What Jesus Must Think of Modern Professing Christianity

"Uy! Uy! Uy!"

'Nuff said.

The Description of the Godly Man

by J. R. Miller, 1907

"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on His law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers." Psalm 1:1-3

In this Psalm, the description of the godly man is first negative:
  There are certain things he never does.
  There are places in which he is never seen.
  He does not make wicked men his advisers.
  He is not seen with those who are evil.
  No one ever sees him among mockers.
Thus the godly man is known by what he does not do.

Then there are certain things that the godly man does:
He loves God's word, reads it, and feeds upon it.
He is careful to live where his life may be nourished by the streams of grace.

As a result, he is like a tree in his beauty and in his fruitfulness. Fruit is the test of Christian character.

Then the godly man's life does not wither in heat or drought. It is perennial, and lives in all kinds of weather.

Another feature of his life is that everything he does prospers—not always in worldly things—but even in his losses and trials, he is still blessed. For, "We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose!" Romans 8:28

My Portion!

by James Smith, 1860

"You are my portion, O Lord!" Psalm 119:57

Many people are proud of their possessions, and boast of their wealth; yet their possessions are very limited, and their wealth has wings and may at any time flee away!

A Christian may not be proud—but he has great reason to be thankful.

He can look over the whole earth, and say, "My wealth exceeds all this!"

He can look up and gaze on the starry heavens and say, "My property exceeds this vast expanse!"

He may try to conceive of the greatness and glory of the created universe, and then say, "I claim more than all this!"

Looking up to the author, owner, and disposer of all worlds—he can say, "You are my portion, O Lord!"

What a privilege! A portion—and such a portion.
God Himself in all His greatness, and in all His goodness.
God with all He is, and all He has—is my portion!

What kind of a portion is this? It is immense, for it comprehends all.

All the attributes of the Divine nature, are for us.
All the perfections of God's character, are on our side.
All the productions of the divine power, are for our good.
Therefore the apostle says, "All things are yours!"
Nothing good is withheld from us!

What the father of the prodigal said to his eldest son—our heavenly Father says to every one of His children, "Son, you are ever with Me, and all that I have is yours!"

And we may adopt similar language in speaking to our heavenly Father, to that used by the angel to Abraham, "By this I know that You love me, because You have not withheld Your Son, Your only Son from me!" And from this fact, we may draw the same conclusion as Paul did, "He who spared not His own Son--but delivered Him up for us all, how shall he not with Him also, freely give us all things!"

O beloved, God in all the glory of His nature and perfections, God with all His unsearchable riches—is our portion!

What kind of a portion is this? It is immutable. It remains forever. Others may lose their property, or it may become deteriorated and comparatively valueless—but our portion is forever the same.

Speaking of the finest, noblest, and most durable works of creation, the Psalmist says, "In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain the same; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing You will change them, and they will be discarded. But You remain the same, and Your years will never end!" Psalm 102:25-27

Our portion can never be forfeited, or alienated, or reduced in value—because it is the unchangeable God!

Blessed is the man that can say with Jeremiah, "The Lord is my portion, therefore will I hope in Him!" Or with David, "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance!"

If God is my portion, then I ought to be content without any other portion. He is . . .
  enough in poverty,
  enough in persecution,
  enough in life,
  enough in death,
  enough for evermore!

If God gives me Himself--then it is more than as if He had given me the whole world, or ten thousand worlds like this! O how happy was the apostle Paul, who knowing God to be his portion could say, "I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in need!" Philippians 4:11-12

If God is my portion, I ought to be thankful. It is enough. There is no losing it. What dignity, what honor is conferred on the man who has God for his portion! I deserved to be stripped of everything, and to be turned out of God's presence eternally penniless, wretched, and miserable. But instead of this, God in His free grace, in His infinite mercy--gives me . . .
  a mansion,
  a city with eternal foundations,
  a kingdom; more,
  He gives me Himself!
God in all His glory, in all His grace—is mine!

If God is my portion, then I ought to be living upon Him. If I live upon anything outside of God—then I live upon what is finite, and will change. But if I live upon God, I live upon the infinite, and upon what is unchangeable. As a believer, I should live befitting the dignity of my lofty character, position, and prospects. The man of fortune ought not to live like the pauper. Just so, the Christian ought not to live like other men.

If God is my portion, I ought to be making a proper use of it. I should set my portion over and against . . .
  all my pains and privations,
  all my griefs and grievances,
  all my sadnesses and sorrows.
I should look above all my trials and troubles—and rejoice that throughout eternity, I shall have . . .
  eternal ease—instead of pain,
  eternal plenty—instead of privation,
  eternal joy—instead of grief,
  eternal gladness—instead of sadness,
  and eternal bliss—instead of sorrow!

Beloved, is the Lord your portion? Are you living upon Him as such?

But if God is not your portion—then what is?
Where are your thoughts most?
Where do your affections center?
After what do you pursue?
The world? It is a poor, perishing, unsatisfying portion! It will be found insufficient, unsatisfactory, and perishing! Unless God is your portion, you will be . . .
  unsatisfied in life,
  wretched in death, and
  indescribably miserable to all eternity!

"My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever!" Psalm 73:26

Christmas: The Birth of Christ?

"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,

for he will save His people from their sins."

Matthew 1:21

 

When was Jesus born? Far too many Christians, when they celebrate the Christmas holiday, have erroneous and bankrupt theology (what they believe) concerning the event of Jesus' birth. For starters, many actually think that Jesus was born on December 25th. But more than that, these people get their erroneous theology from songs and dramatizations—not from the Bible.

Who Saw Jesus as a Baby?

The Bible informs us that "there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). They were told that they would "find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger" (Luke 2:12). So they made their way to Bethlehem "in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger" (Luke 2:16). After all of this transpired, they "went back, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and seen, just as had been told them" (Luke 2:20). That is the end of Luke's account of the birth of Christ Jesus. Were there any other people present after His birth when He was laid in a manger? Nope.

When Did the Wise Men See Jesus?

The Bible informs us that "magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem" (Matt. 2:1) looking for the Christ. There are two things to make note of here. First, they came from the east. How many days do you suppose it would take for them to travel from the east to their destination? Second, they arrived in Jerusalem—not Bethlehem. We are told that "Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared" (Matt. 2:7), and then he "sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi" (Matt. 2:16). The magi continued following the star "until it came and stood over the place where the child was" (Matt. 2:9). The Bible informs us that "After coming into the house they saw the child with Mary His mother" (Matt. 2:11). Jesus was not lying in a manger when the wise men first saw Him; He was living in a house. He was no longer a baby; He was a child around two years old.

How Many Wise Men Were There?

We have already established that there were no wise men at the birth of Christ. But how many wise men saw Jesus when He was a child? We do not know. The Bible does not tell us. It uses the word in plural, so we know there were at least two of them, but there could have been as many as fifty. We do not know for sure. The only information that appears in three are the gifts that were presented to Jesus: "gold, frankincense, and myrrh" (Matt. 2:11). So you can toss out that song, We Three Kings.

When Was Jesus Born?

Dates for the birth of Jesus often hover around the period of 7-4 B.C. By the 4th century A.D., historians and theologians were celebrating a winter Christmas. It was not until 525 A.D. when the year of Jesus' birth was fixed by Dionysius Exiguus, who determined that Jesus was born 8 days before New Year's Day in 1 A.D. However, he was totally, utterly, and completely wrong.

According to Colin J. Humphreys in "The Star of Bethlehem—a Comet in 5 BC—and the Date of the Birth of Christ," from Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 32, 389-407 (1991), Jesus was probably born in 5 B.C., at the time the Chinese recorded a major, new, slow-moving comet—a "sui-hsing," or star with a sweeping tail in the Capricorn region of the sky. This is the comet Humphreys believes was called the Star of Bethlehem.

Assuming the Star of Bethlehem was a comet, there were 3 possible years: 12, 5, and 4 B.C. By using the one relevant, fixed date in the Gospels, the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (28/29 A.D.), at which time Jesus is described as being "about thirty" (Luke 3:23), 12 B.C. is too early for the date of His birth, since by 28 A.D. he would have been 40 years old. Herod the Great is generally assumed to have died in the spring of 4 B.C., but was alive when Jesus was born, which makes 4 B.C. unlikely (although possible). In addition, the Chinese do not describe the comet of 4 B.C. This leaves 5 B.C., the date Humphreys prefers. The Chinese say the comet appeared between March 9 and April 6 and lasted over 70 days (Makes sense when you consider that the magi followed it from the east, which would have been a journey of several says.).

The best known censuses of Augustus occurred in 28 and 8 B.C. and 14 A.D. However, these were for Roman citizens only. Luke 2:2 and Jewish historian Josephus refer to another census, one that was "during the governing of Syria by Quirinius" (Luke 2:2 [or Cyrenius, KJV; Gr.: Kyrenios]). This was not that census that taxed the Jews of the area, because it was later than the probable birth date of Jesus, but was likely a census for pledging allegiance to the Caesar, which Josephus dates to a year before the death of King Herod (Ant. XVII.ii.4). In addition, it is possible to translate the passage in Luke 2:2 to say it happened "before the governing of Syria by Quirinius." From all these figures, Humphreys deduces that Jesus was born between March 9 and May 4, 5 B.C. This period has the added virtue of including the year's Passover, a most propitious time for the birth of a Messiah.

Replacing "Christ" with an "X"

While December 25th has absolutely nothing to do with Christ Jesus or His birth, Christians often get upset over the fact that so many people replace the "Christ" in Christmas with an "X." Is this something we should be making a stink about, even if we choose to celebrate the birth of our Saviour on this date? Not really, and here is why. The word "Christ" in the Greek is Christos (Χριστος), which means "anointed one," and refers to the event of Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34). The Χ is the Greek letter chi. Thus, Xmas is not directly a way of secularizing the holiday (although in English we read it as an X, to cross something out, rather than the initial of the word Christos). However, Christmas was a pagan holiday long before is was "Christianized," and since it has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Christ Jesus whatsoever, the secularizing of it really is not a big issue.

Since Christ has nothing to do with Christmas in the first place, the bandwagon crusade for "Keep Christ in Christmas" is rather shallow, empty, and vain. Let the heathen have their distorted pagan holiday where they worship their fictitious god, Satan Claus—er, I mean, Santa Claus. Think about it: Santa is depicted as being omniscient (all-knowing, knowing whether you have been bad or nice) and practically omnipotent (all-powerful; being able to get in and out of any house in order to leave gifts) and omnipresent (being everywhere at once; he can travel the entire world of 7 billion people in a single night).

If we Christians truly want a holiday specifically for remembering and celebrating Jesus' birth while also worshiping our Saviour, let us pick a date between March 9 and April 6 and petition our governments for it to be recognized as a national holiday. Let the heathen have Christmas and let us adopt a date of our own that is closer to the actual time when Jesus was born in order for us to celebrate His birth. Since there are no holidays in March (at least for Canadians), how about March 23rd? The precise middle between March 9 and April 6.

Where Does Your Christmas Theology Come From?

Here are some questions to find out how well you actually know your Bible and whether your theology comes directly from the Bible or from errors contained in songs and dramatizations.

1. When Mary became pregnant, Mary and Joseph were:
1. Married
2. Engaged
3. Just friends
4. None of the above
2. When Mary became pregnant,
1. Joseph married her
2. Joseph wanted to dissolve their relationship
3. Mary left Nazareth for a while
4. An angel told them to go to Bethlehem
5. Both B and C
6. Both B and D
3. Who directed Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem?
1. Herod
2. Caesar
3. An angel
4. The IRS
4. Joseph’s family was from
1. Jerusalem
2. Bethlehem
3. Nazareth
4. Singapore
5. For the journey to Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph
1. Walked
2. Joseph walked and Mary rode a donkey
3. Took a bus
4. The Bible does not say
6. Who told Joseph to name the baby Jesus?
1. Mary
2. The chief priests and scribes
3. An angel of the Lord
4. Herod the king
7. What did the innkeeper say to Mary and Joseph?
1. There is no room in the inn
2. I have a stable out back where you can stay
3. Both A and B
4. None of the above
8. The baby Jesus was born in a
1. Cave
2. Barn
3. Manger
4. Who knows?
9. What animals were present at Jesus’ birth?
1. Cows, sheep and camels
2. Cows, sheep and donkeys
3. Lions, tigers and bears
4. None of the above
10. What is a manger anyway?
1. A small barn
2. A feeding trough
3. A place to store hay
4. A Greek term for a nursery
11. When did the baby Jesus cry?
1. When he saw the wise men
2. Whenever babies usually cry
3. When the cattle started lowing
4. No crying he makes
12. How many angels spoke to the shepherds?
1. A multitude
2. One
3. Two – Gabriel and Michael
4. Who knows?
13. What sign were the shepherds told to look for?
1. A star over the stable
2. A barn outlined in Christmas lights
3. A baby in a manger
4. Both A and C
14. Just what is a ‘heavenly host’?
1. An angelic choir
2. The welcoming angel in heaven
3. An army of angels
4. None of the above
15. What song did the angels sing?
1. O Little Town of Bethlehem
2. Handel’s Messiah
3. Glory to God in the Highest
4. None of the above
16. Who saw the star over Bethlehem?
1. Mary and Joseph
2. The wise men
3. The shepherds
4. Both A and C
5. None of the above
17. How many wise men came to see Jesus?
1. One
2. Three
3. Twelve
4. The Bible does not say
18. What in the world are Magi?
1. Eastern kings
2. Astrologers
3. Magicians
4. None of the above
19. When the wise men brought their gifts to Jesus, they found him in
1. A manger
2. A church
3. A house
4. None of the above
20. Christmas has always been observed
1. On December 25
2. At Grandma’s house
3. On January 17
4. None of the above

The answers are as follows: (1) b; (2) e; (3) b; (4) b; (5) d; (6) c; (7) d; (8) d; (9) d; (10) b; (11) b; (12) b; (13) c; (14) c; (15) d; (16) e; (17) d; (18) b; (19) c; (20) d.

Jesus: Did He Exist, and Who was He?

"No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria." ―Professor Craig Evans

No serious scholar has ever ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, and with good reason. History proves without a doubt that Jesus is indeed a historical figure. We will examine the extra-biblical (outside of the Bible) sources momentarily. However, the question that we need to be asking is, Who was Jesus?

Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). After Jesus spoke these words, what reaction do we see? “The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning Me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, are making Yourself God” (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus’ words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death.

Many people today, including those within Islam, claim they "respect" Jesus as a great moral teacher. However, there is a problem with this. You cannot respect Jesus. Jesus said He was God. Anyone who claims to be God—and there have been hundreds throughout history—is either a madman, a liar, or who he claims to be. There are only three options to choose from. A madman—a lunatic—does not deserve your respect; he deserves your pity. The same goes for a liar. You can either revere Him as God or reject Him as a fraud, but you do not have the option to just "respect" Him.

In his famous book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis makes this statement:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg—or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

Either Jesus was a madman, a liar, or He was Who He said He was. If he were a madman, how did He engage in intelligent debates with His opponents or handle the stress of His betrayal and crucifixion while continuing to show a deep love for His antagonists? If Jesus were a liar, why would He die for His claim when He could easily have avoided such a cruel death with a few choice words?

Apart from the historicity of Jesus, the other thing we must consider is His death, burial, and resurrection. Non-believers will attempt to ridicule and deny this by any means possible. However, many of the historical records that prove the historicity of Jesus also contain testimonies of His crucifixion. In other words, Jesus really was put to death. Let us look at the records that prove Jesus' existence and His crucifixion:

• Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), Roman historian:  Most acclaimed works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals cover the period from Augustus Caesar's death in A.D. 14 to the death of Emperor Nero in A.D. 68, while the Histories begin after Nero's death and proceed to the reign of Domitian in A.D. 96. In the Annals (XV,44), Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome:
  

  "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."

  Christus is the Latin rendering of the Greek Christos. It is interesting that Pilate is not mentioned in any other pagan document which has survived.  It is an irony of history that the only surviving reference to him in a pagan document mentions him because of the sentence of death he passed on Jesus the Messiah.
• Suetonius: Roman historian and court official during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian. Suetonius wrote in his Life of Claudius (25.4):
  

  "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

  Chrestus is a misspelling of Christus. Claudius' expulsion of the Christians from Rome is mentioned in Acts 18:2.  This event took place in A.D. 49. In his work Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius also wrote:
  

  "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

  Assuming Jesus was crucified in the early thirties, Suetonius places Christians in the Roman capital less than 20 years later and he reports that they were suffering for their faith and dying for their conviction that Jesus had really lived, died and that He had risen from the dead!
• Pliny the Younger: Roman governor in Bithynia, A.D. 112, wrote to Emperor Trajan to seek advice as to how to treat the Christians. He recounts that he had been killing Christian men, women, and children.  He is concerned that so many have chosen death over simply bowing down to a statue of the emperor or being made to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do" (Epistles X, 96).
• Tallus: Tallus was a secular historian who (circa A.D. 52) wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Trojan War to his own time. The document no longer exists but it was quoted by other writers like the Christian, Julius Africanus, who wrote around A.D. 221. He quotes Tallus' comments about the darkness that enveloped the land during the late afternoon hours when Jesus died on the cross. Julius wrote:
  

  "Tallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun—unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." (Chronography, 18.1)

  The importance of Tallus' comments is that the reference shows that the Gospel account of the darkness that fell across the earth during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.
• Phlegon: Julius Africanus also quoted another secular scholar whose works are now lost. Phlegon wrote a history called Chronicles. Phlegon also comments on the darkness at the time of Christ's crucifixion:
  

  "During the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)

  The 3rd century Christian apologist Origen also references Phlegon's record of this event in his work (Celsum, 2.14, 33, 59), as does the 6th century writer Philopon (De.opif.mund. II, 21).
• Mara Bar-Serapion: Syrian stoic philosopher who wrote a letter from prison to his son circa A.D. 70. He compares Jesus to the philosophers Socrates and Pythagoras.
• Josephus ben Mattathias (also known as Flavius Josephus): 37-100AD, Jewish priest, general and historian.  He wrote two great works of Jewish history: The Jewish War, written in the early 70's and Jewish Antiquities, which was finished about A.D. 94. In his work, Jewish Antiquities, there is a passage that has created heated debate among scholars for many decades (XVIII, 33):
  

  "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

• Lucian of Samosate: Greek satirist later half of 2nd century spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians but never argued that Jesus never existed (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13):
  

  "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account..."

  He even said:
  

  "(Christ was) the man who was crucified in Palestine"

• The Babylonian Talmud: References to the history of Jesus in the Talmud do not question that Jesus Christ existed.
  

  "It has been taught:  On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu.  And an announcer went out, in front of him, for 40 days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray.  Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Sanhedrin 43a; df.t.Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9)

  Another version of this text reads: "Yeshu the Nazarene." Yeshu (or Yehoshua) is Hebrew (or Aramaic) for Jesus—in English this name is also translated "Joshua." The Old Testament hero bore the same name as Jesus the Messiah. "Hanged" is another way of referring to a crucifixion; see Luke 23:39 and Galatians 3:13.
  The issue the Talmud quarrels with is not with whether or not Jesus existed, but with the Christian belief in Jesus' virgin birth. It records (not surprisingly) that He was born under shameful circumstances:
  

  "R. Shimeon ben Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: 'I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'" (b.Yebamoth 49a; m Yebam. 4:13)

  In another passage we are told that Mary, "who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters" (b. Sanh. 106a). In another passage we find:
  

  "His mother was Miriam, a women's hairdresser.  As they say, ...'this one strayed from her husband'" (b. Sabb. 104b).

• The Amoa "Ulla": Ulla was a disciple of Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century. He wrote:
  

  "And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth—Jesus) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: 'Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him.' It is otherwise with Yeshu, for He was near to the civil authority."

*Note: The writers of the Talmud took their job seriously. These men were Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.  They were not Christians, but they documented Christ's crucifixion. Flavius Josephus was a professional historian who took his job seriously as well. He researched his work before publishing it. These Roman men were professional historians. They also researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ's crucifixion.

Apart from all these extra-biblical sources, we know that Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact because He was seen by over 500 eye-witnesses. If none of this were true in the least, nobody—and I do mean nobody—would stake their lives on it and go to their grave asserting that it was true. They would have to be mentally insane to do such. The excuse of "mass hysteria" fails drastically in the face of reality. If people know something to be a complete and utter lie, they will not put their lives on the line and endure unspeakable persecutions just to insist that it is true. Furthermore, if it was nothing but a farce, a scam, a lie, why—after these people were persecuted and put to death—did more people convert and follow it? This is the historical testimony of the church; where the church is persecuted, it sees great growth. Why? If you witnessed your friends, family, co-workers, and other people you do not know being persecuted and put to death for holding a particular belief that you do not hold to, logically and with great common sense, are you seriously going to start believing what they believed? Highly unlikely!

All of this just brings us back to the original inquiry: Who was Jesus? Either He was a madman, a liar, or He was Who He said He was. If He was Who He said He was, then we are faced with a great problem and ought to respond accordingly.

Types of Apologetics

Classical Apologetics: This refers to the defense of the faith using rational arguments for the existence of God, and may use evidence to substantiate biblical claims and miracles.  It is very similar to evidential apologetics. A couple of the arguments typically used for the existence of God are the cosmological argument—an attempt to prove God's existence by stating that there has to be an uncaused cause of all things—and the teleological argument—the use of the analogy of design; since the universe and life exhibit marks of design, there must be a Designer.

Comparative Apologetics: While no such category of apologetics actually exists (at least not formally), this refers to the defense of the faith through comparative religions and comparative worldviews. You cannot divorce religion and worldview from each other, otherwise you concede the whole battle to the unbeliever. Christianity shows itself to be superior to all other worldviews in four different categories: philosophy, ideology, comparative religion, and counter-cults.

• Ideology: Ideologies attempt to transform society. Christianity is not an ideology (although some of its eternal ideas do transform society,  they transcend such change in terms of their source, scope and ultimate end). Philosophical movements that qualify as ideologies are: Behaviorism, Secular Humanism, Darwinism, Marxism, Feminism, Freudianism and National Socialism.
• Comparative Religion: While this would technically include the other two categories as well, for simplicity we will only include world religions. A world religion is a religion that has been around since the dawn of current world civilizations, and that has shaped civilization in one way or another. This would include: Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Shintoism, Taoism and Orthodox Judaism.
• Counter-cults: Under the term "cult," we typically place the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, Roman Catholic Church, Seventh Day Adventists, Word-of-Faith Movement, and adherents to Scientology. Walter Martin once put it this way: “The average non-Christian cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical clichés and terms wherever possible or advantageous.”¹ The distinction could not be made any better than that.

The boundaries between these are arbitrary since they are all religions.

Evidential Apologetics: This refers to the defense of the faith by use of evidence to prove the existence of God, the authenticity of the Bible, the uniqueness of Christ Jesus, the factual nature of the resurrection, and anything else in the history of the church where skeptics cry some sort of cover-up. In other words, one need not presuppose the existence of God. This defense often consists of any or all of the following categories:

• Archaeological Evidence
• Biblical Evidence
• Empirical Evidence: (based on the five senses, which could logically include several of the other categories)
• Historical Evidence
• Scientific Evidence

Typically, evidential apologetics argues for the defense of the faith solely by use of any or all of these categories except biblical evidence, thereby giving up one's authority—the Bible—and undermining one's own position. If one is not careful, one can reduce apologetics, and thus Christianity, to a list of facts and figures that do nothing but ‘educate’ a person. Reason could be given too much importance. Individuals who argue solely from external evidence often do so because their opponent has used the fallacious argument, "You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible." That is illogical. I am sorry, but if I state that the President of the USA lives in the White House, how can I prove to you that he does live in the White House if you will not allow me to look in the window to show you that he does indeed live in the White House? This is where presuppositional apologetics comes in.

Presuppositional Apologetics: This refers to the defense of the faith by presupposing that the Bible is absolutely true. It presupposes the existence of God, the authenticity of the Bible, the uniqueness of Christ Jesus, the factual nature of the resurrection, etc. The Bible, then, is held to be the ultimate authority, while all other evidences (archaeological, empirical, historical, and scientific) merely help support the Bible's authenticity. External evidence can be and often is used, but the Bible is always maintained to be absolutely true as the final authority on all matters of life.

---

¹ Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, 30.

Opinions

"Everyone has and is allowed to have their own opinion. However, whenever fact enters the playing field, opinion is rendered irrelevant and must bow to fact. Opinion only matters with regard to likes and dislikes; e.g., what the best colour in the world is. Opinion is merely personal preference and is no contender against fact." —Me

The next time someone tries arguing that something is just "your opinion," remember my above words. Opinion is merely personal preference and only matters in the realm of personal likes and dislikes; where a thing cannot possibly be proven. I like the colour blue, and so it is very much my opinion when I say that blue is the greatest colour in the world, because it cannot be proven in the least. Someone else will say red is the greatest colour in the world, and that is their opinion. Opinions are not things with which to fight about; they are not hills to die on!

I could say apples are the best fruit in the world and someone else could say that oranges are. Now, if we were arguing about which is the healthiest fruit, we could indeed determine through science which fruit truly is the healthiest. Doing so would be introducing fact, which would make any opinion on what the healthiest fruit is irrelevant. But in regard to what you or I consider to be the best fruit (based solely on what we prefer over all the others), they are just opinions.

With that said, opinions are personal preferences but personal preferences are not opinions—especially where morality and what is right and wrong are concerned. I might prefer to use a quarterstaff to a gun, but preferring the one over the other is not an opinion. Saying that one is better than the other is an opinion, unless why you are saying it is better is qualified (e.g., it is better for killing, it is better for hunting, it is better for self-defense). 

Opinion has nothing to do with biblical interpretation, so someone arguing "That's your interpretation" is merely attempting to use it as a synonym for "That's your opinion." My interpretation can either be right or it can be wrong! It cannot be treated as though it is merely an opinion, because it is not!

Too many people are tossing the phrase "That's your opinion" around, ignorant as to what an opinion actually is, attempting to re-define the word "opinion." That is one of the things that irritates me the most about post-modern society. Everyone is ignorant of the fact that words have meanings, and they attempt to re-define just about every word they use. Thus, for every individual, all these words mean different things. It makes communicating difficult, if not impossible. When you learn about amelioration (words that used to have negative meanings but now have positive meanings), pejoration (words that used to have positive meanings but now have negative meanings), and contronyms (also spelled contranyms; words that have contradictory meanings), you really understand why English is the most difficult language in the world to learn. As an example, the word "brave" use to mean something negative, pretty much the opposite of what it means to us today. It makes you wonder about those who have picked up ancient books and read them, understanding the words they used by the definitions we have today. Words like unicorn. I mean, what will post-modern children think of when they are watching The Flintstones and in the theme song they hear, "We'll have a gay old time"? What about when they see the title of the movie The Gay Divorcee?

If ignorance is bliss, then most of these people must be living in paradise. Learn what an opinion is and quit using the word incorrectly!

Ten Things I Wish Homosexuals Knew About the Truth

This blog entry is in response to this erroneous and asinine posting found on the Internet:

1. In Jesus' teachings, He upheld heterosexuality as the only moral standard with which all human relationships are to be gauged by and engaged in. Anyone who has paid attention in the least to His teachings will know that Jesus referred his hearers back to "the beginning" of creation and informed them that this was the standard with which to live by: "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'" (Matt. 19:4-5). He then added that what "God has joined together, let no man separate" (Matt. 19:6). Paul followed Jesus' teachings to the letter and did the same thing. The Bible upholds this standard on every page.
2. You are not being "persecuted" when you are told matter-of-factly that what you are doing is a perversion of both human and sexual nature. Turning around and attempting to silence us by trying to force us to accept your perversion through misuse of the law is persecution, however.
3. Truth is intrinsic. Because God is the same "yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8), He "does not change" (Ps. 15:4). His Word does not change either because He and His Word are one. His words are a reflection and extension of Himself and His holiness. What was condemned under the Old Testament (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) is also condemned under the New Testament (Rom. 1:26-27). The stoning of homosexuals under the Old Testament was to show just how much God hates this perversion (just as He hates all sin [see Ps. 7:11; 11:5; Prov. 16:5]), but it was all an outward example of what God expected internally. We were to be killing sin at its core, within us, and living out the law internally—not merely externally. Under the New Testament, we are no longer to stone such individuals, because Jesus already suffered for their sins, but to love them in spite of their sin and preach the Gospel to them so that they might repent and be saved. While many things changed or ceased from the Old Testament to the New Testament, anything repeated in the New Testament still stands for us today. The standard of heterosexuality is upheld throughout the entire New Testament and leaves no room for homosexuality. The prohibition against it has not changed.
4. You have always had the same rights that every other human being has ever had. You cannot ask for the right of marriage because that right does not apply to you. It is a right that belongs specifically and solely to one man and one woman being united together as one in holy matrimony. Anything less than this is not a marriage, regardless of the civil laws that might be passed. Civil law does not overrule God's Law. Whenever civil law contradicts God's Law, it is to be ignored and abhorred.
5. It is no longer your personal lifestyle choice when you are trying to force others to accept your perverted practices as "normal" when they are completely and utterly unnatural to both human and sexual nature. The Bible proves it; science proves it; nature proves it; and both logic and common sense prove it. Everyone can have their own opinion about something, but once fact enters the playing field opinion becomes irrelevant. If you want to engage in sinful behaviour behind closed doors, that is your choice. It is still wrong and I will tell you that it is wrong. But when you try and force me to accept it as "normal" behaviour, that is my choice.
6. Marriage is a divine institute. It was created and ordained by God. God defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life. God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18), and He created a suitable mate and helper for him, which was woman—someone who was similar to him (being of the same species) but different from him (being of the opposite gender). He goes on to say, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). How else could they obey the mandate to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28)?
7. If you feel the need to try and force 98% of the population into accepting and approving of your perverted sin in an attempt to try and silence your screaming conscience, it should be a major red warning sign that what you are choosing to participate in is not natural, nor is it normal, and that you are lost and headed straight to hell unless you repent.
8. To condemn homosexuality as the sinful practice it is (along with pornography, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, lying, theft, murder, etc., etc.), one only needs to read their Bible and take God at His word. The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." The Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God says what He means and means what He says." The language of Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27 is pretty crystal clear and unmistakeable. Even a child understands what they are saying.
9. Homosexuality and slavery have nothing in common. Homosexuals have never had any rights stolen from them. You cannot compare homosexuality to slavery. This is a false comparison. Homosexuality is not an ethnic minority. Homosexuals have never been bought and sold in America; they have never been denied the right to vote; there are no gay and straight classrooms or drinking fountains; and they have always had the right to hold property and participate in the political process. Homosexuals have always had the same rights all Americans have had. The same sure cannot be said about African-Americans.
10. When Jesus forbade judging, He was talking about condemning a person in the legal sense, for He goes on to tell us that "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16, 20), implying that we are to judge within a certain standard. Any first-year Bible student who looks up the Greek word translated in Matthew 7:1 will know this. Furthermore, if we look at what the rest of the Bible has to say, the Christian is told that he has the right to judge—just not those outside of the church because God will judge them on Judgment Day (see 1 Cor. 5 & 6).

Bad Science We Have Been Taught

This diagram is what we have been taught for decades in our schools with regard to the makeup of planet Earth. However, it is highly speculative and theoretical, not based on a single shred of scientific evidence. Why do I say this? Let us examine the facts:

Earth radius is the distance from the Earth's center to its surface. This distance has been calculated to be approximately 6,371 km (3,959 mi). Please take note of the distances recorded on the above diagram (or any other diagram you encounter).

Located within the Arctic Circle, in the Northwest corner of Russia, is the deepest hole ever drilled into the Earth. Soviet scientists began drilling the hole in 1970, eventually reaching a depth of 12,262 m (40,230 ft) in 1989. The Soviets wanted to bore through the Earth's crust and into the upper mantle, though no one knew what would happen. Fears of unleashing seismic disaster upon the world, or even demons from hell, proved to be unfounded. The project was abandoned due to temperatures in excess of 177C (350F), which allowed rock to flow back into the borehole.

How thick is the Earth's crust? According to this diagram, it's 5 to 50 km. Other people have said, "The thickness of the Earth's crust is not equal in all areas. The average thickness is 20-25 miles, but there are places where the Earth's crust is 45-47 miles thick." How do we know this? The deepest hole ever drilled into the Earth's crust is 12.262 km (7.62 mi, when rounded up). Ergo, this information is speculative theory—not science.

Nobody has ever come to, or seen, the edge of the Earth's crust. The mantle, outer core, and inner core are just made up. Nobody has ever seen them. Furthermore, nobody has ever seen what the Earth is made out of. For all we know, the center of the Earth could be made out of cream cheese. The deepest distance ever drilled is not even 1/500th of the Earth radius. Our science textbooks are filled with speculations that have no evidence to support them and lies not based on scientific observation. Here are some other lies taught in our science textbooks:

1. "Stalactites take millions of years to form." If this is true, why do we have them growing in the basements of older houses?
2. "Petrification takes millions of years to occur." If this is true, why do we have modern-day petrified items?

Any time you see the words "million(s)" or "billion(s)," you can know that it is speculative theory based on the random guesswork of numbers, rather than on actual scientific observation and factual evidence. Pay attention to the world around us and get your information from it—not from erroneous and falsified textbooks.

Addendum: I have talked with individuals who have attempted to tell me that "science does not attempt to prove or disprove anything." If this is the case, then you had better never go see a doctor ever again in your entire life, and you might want to avoid going to the gas station to fill your vehicle with gasoline because this time it might be chocolate milk you fill it with. Science has proven and disproven many things, but, contrary to what many have falsely been led to believe, science cannot provide an answer for everything. I have even talked with individuals who have attempted to suggest that going "beyond science" is somehow science, which it clearly is not. Imagination is not science. For those ignorant individuals who agree with the two false arguments contained in this paragraph, might I suggest you educate yourself as to What Is "Science" and "Scientific Method"? And for those ignorant individuals who ignorantly refer to a "consensus" among scientists regarding certain beliefs, there are two quotations by Michael Crichton in that article that you might want to pay close attention to: "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

The Truth Concerning Galileo

Have you ever heard the argument that "Galileo was persecuted by the church for teaching that the Earth was spherical and not flat"? Guess what? It is a lie. It never happened. It is a myth. One perpetuated by complete and utter ignorance.

What is the real story?

A few hundred years ago, the majority of the people still believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun orbited the Earth. This was the view of the Roman Catholic Church as well throughout the life of astronomer Galileo, from 1564 to 1642.

During the period of the Renaissance, there was an explosion in the understanding of our universe. This was the case with the field of astronomy. People began to question the Earth-centered model of our universe due to new scientific observations. Aristarchus, around 270 B.C., was the earliest person to suggest a sun-centered solar system. However, the theory remained largely unexplored for over a millennium, despite there being good evidence to support it.

In 1543, Copernicus published his studies, pushing the sun-centered theory forward. Aware of the hostile reaction that was inevitable to result from the Roman Catholic Church, he wrote a disclaimer stating that his studies were purely mathematical and included a dedication to the Pope.

In the early 17th century, Galileo, at the cutting edge of human understanding, took things further through telescopic observations and published a work on the planetary orbits. The Roman Catholic Church brought their full force down on the apparently "heretical" Galileo when they discovered his work. In 1615, the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to denounce his findings and to never teach what he had discovered. Nearly 20 years later, in 1633, Galileo again published his findings on the observed orbits of the planets. Once again, the Roman Catholic Church got up in arms. Galileo offered to show them evidence, but they refused to look through his telescope, fearing that the devil could create illusions with such an instrument. In order to avoid being burnt at the stake, Galileo once again denounced his own work and was placed under house arrest by the Roman Catholic Church for the rest of his life. He was even afforded a decent lifestyle while under house arrest. He was never actually persecuted, other than being forced to denounce his findings.

In 1992, the Roman Catholic Church, through Pope John Paul II, made a formal apology to Galileo and withdrew their accusations of heresy, agreeing that, yes, the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun. While being rather late, it is impossible to withdraw accusations against a person once they are dead. It does little for him now.

You can look this information up for yourself anywhere. These are the historical events that transpired. It had nothing to do with the Earth being flat. Like most lies that people believe in their blissful ignorance, this one has been repeated loud enough, long enough, and often enough. If a person with a degree perpetuates the lie, people think, "Well, he's got a degree so he must know what he's talking about." People need to learn to do their homework and do their own research rather than regurgitating the same spoon-fed nonsense they have heard others say. The problem with education is that it merely teaches you to think and believe the way your teachers think and believe; it never teaches you to actually think for yourself.

Dead to Sin: One Step at a Time

I read an article earlier this week written by a self-professed alcoholic who argues for the fact that alcoholism is not a disease. In fact, I read several articles on this precise topic, even written by legitimate psychologists who are fed up with the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) labeling alcoholism (and obesity, and many other non-disease issues) as a disease. This particular article got me thinking about the Christian's position and how they are told to "consider yourselves to be dead to sin" (Rom. 6:11) and "do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts" (Rom. 6:12). Here is part of what that article had to say:

Is alcoholism really a disease?

Speaking of alcoholism in these terms makes it difficult to accept certain claims we have all heard declaring that it is a disease. Alcoholism is certainly related to psychopathology, but does this necessarily make alcoholism a disease? I do not believe that it does. Almost any human behavior or habit, positive or negative, could likely be linked to pathology. Alcoholism is, if anything, the symptom or sign of a greater problem. There may be myriad conscious and unconscious thoughts running through our minds, each guided by conflicting impulses and inhibitions, creating confusion and leading us to act contrary to our own best interests, but when it comes right down to it an alcoholic knows that it is a bad idea to pick up a bottle of Jack Daniels and start drinking. You know that it will lead you down a path of misery and devastation, but you crave it. You crave the pain and the desperation, you crave the bitter void that you know awaits you. Perhaps it could be argued that this very craving is evidence of disease and indeed it is a convincing argument, but it does not necessarily follow that alcoholism is itself a disease. The question still remains: if you know that what you are doing is destructive, if you are staring directly into a black abyss and choosing to follow it, then are you not in total control of your actions? On a daily basis there are a thousand things we might be driven to do by pathological lines of thought, but we still wouldn't grab a loaded magnum and start picking off our co-workers. Only a psychotic would do something like that! Are alcoholics psychotics? I'm sure there are some cases in which they are, but most of us are just using this disease thing as another way of feeling sorry for ourselves.

As an alcoholic, I think that it is important for people to comprehend that disease is not the issue. Labeling alcoholism as a disease provides a new source of denial for addicts: instead of forcing the addict to admit that she controls her own behavior and is fully accountable for the results of that behavior, the idea of disease allows the addict to deny a certain level of control and use that denial as an excuse to continue destructive behavioral patterns. It is certainly true that alcoholics reach a point at which they are out of control, but they allow themselves to lose control. The very urge to drink comes from the desire to lose control and in most cases it is a fully conscious decision. Alcoholism is something that appeals to a particular personality and to a particular psychology. It is not a disease, but a self accepted path to destruction. The alcoholic loathes himself and all those around him and so he loses himself in a haze of drug induced oblivion. Unconscious factors may play a role, but it is still a conscious choice. Only if the alcoholic can come to accept responsibility for his own deterioration, can he begin to deconstruct the lies he has told himself about his addiction and possibly even dig his way out of the debris.

(Read the complete article here.)

You see, it is quite simple. A disease is something that happens to you. Not something you do to yourself. Alcoholism and obesity are the results of bad choices, but choices none the less. By providing an excuse for alcoholism and obesity, you take that choice away. Our society has become too much of an enabler for various people these days (including homosexuals). It offers up excuses left, right, and center instead of dealing with the real issues at hand. They do not want people to take responsibility for the repercussions of their own actions, but instead want to provide them with an excuse to blame it on anyone or anything else. The same is found within the Christian circle.

Far too many Christians grab Romans 7 and use it as an excuse for not living up to what the rest of Scripture clearly commands on every page. Study it some time. Read carefully from Matthew through Jude and note everything it says about how the Christian is to live and conduct himself/herself; every command, every declarative statement. Also take note of the passages where it is dealing with a mixed group of genuine converts and false converts (which Jesus illustrated, on several occasions, would be the reality), such as much of 1 Corinthians. These Christians pull Romans 7 out of its context in order to find "another way of feeling sorry for" themselves. Using Romans 7 in this way "provides a new source of denial for" those who do not want to rise to the Saviour's standards. Often times, it is because they have a pet sin they do not really want to discard, even though the Bible tells them that "Everyone who names the name of Christ is to depart from unrighteousness" (2 Timothy 2:19).

The Christian "controls his/her own behaviour and is fully accountable for the results of that behaviour." Until the Christian "accepts responsibility for his/her own deterioration, can he/she begin to deconstruct the lies he/she has told himself/herself about" the Christian life and their position in regard to sin.

You see, I believe the reason why most Christians read what Romans 6 and 8 say (as well as the rest of the New Testament) and then try to argue and make excuses using Romans 7 in an attempt to back them up is because they look at it either as being instantaneous (where you will never sin again and never have to worry about temptation ever) or they are too focused on the future (of being sinless) instead of dealing with the present. Both of these are wrong views and understandings of what it means to be "dead to sin."

When you wake up, until you fall asleep, your day is filled with a series of choices. Temptations will come to your mind (your thoughts) and to your flesh (your behaviour) repeatedly throughout the day. Never the less, you make the choice whether you will submit to those temptations and act upon them, or whether you will resist those temptations and refrain from acting upon them. "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13). "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death" (James 1:14-15).

When wrongful thoughts come to your mind, you know in that instant it is wrong to entertain them, but you have the choice as to whether you will do so or not. To argue and say you have no such choice is to say you are powerless to sin, which is to say that Christ's death, burial, and resurrection were ineffective in dealing with sin. Both of these are lies. Likewise, when you act without thinking (or rather, without thinking clearly), right in that exact moment you know what you did (or are about to do) is wrong. If the action has not yet been committed, you can change the course thereof and set your mind on proper things (Phil. 4:8). However, if the action has been committed, you can apologize and ask for forgiveness, because you know what you just did was wrong. We tend not to do this because of our stubborn pride, which only serves to increase the severity of the sin we have just committed.

As Christians, we need to be living in the present while hoping for the future. We need to deal with temptations that will befall us one at a time. Every time we resist a temptation to sin, we earn a victory. The power is ours through the Holy Spirit Whom has been given to us by Christ Jesus. How else would you take these words?: "so we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4); "our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin" (Rom. 6:6); "he who has died is freed from sin" (Rom. 6:7); "consider yourselves to be dead to sin" (Rom. 6:11); "do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts" (Rom. 6:12); "do not go on presenting the members of your body as instruments of unrighteousness" (Rom. 6:13); "sin shall not be master over you" (Rom. 6:14); "having been freed from sin" (Rom. 6:18, 22); "so now present your members as slaves to righteousness" (Rom. 6:19); everything in Romans 8:1-14; "walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16); "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24); "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal. 5:25). These are commands and declarative statements.

Romans 8:24-25 is a blessing for the Christian: "For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it." We will not achieve sinless perfection in this life, but we hope for it and we strive to attain it one victory at a time. Yes, we will fail and we will fall, but we are not defeated. Take each temptation in its own time. A person growing in Christ-likeness will see more and more victories as they try to be like Him. If you are not seeing more and more victories, or you are simply not seeing any victories whatsoever, then perhaps there is a deeper root issue that needs to be dealt with—like your salvation. The Bible even says that God "is able to keep you from stumbling" (Jude 24). It also says "as long as you practice these things, (the things found in verses 5-8) you will never stumble" (2 Pet. 1:10).

Look at all the examples Paul provides for us. For example, the athlete running the race. It requires perseverance, endurance, and dedication. Who are you dedicated to? Yourself? or the Saviour? If you are dedicated to the Saviour, you are going to take your walk seriously and put forth your very best effort. With your own desires in life, you set the bar high and attain to reach that goal. How is it that concerning your spiritual life, where the bar is already set for us, you want to set that bar much lower and not even try to attain it? Which is more important? Which is more beneficial? If you do not put any effort into your walk, what does that say about you? Something to think about.

The fact is, if you belong to Christ Jesus, you are dead to sin and should consider yourself as such (positionally and practically). Take each temptation that befalls you one at a time. Make the right choices and resist those temptations. Do not focus on the sin. Do not focus on your victories. Do not focus on your failures. Focus on the Saviour. As Robert Murray M'Cheyne said, "For every look at self, take ten looks at Christ." The Bible repeatedly tells us to set our minds on better things, on things above. We need to change the way we think. Become dead to sin one step at a time.

Why the Church Should NOT Re-think "Gay Marriage"

Our society is attempting to manipulate the word "marriage" in order to make it sound like "gay marriage" is plausible. More and more, people are beginning to lose their sense of right and wrong, get on this wicked bandwagon, and buy into this perverted distortion. Nathan Hoffman explained it well:

Separating man and woman from marriage is like separating sodium and chloride. Remove either chemical from the equation and it’s not salt anymore. It’s lost its saltiness and is good for nothing. Remove either man or woman from the equation of marriage, and it’s not marriage. Calling it “gay marriage” is like having a water bottle filled with nothing but oxygen and calling it water. Sorry, but you’re missing part of the equation.

—Nathan Hoffman

I do not think I could have said it any better myself. Nathan Hoffman has it straight to the point. As Eric Hovind said, "Redefining 'marriage' to include 'gay' is like redefining 'circle' to include 'square.' It does not work. It is attempting to change the entire concept of marriage. When we leave the absolute standard set forth by God’s Word, we are in big trouble."

There is nothing for the church to re-think in regard to this perverted distortion known as "gay marriage." God has repeatedly said "No" to same-sex relations. They are a perverse distortion of the absolute standard set by God for all men and all women; that "man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). There are no exceptions! What God has called wicked and perverse, we do not have the right to attempt to call "good." God has forbid it, it is forbidden, end of argument.

One of the many problems that arise is when this issue hits close to home. All of a sudden people forget themselves and lose their intelligence and start trying to defend their friends and/or family who have chosen to follow the gay lifestyle. They begin trying to make excuses for them. I am sorry, but if your son or daughter or niece or nephew or uncle or aunt or anybody close to you decides to become a rapist or murderer or thief, it does not matter how much you love them, you do not get to excuse their sin. Rape, murder, and stealing do not suddenly become alright just because someone close to you is guilty of committing them. The same goes for those who have chosen to follow the gay lifestyle. You can still love them, but do not attempt to excuse them and change God's Word because of it. Wrong is still wrong no matter who is on the other side of it; your husband, your wife, your children. They still stand guilty and condemned no matter how much you love them. Sin does not suddenly become alight just because someone close to you is guilty of committing it. Be wise and agree with God. Do not attempt to go against Him.

It does not matter how much you love the person that is close to you, or how much you do not desire for them to go to hell. If they are guilty of sin, any sin—and we all are, they are already condemned and sentenced to hell. Trying to change that reality by denying it does not actually change a thing. You can lie to yourself all you want and make all the excuses you want for your loved ones, but come judgment day they will stand condemned before the throne of God. You would be wise not to make it harder on them by attempting to excuse their sinful behaviour and trying to justify it for them. Agree with God and what God has said, keep reminding them of God's standards, and keep praying for them. More importantly, pray for yourself that you would uphold God's truth regardless of what happens around you. You need to be strong in the face of adversity, not sway with it.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22). "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (Lev. 20:13). "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Rom. 1:26-27). "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24, cf. Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9; Eph. 5:31; 1 Cor. 6:16). The standard for what constitutes marriage is clear. Anything short of this is an aberration. Period.

Why should the church not re-think "gay marriage"? Because the equation for marriage is man plus woman. God created this equation and made it the only standard by which human relations should be engaged. If you remove one of the elements from this equation, you no longer have a marriage. Two men or two women do not constitute a marriage. If the church believes God, trusts His Word, and obeys Him, there is nothing for the church to re-think on this matter. God has already spoken and the matter is settled.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

The first dinosaur bone ever discovered was in 1676 (some sources say 1685), part of a knee joint. The first nearly-complete skeletal fossil discovery occurred in 1858. This is apparently mankind's first introduction to dinosaurs, or so we are told. However, the teachings that dinosaurs lived "millions" of years ago and are now extinct and that they have never lived with mankind are nothing more than opinionated arguments from ignorance. They are lies that deliberately ignore the evidence around us. Deliberate ignorance is never excusable. Let us look at the facts in descending order, going from the youngest to the oldest evidence that challenges these claims.

1. Pteranodons (the smaller species) were pests in England and to the North and Central American Indians and others.

   'dinosaurs', in the form of flying reptiles, were a feature of Welsh life until surprisingly recent times. As late as the beginning of the present century, elderly folk at Penllyn in Glamorgan used to tell of a colony of winged serpents that lived in the woods around Penllyn Castle. As Marie Trevelyan tells us: 'The woods around Penllyn Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike. An aged inhabitant of Penllyn, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful... He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry. The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and culverts".'
   

   "After the Flood", Bill Cooper

   The turn of the 20th century, people were hunting down dinosaurs. Sounds an awful lot like the history we have of dragon-slaying. Could it be that man was afraid of these beasts and so through fear went out to fight and slay them, thereby contributing to their extinction?
   
   
2. A cathedral in the UK with a tomb of a bishop buried in the 15th century has a number of animals carved on it, including sauropod dinosaurs. How did they know what a sauropod dinosaur looked like 600 years ago if dinosaurs have supposedly been extinct for some 65 million years?
    
3. A stone temple in Cambodia from 1186 A.D has an unmistakeable carving of a Stegosaurus on it. How did they know what a Stegosaurus looked like 800 years ago if dinosaurs have supposedly been extinct for some 65 million years?
   
   
   
   
4. The Nasca Indians lived in the river valley of Peru's south coast from roughly 200 B.C. to 600 A.D. They are most likely best known for the famous Nasca Plain, an area measuring 37 miles long and 1 mile wide. Here, strange geometric patterns of immense size have been cut into the plain. (See Photos Here) Extremely telling, however, is that much of Nasca Tomb art seems to be depicting dinosaurs. Whether tapestry or pottery, art can be found depicting dinosaurs such as Allosaurus, Diplodocus, Pterosaurs, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and even Tyrannosaurus. Check out the images below:
   
   
   
   What is even more fascinating is that Sauropod frills, such as seen on the Diplodocus in the above image (middle), were not found until 1992. Yet, they were being drawn correctly 2,000 years earlier by the Nasca Indians! This argues strongly that those who made these pieces of art were eye-witnesses to the dinosaurs, contrary to what pseudo-scientists tell us.
    
5. Every now and then, a colossal discovery occurs that creates vast problems for the evolutionists. This is precisely the case with a bunch of figurines that were discovered in Acambaro, Mexico in 1945. These figurines have been dated back to circa 2500 B.C. There were some 33,000 sculptures unearthed, hundreds of which appear to be dinosaurs.
   
   Evidence of the authenticity of this find is the near-perfect Iguanodon dinosaur figurine. Look at the two figurines below. The first is Iguanodon, the second Ankylosaurus. In the 1800's, the early concept of Iguanodon's appearance was poorly rendered, almost comical, like some sort of Godzilla-like horse-lizard. By the turn of the century it had improved considerably but fell far short of what we now know. If you look at modern renderings, you will notice how much they reflect the accuracy found in the Acambaro figurine, knowledge that we have only gained in recent years (remember the movie Dinosaur from Disney? Yes, that dinosaur.). No hoaxer could have made this model in the 1940s.
   
   
   
   What is the best explanation for hundreds of life-like depictions of these dinosaurs (supposedly long extinct and not discovered unto the 1800's)? These people, who lived 2500 years ago, saw them! Obviously these people knew how an Iguanodon looked in real life. This argues that those who made these figurines were eye-witnesses to the actual creature!

We have hundreds of historians and other people throughout history who have described seeing, what they called, "dragons," descriptions of which that are exact matches to creatures we call "dinosaurs" today. We believe these men on every other account of their records and findings, but pass these off as "mistaken identification" all because of the scatomas we have inherited through poor and ignorant education. It takes years to break through scatomas in order for people to finally see the truth of things. Consider the following; these animals used to be considered myths at one point in time, until the truth was discovered (while some were thought to be extinct and have since been found to still exist):

1. Mountain Gorilla
2. Okapi
3. Giant Panda
4. Giraffe
5. Takin
6. Python
7. Giant Squid and/or Colossal Squid
8. Komodo Dragon
9. Beaked Whale
10. Tiger
11. Hoan Kiem Turtle
12. Ulama, or "Devil Bird"
13. Dingiso, or "Bondegezou"
14. Kangaroo
15. Platapus
16. Oarfish, or Ribbonfish
17. Coelecanth (thought to be extinct)
18. Giant Earthworms (thought to be extinct)
19. Takahe (thought to be extinct)
20. Bermuda Petrel (thought to be extinct)
21. Unicorn, or Single-horned Rhinoceros (see my article here)

This is not an exhaustive list of animals once believed to be myth or once thought to be extinct. As the evidence is slowly presented to the people, their scatomas of false information will be lifted and they will realize that dinosaurs have lived with man since the very beginning, when God first created the heavens and the earth, and that they never lived "millions" of years ago nor have they been extinct for "millions" of years. If man never saw dinosaurs up close and personal, there would not be all this evidence that shows information we (largely the ignorant Western world descended from the Europeans) have only learned in recent years. Clearly our world-view is in error and our information is falsified. The rest of the world knows these animals to have existed side-by-side with mankind, and the evidence backs this up. It is time we started updating our text books with the truth and admitting we were in error and we made a mistake. Holding to false information because you are afraid to admit you have believed wrongly for so long is inexcusable. Life is a never-ending learning process. If you cannot admit you had some things figured in error, then you will never truly grow as a person. We grow when we can admit our errors and correct them.

As an aside, science and medicine used to believe and teach things that have since been proven to be false. Science has taught incorrectly with regard to tree rings, ice rings, stalactites, petrification, etc. Many of these are still taught falsely in our schools and textbooks today. Science teaches false information with regard to dating methods, employing circular reasoning. How can you tell how old dinosaur bones are? By the layer of dirt they are found in. How can you tell how old the layer of dirt is? By the dinosaur bones found in it. In other words, there is no way to tell how old it is so they merely make up an age. Fact is, if you take a handful of dirt, chuck it in some water and shake it up, it will eventually settle into layers. Heavier stuff on the bottom, lighter stuff on the top. Did that experiment take "millions" of years to do? Nope. Neither did what we see. It took a single world-wide flood, the evidence of which we can see around us. Our surface is something like 80% water. Imagine what would happen if the polar caps melted. Would it cover Mount Everest? Probably not. But then Mount Everest is said to be fairly recent in geological activity. This is not including the water contained in pockets under the earth. Nevertheless, there was a world-wide flood and all the evidence around us backs it up. Fact is, the earth could easily be flooded again. If you pushed down all the earth to make it flat and fill the valleys in the oceans, the earth would be flooded to such a degree that it would not be funny. Again, the evidence is all around us. People need to start believing it.

When someone tries telling you that the world or universe is billions of years old, take the scientific information that can be and has been measured and apply mathematics to their theories. They will fall apart every time.We can measure the amount of gas the sun burns every year; we can measure the rate at which the Earth is slowing down every year; we can measure the distance the moon is moving away from the Earth every year. Take those figures and multiply them by their theories. Then apply the laws of our universe to them. All of a sudden you run into colossal problems. For example, we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth. Take that figure and multiply it by 1 million instead of "billions." How close was the moon to the Earth at one point based on this information, if the universe is as old as they claim? Now apply the Inverse Square Law to the reality. If you half the distance, you quadruple the effect. If you move the moon inward by half its distance, bearing in mind the moon's effects on the tides, that means the Earth would have been flooded twice a day. The problem with pseudo-science is imagining theories and then running with them without applying mathematics and the laws that govern our universe to them. If more of these so-called scientists would do this, we would see less nonsense being published as "fact" and see more genuine science. So the next time someone tries telling you dinosaurs never lived with man and have been extinct for "millions" of years, challenge them with the above information. You can find vastly more online if you search for it. With all this evidence, why do Westerners in specific believe these lies? Food for thought.

Rules for Domestic Happiness

1. Be humble. "Pride only breeds quarrels."
2. "Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit."
3. Find your own happiness in trying to make others happy.
4. Mind your own business. Do not be meddlesome.
5. Beware of a fretful, suspicious, or censorious temper.
6. "Overcome evil with good." "Bless and curse not."
7. "Love one another deeply, from the heart."
8. Do not magnify the trials or afflictions of life.
9. Beware of sloth. There is no greater enemy of peace and happiness.
10. Make it your business to serve God.
11. Keep out of debt. "Owe no man anything." Loans breed bad tempers and harsh dispositions.
12. Keep the ultimate purpose of life in view--to glorify God. This will repress many vain wishes and chasten immoderate desires.
13. Let your prayers be frequent and fervent.
14. Never listen to scandal nor backbiting.
15. Do not grieve or worry over things which cannot be helped.
16. Set the Lord always before you. Seek His glory. Do and suffer His will with readiness. Let Christ be all and in all. Trust in the Lord forever.

The Bible and Homosexuality

My friend, Jerry Sheppard, and I have been conversing with a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken for several months, who erroneously considers himself to be a Christian. Apparently Alex failed to read where Jesus says "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12) and where it testifies that "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we [are liars] and do not practice the truth" (1 John 1:6) and where it states that "Everyone who names the name of the Lord must depart from wickedness" (2 Timothy 2:19). If Alex would pay attention to Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 John 3:4-10, he would realize that he is not a Christian. It is not possible to be a Christian and a homosexual (or insert any other habitually practiced sin here).

As you will witness first-hand from his comments, Alex constantly and consistently laces his responses with error, misinformation, inferences, presumptions, assumptions, conclusions drawn on assumptions, pretext, front-loading, and eisegetical interpretations based on his feelings and opinions. Furthermore, you will also witness how Alex's responses are riddled with sloppy and dishonest scholarship, blatant plagiarism, copy errors, selective citations, truncated quotations of text, and creative editing. Alex delights in ripping verses and passages from their context and fails habitually to apply the rules of hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation) and engage in honest, responsible, sound biblical exegesis. Alex talks a good game concerning exegesis, plagiarizing the definitions from authors who have spoken on the subject without giving them due credit, but constantly and consistently fails and neglects to actually practice responsible exegesis.

As Joe Dallas, a former practicing homosexual, said, "[Pro-gay theology] takes scriptures we're all familiar with, gives them an entirely new interpretation, backs its claims with the words of well-credentialed scholars, and gives birth to a new sexual ethic. Common sense may reject it, but until it's examined more closely, it's difficult to refute."¹ So, without further adieu, let us get into it and examine it more closely...

GENESIS 1 & 2

In order to understand the truth about something, one must start at the very beginning. In the case of sexuality, our beginning is man's beginning where God first created man and woman. The creation account does not say anything about homosexuality because it does not have to. It presents a very clear picture of God's standard and intention for all men and women, which is maintained and upheld throughout the entire Bible.

Alex argues:

"To argue that the Creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible: the argument from silence."²

This statement reveals just how blind and ignorant Alex truly is, and just how little he knows what "silence" is. Alex must maintain this baseless argument because otherwise his world comes crashing down, and that is precisely what we are going to see happen.

The Bible tells us that "The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:20). Adam looked upon all the animals and saw that they had their suitable mate, but none of them was a suitable mate for him. The pairs of animals were of the same species but were different from each other. One was a male and the other was a female. This was important in order for them to be able to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:22), the mandate given by God to all creatures.

God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18a). Any man. Every man. All encompassed in Adam, our head and representative. God then continued by saying, "I will make a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18b). Now, if a person took two nuts or two bolts and tried putting them together, you would laugh at that person and call them a fool. Clearly the nut was designed for the bolt and vice versa. If that same person took two plugs or two outlets and tried putting them together, you would again laugh at that person and call them a fool. Clearly the plug was designed for the outlet and vice versa. Likewise, the same is true of the penis and the vagina. The penis was perfectly designed to enter the vagina, and the vagina was perfectly designed to receive the penis. They were perfectly designed for each other; both for pleasure and for procreation: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28).

Alex thinks that it is an argument from silence merely because homosexuality is not mentioned. He fails to realize that that is the point. Only heterosexuality is mentioned. The lack of something mentioned is not the condoning thereof. Alex also fails to realize that it is his argument which is derived from silence here. Alex cannot prove that Jesus condoned something just because He did not mention it, and that is what he is attempting to do with the creation account, saying that because it does not say anything about homosexuality that it must not condemn it. We have other Scriptures that clearly condemn it (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27), and we know what Jesus upheld as a standard, and that certainly was not homosexuality. The creation account gives a very clear picture—a standard—of God's intention for men and women. The only standard for sexual expression you will find consistently praised in both Testaments is that of heterosexual monogamy. Throughout the entire Bible, only that standard is upheld. Observe:

• "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24
• "Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house, your children like olive plants around your table." Psalm 128:3
• "Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching; Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck." Proverbs 1:8-9
• "Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love." Proverbs 5:18-19
• "My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother; Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck. When you walk about, they will guide you; When you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; And reproofs for discipline are the way of life." Proverbs 6:20-23
• "An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil All the days of her life. She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: 'Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.' Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates." Proverbs 31:10-31
• "This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously." Malachi 2:13-16 
• "And said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" Matthew 19:5
• "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh." Mark 10:6-8
• "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'The two shall become one flesh.'" 1 Corinthians 6:16
• "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:2
• "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Ephesians 5:22-31
• "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. ... You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered." 1 Peter 3:1-4, 7

Alex argues:

"But though heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality, it does not follow that it is the only form of appropriate sexuality."²

As the creation story and the rest of Scripture bears out (as well as all forms of logic, common sense, science, and nature), heterosexuality is the only form of appropriate sexuality. Every other form of sexuality is prohibited and condemned as immoral perversion: homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. All these other forms of sexuality are condemned in Leviticus 18 and 20 alongside that of homosexuality, and as we will see shortly, they had nothing to do with idolatrous practices of "fertility" rituals, as Alex suggests.

Alex says:

"The authors of Genesis were intent on answering the question: Where do we come from?"²

What Alex fails to see and understand from the Scriptures themselves is that the author of Genesis was also intent on answering the questions, "What am I here for? What is my purpose?" Man's primary purpose was to glorify God. God created male and female for each other and gave them the mandate to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). Anything outside of this is disobedience, which is not glorifying God. Disobedience is sin and sin does not glorify God. Anything outside of this cannot obey the mandate given by God.

Alex argues:

"While it is true that God “made them male and female,” your argument against homosexuality from the Creation order is hazardous on numerous fronts. Virtually all Christians reject the notion that God created sex for procreation only despite the fact that the first man and woman were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply”. An argument based on an inability to reproduce is all the more problematic to defend given the vast number of marriages that never lead to procreation. Some couples marry at ages when childbirth is no longer an option. Other couples are childless because of impotence, infertility, health restrictions, or genetic concerns. Still others opt to not have children for a variety of reasons. The lack of children doesn’t invalidate these relationships nor does it devalue them."³

Alex's argument here is extremely problematic. He is attempting to make a case based very simplistically on the fact that sex is also for pleasure, not just procreation. First of all, whether pleasure is derived from sex or not is not the issue, nor does it have anything to do with the issue. This is one of Alex's Red Herring Fallacies that he so delights in using, misdirecting people to something other than the issue at hand. Sex was designed for both procreation and recreation between a husband (male) and wife (female). Nothing less. Nothing more. Procreation is inevitably the end result. Second of all, Alex also utilizes the Part-to-Whole Fallacy here in attempting to use cases where heterosexual couples are incapable of having children as support for homosexual relationships being valid. This argument is extremely simplistic and crude in its ignorance. The fact is, whether heterosexual couples have children or not is the direct result of God's will in their lives, despite what they personally might desire. If the obstacle preventing them from having children were removed by God or cured by an operation, these heterosexual couples could have children. However, homosexuals will never be able to procreate and produce progeny. Ever! There is nothing that can be done to alter this fact of reality. If homosexuals were left to themselves, they would die in their own generation without ever producing a subsequent generation. Alex's argument only serves to show how little he actually knows and how willfully ignorant he is.

Dealing with the creation account, Alex attempts to feed his readers with another Red Herring Fallacy of his:

"[The creation account] does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal.  It does not mention the single state and yet we know that singleness is not condemned."²

Alex is again trying to making an argument from silence. He assumes that because homosexuality was not mentioned, therefore it cannot be considered abnormal. But this simply is not the case. The creation account upholds the standard of heterosexuality as God's intention for human relationships. Likewise, both Jesus and Paul upheld the standard of heterosexuality. If I uphold the life of a child in the womb, I am necessarily opposed to abortion. Likewise, Scripture, Jesus, and Paul, while upholding the standard of heterosexuality, are necessarily opposed to homosexuality (and every other sexual deviation). The statement encompasses every man; all men: "For this reason a man [any man, every man, all men] shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Alex merely wants to feed his readers with Red Herring fallacies in order to distract them from the truth. As soon as they start discovering the truth behind one of his Red Herrings, he introduces another Red Herring. There is no limit to the errors Alex is willing to commit in order to gain approval for homosexuality.

Interestingly enough, while self-refuting and self-condemning, Alex notes:

"Complementarity involves seeking someone matching you, someone “like-opposite” you, complementary and perceived as fascinatingly other than your own sense of self."²

An examination of the Hebrew phrase "meet for" (KJV) or "suitable for" (NASB, ESV) in Genesis 2:18 reveals precisely this. The phrase "meet for" or "suitable for" in the Hebrew indicates something that is both similar yet different—like-opposite; something that was similar to Adam yet completely different from him. This is what was "suitable" for not only Adam but for every man—woman. Every animal in the animal kingdom had its suitable pair, something that was similar but different. They were of a similar makeup, being of the same species, yet they were different from each other, one being male and the other female. Like but opposite. They were not mirror images, as you find with homosexuality. Homosexuality is "like-like." There is nothing complementary about homosexuality. In creating the "suitable" helper for Adam (who is a picture of every man), God created woman. Woman is similar to Adam, being of the same species, but different from him, being a woman (with womanly parts) as opposed to a man (with manly parts), which would be a mirrored-image. This difference is key to the mandate that God gave to the two of them, which is the same mandate given to all mankind—"Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28)—regardless of recreational enjoyment derived from sex.

In God's original design, human sexual conduct was to occur within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. The first chapter of the Bible says, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Differentiation of the human race into two complementary sexes ("male and female") is the first fact mentioned in connection with being "in the image of God." In Genesis 2, which describes in more detail the process summarized in 1:27, God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18). Genesis then applies the example of Adam and Eve to all marriages: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). This "one flesh" sexual union was thus established as the pattern for marriage generally, and Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the normative pattern that God expects all marriages to follow (see Matt. 19:4-6). Furthermore Paul, as a good disciple of Jesus, likewise strongly echoes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his two primary texts on homosexual practice, Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Jesus and Paul both assume the logic of sexual intercourse implied in Genesis: a sexual bond between a man and a woman requires two (and only two) different sexual halves ("a man" and "his wife") being brought together into a sexual whole ("one flesh").⁴

Alex likes to argue that, "This is not a question of genitalia." Glaringly in error, Alex fails to realize that genitalia is a part of the whole. He is attempting, unsuccessfully, to separate one from the other. He is attempting to remove genitalia from the picture and focus on intentions, i.e., "love." I am sorry, but no matter what your intentions are or how much you "love" your sibling or relative, incest is wrong; no matter what your intentions are or how much you "love" your dog (or whatever animal), bestiality is wrong. Your intentions and your idea of "love" do not make wrong actions right. Furthermore, anyone who has ever been involved with anything remotely related to homosexuality will testify that it is all about genitalia and sex. Wrapping it up in a pretty bow and slapping the label "love" on it does not change the fact their arguments are primarily and solely based on their lustful desires to have degrading sex with one another, treating each other as if they are women (in the case of homosexual men).

Alex says that, "The complexity of the “one-flesh” phenomenon is a union that has much more to do with two persons than with two body parts," and he is yet again in error. Paul said, "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.'" (1 Cor. 6:16). Alex's argument is apparently ignorant of arranged marriages where neither person really knew each other or had love for each other, but would quite possibly later grow to love one another. The union of two becoming one has to do entirely and solely with sexual intimacy. An examination of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well will reveal this, also.

He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." John 4:16-18

Notice her response: "I have no husband." In other words, "I'm not married. I've never been married." Where am I getting that from, you ask? Let us simplify our understanding of Jesus' words to the Samaritan woman by exchanging the word "husband" for the word "apple," making it more revealing: "For you have had five apples, and the one you now have is not your apple." What does she possess? Right, an apple! A husband! Yet, not hers! "For you have had five husbands, and [the husband] you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." The apple, or husband, belonged to someone else. She was in an adulterous affair with a legitimately married man, making him her husband. He was another woman's husband. Before this adulterous affair, the man was a legitimately married man. Her affair was defiling another woman's legitimate husband.

The Greek word used for have in "the one whom you now have" is echo (εχω), and it infers possession. This same word is used for have had in "you have had five husbands." She had five husbands in the past and she has one now. Furthermore, we have the word "and," which carries on the same subject of the topic—another husband—which she possesses. She has had five husbands through sexual intimacy and the man she is now being sexually intimate with is her sixth husband.

Let us look at another passage dealing with marriage that illustrates the possession of the word have (echo, εχω) well: "For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18). The law John referred to for marriage was not civil or religious, but the law of God in the sexual intimacy of a male and female: "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.'" (1 Cor. 6:16). Sexual intimacy is not just a physical encounter. It is a permanent marital consequence. It could have been said to Herod, "She whom you have (your present wife you are married to) is not your wife." Herodias was Philip's wife. Herod and Herodias were living in a fornicated marriage.

Alex goes on to argue:

"Fact is procreation is not even mentioned as a reason why God was creating a companion for the man."²

Fact is, procreation was the mandate, or command, given to them upon creation: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Alex seems to have forgotten this, or is deliberately trying to leave it out. What Alex seems to forget is that Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of Genesis 1:26-28. Therefore, the mandate for procreation is a part of the creation process, as we see in regard to the creation of the animals who were given the same mandate. The most egregious thing that Alex writes, however, is this:

"In antigay rhetoric, however, Jesus seems to have died so that an anatomical technicality might be tweaked. ... The self-sacrificing love that “fulfills the law” and is shown within a committed same-sex marriage is beside the point."²

With glaringly clear misconception, Alex has proven demonstratively that he has no clue what Paul is talking about when he says "love is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom. 13:10). In fact, Alex has demonstrated that he has no clue what "love thy neighbour" (Matt. 23:39) actually entails. Instead, in his perversion, he attempts to utilize both as a means for approving homosexual relationships. Furthermore, there is nothing "self-sacrificing," "loving," or "committed" about same-sex relationships. First of all, it is not called marriage. Marriage was defined by God as one man and one woman for life. Second of all, homosexuals are well known for their many and fleeting sexual encounters. Third of all, it is not "loving" or "self-sacrificing" to encourage someone to embrace their sin and habitually live in it. To call a relationship "loving" in the biblical sense means it is in accordance with God's will and is fulfilling His purpose, resulting in His glory. Such is not the case concerning homosexual relationships. Alex clearly has a misconception of what it means to be self-sacrificing. Perhaps he might do well to study the life of Christ. Last of all, every individual you will ever meet is your neighbour. To "love thy neighbour" means to "treat people the same way you want them to treat you" (Matt. 7:12) and to "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil. 2:3-4). As Paul said, "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Rom. 13:10). This has nothing to do with homosexuality. Alex, in his ignorance of exegesis and how to correctly and responsibly perform it, is doing exactly like the cults do here, taking a passage and trying to force support for his position.

What Alex also fails to grasp here and understand is that Jesus died to free us from slavery to sin (Rom. 6:11-14) and to save us from our sins (Matt. 1:21; John 1:29; 1 John 3:5). God gave us the power (2 Peter 1:3-4), through the Holy Spirit, that when temptations come our way (and they will come our way), to say "No" to them instead of saying "Yes" as we always did in the past, thereby committing sin (James 1:12-15; Rom. 6, 8). It is the homosexual who is seeking to tweak what Alex considers an "anatomical technicality." There is no "technicality" about it. Wrong is still wrong. Woman was made specifically for man, and vice versa. When it states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24), it has moved from the specific—Adam—to the general—"a man"; any man, every man.

Alex then goes on to state another one of his fallacious arguments:

"The parallel between today’s debate over homosexuality and earlier debates in which the Church was eventually forced to acknowledge they had erred is striking.  We’ve already witnessed a global shift in this debate in that those few passages often quoted to claim the moral abhorrence of same sex relationships are now being reinterpreted by steadily growing numbers of evangelicals, Bible scholars and others, just as texts have been reinterpreted in the case of slavery, the ordination of women and a host of other issues."²

First, Alex makes a general assumption and then concludes that his assumption is true. Second, he bases his conclusion of his position on the "global shift" and "growing numbers" of people who now support homosexuality, employing both the “Appeal to the People Fallacy” and the “Bandwagon Fallacy,” as if the numbers make his case. He is looking for acceptance and approval from the number of people who support his position rather than from the facts and evidence, because they are against him. Third of all, he asserts that the Bible has been "reinterpreted" concerning two cases wherein it actually has not (except by liberals). Please read my articles entitled Slavery: Is It Wrong? and Women Pastors: What Does the Bible Say? if you desire to learn the truth in regard to these two issues. Once again, Alex has made assumptions without doing the actual leg-work.

GENESIS 19

Alex argues:

"Everyone is familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  At least many people think they are.  The point of the story is to condemn homosexuals and homosexual behavior, right?  Wrong.   And contrary to the belief of some, it’s not merely about a breach of the ancient sacred duty of hospitality either.  Fact is there is much to cull from the biblical text that is often missed.  Let’s take a closer look at this often misconstrued passage and I suspect you’ll see some things you did not see before."⁵

Alex, and individuals like him, tends not to hold to the pro-gay ignorance that claims the men of Sodom merely wanted to be hospitable and friendly (even though later we will address just such a statement made by Alex). However, he still continues to deny and re-interpret key biblical passages. His beliefs and interpretations are a form of "collapsing context"; he believes because "everyone is doing it" that it must be true. He concludes that because there seems to be a "global shift" taking place in this debate, that the original writers could not have possibly had homosexual practices in mind. Our external circumstances do not interpret the Bible (eisegesis); it is the Bible that must shape our external circumstances (exegesis). To deny that the Bible teaches a particular truth just because the world largely does not hold to that truth does not negate that truth or alter that truth. Whether or not there occurs a global shift in this debate is irrelevant to the truth. The practices and acceptances of men do not determine truth, morality, or reality. Those standards are set by God!

With that being said, let us examine the passage in question. 

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young (נצר) and old (זקן), all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand aside.' Furthermore, they said, 'This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.' So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door." (Genesis 19:4-9)

From the underlined words, we can see how every argument Alex makes is completely and utterly dismantled and destroyed. Regarding the theory that pederasty is in view, the phrase "both young and old" rips it to shreds. Both young men and old men—from every corner of the city—wanted to have sexual relations with the men (not boys) being sheltered by Lot. These men are told by Lot, "do not act so wickedly," to which they accuse Lot of being their judge. A little logic and common sense goes a long way. If hospitality and friendliness were in view here, how would anyone rightly call it wickedness, and why would the people accuse that person of being their judge? Furthermore, why would God destroy a city or nation for wanting to be hospitable and friendly? This theory is asinine and ludicrous. In Judges 19, these same actions are described as being foolish and vile. The fact that women were offered to these men and they declined, wanting the men instead, demonstrates powerfully the reality that they wanted to have sexual relations with the men. If it was merely about rape, they would have been happy to receive the women and rape them. Individuals who try and tell you otherwise are liars and they are bankrupt morally, mentally, spiritually, and intellectually.

19:4 the men of the city. Ever male in Sodom, both young and old, was involved in the assault on the two visitors. They had become a gang seeking an orgy of rape.
19:5 that we may know them. In Hebrew the verb "to know" (Hb. yada') sometimes denotes sexual intercourse (e.g., 4:1, 17, 25; 19:8; cf. Judg. 19:22). The context implies that the men of Sodom intend to have homosexual relations with the two visitors, hence the origin of the term "sodomy."
19:6-9 Lot's readiness to protect the two men from the mob surrounding his house is commendable. in desperation he offers his two unmarried daughters as substitutes--a shocking, cowardly, and inexcusable act (even if he intended this only as a bluff, or expected the offer to be rejected). The reaction of the crowd only confirms the truly evil nature of their intentions.⁶

Some homosexuals have even attempted to argue that the Hebrew word for "men" in Genesis 19:4 is inclusive of women: "If you look at the original Hebrew text, and even early Greek translations, the word translated into English as 'men' can be inclusive of the women as well."⁷ Therefore, they urge, the men and women of the city wanted to "gang rape" the two angels. However, this is false. The first flaw in their argument is with the Hebrew word אנושׁ (enowsh). It is not inclusive of women. It is a masculine noun meaning man. The plural of this word often serves for the plural of אישׁ (iysh), which "does not indicate humankind but the male gender in particular."⁸ The second flaw in their argument is that the word used for the "men" of the city is also the same word used when demanding Lot to bring out the "men" (v.5). If it is inclusive of women, when Lot offered his daughters, why did they not take advantage of them? The third flaw in their argument is with the Greek word ανηρ in the Septuagint. It is not inclusive of women either. This is a masculine noun meaning man or husband. As you can see, these homosexuals/homosexual advocates are lying through their teeth, trying to forge support for their perverse behaviour.

The Bible informs us that even after they were all struck with blindness, the men of the city still continued to grope for the door, wearing themselves out—exhausting themselves. Why? When you are blind, you cannot participate in gang rape because you cannot see who it is you might be raping, and these men were after Lot's guests. You would not want to rape your best friend after all. However, if you are blind, you can still engage in sexual activity. Any sane person in their right mind immediately struck with blindness would stop what they were doing because the realization that they were now blind would have kicked in. God goes so far as to inform us that even after they were blinded, these men did not stop. Homosexuals today bear the same character, attacking churches and doing things to its members that no rational human being would ever do to another human being. Homosexuality makes people irrational in their thoughts and in their behaviour.

What is even more interesting about the Genesis 19 passage in the Septuagint is the usage of the word σοδομιται in verse 4. Alex insists that there is no Greek word for "sodomites," yet, here it is; and it is plural masculine. The Greek word for Sodom is Σοδομα. Σοδομιται refers to the inhabitants of Sodom, i.e., the Sodomites. This is precisely what the word meant in biblical times. The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century A.D. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. Nevertheless, despite this word not taking on its primarily sexual meaning until later, Christians earlier than Justinian are also seen to denounce same-sex relations. Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - 50 A.D.) and Methodius of Olympus (260-312 A.D.) attributed homosexual relations to Sodom, as did St. Augustine and many others. Thus, "sodomites" refers to homosexuals.

Alex asserts:

"Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places in the Bible, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality."⁵

Contradictory to Alex's false assertions, "From Genesis, Sodom becomes an image for gross immorality in 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 7; but in such contexts as Isaiah 1 and Ezekiel 16, the Sodom symbol refers rather to all injustices, including adultery and neglect of the poor. Certainly, in terms of imagery the Bible does not have the category 'homosexuality,' but rather 'homosexual behavior' or 'homosexual acts.'"⁹ Homosexuality is the same as homosexual behaviour and/or homosexual acts.

Alex argues:

"[Nowhere] in the 26 times where Sodom is mentioned in the Bible (18 in the OT and 8 in the NT), is the sin of the Sodomites ever specified as homosexuality."⁵

First of all, apparently Alex cannot count as Sodom is mentioned 47 times in the Bible (38 in the OT and 9 in the NT: Gen. 10:19; 13:10; 13:12; 13:13; 14:2; 14:8; 14:10; 14:11; 14:12; 14:17; 14:21; 14:22; 18:16; 18:20; 18:22; 18:26; 19:1; 19:4; 19:24; 19:28; Deut. 29:23; 32:32; Isa. 1:9; 1:10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Eze. 16:46; 16:48; 16:49; 16:53; 16:55; 16:56; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15; 11:23; 11:24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12; 17:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 1:7; Rev. 11:8). Second of all, the sin of the Sodomites is specified as homosexuality in several of those passages (e.g., 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7). The problem is, Alex is committing an Exegetical Fallacy by demanding the Bible spell out in modern words—"h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y"—its condemnation of homosexuality. All any intelligent and educated reader has to do is pay attention to what Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; and Romans 1:26-27 say and they will easily conclude that the Bible is condemning homosexuality. The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." A child reading these passages would conclude that the Bible is condemning homosexuality, also. Apparently Alex is not as wise as a child.

The problem with Alex's fallacious argument is that he is attempting to tell people that prior to the term "homosexual," there existed no terms to describe homosexuals; that homosexuality is a modern thing not known in previous generations. This is false, erroneous, and a lie. The old English word used long before the word "homosexual" came into existence was the word "bugger."

Canadian Oxford Dictionary:

bugger n. slang a person who commits buggery.
buggery n. 1 anal intercourse. 2 bestiality.
sodomite n. a person who engages in sodomy.
sodomy n. anal intercourse performed between two males or a male and a female.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

¹bugger n. sodomite.
²bugger vt. to commit sodomy with.
buggery n. sodomy.
sodomite n. one who practices sodomy.
sodomy n. [the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11] 1 copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal. 2 anal copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Prior to this word being used, from the 6th century A.D. onward, homosexuals were referred to as "Sodomites," because they committed the same sin that Sodom was guilty of committing. The word "Sodomites" appears in the 3rd century B.C. translation of the Hebrew manuscripts into Greek, the Septuagint. So do not let anyone try to tell you that such a word did not exist in biblical times. They would be wrong and/or lying to you.

If we examine history, we can see several individuals commenting on Genesis 19 and referring to the sin of Sodom as that which relates to "homosexual behaviour" or "homosexual acts," which is the same as homosexuality. Here are some quotes:

"The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind." —Philo, 20 B.C. to 50 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)

"As for adultery, Moses forbade it entirely, as esteeming it a happy thing that men should be wise in the affairs of wedlock; and that it was profitable both to cities and families that children should be known to be genuine. He also abhorred men’s lying with their mothers, as one of the greatest crimes; and the like for lying with the father’s wife, and with aunts, and sisters, and sons’ wives, as all instances of abominable wickedness. He also forbade a man to lie with his wife when she was defiled by her natural purgation: and not to come near brute beasts; nor to approve of the lying with a male, which was to hunt after unlawful pleasures on account of beauty. To those who were guilty of such insolent behavior, he ordained death for their punishment." —Flavius Josephus, 37 to 100 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)

"But we do not say so of that mixture that is contrary to nature, or of any unlawful practice; for such are enmity to God. For the sin of Sodom is contrary to nature, as is also that with brute beasts. But adultery and fornication are against the law; the one whereof is impiety, the other injustice, and, in a word, no other than a great sin. But neither sort of them is without its punishment in its own proper nature. For the practicers of one sort attempt the dissolution of the world, and endeavor to make the natural course of things to change for one that is unnatural; but those of the second son — the adulterers — are unjust by corrupting others’ marriages, and dividing into two what God hath made one, rendering the children suspected, and exposing the true husband to the snares of others. And fornication is the destruction of one’s own flesh, not being made use of for the procreation of children, but entirely for the sake of pleasure, which is a mark of incontinency, and not a sign of virtue. All these things are forbidden by the laws; for thus say the oracles: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. For such a one is accursed, and ye shall stone them with stones: they have wrought abomination." —Methodius, 260 to 312 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)

"They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers, wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion." —St. Basil, 329 or 330 to 379 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)

"Can it ever, at any time or place, be unrighteous for a man to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and his neighbor as himself? Similarly, offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust." —St. Augustine, 354 to 430 A.D. (Emphasis mine.)

Even the Qu'ran, written around 632 A.D., clearly understood the sin of the Sodomites in Genesis 19 to be that of homosexuality. Surah 7:80-81 reads: "We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Surah 26:165-166 reads: "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" Surah 29:28-29 reads: "And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: 'Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?—and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?' But his people gave no answer but this: they said: 'Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth.'" Surah 11:77-79 reveals their understanding of Genesis 19: "When Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and felt himself powerless (to protect) them. He said: 'This is a distressful day.' And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: 'O my people! here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with disgrace about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?' They said: 'Well dost thou know we have no need of thy daughters: indeed thou knowest quite well what we want!'"

In an attempt to back the interpretational error of inhospitality, Alex quotes from Matthew 10:14-15. However, if Alex would do responsible exegesis instead of ripping passages from their context, as he delights in doing, he would have compared Scripture with Scripture and found that his passage has nothing to do whatsoever with hospitality or inhospitality, but with the acceptance of the Gospel, as revealed in Matthew 11:20-24, wherein Jesus uses those same words, "I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment." How do we know this? Because of what was said in the verse prior: "if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day." Sodom would have "repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." Alex demonstrates that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day than for himself and those like him who continue to embrace their sin rather than repent thereof.

Alex spins a tale of marvel when he says,

"We should also note that during biblical times men (and the kings) of conquered tribes were often raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation.  Male-to-male rape was a way for victors to accentuate the subjection of captive enemies and foes and a way of humiliating visitors and strangers.  If we miss this, we not only miss what was going on in the Sodom and Gomorrah text, we also miss the meaning behind other passages such as 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4 where Saul, gravely wounded by the Philistines, instructs his armor-bearer to:"
“Draw your sword and thrust me through with it lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me.”  (1 Chronicles 10:4)⁵

The word translated "abuse" in 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4 is the Hebrew word alal (עלל), a word appearing 20 times in the Old Testament (Ex. 10:2; Lev. 19:10; Num. 22:29; Deut. 24:21; Judges 19:25; 20:45; 1 Sam. 6:6; 31:4; 1 Chr. 10:4; Job 16:15; Ps. 141:4; Isa. 3:12; Jer. 6:9; 38:19; Lam. 1:12; 1:22; 2:20; 3:51). Of its twenty occurrences, only once does it have a sexual connotation (Judges 19:25). In every single other occurrence, including that of 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4, there is nothing sexual about it. Alex is forcing this rare interpretation of the word onto these passages, trying to forge support for his fictional tale that the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to sexually humiliate strangers and visitors. This is nothing more than homosexual propaganda based on sloppy and dishonest scholarship. No such actions ever took place in history. If they had, word would have gotten out and nobody would have traveled to such cities. Those cities would self-destruct because they would have no merchants bringing anything to them. Moreover, if such things took place, there would be accounts of it, to which there are not. The meaning of this Hebrew word is as follows:

I. A verb meaning to do, to deal with, to treat severely, to abuse; to glean. It basically means to treat harshly or deal severely with; to practice evil: to do evil deeds in general (Ps. 141:9); to do evil toward a person (Lam. 1:12, 22; 2:20; 3:51). It describes the Lord's dealings with Egypt to free the Israelites (Ex. 10:2; 1 Sam. 6:6). It is used of Balaam accusing his donkey of dealing treacherously with him (Num. 22:29). It describes the sexual abuse of a woman (Judg. 19:25).
II. A verb meaning to act childishly, to play the child. It means to behave foolishly as a child without maturity or strength. It is used of the enemies of Israel to depict the hopeless state of Israel who is oppressed by children (Isa. 3:12).
III. A verb meaning to defile. It means to make something unclean or unholy, to desecrate it. It is used figuratively of Job defiling and shaming his horn, a figurative expression of destroying his hope, character, strength (Job 16:15).
IV. A verb meaning to thrust in, to bury, to insert. It indicates striking an object into something. In context it refers to sticking a "horn," one's hope, character, strength, into the ground, that is, giving up (Job 16:15).¹⁰

If we examine this passage in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts), the word used here is empaizo (εμπαιζω), which means "to jeer at, to deride, to mock." No homosexual-dominance boogeyman here.

Alex goes on to quote from Ezekiel 16:48-50, providing us with eisegesis as to what the sins of Sodom supposedly were. Regarding the phrase "detestable things," Alex says:

"It is respectful of God’s gift to us to go after his intentions and meanings before arriving at our own.  Sure enough, we find that God, speaking though the prophet, spells out in striking “in your face” condemnation explicitly what Sodom’s abhorrent conduct entailed."⁵

Unfortunately, Alex never provides us with these so-called "in-your-face" spelled-out conduct, which, if they existed, would follow after verse 50. Instead, he back-tracks and provides us with sloppy and dishonest eisegesis on Ezekiel 16, trying to conclude, by his faulty assumptions, that the sins of Sodom are only those related to us in this chapter. He hopes to conceal the truth of what the Bible really says were the sins of Sodom. However, the Bible spells it out for us on a number of occasions. Isaiah 3:9 informs us of how Sodom made shameless proclamation of their sin (the same shameless proclamation that homosexuals demonstrate today): "The expression of their faces bears witness against them, and they display their sin like Sodom; they do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves." 2 Peter 2:6-8 also inform us as to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: "and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)" Likewise, so also does Jude 7: "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

By the statement "committed abominations before me" (Ez. 16:50), our minds should be brought to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where we find the term "abomination" used to describe homosexual behaviour. The Hebrew word translated "abominations" here is to'ebah (תועבה), the very same term used to describe homosexual activities/relationships in the Holiness Code. To'ebah properly refers to something morally disgusting. Alex attempts to dismiss this and sweep it under the rug, but the fact it is a viable correlation between the two can be seen in how 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 7 refer to the sins of Sodom as gross immorality. Proper exegesis arrives at the conclusive fact that Genesis 19 informs us of the homosexual behaviour that the Sodomites were guilty of. Alex is doing like the cults with this passage, running to unrelated passages in order to try and dismiss the truth derived from the passage itself. This should be no surprise because everyone who does not belong to God does the exact same thing.

Alex concludes by saying:

"This is not my interpretation; it is that which is given in the Bible.  You and I do not get to rip passages from their context and replace them in another age for the sake of convenience.   And we don’t get to make things up as we go along.  As always, we are stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as the primary meaning."⁵

First of all, yes, it is Alex's interpretation. His interpretation is nowhere to be found in the Bible or in history, as the evidence quoted above bears out. Second, Alex rips passages from their contexts all the time, making things up as he goes along, trying to force them to correspond with other passages. This is called "collapsing context." Third, if Alex "stuck with the internal interpretation of the text as our primary meaning," he would arrive at the simple internal interpretation that homosexual behaviour is in view here, of which the entirety of history backs up.

LEVITICUS 18 & 20

Alex says:

"In light of all the commotion over homosexuality, one would think the Bible has a lot to say on the subject.  It does not.  There are only five or six verses in the entire Bible that have been interpreted as addressing or condemning homosexuality.  These verses, often referred to as the “clobber passages”, because they are frequently used to clobber or censure gay men and women today, are verses taken out of their contexts to proof-text the Bible’s alleged anti-homosexual stance."¹¹

First of all, the Bible does have a lot to say on the subject of homosexuality. Second, there are 9 passages that deal with the perversion of homosexual behaviour (Gen. 19:4-9; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Judg. 19:22-24; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; 2 Peter 2:6-8; Jude 7)—not 5 or 6. Again, Alex demonstrates his inability to count accurately. 5 of them deal specifically with same-sex contact, but there are 9 that deal with the behaviour. Third, as demonstrated above, there are thousands of verses that uphold heterosexuality as the standard for human relationships. So, in reality, there are far more than 9 passages that deal with homosexuality, because anything that is for heterosexuality as a standard is necessarily against homosexuality. Fourth, homosexuals and homosexual advocates called these passages the "clobber passages" in an attempt to silence their opposition. Because people do not want to be known as "clobberers," they tend to back down and shut up. It is an effective strategy used by many people and groups to put their opposition in a negative light and shut down any rational discussion of the subject and the Bible. If you want to silence your opposition, name-call them. Any decent person does not want to be associated with said name-called group, or even accused of being so, so they will back down. It is sad when people fail to use logic to see false logic. Quoting Bible verses, and/or historical evidence, is not "clobbering."

Alex attempts to tell us that:

"...the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits these acts for RELIGIOUS reasons, not MORAL ones."¹¹

He claims the context of these passages has to do with religious idolatry and cult prostitution. But is this a truthful assessment of the context?  No, it is not. Let us observe the context:

First, let us address Leviticus 18. You, the intelligent and educated reader, are wise enough to know that Alex's argument is both outrageously bogus and laughably fallacious. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that uncovering the nakedness of your father or your mother (18:7), of your father's wife (18:8), of your sister (18:9), of your son's daughter (18:10), of your father's wife's daughter (18:11), of your father's sister (18:12), of your mother's sister (18:13), of your father's brother (18:14), of your daughter-in-law (18:15), of your brother's wife (18:16), or any other blood relatives (18:17) has anything to do with cult prostitution? Alex would do well to try and retain the context. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that having intimacy with a woman during her menstrual cycle (18:19) or having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20) has anything to do with cult prostitution? The only verse that has anything to do with the practices of religious idolatry is verse 21, which is borne out through the entirety of Scripture. The heathen nations would sacrifice their children to their various gods. Nothing else in this chapter has to do with idolatrous practices, nor with cult prostitution. This is Alex's reading his own ideas and concepts into Scripture, which is called eisegesis.

By what great exegetical miracle does Alex expect to convince us that having sex with animals was religious idolatry (18:23)? Quoting from the New Bible Commentary as his sole source is hardly evidence enough to back his argument. Problem is, Alex continuously quotes citations selectively or truncates his quotations of text in order to find support for his position. He quotes only that which agrees with his position, regardless of the poor scholarship behind it. Despite the hundreds of commentaries and theological works written that contradict his position, Alex quotes from the rare sources that agree with his position or say something he can twist to agree to his position. People were having sex with animals when God decided to flood the world, and they are doing it today without the slightest trace of religion attached to it. So Alex's eisegesis is without warrant, especially considering there is nothing mentioned in the passage with regard to religious fertility rights. The passage does not connect it with idolatrous practice whatsoever. It condemns it entirely, just as it does with homosexual behaviour (18:22). Honestly, Alex needs to go back to school and educate himself as to what "context" actually is. If he paid close attention to verse 21, he would notice that "nor shall you profane the name of your God" has nothing to do with practices of religious idolatry. This is the third commandment reiterated. It is not connected with the first half of verse 21. Alex would do well to be reminded that the chapter and verse divisions did not exist in the original Hebrew and Greek. He should try and remember that when considering what context truly is and what it consists of.

Second, let us address Leviticus 20. If Alex paid attention to the context, he would see that the verses speaking of the practices of religious idolatry again address only child sacrifice (20:2-5). None of the rest of this chapter has anything to do with religious idolatry. A person could try and argue that verse 6 does, but he/she would be in error. Does Alex honestly expect us to believe that cursing one's father or mother (20:9), or committing adultery with another man's wife (20:10), or lying with one's father's wife (20:11), or lying with one's daughter-in-law (20:12), or marrying a woman and her mother (20:14), or having sex with an animal (20:15-16), or discovering one's sister's nakedness (20:17), or having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle (20:18), etc., etc., etc., has anything to do with religious idolatry? Alex is reaching yet again, as all the evidence is against him. Let's observe further:

Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואת‾וכר לא תשׁכּב משׁבּבי אשׁה תוצבההוא"

In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν"

In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est."

Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

In the Hebrew, it reads: "ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכּב את‾וכר משׁבּבי אשׁה תּוצבה צשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו"

In the Greek Septuagint, it reads: "και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισιν"

In the Latin Vulgate, it reads: "qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo uterque operati sunt nefas morte moriantur sit sanguis eorum super eos."

וכר = "a male, man, mankind (as opposed to womankind)"

אישׁ = "man, male, husband"

אשׁה = "woman, female, wife"

ישׁכּב ,תשׁכּב = "a primitive root; to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose)"

משׁבּבי = "a bed; abstractly, sleep; by euphemism, carnal intercourse"

תּוצבה ,תוצבה = "properly, something disgusting (morally): detestable; abomination"

αρσενος = “male, man, husband”

γυναικος = “female, woman, wife”

κοιτην = “a bed; spoken of the marriage bed, metaphorically for marriage (Heb. 13:4)”

κοιμηθη, κοιμηθηση = “to sleep”

βδελυγμα = “that which is detestable; abomination”

Notice the word "coitu" in Latin for both verses? It means "coupling;" i.e., coitus, copulation, or sexual intercourse. In Leviticus 22:13, we also have the word "dormierit," which means "sleeps." What do you call "a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman"? What is this describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "A homosexual" or "Homosexuality." The immediate surrounding context around these verses is in regard to immoralities and vile behaviours that are extremely prohibited by God, as we have seen above, and are labeled as detestable abominations. The words, grammar, and context of these passages are as crystal clear as the sun is bright. The person who denies this is not being honest. The description in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English (as well as every other language) is that of homosexuality.

It does not say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless that is your orientation," nor does it say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless you love, support, and are committed to them." It says "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female." Period. It is an absolute prohibition against all forms of homosexual behaviour and/or activity.

18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. This prohibited all male homosexual activitiy (cf. 20:13; also note on Rom. 1:26-27). In the larger picture, such activity is utterly at odds with the creation ideal (see note on Gen. 2:23-24).¹²

Alex claims:

"...today we know more about the Bible than any previous time in history, including even in later biblical times."¹¹

This is not true. We have more information available to us today that backs up the credibility of the Bible, but biblical illiteracy (knowing what the Bible teaches and what it is all about) is at an all time high (possibly greater than that of the dark ages). Historical, archeological, and scientific findings that back the credibility of the Bible is not knowing more about the Bible. Men of history knew more about the Bible than we know today. Why? Because we are so far removed, by over 2,000 years. So, in determining what the Bible had to say and teach, it is wise for us to rely on historical commentaries and information that are closer to the times in question. This information is what Alex wants us to ignore because it condemns and destroys his position. For centuries, we have had men gifted in the knowledge and understanding of the original biblical languages, and they have provided us with works of solid interpretations of the words and grammar. This information, which has not changed for hundreds of years, is what Alex wants to attempt to tell us means something completely different.

ROMANS 1

Alex presents us with a bunch of quotes from Dr. Catherine Kroeger and B. Z. Goldberg, who are writing about pagan cultic rites (which have nothing to do with the biblical text and its context), and then asks:

"Doesn’t all this sound like what Paul had in mind in the beginning of his letter to the Romans with an attack on pagan idolatry when he wrote:"
“Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty [e.g., castration] for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)
"Doesn’t this better describe these pagan cultic rites of Paul’s day than it does the mutual love and support in the everyday domestic life of committed gay Christian couples today?"¹³

Fact is, no, it does not because that is not what Paul said nor what he was writing about. Alex is attempting the Bait and Switch Fallacy here. He is attempting to persuade his readers that so-called "mutual love and support...of committed gay...couples" (because their is no such thing as gay "Christian" couples) is somehow different from every other form of homosexuality. Homosexuality is homosexuality, regardless of the brush you choose to paint it with: A male raping another male is homosexuality; a male dominating another male sexually is homosexuality; a male prostituting himself out to other males is homosexuality; an older male having sexual relations with a younger male is homosexuality; two males who choose to be in a "committed, faithful and loving monogamous partnership" is homosexuality. Whether there is an age gap or not, whether it is for casual sex or a so-called "committed" relationship, homosexuality is homosexuality. The intentions do not change a thing. Remember, Leviticus 18:22 does not say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless that is your orientation," nor does it say, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, unless you love, support, and are committed to them." It says "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female." Period. It is an absolute prohibition against all forms of homosexual behaviour and/or activity. Likewise, so we find here, too, in regard to Romans 1:26-27.

Some homosexuals and homosexual advocates claim Paul was condemning pederasty. However, he was, in fact, condemning all forms of homosexual behaviour. Bernadette Brooten (a lesbian New Testament scholar who taught at Harvard Divinity School and currently teaches at Brandeis) wrote:

"If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty." (Emphasis mine.)¹⁴

William Hendriksen points out the same:

"It is not clear why homosexual relations between females (lesbianism) is condemned before illicit relations between males. The only explanation that has any merit, as far as I can see, is the one according to which the apostle wanted to place special emphasis on the male-with-male perversion; hence, kept the condemnation of this vice for the close of the sentence, so that he would then be able to enlarge on it, since, of the two homosexual sins it was probably the most prevalent."¹⁵

Now, there is a glaring problem with the quotes Alex provides for us and what Paul actually writes. Alex is attempting to rip Paul's words from their context and twist them to refer to pagan "sex reversal," wherein a particular sex pretends to be the other sex or hides their own sex for the sake of their pagan god. This argument of Alex's condemns each and every transvestite because that is precisely what they are doing, regardless of whether they are doing it to appease some god or not. However, you will notice that Paul does not say that "women exchanged natural sex/gender for opposite sex/gender in order to appease their god" or that "men abandoned natural sex/gender." No, Paul says they "exchanged natural use/function" and "abandoned natural use/function with women." The word translated "use/function" is chresis (χρησις), which refers to sexual intercourse as an employment or occupation of the body. So, the passage would be more accurate if rendered:

Because of this God gave them over to dishonorable passions, for even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for that which is against nature. Likewise also the males, having abandoned natural sexual intercourse of the woman, burned in their lustful desires toward one another, males with males, committing shamefully indecent acts and receiving in themselves the retribution for their perversion.

Cult prostitution is not in view here, and females were hardly well-known for engaging in same-sex perversions the way males were. It was practically unheard of. The description spells out in clear in-your-face finality the behaviour, acts, and lifestyle of homosexuality. Paul condemns both female-on-female and male-on-male behavioural engagements. To see this as a fact, let us examine the internal interpretation of the passage.

Romans 1:26-27 says, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

In the Greek, it reads: "Δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτος ο Θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες, αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας, εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους, αρσενες εν αρσεσι την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι, και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες."

θηλειαι = "female, woman"

αρσενες, αρσεσι = "male, man"

χρησιν = "employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body)"

ορεξει = "excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after: lust"

αρσενες εν αρσεσι = "men with men, i.e. homosexuals"

ασχημοσυνην = "an indecency; by implication, the pudenda: shame"

Xρησιν clearly delineates sexual intercourse. "Women [exchanging] the natural function" speaks of women abandoning natural sexual intercourse for woman-on-woman perversion. This fact can be seen from three evidences: (1) "in the same way" or "likewise", this lets us know there is a comparison taking place; (2) "natural function of the woman", this lets us know that the former was speaking of women abandoning the natural function of the man; and (3) "men with men", this lets us know that women with women is in view. It clearly states these "men abandoned the natural function" of sexual intercourse, "[burning] in their [lust] toward one another". Lust (ορεξει) is sexual desire of the mind. The fact it states αρσενες εν αρσεσι puts the nail in the coffin on the fact it is speaking of man-on-man perversion.

Now, the context is quite clear. "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them" (Rom. 1:24). Then we receive the description of how they were dishonouring their bodies amongst themselves in their lusts (Rom. 1:26-27), which ends stating the fact that they "[receive] in their own persons the due penalty of their error". The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, "If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense." The Direct Statement Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God says what He means and means what He says." What are the words saying? What are the words describing? For anyone who is honest and truthful in the least, their answer will be, "Homosexuality."

1:26-27 Not only homosexual acts but also such passions or desires are said to be dishonorable before God. Just as idolatry is unnatural (contrary to what God intended when he made human beings), so too homosexuality is contrary to nature in that it does not represent what God intended when he made men and women with physical bodies that have a "natural" way of interacting with each other and "natural" desires for each other. Paul follows the OT and Jewish tradition in seeing all homosexual relationships as sinful. The creation account in Genesis 1-2 reveals the divine paradigm for human beings, indicating that God's will is for man and woman to be joined in marriage. Consumed (or "inflamed") gives a strong image of a powerful but destructive inward desire. The sin in view is not pederasty (homosexual conduct of men with boys) but men engaging in sin with men. There is no justification here for the view that Paul condemns only abusive homosexual relationships. Due penalty could refer to the sin of homosexuality itself as the penalty for idolatry. Or, the "and" in and receiving may indicate some additional negative consequences received in themselves, that is, some form of spiritual, emotional, or physical blight. The "due" penalty refers to a penalty that is appropriate to the wrong committed.¹⁶

In his commentary on Romans 1:26-27, St. John Chrysostom (347 to 407 A.D.) wrote:

"ALL these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” …For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical." (Emphasis mine.)

Looking at one of the words translated "natural" in this passage, Alex Haiken performs what is called "collapsing context" by trying to relate the passage to Romans 11:24 merely because they share a similar word. By doing so, he makes an argument that if homosexuality is unnatural, so is our salvation:

"Notably, Paul also applied the very same Greek term “para physin” to God’s action in Romans 11:24, when God engrafted Gentiles onto the Jewish olive tree — and there “para physin” was an appreciation, not a reproach. So, if same-sex coupling is, in Paul’s terms “unnatural”, so too is your salvation."¹³

His argument is both right (unknowingly) and wrong, as we shall discover. Let us examine both passages:

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] function for that which is unnatural [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις], and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Romans 1:26-27

"For if you were cut off from what is by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [pre2596; kata/an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] branches be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:24

Alex argues:

"We know from linguistic studies that in Paul’s day the terms “natural” and “unnatural” referred simply to what was, or was not, expected."¹³

However, Alex's definition is a Linguistic Fallacy. Try and apply Alex's definition to Ephesians 2:3—"and were by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] children of wrath." Remember, Alex's definition of "nature" is "what was, or was not, expected." But is Alex's definition accurate? I submit to you that, no, it is not.

5446 phusikos, φυσικος; adjective. Natural, as established by God in nature.

5449 phusis, φυσις; anarthrous noun. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition.

φυσις is everything which by its origin or by observation of its constitution seems to be a given. To call it "given" φυσις is already to go beyond the sphere of naive description and implies a judgment on its actual constitution or true nature.¹⁷

In response to these accurate definitions, Alex writes, "We can’t do responsible exegesis by simply camping out with our Bible and a Greek dictionary."³ Why does he say this? Because Alex Haiken knows nothing of the Greek language and is intimidated when someone actually uses it correctly. As such, he turns around and says that we need to "analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible,"³ which is fine. However, as soon as you do this, Alex once again tries to deny one's accurate handling of the issue. You see, the word "phusikos" is only found three times in the New Testament. Twice in Romans 1:26-27, and once in 2 Peter 2:12. "Phusis," on the other hand, is found 14 times: Romans 1:26; 2:14; 2:27; 11:21, 24; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15; 4:8; Ephesians 2:3; James 3:7; and 2 Peter 1:4. Alex argues that the phrase παρα φυσιν means "what was, or was not, expected." If we look outside the Bible, like in the Stoics, for example, we find that "for Zeno it is παρα φυσιν to live with a woman who is legally married to another and thereby to disrupt his house."¹⁸ If Alex bothered to "analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible," he would have seen that he is once again wrong, for Gerhard Kittel deals thoroughly and extensively with the word and its use throughout a vast collection of Greek literature on pages 251 to 277 of volume 9 of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

So, dear reader, you will have to excuse Alex's ignorance and his typical assumptions and conclusions drawn from assumptions. As we have already established, Alex argues that if homosexuality is unnatural, so too is our salvation. The problem is, he does not seem to realize that there are two words translated as "natural" in Romans 1:26-27. The Greek word he is attempting to tell us appears in both passages, based on his argument, does not. The Greek word that does appear in both passages has nothing to do with what is unnatural, but with nature; natural birth or condition, natural disposition.

Alex was right about one thing (although unwittingly so), and that was that our salvation is not natural to us. It is not in accordance to our birth condition and natural disposition. We are born in sin and are deservedly heading toward hell. We do not deserve salvation.

Homosexuality is unnatural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος] because it exchanges what was established by God in nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] for that which is against [pre3844] nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις]. Notice that salvation is not unnatural [aj5446; phusikos, φυσικος], but is not our natural [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] disposition. We are by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), just as every man and woman are by nature [an,nn5449; phusis, φυσις] heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual and act out homosexual activities.

For the record, homosexuality is not something you are, it is something you do. You are a homosexual when you commit homosexuality; not the other way around. You are a murderer when you commit murder; not the other way around. You are a rapist when you commit rape; not the other way around.

Paul's point is not about idolatry—worshiping false gods—or prostitution, but about homosexual behaviour and homosexual acts. Homosexuality among women was not that prevalent, so when Paul condemns it first and then expands on it with his condemnation of homosexuality among men, you know precisely what he is describing. Alex is looking for any excuse to let him and others like him off the hook. Whatever sounds like the best argument at the time, that is what he will spew at you in order to try and make his behaviour and actions acceptable. Homosexuality, like every other sin, will never be acceptable—not in the eyes of God at least. Regardless of what public opinion is today, homosexuality is an unnatural perversion of both human and sexual nature. It is an abomination.

Once again, the penis was perfectly designed and made to enter the vagina, and the vagina was perfectly designed and made to receive the penis. Anything beyond this is not natural! Homosexuals can concoct all the emotional arguments they want in order to try and confuse people by lying to them about the truth of the issue, but in the end it will not change anything. When they stand before God on judgment day, they will, each and every one of them, be condemned for embracing and habitually practicing their sins of perversion, just like every other sinner. Only those who repented of and forsook their sins will be admitted into the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Homosexuals and homosexual advocates would do well to believe the Bible instead of trying to twist it to make room for their depraved lusts.

ROMANS 2
Alex attempts to rip Romans 2:1 out of context and apply it to Romans 1:26-27:

"Paul wants us all to know we are not to condemn each other."¹³

Romans 2 falls hot on the heels of Romans 1:28-32. Verse 32 concludes by saying, "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." Romans 2:1 then says, "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." Whenever you see the word "therefore," you need to ask, "What is it there for?" It means "as a result of everything just said." What Paul is getting at in Romans 2 is that if we condemn another person for committing a sin that we ourselves are guilty of committing, we also condemn ourselves. We see this in verse 3: "But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that  you will escape the judgment of God?" Paul is not finished though. In verse 4 he goes on to say, "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" Who is Paul talking to this entire time? The unrepentant. Observe verse 5: "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." This is the state of every sinner, including those who commit homosexuality.

Alex has it backwards when he says:

"Those Paul speaks of had refused to acknowledge and worship God and for this reason were abandoned by God to their lustful depravity."¹³

Alex would do well to read the actual words and pay attention to what is happening (i.e., the context). Romans 1:24 says, "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them." When you see the word "therefore," you need to ask, "What is it there for?" In light of everything Paul said previously, God then gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. In other words, they desired it so much that God gave them over to it. In verse 26 we read, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions." For what reason? Read the rest of verse 26 and on into verse 27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Why did God give them over to degrading passions? Because both genders had abandoned the natural use of sexual intercourse and were engaging in sexual activities with those of their same sex. Verse 25 is not a part of verses 26 and 27; it is the finality to verses 18 through 24. It ends with "Amen."

"The most important imagery for homosexual acts is the language in Romans 1 of 'exchanging' God's purposes and of God letting go. Some dishonored God by substituting idols for God; therefore, God 'gave them up' to their own lusts (Rom. 1:18-25). Others God 'gave up' to their depravities, such as envy, gossip and arrogance. Romans 1:26-27 declare that God gave over to their degrading passions both women and men who 'exchanged' natural functions for unnatural. These three image sets are examples of warning, for Romans 2:1 insists that everyone is without excuse since all practice such rebellion against God."¹⁹

Alex then attempts another fallacious, erroneous, and egregious argument:

"The Christian gay people I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and thank  Him for his grace and His gifts. How then could they have been abandoned  to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?"¹³

Alex knows no "Christian gay people" because there are none. That is equivalent to saying you know "Christian rapists" or "Christian murderers." Based on 1 Corinthians 6:11 and like passages (Rom. 11:30; 1 Cor. 12:2; Eph. 2:2; Col. 3:5-7; Titus 3:3-7), Christians were guilty of these sorts of things in the past before they were saved; but no longer. They have been renewed, which in the Greek means to be renovated. The god that homosexuals have not rejected is a god made in their image, one they can worship without guilt and condemnation (although their conscience still condemns them). What they are guilty of is idolatry, creating a god to suit their own desires. If they worshiped the God of the Bible, they would know that "everyone who name[s] the name of the Lord [must] depart from every wickedness" (2 Tim. 2:19). The Bible informs us that "The Lord knows those who are His" (v. 19), which we see clearly from Matthew 7:21-23 and other passages. Alex thinks that just because a person claims to know Jesus that that makes him/her a Christian. It does not. It does not matter if you know who Jesus is, it matters whether or not He knows you. Many people claim to know Christ Jesus but the demonstrations of their life reveal the opposite, to which they will hear those fateful words, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matt. 7:23).

In a separate article Alex writes on Romans 2, he attempts to take everything Paul says and turn it into "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" (Matt. 7:1). While this is not only contextually inaccurate, it is also a glaring ignorance used vastly by Christians and non-Christians alike. First of all, in the Greek, there are two words translated as "judge." Krino (κρινω) and anakrino (ανακρινω). Krino means "to pronounce judgment, to condemn in a legal sense." This is the word Jesus used when he said, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged." Anakrino means "to scrutinize, to question, to investigate, to discern, to determine, to examine, to judge, to search." This word is used in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15. Second of all, even in the English language the word "judge" has more than one meaning, yet people ignorantly try to tie a single definition to the word.

However, Alex fails to catch what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:

But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. [This would include homosexuals professing to be "brothers" in the faith.] For what have I to do with judging (κρινω) outsiders? Do you not judge (κρινω) those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges (κρινω). REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Christians are called to judge those inside the church who call themselves Christians but who do not bear the fruit or evidence of a genuine born-again Christian. But not only that, Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 6:2-3:

Or do you not know that the saints will judge (κρινω) the world? If the world is judged (κρινω) by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge (κρινω) angels? How much more matters of this life?

Just so people like Alex do not try and pervert this to mean something else, let us see what else Paul said: "For I...have already judged (κρινω) him who has so committed this, as though I were present" (1 Cor. 5:3). So clearly, from "analyz[ing] its use in as many different contexts as possible," there is a wrong time/way to judge/condemn and a right time/way to judge/condemn. If you are doing the same things as the one you are judging/condemning, then you are in the wrong and you self-condemn yourself. This is also the point Jesus was making.

What Paul is getting at in Romans 2 is those who condemn (krino) the sins of others while deliberately overlooking or excusing their own sins. What Paul was not getting at, which is what Alex is trying to turn into Paul's case, is those who judge (anakrino) correctly in order to judge (krino). To point out that homosexuality is a sin and those who commit it and habitually practice it are in danger of the lake of fire, is not a self-righteous condemnation. It is an accurate discernment. A person can judge (anakrino) without judging (krino), but they can also judge (anakrino) in order to judge (krino) correctly. Unfortunately, most people, including Alex, fail to grasp this simple concept.

1 CORINTHIANS 6 & 1 TIMOTHY 1: MALAKOI & ARSENOKOITAI

"We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals (αρσενοκοιταις) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Timothy 1:8-11). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (ουτε μαλακοι), nor homosexuals (ουτε αρσενοκοιται), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Figuratively, μαλακοι means "effeminate" (having feminine qualities untypical of a man), such as transvestites (men who make themselves out to be women), or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature. There are those who argue that μαλακοι means "soft" (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), but this is without warrant or justification. The former verses join μαλακοις to the word ιματιοις (clothing) in order to modify it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the phrase appears as ουτε μαλακοι. The word μαλακοι is not joined to any other word, which is what would be required in order to translate it as "soft." The question would arise, "Soft what?" Ergo, we must translate it according to its other meanings:

1. soft, soft to the touch
2. metaph. in a bad sense
1. effeminate
1. of a catamite
2. of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3. of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4. of a male prostitute

The compound Greek word αρσενοκοιται comes from its root or stem words, αρσεν (a male) and κοιτε (a bed), and means "a male bed partner" or "a man who lies in bed with another male—a homosexual, a Sodomite, one who defiles himself with men". Alex, borrowing an argument from Dale Martin, argues that we cannot translate αρσενοκοιται based upon the combined meanings of its root words because "the English word ‘understand’ has nothing to do with either standing or being under."³ He also provides other words such as “butterfly” or "honeymoon" or “mandate” in an attempt to provide false proof to his Linguistic and Etymological Fallacy. This argument is the height of ignorance concerning English language, grammar, and structure. This argument is illogical and lacks any common sense or knowledge of linguistics. In the English language, its compound words largely have nothing to do with their individual root words. However, for words taken directly from other languages, such as amuse, agnostic, atheist, amillennial, etc., they do. "A" is a negative prefix, meaning "no, not, or without." "Muse" means "to think." Ergo, "a-muse" means "not to think," although in our day and age it is used ignorantly and incorrectly as a positive term meaning "funny or entertaining." Amusements clearly involve the lack of active thought. So if fun and entertainment is "amusing," it is without thought. Hence why the television is referred to as an "idiot box."

Homosexuals and homosexual advocates choose these words because they lend support to their Straw Man Fallacy arguments. However, what about the hundreds of other English words they deliberately ignore that contradict their argument?

circumnavigate = circum (around) + navigate
acrophobia = acro (high) + phobia (fear)
egomaniac = ego (I, self) + maniac
egocentric = ego (I, self) + centric
biology = bio (life) + logos (study, word)
biography = bio (life) + graph (write, record)
biohazard = bio (life) + hazard
agnostic = a (no, not, without) + gnostic (knowledge)
atheist = a (no, not, without) + theist (god)
amillennial = a (no, not, without) + millenial (thousand years)
amuse = a (no, not, without) + muse (to think)
anti_____ = anti (against) + whatever word you want to insert
neo_____ = neo (new) + whatever word you want to insert
theocracy = theo (God) + cracy (rule)
geography = geo (earth) + graphy (write, record)
geology = geo (earth) + logos (study, word)
telephone = tele (distance) + phone

Some others are bicycle, microscope, telescope, asymmetrical, etc.

Alex is trying to convince us of his perverse beliefs by use of fallacious arguments. His first error I have just exposed above. His second error is in attempting to force English grammar and structure upon the grammar and structure of other languages. Regarding the majority of other languages around the world, their compound words do have something to do with their individual root words. Latin, French, Italian, and Spanish quite frequently have compound words that mean precisely and exactly the combination of their individual root words. The same is true of Greek, as noted:

paralambano = para (near) + lambano (to receive) = to receive near
paiderastia = pais (boy) + erastos (lover) = lover of boys (adolescence)
aperchomai = apo (off) + erchomai (to go) = to go off (depart)
suneiserchomai = sun (with, together) + eiserchomai (to enter into) = to enter in company with
eiserchomai = eis (to, into) erchomai (to go) = to go into, to enter into

The Greek word παραλαμβνω means "to receive near." Its root words are παρα (near) and λαμβνω (to take, obtain, receive). Ergo, when the root words are combined, the compound word means "to receive near." This can be demonstrated with hundreds more Greek compound words. Aρσενοκοιται is no different. It means:

1. one who lies with a male as with a female (male bed partners), bugger, sodomite, homosexual

Some have said, "Aρσενοκοιται has been understood as referring to male-male sexual activity for a long time. 'Homosexual' is a (perhaps unhelpful) attempt to render that in contemporary English." How do you figure? Homosexuality, by definition, is "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex." A homosexual, by definition, is "someone who is sexually attracted to (or sexually active with) people of their own sex." Male-male sexual activity is homosexuality. Furthermore, here is what αρσενοκοιται means according to Greek dictionaries:

• ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoítēs; gen. arsenokoítou, masc. noun, from ársēn (730), a male, and koítē (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1　Cor. 6:9; 1　Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27]). (The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament)
• 88.280 ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου m: a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι … οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται … βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν ‘don’t you know that … no adulterers or homosexuals … will receive the kingdom of God’ 1 Cor 6:9–10. It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακόςb, the passive male partner (88.281). (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
• ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), ου (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc.; ≡ Str 733—LN 88.280 male homosexual, one who takes the active male role in homosexual intercourse (1Co 6:9), specifically interpreted as male homosexual paedophilia (nab footnote); possibly a more generic term in first Timothy; sodomites (rsv, nrsv, nkjv), perverts (niv, neb, reb), practicing homosexuals (nab), homosexual (njb), (1Ti 1:10+), note: translations possibly use certain specific terms to infer or allow certain theologies.  (Dictionary of Biblical Languages)
• ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament)

The most pathetic argument I have ever heard in this debate is the claim that all these verses are prohibiting heterosexual men from engaging in homosexual activities. Whoa! Let's stop and think for a moment here. That argument is completely and utterly illogical, lacking all common sense. A heterosexual male engaging in homosexual activity, thereby committing homosexuality, is, by definition, a homosexual. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are either male or female. There are only two genders of humanity: male and female. "Heterosexual" and "homosexual" are adjectives; they describe the character and behaviour of the individual. They only become nouns when the adjective is habitually true of the individual's life practices. Hence, you are born a heterosexual, at some point choose to be a homosexual (whether or not you remember having made that choice is irrelevant; you still made it), and, when you are either saved by the Lord Jesus or your conscience and common sense kick in, revert to a heterosexual once more. How about we throw out these terms, meant to obscure reality and truth, and deal with the words and descriptions contained therein.

Alex, and other homosexuals, attempt to argue that, "The word 'homosexual' did not appear in any translation of the Christian Bible until 1946."³ "But, we have to acknowledge that you don't translate a word from Hebrew and Greek into the English if there is no English equivalent.  So, using the term "homosexual" in the English Bible could not have occurred until after the word had entered the English vocabulary."²⁰ Regardless of when this word came into existence, it does not negate the fact that every translation, past or present, describes or directly names homosexuality. See my comparison of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 from a wide variety of translations (10 English translations, a Latin translation, 5 German translations, 5 Spanish translations, 3 French translations, and 2 Russian translations) for this fact:

THE WYCLIFF BIBLE (1380):
Whether ye witen not, that wickid men schulen not welde the kyngdom of God? Nyle ye erre; nethir letchours, nether men that seruen mawmetis, nether auouteris, nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God.
MODERN ENGLISH:
Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men, neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.

Letchery: offensive sexual desire; lustfulness

THE TYNDALE BIBLE (1530):
Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde, nether theves nether the coveteous nether dronkardes nether cursed speakers nether pillers shall inheret the kyngdome of God.

THE MATTHEWS BIBLE (1537):
Do ye not remember how that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived. For neither fornicators, neither worshippers of images, neither whoremongers, neither weaklings, neither abusers of themselves with mankind, neither thieves, neither the covetous, neither drunkards, neither cursed speakers, neither pillers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GENEVA BIBLE (1560):
Knowe ye not that the vnrighteous shal not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: nether fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor watons, nor bouggerers, nor theues, nor couetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extorcioners, shal inherite the kingdome of God.

GENEVA BIBLE (1599):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor (♣) wantons, nor (♠) buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(♣) Immoral or unchaste, lewd.
(♠) Someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male.)

KJV (1611):
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NASB (1971):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor [the] covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NIV (1978):
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NKJV (1979):
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

ESV (2001):
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (*), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(*) The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

LATIN BIBLE (VULGATE):
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt
TRANSLATION:
Do ye not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God is not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor liers with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

GERMAN BIBLE (Luther 1534):
Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die Lästerer noch die Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Let not seduce you! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers [of themselves with mankind], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor are revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 1951):
Wisset ihr denn nicht, daß Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Irret euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (Schlachter 2000):
Wisst ihr denn nicht, dass Ungerechte das Reich Gottes nicht erben werden? Irrt euch nicht: Weder Unzüchtige noch Götzendiener, weder Ehebrecher noch Weichlinge, noch Knabenschänder, weder Diebe noch Habsüchtige, noch Trunkenbolde, noch Lästerer, noch Räuber werden das Reich Gottes erben.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God is not to be? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

GERMAN BIBLE (NGU):
Muss ich euch daran erinnern, dass die, die Unrecht tun, keinen Anteil am Reich Gottes bekommen werden, dem Erbe, das Gott für uns bereithält? Macht euch nichts vor: Keiner, der ein unmoralisches Leben führt, Götzen anbetet, die Ehe bricht, homosexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, stiehlt, geldgierig ist, trinkt, Verleumdungen verbreitet oder andere beraubt, wird an Gottes Reich teilhaben.
TRANSLATION:
Must I remind you that those who do wrong, no share in the kingdom of God will receive, the inheritance that God has for us? Never mind before: No one who leads an immoral life, idol worship, adultery, arrives homosexual relationships, stealing, being greedy, drinking, or other spreads slander is robbed, participate in God's kingdom.

GERMAN BIBLE (HOF):
Habt ihr vergessen, dass für Menschen, die Unrecht tun, in Gottes neuer Welt kein Platz sein wird? Täuscht euch nicht: Wer verbotene sexuelle Beziehungen eingeht, andere Götter anbetet, die Ehe bricht, wer sich von seinen Begierden treiben lässt und homosexuell verkehrt, wird nicht in Gottes neue Welt kommen; auch kein Dieb, kein Ausbeuter, kein Trinker, kein Gotteslästerer oder Räuber.
TRANSLATION:
Did you forget that for people who do wrong will be no place in God's new world? Do not be deceived: those who take illicit sexual relationships, worshiping other gods, adultery, who can be driven by his desires and perverted homosexual will not come into God's new world, nor a thief, not a sweatshop, not a drinker, not a blasphemer or robbers.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1960):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No erréis; ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVR 1995):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No os engañéis: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los homosexuales, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVA):
¿No sabéis que los injustos no poseerán el reino de Dios? No erréis, que ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se echan con varones, Ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los maldicientes, ni los robadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (RVC):
¿Acaso no saben que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios? No se equivoquen: ni los fornicarios, ni los idólatras, ni los adúlteros, ni los afeminados, ni los que se acuestan con hombres, ni los ladrones, ni los avaros, ni los borrachos, ni los malhablados, ni los estafadores, heredarán el reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor those who lie with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor foul-mouthed, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

SPANISH BIBLE (Traducción en lenguaje actual):
No se dejen engañar. Ustedes bien saben que los que hacen lo malo no participarán en el reino de Dios. Me refiero a los que tienen relaciones sexuales prohibidas, a los que adoran a los ídolos, a los que son infieles en el matrimonio, a los afeminados, a los hombres que tienen relaciones sexuales con otros hombres, a los ladrones, a los que siempre quieren más de lo que tienen, a los borrachos, a los que hablan mal de los demás, y a los tramposos. Ninguno de ellos participará del reino de Dios.
TRANSLATION:
Do not be fooled. You well know that wrongdoers will not participate in the kingdom of God. I mean those who have sex prohibited, those who worship idols, who are unfaithful in marriage, to effeminate, to men who have sex with men, to thieves, who always want more than they have, to drunkards, to those who speak ill of others, and to cheats. Neither of them will participate in the kingdom of God.

FRENCH BIBLE (LOUIS SEGOND):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront point le royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni les impudiques, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les efféminés, ni les infâmes, ni les voleurs, ni les cupides, ni les ivrognes, ni les outrageux, ni les ravisseurs, n'hériteront le royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

FRENCH BIBLE (La Bible du Semeur):
Ne savez-vous pas que ceux qui pratiquent l'injustice n'auront aucune part au *royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: il n'y aura point de part dans l'héritage de ce royaume pour les débauchés, les idolâtres, les adultères, les pervers ou les homosexuels, ni pour les voleurs, les avares, pas plus que pour les ivrognes, les calomniateurs ou les malhonnêtes.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that those who practice injustice will have no part in the kingdom of God? Make no mistake: there will be no share in the inheritance of the kingdom for fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, perverts or homosexuals, nor thieves, covetous, nor for drunkards, slanderers or dishonest.

FRENCH BIBLE (SEGOND 21):
Ne savez-vous pas que les injustes n'hériteront pas du royaume de Dieu? Ne vous y trompez pas: ni ceux qui vivent dans l’immoralité sexuelle, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les travestis, ni les homosexuels, ni les voleurs, ni les hommes toujours désireux de posséder plus, ni les ivrognes, ni les calomniateurs, ni les exploiteurs n'hériteront du royaume de Dieu.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither those who live in sexual immorality, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor transvestites, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the men still want to have more, nor drunkards, nor slanderers nor exploiters will not inherit the kingdom of God.

RUSSIAN BIBLE:
Или не знаете, что неправедные Царства Божия не наследуют? Не обманывайтесь: ни блудники, ни идолослужители, ни прелюбодеи, ни малакии, ни мужеложники, ни воры, ни лихоимцы, ни пьяницы, ни злоречивые, ни хищники--Царства Божия не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners - inherit the kingdom of God.

RUSSIAN BIBLE (SZ):
Разве вы не знаете, что неправедные не наследуют Царства Божьего? Смотрите, чтобы вам не обмануться. Никакие развратники, никакие идолопоклонники, нарушители супружеской верности, пассивные и активные гомосексуалисты-мужчины, воры, корыстолюбцы или пьяницы, клеветники или мошенники Царства Божьего не наследуют.
TRANSLATION:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? See that you are not deceived. No sexually immoral, idolaters, no, adulterers, passive and active homosexual men, thieves, drunkards, or covetous, slanderers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Alex attempts to argue that there is no immediate context with which to interpret μαλακοι and αρσενοκοιται correctly. Alex is dishonest and lacking any formal knowledge regarding context. When you read the words "You shall not murder," the context is crystal clear. It exists within those words. The specific context of each commandment is different from each of the other commandments. The general context, which is the inclusion of all ten commandments, is different from the individual contexts of each commandment. The book of Proverbs is largely a collection of verses that tend not to be related to the preceding or succeeding verses. The context of each of these lone verses is found within itself. So to say that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 contains no context with which to interpret the words correctly is simply being dishonest and self-deceived.

These words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are defining characteristics of habitually practiced sin in one's life. These words not only describe your actions, but they define who you are. One is known to be such a person. Verse 11 states clearly, "Such were some of you." When Jesus saved them from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and the Holy Spirit regenerated them, they were new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17) who had put off the former lifestyles of their old man (Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9). They had repented of and forsaken their previous sins (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Rom. 8:13; 2 Tim. 2:19c) and would now live in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The context is quite clear, when one is being honest and truthful.

It has been argued that it is not homosexuality that is in view in all these passages, but pederasty. This argument lacks any common sense and/or intelligent thought. Pederasty is sexual activity (esp. anal intercourse) involving a man and a boy. Mαλακοι could be interpreted as "catamite," a boy kept for homosexual practices. Aρσενοκοιται could be interpreted as "sodomite," a man who commits lechery with men, a man who abuses himself with men, a man who defiles himself with men. By arguing that pederasty is in view, homosexuals are completely (and ignorantly) undermining their own stance. Pederasty is a form of homosexuality. It has no affiliation to pedophilia. No matter how you try and dice it, these two words describe the active and passive roles within homosexuality. Interestingly enough, "peder", which is a Croatian word, means "gay, queer, homosexual".

To return once more to the structure of Greek compound words, I bring your attention to the Greek paederastia. Its root words are παις (boy) and εραστης (lover). When combined, the compound word means "lover of boys". Here again is an example that flies in the face of the weak argument based on English compound words such as "understand," "butterfly," "honeymoon," "mandate," etc. The English language is not the Greek language, and vice versa. You cannot apply the rules for English grammar to other languages. This is the height of linguistic ignorance.

"Similarly, when Paul uses the image of not inheriting the kingdom of God to describe ten kinds of 'unrighteous' people (1 Cor 6:9-10), he includes malakoi (the 'soft' or passive participants in homosexual acts) and arsenokoitai (the active instigators—a graphic term for 'those who perform male coitus') as well as thieves, drunkards and the covetous. Likewise, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 adds arsenokoitai to liars and perjurers in listing more than a dozen 'rebellious' types for whom the law is made. This image insists that everyone needs the law (for we all rebel against God) and drives us to the gospel announced in 1 Timothy 1:9-11."²¹

CONCLUSION

Alex continues to argue stubbornly that individuals like myself have "exegetically unsupportable"¹³ arguments, despite the evidence to the contrary. Alex likes to throw the word "exegetical" around in order to attempt to intimidate those less intellectual than himself. However, such ploys do not work on those who are more intellectual than himself. He attempts to throw around all the typical homosexual jargon in attempts to intimidate and dissuade his opponents from further discussion on the issue. Those who know their stuff and do their research will not be so easily dissuaded. Despite his many defeats in the arena on this issue, Alex continues to argue in stubborn persistence. This is due in large part to his Jewish background. A study throughout Scripture will reveal how frequently Jews are referred to as "stiff-necked" and "stubborn," and an examination of history will reveal the same truths. To this day, except where Jesus intervenes and changes their hearts, Jews are still as stubborn as they were back then. It will take a miracle for Alex's stubbornness to dissolve, but that is nothing God cannot accomplish through prayer and concern for Alex's soul (and those like him).

Rather than do the leg work himself and actually be responsible in his research, Alex's arguments rely on the unscholarly works of such homosexual and homosexual supporting authors as John Boswell, Jack Rogers, Dale Martin, and Justin R. Cannon (to name a few). These men have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Alex argues:

"We know this however, that the imprintation of the consciousness, the establishment of the orientation occurs so early in the life of the individual that the individual never remembers having made a choice."³

First of all, this is a bold-faced lie. It attempts to ignore those who, for tens of years, were appalled by homosexuality and even spoke out against it only to turn around and divorce their husbands/wives and leave their children and claim they were now homosexual. Second of all, even if such a thing happened early in the life of an individual, the fact remains that they made that choice—whether or not they remember having done so.
 Alex also argues:

"We don’t choose our sexual orientation. We discover our sexual orientation."³

In other words, transvestites, who are born as either men or women, somehow "discover" that they are really the opposite sex (when they really are not—you are the gender you were born, even if you are mentally confused and in need of desperate help). There are only two genders: male or female. God did not make a mistake. Also, according to Alex's argument, that would mean that certain individuals "discover" that they are incestuous; certain individuals "discover" that they are pedophiles; certain individuals "discover" that they are into bestiality; certain individuals "discover" that they are into necrophilia; and certain individuals "discover" that they are rapists. Those would all be labeled as their "sexual orientation." That this is indeed the case, observe:

"Using the same tactics used by 'gay' rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals." (Northern Colorado Gazette: Pedophiles Want Same Rights As Homosexuals)

If you argue the case for one sexually deviant perversion, you necessarily have to argue the same case for all sexually deviant perversions. Inevitably you will hear people argue, "Why can't I marry my dog? We love each other. We're committed to each other. We should be allowed to have sex together. We're not hurting anybody. How can our love be wrong?" Likewise, rapists will argue, "I can't help myself. I was born this way." What we are seeing in our day and age is a complete overhaul of morality for immoral behaviours and mental disorders. Rather than do their job and treat these people correctly, so-called "psychologists" are making excuses for these people and leaving them in their mental disorders while claiming they are as "normal" as the rest of us. This is not the case. These people has issues and these issues need to be dealt with correctly.

Orientation has to do with direction, which can be changed: “a change of position, alignment, thought, inclination, or interest.” Homosexuals think “orientation” or sexuality is where their identity is and how they identify themselves. Their first problem is the fact they have a false definition for identity.

IDENTITY: Sameness, as distinguished from similitude and diversity (1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language). 2. identification or the result of it (mistaken identity; identity card); 3. the state of being the same in substance, nature, qualities, etc.; absolute sameness (Oxford Canadian Dictionary).
IDENTIFICATION: The act of making or proving to be the same (1828 Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language).

Similitude has to do with similarity, whereas diversity has to do with difference. Identity is not individuality (contrary to some additions of false definitions to modern dictionaries). Individuality and diversity are what set you apart from everyone else. Personality, character, skills, abilities have nothing to do with a person’s identity. They do not identify you. If you walk into some place and they ask who you are, telling them you are gay will not identify you; showing them a piece of your artwork will not identify you; demonstrating how fast you can run the 100m will not identify you. Your license or passport will because it proves your “sameness;” that you are the same as who you claim to be. Your identity is not found in your sexuality, which is what homosexuals attempt to do. Homosexuality is a sin—not a mark of identification. Homosexuals attempt to say that they do not know who they are and that they are nobody apart from their homosexual tendencies. That is the height of stupidity. If you have amnesia, being homosexual is not going to answer the question, “Who am I?”

"The ESV Study Bible was created by a team of 95 outstanding evangelical Bible scholars and teachers. They were chosen, first, because of their deep commitment to the truth, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word; and, second, because of their expertise in teaching and understanding the Bible. The team of contributors comes from 9 countries, representing nearly 20 denominations and more than 50 seminaries, colleges, and universities."²² Here is what the ESV Study Bible has to say in regard to homosexuality:

God's Original Design
In God's original design, human sexual conduct was to occur within the context of marriage between one man and one woman. The first chapter of the Bible says, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Differentiation of the human race into two complementary sexes ("male and female") is the first fact mentioned in connection with being "in the image of God." In Genesis 2, which describes in more detail the process summarized in 1:27, God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" (Gen. 2:18). Genesis then applies the example of Adam and Eve to all marriages: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). This "one flesh" sexual union was thus established as the pattern for marriage generally, and Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the normative pattern that God expects all marriages to follow (see Matt. 19:4-6). Furthermore Paul, as a good disciple of Jesus, likewise strongly echoes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his two primary texts on homosexual practice, Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Jesus and Paul both assume the logic of sexual intercourse implied in Genesis: a sexual bond between a man and a woman requires two (and only two) different sexual halves ("a man" and "his wife") being brought together into a sexual whole ("one flesh").
This is further emphasized in the story of the creation of Eve from Adam's side:

And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 2:22-24).

The word "therefore" connects the making of Eve from a part of Adam's body with the "one flesh" sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage: it is the reunion of the two constituent parts of a sexual whole. It is not another man who is the missing part or sexual complement of a man, but rather a woman. (Jesus emphasizes this connection between the two different sexes, "male and female," in Matt. 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8.)

Prohibited Sexual Relations
Consistent with the pattern in Genesis 1-2, sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relationship between one man and one woman is prohibited. For example, "You shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14; reaffirmed by Jesus in Matt. 19:18; cf. Rom. 13:9; James 2:11). In addition, other specific kinds of sexual intercourse outside of marriage are also prohibited, such as prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15-18), incest (Lev. 20:11-21; 1 Cor. 5:1-2), and bestiality (Lev. 18:23; 20:15-16).
Homosexual conduct is also viewed as a sin (something contrary to God's will) in several passages of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Hb. to'ebah, action that are extremely displeasing to God]." Similarly, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Lev. 20:13; cf. Genesis 19; also Jude 7). These absolute Levitical prohibitions are grouped with other relevant sex proscriptions (incest, adultery, bestiality) and are considered first-tier sexual offenses that are grouped together in Leviticus 20:10-16.
In the NT, Paul speaks of homosexual conduct:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:26-27).

The phrase "contrary to nature" means that homosexual conduct does not represent what God intended when he made men and women with physical bodies that have a "natural" way of interacting with each other and "natural" desires for each other. (See not on Rom. 1:26-27; cf. also Rom. 1:19-20, that the truth about God and his moral law is visible and apparent in the material creation.) Homosexual desires are "dishonorable" both because they are contrary to God's purpose and because they treat a person's biological sex as only half of what it is. While the logic of a heterosexual bond is that of bringing together the two (and only two) different and complementary sexual halves into a sexual whole, the logic of a homosexual bond is that another person of the same sex complements, and fills what is lacking in, that same sex, implying that each participant is only half of his or her own sex: two half males making a full male or two half females making a full female. In other words, the logic of sexual intercourse requires a sexual complement, and thus a same-sex bond is a self-devaluing of one's own gender inasmuch as one sees the need to complement structurally one's own sex with someone of the same sex.
In a long list of sins, Paul also includes "men who practice homosexuality" (1 Cor. 6:9). This phrase translates two different Greek terms: Malakos means "soft" or "effeminate" and was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to refer to the "passive" partner in homosexual acts, while arsenokoites is a combination of Gk. arsen (meaning "man") and koite (here meaning "sexual intercourse"). The term arsenokoites was apparently coined by Paul from the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 20:13, and means (in plural) "men who have intercourse with men." In 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the same word arsenokoites in the midst of vices derived from "the law" (here, the second half of the Ten Commandments), which means that this verse also should be interpreted as an absolute prohibition of male-with-male intercourse, in keeping with Leviticus 18:2; 20:13. Early Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and early Christian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, also show that these verses were understood as absolute prohibitions against all types of homosexual conduct.
Does the Bible address the question of homosexual attitudes and desires? It must be remembered that God ultimately requires moral perfection, not only in human actions but also in attitudes of the heart. Therefore the Bible prohibits not only adultery but also a desire for adultery (Ex. 20:17; cf. Matt. 5:28), not only theft but also coveting (Ex. 20:17). This is because "the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore Scripture teaches that any desire to break God's commandments is also viewed as wrong in God's sight. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8). While an impulse to do what God expressly forbids is (by definition) an impulse contrary to God's will, the Bible recognizes that Christians will be "tempted" by their "own desire" (James 1:14) and encourages Christians in such circumstances to "remain steadfast" (James 1:12) and to "be doers of the word" (James 1:22). This implies not actively entertaining the wrongful impulse (cf. Matt. 5:28), and not dwelling on it so that it "gives birth to sin" (James 1:15).
It is not surprising, therefore, that not only homosexual conduct but also homosexual desires are viewed as contrary to God's will. Homosexual desires are viewed as "dishonorable passions" (Rom. 1:26), and Paul also says that homosexual partners are "consumed with passion for one another" (Rom. 1:27), giving a strong image of a powerful but destructive inward craving.
This is not to say that homosexual desire is as harmful as homosexual conduct. Thought all sin is wrong and brings legal guilt before God (cf. James 2:10-11), a distinction between wrongful desires and wrongful actions can be made with regard to many areas of life. Hatred of another person is wrong in God's sight, but murdering the person is far more harmful. Coveting a neighbor's farm animals is wrong, but actually stealing them is much more harmful. And lustful desires for adultery are wrong, but actually committing adultery is far more harmful. Similarly, homosexual desires are wrong in God's sight, but actually committing homosexual acts is far more harmful.

The Bible's Solution regarding Homosexuality
As with every other sin, the Bible's solution to homosexuality is trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of sin, the imputation of righteousness, and the power to change. After talking about the "sexually immoral" and "adulterers" and "men who practice homosexuality" and "thieves" and "drunkards" (1 Cor. 6;9-10), Paul tells the Corinthians Christians, "And such were some of you" (1 Cor. 6:11). Then he tells them, "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. Rom. 6:23; Phil. 2:13; 1 John 1:9). This implies that some former homosexuals in the church at Corinth had left their previous homosexual lifestyle and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, were seeking to live lives of sexual purity, whether in celibacy or in faithful, heterosexual marriages.
It is important that the Christian community always show love and compassion toward those engaged in homosexual conduct, and also extend friendship toward them where opportunities arise, though not in a way that signals approval of homosexual practice. It is also important to extend hope for change, since many homosexuals will say that they long to establish a different pattern of life. However, a number of studies have concluded that long-term change from a homosexual lifestyle seldom occurs without a program of help and encouragement from others.

Objections
Numerous objections have been presented against the view that homosexuality is morally wrong. One objection is that some people are "born gay," that is, that many homosexuals do not choose their homosexual orientation but it is part of their genetic makeup from birth, and so homosexuals can never change, and for them homosexual behavior cannot be wrong. But, as noted above, Paul, in talking about "men who practice homosexuality" (1 Cor. 6:9), says to the Corinthians church, "And such were some of you" (1 Cor. 6:11), indicating that homosexual scan change and become former homosexuals. This does not mean that homosexual desires will automatically or necessarily be eradicated for those who come to Christ. Becoming a Christian does not mean that people will no longer experience intense sinful urges (sexual or otherwise). But genuine faith does produce the fruit of obedience and real, substantive change, and Paul indicates that this is precisely what happened with some who had practiced homosexuality in Corinth.
Some argue that science supports the argument that homosexuality is determined by one's biological makeup from before the time of birth. Studies have in fact shown some indirect, congenital influences on homosexual development that may increase the likelihood of homosexual development. But there are certain hereditary factors that give people a greater likelihood of developing all sorts of different sinful behavior patterns (such as frequent wrongful anger, violence, adultery, alcoholism, and so forth), and it would not be surprising to find that some people, from certain hereditary backgrounds, have a greater likelihood of developing homosexual desires and conduct. But this is far different from proving congenital determinism of homosexuality, that is, that some people are genetically incapable of making any other choice than to entertain homosexual desires and engage in homosexual conduct. Especially significant are studies of identical twins , where one has become a homosexual and the other has not, even though they have identical genetic makeup.
The moral teachings of God's Word, not people's inward desires, must be the final standard of right and wrong. it is important to recognize that (1) virtually all behavior is at some level, biologically influenced, and that (2) no command of God is predicated for its validity on humans first losing all desire to violate the command in question.
As for environmental factors that have been shown to increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior, two of the most significant, particularly for male homosexuals, are the physical or emotional absence of a caring father during childhood years, and sexual abuse sometime during childhood or adolescence.
Another objection is to say that the biblical passages concerning homosexuality only prohibit certain kinds of homosexual conduct, such a homosexual prostitution or pedophilia, or unfaithful homosexual relationships. (This is sometimes called the "exploitation argument": the Bible only prohibits exploitative forms of homosexuality.) But there is no legitimate evidence in the words of any of these verses, or their contexts, or in evidence from the ancient world, to prove that the verses were referring to anything less than all kinds of homosexual conduct by all kinds of people. Two biblical counterarguments against the "exploitation argument" may be briefly mentioned: (1) In Romans 1:23-27 Paul clearly echoes Genesis 1:27, indicating that Paul viewed any sexual relationship that did not conform to the creation paradigm of "male and female" to be a violation of God's will, irrespective of whether the relationship is loving. (2) Paul's absolute indictment against all forms of homosexuality is underscored by his mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26, since this form of intercourse in the ancient world was not typically characterized by sex with adolescents, slaves, or prostitutes.
Some have suggested that the Sodom and Gomorrah episode does not point to judgment on homosexual practice, but relates only to coercive homosexual practice. But Genesis 19:4-5 indicates that homosexual conduct was characteristic of the entire city and was a primary reason for God's judgment (cf. the not on Jude 7).
Some object that the phrase "contrary to nature" in Romans 1:26-27 shows that Paul is only talking about people who "naturally" feel desires toward a person of the opposite sex but who then practice homosexuality. Paul says, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another" (Rom. 1:26-27). According to this view, Paul is not saying anything about people who "naturally" feel desires for a person of the same sex, for such desires would not be "contrary to that person's nature." However, this is reading into the text a restriction that has no basis in the actual words that Paul wrote. He does not say "contrary to their nature," but "contrary to nature" (Gk. para physin), a phrase that is used several times in literature outside the Bible to speak of all kinds of homosexual conduct as something contrary to the natural order of the world. In other words, Paul is not saying in Romans 1:24-27 that some people switched their innate heterosexual urges for contrived homosexual urges, but rather that people exchanged or left behind sexual relations with a true sexual complement (someone of the other sex) to gratify their inward urges for sex with members of the same sex. Paul sees such people as choosing to follow their desires over God-ordained creation structures.
Finally, there is an objection from experience: some homosexual "couples" have faithful, fulfilling relationships, so why should these be thought immoral? But experience should not be used as a higher standard for moral right and wrong than the teaching of the Bible. In addition, many studies indicate that, particularly among male homosexuals, long-term one-partner relationships are uncommon, and the widespread pattern is many sexual partners, often numbering many hundreds over the years. An additional harmful result of homosexual conduct is often immense damage to the family structures of a society and also to physical health (e.g., various studies have shown a significant reduction in life expectancy for homosexual males compared to the general population).

Same-sex Marriage?
Proposals for governments to recognize "same-sex marriage" should be evaluated in light of the Bible's teaching that one role of civil government is to "praise those who do good" (1 Pet. 2:14). Government recognition of a relationship as a "marriage" carries with it the endorsement and encouragement of that relationship by a society. Married couples enjoy many protections and benefits (legal, financial, and interpersonal) that society has granted in order to encourage marriage and signal that the institution of marriage brings benefits to society as a whole. So the question is really whether a society, through its laws, should give approval and encouragement to homosexual relationships that both the Bible and most cultures throughout history have considered to be morally wrong rather than "good," and that also bring significant harmful consequences. Governmental recognition of "same-sex marriage" would imply a requirement to allow homosexual couples to adopt and raise children, and this would rob many children of the opportunity to be raised in a home with both a father and a mother, which is by far the best environment for them. In addition, governmental recognition would likely soon carry with it governmental prohibitions against criticizing homosexual conduct.

Conclusion
Homosexual conduct of all kinds is consistently viewed as sin in the Bible, and recent reinterpretations of the Bible that have been raised as objections to that view do not give a satisfactory explanation of the words or the context of the relevant verses. Sexual intimacy is to be confined to marriage, and marriage is to be only between one man and one woman, following the pattern established by God in creation. The church should always act with love and compassion toward homosexuals, yet never affirm homosexual conduct as morally right. The gospel of Jesus Christ offers the "good news" of forgiveness of sins and real hope for a transformed life to homosexuals as well as to all sinners.²³

If you want to learn the truth concerning homosexuals and homosexuality, I encourage you to read this information:

• http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae117.htm
• http://prolife.ath.cx:8000/plae118.htm
• http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_agenda.html
• http://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2013/01/bow-down-and-worship.html (containing the whole of Michael Swift's article)

For more biblical responses to the issue of homosexuality, I encourage you to read these books:

• The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon
• The Same Sex Controversy by James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell
• The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas (a former practicing homosexual)
• A Queer Thing Happened to America by Michael L. Brown
• The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principle Threat to Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten

There are hundreds of commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, handbooks, systematic theologies, etc., that I could have quoted from in this article (God knows I have a library chock full of them), but doing so would be overkill. Alex has no legs to stand on in this debate; he has been thoroughly refuted with honest, responsible, solid biblical exegesis. Anyone who studies this subject honestly for themselves will arrive at the same exegetical conclusions that I and thousands of other godly Christians have arrived at over the course of 2000 years. Alex's contention that all these brilliant minds of the faith have been in error and that only he and his little band of merry men have it correct is laughable. They have no support beyond falsely misquoting individuals with selective citations and truncated quotations of text, twisting these individuals' words to some how be in support of homosexuality when they are anything but. Read your Bible, learn the truth, and stand your ground steadfastly, Christian. In the end the victory is God's, and with Him ours.

---

¹ Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible, 172.
² Alex Haiken, Genesis 1: Turning the Creation Story into an Anti-Gay Treatise.
³ Alex Haiken's comments from either e-mails to Jerry Sheppard and myself or on Jerry Sheppard's blog.
⁴ ESV Study Bible, 2547. 

⁵ Alex Haiken, Genesis 19: What the Bible Really Says Were the Sins of Sodom.
⁶ ESV Study Bible, 83.

⁷ Justin R. Cannon, The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality, 12.
⁸ Warren Baker, Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 46 (see 75-76).

⁹ Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 396.
¹⁰ Warren Baker, D.R.E., Eugene Carpenter, Ph.D., The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, 838-839.

¹¹ Alex Haiken, Leviticus 18: What Was The Abomination?. 
¹² ESV Study Bible, 241.

¹³ Alex Haiken, Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?.
¹⁴ Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 253.
¹⁵ William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Romans, 78-79.
¹⁶ ESV Study Bible, 2159.

¹⁷ Gerhard Kittel., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:253.
¹⁸ Gerhard Kittel., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:265.
¹⁹ Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 396.
²⁰ http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946.
²¹ Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 396.
²² http://www.esvstudybible.org/contributors/.
²³ ESV Study Bible: Homosexuality, 2547-2550.