that says either change your orientation or get use to being alone for the rest of your life once your foots in salvation's door.


Sliced Fresh Sandia

My Summer has been a bust, I blame the anti-Christ. And to stick it to him I'm posting some news that happened while I was gone.

Remember Tony Perkins? I know you don't because I never posted about him. This elder statesman with the anti-gay set says natural disasters are from God for being pissed at the likes of gay marriage happening. Well, a flood of "Biblical Proportions" (his own words) gushed through his home with him and his family barely escaping in a canoe they happened to have had laying around.
Maybe God will get him next time.

This has been in the news because people are relishing in the delicious irony. But what isn't widely known is that the people who were giving donations for the flood victims in the area through a local church called "Greenwell Springs Baptist Church," were actually giving to Perkins (who's their "pastor by absence") to rebuild his own house (Greenwell is a front for Perkins' designated hate group the "Family Research Counsel"). On top of THAT, the FRC is one of the richest hate groups around with support from the wealthy and well hidden DeVos family who are also supporting racist school vouchers along with other unsavory endeavors.


Meanwhile, in Canada...

What about us lovey?


Orthodox Rabbi demands gay acceptance and demands kosher calamari.


A buddy of mine started a new blog!

I updated my arsenokoitai post.

And some on my favorite rascal.

Now back to my Summer. 


"Whoopass Woman" isn't a blues song

Landon Schott is another straight Christian (remember Preston Sprinkles and all that fake dancing to show tunes?) who thinks he can pen a book about homosexuality. I got into it with a production company that promoted Landon a while back:

Me: I have a radical idea. Why don't you interview a gay Christian about being gay in his walk of faith instead of interviewing a straight man on this topic? It's like you interviewing me about the black experience in the church.

Their response was they can do whatever they want. Without even looking, they accused me of having only opinions on my blog I wanted when I have more of what anti-gay apologists say on here with my tags below proving it, and that I should take myself to a dry lake bed.

Remember sweet Kathy who hunted down her pesky stalker like in a horror movie where the human prey turns the tables and becomes the predator on those hunting her? I don't need to rip apart Landon's book when Kathy did a great job with going hog wild with it. I didn't think she had it in her or that she uses her hiking stick to kill mean grizzly bears. I see she also has my same gripes with Franklin Graham and don't we all when you really think about it? What's creepy is Schott is a Pentecostal like myself and as Pentes are prone to do, they blame everything on demons instead of having rational dialogue.

"Nothing this guy is saying is anything "new." He portrays his arguments as if they are revolutionary, and he even states that the church "isn't discussing homosexuality" so he has taken it upon himself to do so. I'm not sure where Mr. Schott has been, but evangelicals have been discussing homosexuality long before anyone asked them to. Then he actually starts talking and it's the same talking points that evangelicals have ALWAYS used. It's telling that Michael Brown wrote the foreword for his book; it appears to me that Michael Brown could very well have written the entire book, at least in that there's not a single thing that Schott addresses that wouldn't 100% agree with Brown's tired assertions that have lost play among non-evangelicals long ago.

Schott is basically just a younger, hipper, "shirt untucked" version of the same message promulgated by Brown and countless anti-gay evangelicals before him. Basically I look at this entire book as nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by Evangelicals to promote an anti-gay mindset to their children and grandchildren. Little Bobby and Billy don't give a damn what some old Pastor like Michael Brown has to say since they know so many gays and have no problem with them, but maybe, just maybe if those same bigoted and incorrect words come from the mouth of a 32 year old unshaven hipster these kids will get the message better. 

Wear as many rainbow shirts (Schott is fond of wearing rainbow t-shirts to show whatever odd point he's trying to make) as you want for some, tell people you wrote this book because you "love gays" all you want, that still won't change the fact that in that very same book you say that every single gay person you have met was either sexually molested or had a poor relationship with his parents. (pg. 173) I don't know many gays who would view that ridiculous assertion as kind or loving. I also doubt they would consider it loving for you to refer to gay-friendly churches as being akin to satanist temples. (pg. 116) And something makes me think they might take umbrage with the notion that "gay-affirming teachers... are influenced by demons" (pg. 112). But hey, none of that matters because you're wearing a rainbow shirt- CLEARLY you must love gay people."

- YouTube comment.

I'm going to be enjoying my Summer and take a hiatus from my blog.

"Consider the work of the Lord, for who is able to straighten what he has bent? For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."

- Ecclesiastes 3:13, Jeremiah 29:11.