Kim Davis, Marriage, the Church, and the lost world

Well, I thought I would finally weigh in on the gay marriage ordeal. We are seeing the ramifications of an unjust “law” forced upon the majority of the people, based on judicial activism. Kim Davis is in the spotlight at the moment. There are 3 major reactions that people seem to have regarding this case.

I. The secular view

The secular view is very simple. Kim should resign (even though she did not technically break a law) and seek another job. This mindset leads to the removal of Christian worldviews from the public square. This is not fair because the Christian worldview is silenced while the secular worldview is tolerated and promoted without question. If the secularists really are for “equality” then the Christian worldview should be given fair consideration just like the secular worldview.

Also, why should Kim Davis resign if she has not broken any laws. What law has she broken? The SCOTUS does not have the authority to enact Law. Only congress can do that and they have not passed a law requiring the issuing of marriage licenses to same sex couples. The SCOTUS only said the state laws preventing issuing them were unconstitutional. So she has not broken a law yet. She is being persecuted for being a Christian.

The next thing that the secularists bring up is the fact that Kim Davis is on her 4th marriage. They call her a hypocrite for standing up for the sanctity of marriage. The problem is, during her previous 3 marriages, she was not a Christ follower so the Christian worldview of marriage did not mean anything to her then. She is not being a hypocrite. She accepted Christ as Lord and Savior a few years ago and now she has a Christian worldview and lives by it. Also, this process has demonstrated that those who preach “tolerance” are extremely intolerant. They do not believe in forgiveness, redemption, and reconciliation. They preach, “do not judge” yet, in this case, they are the most judgmental people you will ever find. The secular view actually invalidates itself by its own contradictions.

II. The negative “Christian” view

There is a movement among “Christians” who claim that Davis is wrong because she is breaking the law and needs to resign and allow God to take care of her for doing the right thing. This view makes no sense because she has yet to break a law (see previous section’s explanation).

The second statement that these people make is that Christians just need to back off and love more. The basic idea is to embrace people where they are and encourage them that God loves them. Yes, God loves them but He also hates their sin and views them as a hostile enemy until they repent of their sins and accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

The third statement is that we need to respect separation of church and state. “You keep using that statement, I don’t think it means what you think it means”. Words of wisdom for all time. Jesus calls His disciples (followers/Christians) to be salt and light in this world. Light exposes the darkness of sin and salt stops sins deadly societal decay. If we “back off” and stop calling sin what it is then we stop being salt and we are good for nothing in the eyes of God and useless to the dying world around us.

The fourth statement is that Davis is on her 4th marriage and needs to be silent. Again, this all happened before she came to Christ so according to Christ, Himself, she is a new creation, all the old has passed away. The sins that you committed before coming to Christ were washed away (all your sins have been washed away in Christ) and they cannot be held against you. The consequences of your sin may remain but spiritually speaking, you have been forgiven and it cannot be held against you.

III. The positive Christian view

Kim Davis has done nothing wrong. She is being persecuted for her faith. She needs to stand strong and continue to be “salt and light” to a sinful and dying world. The church needs to stand up for the sanctity of marriage, as we continue to make disciples, giving people a Christian worldview that must be lived out in the public square. Are you making disciples? Are your disciples making disciples? Do you have a Christian worldview? Are you living out that worldview in the public square. Do your disciples have a Christian worldview? Are they living out that worldview in the public square. Please educate yourself on these issues and speak up with boldness. The Christian worldview deserves a place in the public square. Stand up for it! May the Lord help us stop the deadly decay of sin in our dying culture.

26 comments on “Kim Davis, Marriage, the Church, and the lost world

  1. Erik must have been absent the day they taught The Constitution in Civics class.

    As an independent branch of the Federal government, the Supreme Court has every right to effectively enable or disable laws or statutes in the United States by what is called Judicial Review, which was established in 1789 in Marbury vs. Madison.

    In the case of Obergefel vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and that fundamental right is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

    Article Six, Clause 2 of the US Constitution established that federal law, statutes, and treaties supersedes state constitutions, laws, and statutes.

    Erik may not be happy with the ruling, and he may disagree with it, but it’s the law.

    The Supreme Court declared in Brown Vs. Board of Education that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Many disagreed with those rulings, but it became the law.

    Kim Davis is a government agent, her office issues marriage licenses. It is her job to establish if two people are legally able to receive a marriage license. That is a secular, government document, not a religious document. Her religious views are not valid when it comes to issuing a state marriage license. If she is not able to issue those state licenses because of religious convictions, she should resign.

    It is not permissible to allow any clerk in the country to presume to act on their religious beliefs when issuing a government document, be it a marriage license or a drivers license.

    So, yes, she did break a law, and if she keeps on pursuing this, she will end up in jail again, or at least having to pay the court costs of her frivolous appeals. This is not going to end well for her.

    • Hello,

      The “US Supreme Court” sodomy laws and slavery laws, still not so far away in term of time frame to name a few, were also “wrong”, unjust according to God’s laws…

      So is this “new” one mixing up the term “Marriage” a wrong law, aoccrding to God’s laws.

      A plain betrayal of God’s laws because this specific Nation of the US is claiming to base its very origins on God’s laws, still using the Bible in Court as a “word of honor” mean, proclaiming “in God we trust” grand phrases, yet God’s Bible are excluded from Government schools, and yet this ruling is decided, doing away with trusting God’s laws.

      One happens to agree and disagree with Government’s laws according to either their pesonal judgment doing the ruling, or God’s laws doing the ruling.

      God bless this woman, taking a stand against her unfair Government’s law, according to her conscience matching His laws.

      • “God’s Laws”

        Now, exactly what are “God’s Laws,” Christian57? Who educates us as to what are “God’s Laws?” Is it the most prominent and influential pastors and preachers of the day who explain to us the exact meaning of “God’s Laws?”

        Is it Ebenezer Warren, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, in his sermon “Scriptural Vindication of Slavery,” who said, ”

        “Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man…Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time …. Because Slavery is right…and, too, because their Maker has decreed their bondage.”

        Or is it Richard Furman, president of the South Carolina State Convention of Baptists who wrote:

        “…for the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.”

        Or is it Bob Jones, Sr., founder of Bob Jones University and one of the most prominent evangelical preachers of his time, who said:

        “If you are against racial segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty… racially we have separation in the Bible. Let’s get that clear. When you run into conflict with God’s established order, you have trouble.”

        Or is it Pastor Brother Dennis Anderson, senior pastor of the Appleby Baptist Church, who said:

        “…Satan wants to eliminate color by interracial marriages. The Doctrine of Balaam taught the people of Israel to fornicate with people who had a curse of servitude upon them, descendants of Canaan, black folks, if you please. Revelation 2:14, Deuteronomy 23:3-4, Nehemiah 13:2, Numbers 25.”

        So these are “God’s Laws”, right? These learned, highly educated church men defined “God’s Laws” for millions of people. There was or is no questioning these leaders of the Baptist Church.

        So who is right? Who or what tells us what are God’s Laws? Tell me. Because I’m confused.

      • Hello,

        The Bible provides answers to a multitude of questions in term of laws, revealing God’s character and judgment in a usually very clear manner, not confusing.

        Actions from individuals aimed for selfish gains, especially within clergy, are their own.


        “Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

      • Well, good point. Let’s “reveal God’s character and judgment in a usually very clear manner, not confusing,” regarding:


        “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling…” Ephesians 6:5

        “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly…” Colossians 4:1

        “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” Exodus 21:20,21

        Looks like God is very clear and not confusing on slavery.

        How about Interracial Marriage?:
        “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.” Deuteronomy 7:1-4

        Looks like God is very clear and not confusing on Interracial Marriage.

        How about women?:

        “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” 1 Timothy 2:11,12

        How about Jews?:

        “When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility! All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!” Matthew 27:24,25

        Here’s an interesting blog, similar to Erik’s blog, that describes the “Sin of Interracial Marriage,” using a sermon of Herbert W. Armstrong, one of the most influential and earliest televangelists of the early 20th Century:

        You don’t have to read the whole thing, but I think the comments of 4 readers who posted to the piece are very interesting. Substitute homosexual for interracial marriage and you will recognize yourself. I especially like the comparison of interracial marriages to marrying your dog and to pedophilia. Seems I’ve heard that before about gay marriage.

        Ashton Douglas Lee says: “This script is irrefutably and unequivocally correct in its renderings. Interracial relationships are sin, and especially grievous sin. Many will by their very nature conclude that this statement proceeds from ignorance or racism, though this is not so. All races are equal and precious in God’s site and we are commanded to love and commune with our foreign raced brothers and sisters in Christ, this is fact. However, to bind together that which is not to be bound, that is the distinctly ordered creatures under God’s creation is horrifically immoral and unethical.”

        Simon says: “True. You should love thy neighbor no matter what the race. Just because you love someone doesn’t mean you can get married and sleep together. Hell I love my dog and that’s never gonna happen. But lets not get that statement confused with saying interracial relationships are ok. It is a sin and if you dont ask GOD for forgiveness then you will burn in hell for all eternity. Harsh but im just tryn to do my calling and save as many sinners as I can. Even though some of your responses on this page insinuate that you are confused right know I will still pray for you all. Interracial relationships are a SIN. I love you all. God Bless n good luck.”

        Jack says: “you can also compare interracial love with pedophile. i don’t think there’s anything different. I agree with Simon, i love animals but i’ll never marry any of them. I will marry a human who shares the same skin color as mine. I respect all races but that’s it. we can be friends but no more than that.

        Davis Ben-Ariel says:”…our Great Creator God did not bring you into a relationship that His Word condemns as ethnic adultery – race-mixing destroys our God-given differences.

        Interracial marriage as ethnic adultery. That’s a new one.

        You see, Christian57, all these people use Bible verses as validation for discrimination, just like you. I’m sure you would disagree, and so would I with the way they take these verses out of context. But that’s what they and millions of people do. You can’t argue with that. And for them it’s God’s Law.

        Using the Bible to validate discrimination is as old as the Bible.

      • Hello,

        Please keep your usual “ad hominem” and personal attacks away.

        It is the second time I am forwarding you to Erik’s truthful article on God and slavery :

        You seem so set on Civil law, riding its “horse power”… Can you explain why is “Marriage” restricted to two people? With the case at hand, why two gay twins could not legally “marry” each other, in the Kentucky…? Or for one to “marry” one’s own animal, why is this not legitimate, lawful by the “Supreme Court” ruling, in our day and age…?

        What about these individuals “fundamental, constitutional right” to “marry”, that you seemingly came flaunting here on this blog, on this topic, according to your all mighty “Supreme Court Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution”, why the unjust discrimination those human people are suffering by Civil law itself, it is based on… What “beliefs” exactly, precisely, if the Bible is now rejected by the United States “rulers of Nations”…?

        I return to you the question? Where does it end, the denying of a licence to…?

        “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best. – Thomas Sowell”


      • One concept you need to become familiar with is that reality is what people believe, and that what people believe is reality. People are told what to believe, and if it fits in with their world view, with their upbringing, with their fears and prejudices, then they believe it.

        It doesn’t make any difference what Erik thinks about slavery or what he thinks the Bible says about slavery, which by the way I happen to agree with him. What matters is that tens of millions of people believed that the Bible said that slavery was a gift from God. God’s Law.

        It doesn’t make any difference what you or I think of interracial marriage. What matters is that tens of millions of people believed and believe today that the Bible says that interracial marriage is evil and sinful and against God’s Laws.

        Erik very eloquently pointed out in his slavery post that Ancient Hebrew and Greek contextual and cultural considerations are important to understand complex issues such as slavery. But then narrow minded people find a few verses out of context that seem to support slavery, and then it’s God’s Law because people want to believe it’s God’s Law.

        Similarly, Moanti and I have pointed out here, using Erik’s same contextual and cultural approach, that homosexuality is not an abomination. But all one has to do is to point out a few verses taken out of context that seem to say that homosexuality is an abomination, and then it’s God’s Law because people want to believe it’s God’s Law to fit their prejudices.

        As Erik said at the end of his slavery article: “Do you study the Word of God so that you will not buy the lies that evil people promote?” I agree.

        You proved my point by saying where does it stop with gay marriage. Can a person marry his dog? Or his brother? These were and are the exact same arguments that were made against interracial marriage. They are silly arguments that go nowhere.

        By the way, I never attacked you personally. I merely stated the fact that you have used the Bible as validation to justify the statements you made to demonize and discriminate against gay people for two years now, both on Erik’s and Moanti’s blog. Own your own statements.

      • Hello, Gary.

        You will note this is my last interaction with you, as I am contrived to conclude you do not know how to behave and communicate peacefully and civilly, at the very least with me. I often kindly and politely requested you to mind your manners, yet you forgot you are a stranger to me, and me to you, one time too many.

        You claim to have never personally attacked me, yet not long ago you resorted to improper “ad hominem” arguments in your attempts to publicly demean my goodwill helping others in their Christian edification, and dismiss my messages content all together…

        The same I noticed you doing in a comment you wrote someday ago on Erik’s blog, dishonoring the Bible Apostle Paul’s credibility and personal worth, dismissing his sober and astoundingly insightful criticism of homosexual activity, and further warnings on this particular behavior among other ones shutting a person to the Kingdom of God and of Christ, Paul’s words found recorded in the New Testament Scriptures, through judging him a lunatic, and what more.

        Currently, you have listed all the social evils you have in store (slavery, antisemitism, racism, mysogyny) and whatever else “people” backed up using Bible verses, equatting my disapproval of homosexual conduct with my approval of those wrongs you mentioned.

        I quote you :

        “You don’t have to read the whole thing, but I think the comments of 4 readers who posted to the piece are very interesting. Substitute homosexual for interracial marriage and you will recognize yourself. I especially like the comparison of interracial marriages to marrying your dog and to pedophilia. Seems I’ve heard that before about gay marriage.”


        “You see, Christian57, all these people use Bible verses as validation for discrimination, just like you. I’m sure you would disagree, and so would I with the way they take these verses out of context. But that’s what they and millions of people do. You can’t argue with that. And for them it’s God’s Law.”

        This is personal attacks, dishonoring me by lumping me with guilty attitudes and obscure authors of obscure comments out of reason, on topics I never contributed!

        I think I was clear, but to be clearer…

        To your bringing of slavery on topic, I pointed Eric’s article adressing God’s treatment of slavery, and my agreement with him.

        To you drawing the parallel with interracial marriage, I quoted :

        “Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

        This statement is a fact. There is no equatting acts with traits.
        Not counting rare occurences of genetic and genital deformities, one human person is given their biological gender and ethnic lineage from birth without their opinion asked, nobody chose to be born this gender, in this family, on this place and at this time on Earth whereas one will eventually self-identify sexually as they will want and DECIDE, later on…
        As human persons we are given free will to act or to not act upon the rights and wrongs, the blessings and temptations we are facing and feeling throughout existence… To each their own personal delight enjoying God’s blessings, and to each their own personal responsiblity dealing with one’s own sinful tendencies. Indeed it is promised, every person will be called before God to give account for themselves on the day of the Lord, believers and unbelievers alike, for all we have done and not done… Amen.

        Perception is reality, yes, thank you for your lecture? To be gracefully adopted as Sons and Daugthers of God is the reality for people accepting Jesus for their Lord and Savior, and all sin is equally ugly to us, there is no special treatment, no discrimination is done in favor or disfavor of “homosexual acts”, in the Bible context they are lumped with other sins of sexual immorality, along with adultery, incestuous and zoophilic sexual acts and later on in the NT these actions are again found mentioned along with other moral evils where they belong, as far as Scriptures goes and teaches!

        As Bible believers and followers of Christ, Erik and I must say this, condemn the sin and go on to share the available Grace of God to any and all person(s) inclined, longing to find peace with God, respite from the burden of their conscience inevitably accusing us of our immoral deeds, if our hearts are not yet hardened to death by the pleasure we find to take in our sins… We condemn the sin, whatever sin and go on to say these sinful acts, any acts causing guilt and shame CAN be forgiven by our God, cleansing and renewing our guilty and shameful conscience through faith in the blood of the LORD to redeem us, should we temporary fall in sinning, any sin… Amen!

        On you judging me discriminating homosexuals, you will note and on this, you can only agree should you be a minimum honest, your memory of reading my messages and your conscience giving witness to my words, on the few yet too many occasions I expressed myself in online comments dealing with “homosexual behavior”, I normally am very caring and mindful, careful to always adress the acts and not the individuals acting them, the sins and not the sinners as these can be done by any sort of “sexually oriented” man or woman, “hetero”, “homo”, “bi” and whatever else…

        Now, Gary…

        ““One man, one woman, for life” is God, and Jesus-Christ OPINION on the purpose of Humankind sexuality and Marriage. and it’s not going to change no matter what you, or anybody says. Amen.”

        You should remember my last words to you on this other blog, they still stand.

        You have ignored my question here, as to why in the Civil state should “Marriage” be limited to two “people”, why this “fundamental, constitutional right to marry” is and should remain denied to incestuous and zoophilic lovers which ARE human persons with the very same rights you and I are granted before and under the Law, so why not one or three or any number and combination of consenting adults, since “homosexual marriage” already redefined the thing in the Civil sphere, on what basis is the “US Supreme Court” decison making standing now, without the Bible guidance for these “rulers of Nations”, where does it end and why, the according or denying of a licence to…?

        I am not holding my breath for your answer, I know you can not provide any reasonable response, mind you. The truth is, there is no moral good that does not come from God or you tell me… Nothing.

        This was the last time I took time and effort, care to develop, interacting with you, Gary as you have disrespected me one last time here. I suggest you take your own advice of owning to your misconduct, mistakes, aiming to correct them while you still breath, for each one of us will need to give an account for our own before God, determining our last stay, and it is up to you, where you are standing while you can decide it. On the side of wrath by your willful embrace of your sins, or the side of mercy by exercising faith in Jesus-Christ redeeming love and grace…

        Whether or not you apologize for your ill dealing with me, I do not care but you can rest assured at any rate, I work and pray for all people well being with God, including you, no matter your unacceptably sick and twisted opinion of me… So, farewell.

        On topic, Kim Davis is one praise worthy Christian woman for her courage in public, this is all I came for commenting here… God bless her abunduntly!

      • Hello Christian57,

        Publicly demean your goodwill?

        Dishonor you by lumping you with guilty attitudes?

        Disrespect you?

        Do you remember saying the following to Moanti on her blog?:

        “…you are digging your own grave in Hell? or

        “…she is in error and serve the devil in the end…” or

        “socially created group of people you belong to…”

        and all the other hateful things you mentioned on her blog?

        How dare you say such things about her and by implication me and all gay people? How dare you!!

        What gives you the right to say such things. Nothing That’s what.

        You say “I know the Biblical truth on the matter of “homosexuality”, according to Scriptures writings and historical, traditional understanding and teachings on this.”

        You know nothing but what you’ve read in anti-gay Internet articles that you so eagerly post. You are not a Biblical scholar. You are not a Biblical archeologist. You are not an expert on ancient Masoretic Hebrew or Koine Greek.

        What you are is some pretend Christian with a very strange obsession with homosexuality. A misfit who’s armed themselves with an amateurish knowledge of Biblical passages to hide behind while they demean others. A think-skinned person who can dish out a constant stream of hateful messages but who can’t take any criticism. Poor you. Poor you. Pour you another glass of pity.

        You are like every other faux Christian throughout time that is obsessed with some Biblically perceived evil.

        Goodwill? You have no goodwill. You wouldn’t even know what it was if it hit you in the face.

        There’s my apology.

      • Hello,

        Again rude and lying, are you?

        My comment was clear, exposing you was already lying with all you got, using false and unreasonable comparisons with every evil you could find, screwing around truth to vilify me and you continue down this road, seriously are you kidding me!

        Is this my “trial in court” or something? Who are you, Gary? My Lawgiver only is my Judge, but you, who are you to judge me, my person as you do…?

        I welcome humbly and gratefully proper, constructive criticism and chastising from my well meaning fellows at the obvious condition I recognize and accept their authority over me as earned and fitting… You do not fit this category because of your oozing malevolence toward me and Biblical writings / teachings in general, sorry!

        What I “can’t take” should it come to my attention is to be witness for too long of the crafty lies and twists sinners use to try to justify their misdeeds, any sort of such and on topic, the type advocates of same-sex sexual relations and “gay marriage” use in their attempts to legitimate those within Christianity, promoting sin and demeaning God’s institution of Marriage.

        Your insulting tone and dirty attemps to vilify me are weak compared to this actual issue, I can take those and see me, I do take those as I bite to your bait a last time, Gary.

        The words you cherry picked from my past comments, wanting to vilify me as the new Al Capone lose this “accusation” and “condemnation”, this “judgmental” tone you wish them to have in public, are they properly left and read in the context I wrote them… Then my words appear as they were intended, sober “warnings”.

        From :

        “I tell you, your way to salvation, is to keep a brotherly, in your case a sisterly relationship with your “partner” and her becoming your beloved FRIEND, no “gay sex”, no “gay marriage” or “gay romance” or you are digging your own grave in hell, ruining yourself your chances of redempion by your own choice and worst, these of the woman you care for the most, and weak minded readers of your blog believing and following your words….”

        From :

        “If Moanti does not aknowledge the homosexual behavior to be sinful, as a fellow professing Christian believer, she is in error and serve the devil in the end, a false god of her own making who condones, not condemns homosexuality, and promotes the evil, political “gay agenda” within the church…. I feel it really was my God’s call, my “Christian duty” to challenge her so much on this, for her own sake…. Amen.”

        From :

        “I remind you politely it is “eisegesis” and an obviously wrong approach to apply (subjectivity) outside, foreign concepts in your reading and understanding of Holy Scriptures, acting with your mind set on considering “things” such as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” orientaiton where they are and can not be, because the texts are ANCIENTS and HOLY, REVEALED by our GOD for our INSTRUCTION and OUR SALVATION…, Worst, using the Bible in favor of this socially created group of persons you belong to, for your personal gain against the common good of our common Christianity, Moanti… This is terrible.”

        I should have started adressing your sick blame quoting the next, most important point I made and actively stressed in my comments, because you purposedly ignored it…

        From here :

        “My disclaimer, a little arranged for the occasion :

        Unbelievers are free to go their own way, of course and not expected to stop pursuing their romantic / sexual preferences to please a God they do not believe in…At their own risk and on their own decision.

        Individuals claimlng to be “Christians” must be measured, judged according to their beliefs matching what God reveals, and evidently their behavior, conduct, attitude, “lifestyle” matching God’s law in broad term of ethics and morality, ie Marriage is God’s institution designed and declared the union of one man and one woman exclusively, and “sex” is God’s gift for the two spouses to share, exclusively again….

        Any and all “believers”, opposing this simple truth about Holy Marriage and Sexuality by God’s Word and Will for His People must be pointed out as deceivers, by their own claims and / or deeds.”

        It is not possible you did not read this, my comment was directly adressed to you back then. You should have stopped getting involved with me after reading the first sentence of my dsiclaimer, and moved on to enjoy your “freedom” to sin on your own “right” and personal responsibility, as you are not a believer of God and follower of Jesus-Christ as far as you are identifying yourself publicly “Gary”, so what do you want…?

        This “evidence” not only nullify your twisted assertion of me attacking you personally and “gay people” in general, this clearly demonstrate how wrong you are behaving with me… The real question given my fair disclaimer that you decided to cover, ignore and trespass is… How about you, how dare you interfere in my interaction with this other professing Christian that is misleading sinners and promoting evil within Christianity as far this person’s own words were going the last time I checked, not being a Christian yourself…?

        My words may be harsh, they still are build on God’s objective truth (Bible) and lead to the truth that CAN set free, to God’s word. My words are strongly codnemning sin, balanced by equally strong comapssion for the sinner.

        Your words to me and ABOUT me are EXCLUSIVELY made of lies, meant to hate my person and vilify my sometiems very bold yet noble and right behavior with this other professing Christian and our readers. You want to make me guilty of hating gays so hard, you lost yourself scattering false accusations, making a fool of yourself online, publicly. I do not blame you, you have chosen this on your own.

        So, Gary… You can reply again and again to have the last word with me, be my guest after this one, welcome. I am not perfect but one human being, have my temper and my character, I am adult and responsible to own my statements, my actions and assume to have properly proven this much fairly enough “to the choir” who is tossing around abusive lies, using quotations out of their context to vilify one another, who is crafty, rude, mercilessly judgmental between you and me, is it you or me…

        I forgive your offences to me and again I do not care for your apologies, and pray for you nonetheless Gary, but still this end now. This is not a suggestion, this is a request and almost an order to this point. I request you move on and drop your act with me, I hold no wish and politely disagree to act out half of your persecution complex any longer…

        Sound Biblical theology for you….

        Really, one has to study ancient languages and stuff to know homosexual sex is a sin…?

        Quoted from one of thsoe sites you hate for letting all know :

        “– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
        – 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
        – 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
        – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
        – 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.”

        You go on, Gary. Disprove this is not the Bible actual content on this topic?

        I harbor a very strange obsession with homosexuality you say…? In all honesty over the last two years, I challenged myself to death with this topic during June 2014 on those two blogs you mentioned. and bothered myself to overkill caring and attempting to reason, to help others on this other blog in 2015 during June, noticeably… That is it. Given the facts again, and I have no habit to lie, reasonable or obsessive…?

        The fact I am sure you know but want to ignore, is… Christian’s relation to sexual sin must specifically be kept in close check, as this type of sin defiles a person’s body, while others sins do not, according to Saint Paul… Our body have been redeemed by Christ and belong to God, not anymore to self as slaves and tools of sin, this explains that seemingly indiscrete “care”, focus on sexual issues within Christianity.

        God’s believers and Christ’s followers are commanded BY GOD to hold on to what is good, and to hate what is evil, that is holding on virtues and hating vices, any and all manifestation(s) of sin, obviously this include, as I wrote above in a very special way, sins of sexual immorality, among which is described by the Bible in the most censorious fashion, plain old same-sex sexual relations…

        To conclude my last “personal” interaction with you on a positive note…

        Aren’t you the one “strangely” obssessed with something here and there, fighting it and / or demeaning at every opportunity you perceive, “Christianity” for instance, or do you lurk on Muslim blogs about their Coranic verses also condemning gay sex, taking it personally… This is not a question, I am just thinking out loud.

        I am not short sighted, not blind to your behavior and must ask you, Gary… What do you think and feel drives you to Chrisitan blogs… Is this not the Holy Spirit of God and truth, its manifestations, impulses you can feel prompting you, trying to bring you to Christ, Jesus and be washed by His blood at the foot of the Cross, encouraging you to repentance, to convince you of the guilt you try to ignore from now decades living your existence, that you did want to live as an openly “gay” man, celebrating (your and his) homosexuality against your God given moral conscience of right and wrong, as He made us to His image, capable of Holiness and you know it… Is this not the real cause motivating you to attack me personally as you do, using twisted, false accusations…? This I am asklng to you, but I want you keep your honest answer between you and God, your responsiblity to accept this dialogue and reconciliation THE LIVING GOD is offering to you through my message, a last time by my hand and words to your conscience…

        My best regards, and farewell.

      • OK, Christian57. You’re pretty smart I think. Let’s get to the meat of it. Let’s be Biblical scholars.

        I challenge you to translate Leviticus 18:22. We can use the Massoretic Hebrew.

        We-et-zakar lo’ tishkav mishkevey ‘ishshah (toebah huw)

        zakar is used 81 times in the OT, 67 as male, 7 as man, 4 as child, 2 as mankind, 1 as him

        tishkav is used 212 times in the OT: 106 as lie, 48 as sleep, 43 as lie down, 3 as rest, 2 as lien

        mishkevey is used 7 times in Leviticus, all as “bed”

        ishshah is used 780 times in the OT: 425 as wife, 324 as woman, 10 as one, 5 as married, 2 as female

        The words are:

        And with a male not lie bed a wife (abomination it)

        I would translate this as “and with a male, thou shall not lie in the bed of a wife (woman who is already married, meaning adultery) it is abomination

        How would you translate this simple line of Hebrew Text?

      • Hi,

        I find this website, “Bible Hub” the best way to study a verse translation in multiple languages. The top right menu allows to check about 50 different languages. Many other options for research are available and relatively easy to use, too.

        A very precious and practical tool :

        Personally I am natively French, and okay with English…

        A verse translation meeting reasonable concordance within several languages, along with the historical records from Jewish and Christian writings does provides strong evidence for its actual meaning.

        I like the King James version in English, and the Louis Segond Bible in French the best ones for their fidelity to original Scriptures.

        This one verse is rendered :

        King James Bible
        “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

        Ancient records clear any resonable doubt on this verse meaning, it was used within Jews and Christians communities to prohibit same-sex sxual relations in many of its manifestations throughout ages.

        This verse lack of specification does not permit to narrow it to pederasty, idolatry or anything… It is broad a much as can be, and thus indicates a general condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior, between males in this verse though it is unlikely women, females could be ignored on the ground of God’s impartiality, and later vsrses Roamns 1:26 adressing female-female sexual activity.

        Some doubts may be legitimately expressed on Romans 1:26 to not refer to elsbian sex but heterosexual anal sex, but the following study renders this interpretation highly unlikely :

        Sorry this will take space but the explanation is very precise :


        Chapter 1 of Romans contains the only reference in the Bible to females having sex with females. The reference is part of Paul’s illustration showing how rejection of God can lead to people doing foolish things.

        The New International Version translates verse 26 of this chapter as:

        Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

        A more literal [and expanded] interpretation of this verse is: For this reason [honoring and serving created things rather than the Creator] God gave them up [gave the individuals freedom to go their own way] to dishonorable (shameful) passions for even their females changed (exchanged, radically transformed) the natural [sexual] use [of the male] into that use [which is] against (contrary to) nature;

        What form of female sexual activity is described in this verse?

        This verse (Romans 1:26) states that the women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations.

        While the unnatural sexual relations (literally, use against nature) involving females could be male-female anal or oral intercourse, it is unlikely to be so because in Paul’s culture such activity was not considered as unnatural.

        On the other hand, same-sex activity between females was thought of as unnatural in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s time because such activity involved one of the women having an active penetrative role (like a man) in contravention of the cultural view that women should always be passive in sex.

        It is therefore likely that the female acts criticized are anal or vaginal intercourse between females in which one female penetrates another with a finger or other instrument. It could also involve the mutual rubbing of the genital organs.

        What points favor verse 26 referring to sex between females?

        • Same-sex activity between females was thought of as unnatural in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s time because such activity involved one of the women having an active penetrative role, thus acting like a man. This contravened the cultural view that only men should be the penetrators and women should always be passive in sex. Paul and his audience shared this cultural view.

        • Many ancient Greek and Roman non-Christian authors depicted sexual relations between females as unnatural. The authors include Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Artimedorus, Pseudo- Phocylides. For details see Chapters 2, 4 and 6 of Bernadette J. Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, 1996.

        • The use of likewise or in the same way in verse 27 means that same-sex activity is referred to in both verse 27 and verse 26.

        • Anal intercourse between women and men generally carried no stigma in ancient Roman society. No known ancient source defines anal intercourse between women and men as unnatural. Therefore Paul would have no reason to call male-female anal intercourse unnatural.

        • To illustrate one of the consequences of people refusing to glorify God, Paul chose the most outrageous form of female sexual behavior in his culture, i.e. females taking the active penetrative role.

        • The early Christian writers, Tertullian of Carthage (De Corona 6.1) (about 200 CE) and St. John Chrysostom (Homily 4 on the Epistle to the Romans) (about 400 CE), considered that Paul was referring to female same- sex intercourse.

        • Verses 26 and 27 are an example of parallelism, where the second verse repeats and extends the meaning of the first.

        What points favor verse 26 referring to male-female anal sex?

        • The use of likewise or in the same way in verse 27 means that the act of anal intercourse is referred to in both verse 27 (between males only) and verse 26 (between males and females).

        • Although verse 26 says that women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, it does not say that their male partners were exchanged for female partners. It is only an assumption that their partners were exchanged. By contrast, verse 27 does say that males exchanged their female partners for male partners.

        • The early Christian writers, Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor 2.10.86-87) (about 200 CE), Anastasius and Augustine (Marriage and Desire 20.35) (both around 400 CE), considered that Paul was referring to non- procreative, male-female anal intercourse.

        Further evidence to judge the truth from the false on this question, lesbian sex or heterosexual anal sex in romans 1:26 :

        “Explicit castigations of either activity [anal or oral sex] as being contrary to nature are lacking in Greco-Roman
        sources (even including Jewish sources), whereas sexual relations between women are denounced as
        unnatural by an impressive array of authors over a long span of time, including Plato, Seneca the Elder,
        Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Dorotheos of Sidon, Manetho, Pseudo-Phocylides, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
        John Chrysostom — and Artemidoros” (Moore 143-144, citing Brooten, 241-53).”

        The currently leading Biblical Scholar regarding the issue of homosexuality in Scriptures is a man named Robert Gagnon, remaining unchallenged on his level of exegesis on the subject as far as time goes…

        One would refer to him as “anti-gay” but fact is, no “pro-gay” Biblical scholar arguments outweigh this man out of what seems to be the correct interpretation, by all evidences in this field of study.

        Though Robert Gagnon is an academician publishing his thorough theological studies, a more accessible book, user-friendly to the common public is one written by Kevin DeYoung not long ago should experts opinions on this topic interest you or any curious reader, and hopefully so, education is life…


      • I know English is not your primary language, but you write it perfectly.

        I’ll get to a statement from Dr. Robert Gagnon at the end of this post.

        If you don’t mind, I’d like to stick with Leviticus for now, since it applies to Paul’s words in Corinthians and Timothy.

        I’d prefer not to use the King James version since it is a translation of a translation (Bishop’s bible) of a translation (Tyndale Bible) of a translation (Erasmus’ Codex Receptus) of a translation (Latin Vulgate) of a translation (Greek Septuagint) of the original Hebrew.

        Even Hebrew has an evolution of its own. From Wikipedia: “Though the consonants (of Masoretic Hebrew Texts) differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Israel (and that is often quoted in the New Testament, especially by Apostle Paul).”

        Hard to say anything is absolute, including translations.

        I’d like to show how translations can sometimes be interesting. Leviticus 18:22 in the first English translation of the Latin Vulgate, The Wycliffe Bible of 1382 is as follows:

        Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun.

        Thou shall not be muddled (or mixed) with a man by the letchery of woman, for it is abomination.

        Clearly this is quite different wording than the Hebrew or even the King James Version. Some editorializing went into this translation.

        So…I think you would have to agree that there is a possibility, however slight, however small, that the translation I offered for Leviticus 18:22 might be a possibility. I’m not saying it is, but its a possibility.

        As far as Dr. Gagnon is concerned, he stated in his book “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” page 130 that “Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel.”

        So I would say that I will agree with you that:

        “100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms” IF you would agree that 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior as described is pagan cult prostitution.


        “0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way” IF you agree that the Bible verses that do mention homosexual sex are all related to cult prostitution.

      • Hi, Gary.

        First I want to thank you, as you seem to have been capable to come to terms with the anger and violence you were holding against me, my person. Our conversation, contact is back to normal, polite exchange and I really appreciate this.

        I understand you felt I attacked your people and stood for your own, I can not blame you for this and I apologize you have felt so, I am sincere.

        I will write more later on this, I first adress your question, directing you to the Dr. Robert Gagnon himself reacting to another person quoting him on the same statement he made…

        With this out of the way, now your suggestion to try the work of Biblical scholars together… I know I am not a Biblical scholar, I am an ordinary man trying to live my Christian faith as I can, and that is it. I study as I study, and I trust millenaries of translations had not altered significantly the original text.

        As put elsewhere on this belief I am keeping, and on the topic of “officials” mistranlating Scriptures adressing homosexual activity :

        “Anti-Gay theology is simply a re-labeling of the traditional interpretation of the scriptures which prohibit homosexual acts. Proponents of “Pro-Gay” theology have aimed to discredit traditional interpretations of scripture and characterize homosexuals as victims of hate. The hate has allegedly been perpetrated by a conspiracy of narrow-minded, conservative theologians and anti-gay Christians whose sole purpose is to vilify gays and deny them their due rights as human beings.

        Contrary to what the conspiracy theory suggests, Bible translators over the centuries were focused primarily on accurately translating the scriptures, not in singling out one group of people to vilify. Prohibitions against homosexuality are typically mentioned in context with many other forms of sin, including adultery, fornication and incest. If we were to say that the gays were being singled out, then other people who sin could also claim victim status (all of us!).

        Granted, there are some people who truly hate homosexuals, and may have tried to justify such hate via the scriptures against it. Even so, I don’t think this is where the majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are sinful are coming from. Their belief that homosexuality is sinful is derived from the scriptures that state it and from the conviction of their own consciences (John 16:7-11).

        It is a mistake to equate believing in a standard with hating a person. It’s important to emphasize that the issue at hand is sinful behavior, not the person behind it. Christians are called to hate the evil that people do, but love people: ”

        I trust this is the truth on the matter, therefore please understand I kindly dismiss you wish to study ancient language with me, Biblical scholars experts in translation have done this work and I trust them for myself.

        The guarantee I have to not be in error for myself, I chose the website “Bible Hub” for standard in my humble, amateurish study of Scriptures as I can view a specific verse translation from several different editions of the Bible between 50 different languages if I so wish, along with commentaries from experts and several other options to explore for research. I personally tend to stick to French and English translations, and the parallel of different Bible editions but to be sure, I entered different transaltions of this verse in different languages online the popular “Google” translator and the results were as I expected them to be, there is major concordance between all of them….

        The issue of translations in term of available Bible editions not being ancient but current, from which this one bible study tools, website offers to browse is real, though it is not a problem for me, my faith being placed in the integrity of Biblical Scholars working from the Holy Spirit inspiration throughout ages to accurately translate Scriptures, and the absence of an hypothetic conspiracy theory aimed at vilfying “homosexuals” by some behind the scenes consensus, “evil deal” going for MILLENARIES between “religious” leaders and Biblical scholars translating Scriptures… This is really unlikely, because of Biblical Scholars originating from the whole wide world to this task, with different methods and organizations approving this or that edition, here and there by the Globe….

        I do not trust most current translations too much because of political agendas left and right, but the decent range of Bible editions available online answer to this issue, giving proper tools to check for any verse questionable new translation, as far as I can tell.

        Adressing this Leviticus verse on its original Hebrew form…

        Ancient Jews used the Hebrew phrase,”Mishkav zakur” — “lying with a male” — to denote male-to-male sexual contact, this is an evidence from historical records.

        The meaning of this verse can only be “homosexual”, because of this fact.

        Adressing the passages from the NT you mentioned, I quote again…

        ““Arsenokoite” is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase “mishkav zakur”, which means “lying with a male”, which is the usual rabbinic way of referring to homosexual sex in early rabbinic literature.

        The Israelites would have understood this to be a reference back to the Levitical prohibitions, which reads “…hos an koimethe meta arseno koiten gynaikos”. (emphasis mine)

        Thanks to Joe Dallas for the above.”

        This part of exploring theology is done.

        To continue where I left off, I understand you felt I attacked your people and stood for your own, I can not blame you for this and I apologize you have felt so, I am sincere.

        I abide by Paul’s command to leave outsiders of the body of Christ to God’s judgment, and judge my own….

        The reality is, once a person claim to belong to Christ, as this person you took to heart to defend against my seemingly abusive words does, ie their public confession of faith to be a Christian, a disciple, a follower of Christ, they have then agreed to give up, to deny themselves and carry their own Cross as requested to every sinner for salvation, by the Lord Jesus…

        The consequence of this, as Christians, we willingly open ourselves to “jugdment” from fellow Christians, we are meant to “correct” each other within our comunity, the “Chruch”, ie the body of believers, the body Christ, this is “discipline” as intended by God for His people, to quote the Bible,

        Proverbs 27:17

        “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”

        A sinner willing to follow Jesus gives up willingly on their, indeed, legitimate right to pursue their own purposes during this current, their lifetime and instead, agree to live for God, to honor God as God want them to live, because they believe there is a caring, loving God who created them for a purpose, the purpose of being in communion, “Holy” with Go… Amen.

        Now… A person experiencing homosexual temptation seemingly permantently, I believe they did not chose this, and I am compassionate for them, the same myself am enduring and have not chosen, am not chosing to be tempted to want this and that person for myself, as sexual or romantic partner when I wish to commit to just one woman, temptations deos exist and wille xist, until my death, my alst breath, for me too…

        I already wrote a comment some months ago, litteraly removing the influence of Moses and Paul in the event they were “false teachers”, keeping my faith and focus on Jesus alone to handle the issue with homosexuality and Christianity, and this is something I tend to do and like to do for any controversial subject as a mean of challenging every available information as coming from God, or from else…

        As far as I know and I like to keep things simple and clear, homosexuality, I mean homosexual activity, not orientation does always break the law God sets on His people to not commit adultery, ie sexual cotnact with a different person than one’s spouse….

        And as far as Biblcial Marriage, lawful union for God’s people goes…

        I quote from another Christian author…

        “For example, with the culturally tricky issue of same-sex marriage.

        I’d received a note from a dad whose daughter was in a competition where she knew she’d be asked her view on this issue—an obvious attempt to disqualify anyone who doesn’t toe the politically correct line on homosexuality. He wanted my opinion on the safest way to answer the question, “What do you think about same-sex marriage?” and still be faithful to Jesus.

        Since Jesus said we should be innocent, but shrewd, I worked out a response I think satisfies both requirements: “Since I am a follower of Christ, my view on marriage is the same as Jesus’ view, one He made clear in Matthew 19: One man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. So, on the definition of marriage, I stand with Jesus.”

        You get the point. Disagree with the Christian on this and you disagree with Christ. That’s why this should be your first line of response when answering this query. Since Jesus still has credibility with most people, this puts the opposition in a bind.

        Here’s the general principle: Pit the challenger against Jesus whenever you can. ”

        This is the stance the positon I learned the hard way to adopt, and will stick to.

        My last words to our common lady friend and to you on this other blog, I expressed to finally put a term to our conflictual exchanegs was…

        “““One man, one woman, for life” is God, and Jesus-Christ OPINION on the purpose of Humankind sexuality and Marriage. and it’s not going to change no matter what you, or anybody says. Amen.””

        But this other is a better definiton of Bibclial Marriage, and proper, safest way to adress both the issue of homosexual activity and “gay marriage” within Christianity.

        “Since I am a follower of Christ, my view on marriage is the same as Jesus’ view, one He made clear in Matthew 19: One man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. So, on the definition of marriage, I stand with Jesus.”

        Disagree with the Christian on this and you disagree with Christ.

        I know I have hurt our friend, with my issuing of the “unforgivable sin” , sober warning she sadly took personally, and I aplogized to her many times for this, her misudnerstanding… There is a comment in pending to correct this problem with her too, that I will take care of normally soon, as I wish to be in good terms with others, with everyone I get to know even remotel and account for myself to others, in every way.

        Finally, I beg your understanding for my wish to not participate anymore time and attention than I agreed to spend with this topic on a personal level anymore, as I jhave my own difficult, busy life to live as well, and sorry tos ay, no business debating to bits with “unbelievers” and “faux-Christians”, either persons not identifying as Christians or persons proving by their words and / or actions, they are not proper Christians for livjng or promoting, advocating for unbiblical behavior and values within Christianity….

        Something I want to say as I will probably not comment anymore on a personal level online, as this is affecting my health too much and this is to be avoided for myself…

        I am trying to be a “good” person, reasonable and responsible, specifically a genuine Christian and this too, is not an easy choice to assume and task to perform, as we Christians are also subjected to sick pesonal attacks and unfair discrimination on a daily basis, all the more in this day and age of seemingly global apostasy …

        I try to hate sin, any entertained sin causing separation from God, to not cherry pick and to not excuse my own, delicious sins of choice. I want to hate sin strongly as Jesus did and does, balancing this powerful force with equally strong comapssion, love for the sinner…

        Having charity for only motivation is my best wish and the purpose I set for myself, daily.

        I pray for the well being of all people, regardless of race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation… I am sorry I fail often to behave better and to attract others to join fellowship with Christ along with me, to accept God’s UNIQUE opportunity to be saved from our own, deeply ingrained human passions and prideful ego leading invariably to death, to lawlessness, for God’s better meaning of being Holy, as He is Holy.

        Regards, you take care, Gary!


      • Christian57,

        I just read your comment and I see you’ve had a long dialog with Moanti all through the month of October. Let me read all that and I’ll comment on it.

        Also, I have been reading articles by, and watching videos of, Dr. Gagnon. I was not familiar with him until you mentioned him to me. I have a few interesting thoughts on what he has to say.


      • Hello, Gary,

        Yes… It was a much long and enduring, but necessary dialog to conduct between our friend and me, to attend to our misunderstanding on this crippling issue properly, I am SO relieved we could manage to lead, and to close it on the best possible terms…

        You are welcome to read or messages, this is why I have bring the page hosting them to your attention, as it is not in the front and you was / are concerned, fair enough! 🙂

        I am interested to read your (like anyone’s) thoughts on our comments, and them on the Dr. Gagnon’s “leading scholar exegesis”, mostly.

        Personally, I have not purchased his book as it is written in “academic” English and I am French, plus the position he defends is mine from the start anyway, as one fellow “traditional” individual, believer. I know of his website and seldom articles /comments online, exclusively. His person and attitude are certainly not recommendable for lacking kindness and respect towards “the Homosexual Community” and its supporters, and while I dislike this about him, I also know full well for having been victim of the same to a much, much lesser degree, his public relations behavior most likely came as a fairly understandable Human reaction against a certainly worst lack of kindness and respect towards his person, regardless of the relevance and quality of his studies by misplaced outrage of “pro-gay” individuals, the unfathomable, unjustifiable personal vilifying he must cope and deal with, face and endure daily for his amazingly courageous public stand against this one sin for his career, in our Western world’s seemingly global apostasy, of increasingly “liberal” environment…

        However, his actual work is flawless, as recognized even by his most set and vocal opponents, namely the current leader of the Christian “gay affirming” movement on Biblical Scholarship, Matthew Vines, “knocked out cold” and unable for now several years to over-turn the arguments and conclusions of Gagnon’s most thorough evidence constituting the leading, most reasonable and accurate, reliable information available to date on the strictly Theological ground surrounding this moral issue, and fairly so…

        Do take care,

      • Xavier,

        I’m glad to see that you and Moanti have come to some sort of truce. That’s good.

        As far as Dr. Gagnon is concerned, I’ve seen his YouTube seminars and debates, and I’ve read a few of his articles which I believe take his two books, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” and “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.” and distills them down to easily readable pages.

        His article “What the Evidence Really Says About Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues,” which is here:

        Click to access homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf

        is an interesting one. He breaks down 5 claims from pro-gay writers about homosexuality and Scripture and refutes them. I don’t think he does a very good job, His arguments are weak.Take a look at the article and tell me what you think.

        By the way, you never answered my question as to how you would translate the Hebrew

        We-et-zakar lo’ tishkav mishkevey ‘ishshah (toebah huw)

        Moanti John R, and I have all taken a shot at this, Now it’s your turn, if you don’t mind.

      • Hi Gary,

        Thank you, I am glad too for this “achievement”, so much!

        I did answer to your question in my above comment, here :

        “With this out of the way, now your suggestion to try the work of Biblical scholars together… I know I am not a Biblical scholar, I am an ordinary man trying to live my Christian faith as I can, and that is it. I study as I study, and I trust millenaries of translations had not altered significantly the original text.”

        Adressing this Leviticus verse on its original Hebrew form…

        Ancient Jews used the Hebrew phrase,”Mishkav zakur” — “lying with a male” — to denote male-to-male sexual contact, this is an evidence from historical records.

        The meaning of this verse can only be “homosexual”, because of this fact.

        Adressing the passages from the NT you mentioned, I quote again…

        ““Arsenokoite” is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase “mishkav zakur”, which means “lying with a male”, which is the usual rabbinic way of referring to homosexual sex in early rabbinic literature.

        The Israelites would have understood this to be a reference back to the Levitical prohibitions, which reads “…hos an koimethe meta arseno koiten gynaikos”. (emphasis mine)

        Thanks to Joe Dallas for the above.”

        Even if the Bible did not contain a word adressing “homosexual behavior”, this phenomenon would still be condemned because of the clear teaching on sexual puritu, avoidance of fornication and exclusive sanction of heterosexual (non-incestuous) unions, by God for His people.

        I am defnitely not getting involved anymore for a minute in this discussion with “pro-homosexual polemicists”, nor paying my interest too close any lçnger on whether there could be “some kind of not sinful” homosexual ralations, unless there is substantial evidence from your “side” instead of agressive PR claims, I have been there and done that fairly enough for way too long, you must agree to this, as I just got out of it after tremendous efforts dealing with your, then with Moanti’s misunderstandings of my messaqes and person… Not to get caught up in that mess, again.

        Just a last word, I disagree with your assessment Dr. Gagnon’s arguments are weak, as this man is open to debate publicly the issue for now many years with your “side”, which falls deplorably short to this stand, both in term of public presence and actual arguments, a far as times goes….

        This article from Gagnon I have presented last month to you were / is already adressing your assumption : “Does Leviticus Only Condemn Idolatrous Homosexual Practice?”.

        If you are not personally persuaded by this clear reasoning and solid evidence, I believe the Dr. Gagnon’s gentle policy to answer emails is your opportunity, if you wish to question his work…

        Best regards,

      • Gary,

        Hmm… I wrote a comment yesterday that did not pass through for some reason, I try to retype it more or less.

        Thank you, it is not some sort of truce between Moanti and I, it is the welcomed conclusion to a painful misunderstanding on her side, on my intentions and messages, actions.

        Please do not mistake my interest for your ideas with interest to discuss them myself. I had enough trouble to get out of this mess of a “debate” with “pro-gay polemicists”, to stay clear from it.

        I already answered to your question and offer, somewhere here last month :

        In short and in fact, there is overwhelming historical evidence over this verse’s proper translation and meaning, usage. Ignoring this information to attempt “playing scholar” is not reasonable.

        If you are confident with your case, I believe the Dr. Gagnon is kind enough to answer to emails, should you question his work and wish to measure your arguments against his seasoned, professional expertise in this field, on this specific topic.

        Take care,

      • That cartoon is very cute. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the Kim Davis controversy. It misses the mark for several reasons:

        1. The cartoon represents disputes between a city vs the federal government, or a city vs state government, or between a state vs the federal government.

        2. These disputes generally involve expanding the rights of people or classes of people, pot smokers in Colorado having the right to smoke pot, illegal immigrants in San Francisco not being questioned about their citizenship during a routine traffic stop, or going beyond the cartoon, states or cities fighting the federal government over zoning regulations to expand housing or bus routes in minority areas.

        This is not even about the disputes between individuals. The Christian baker or florist or photographer not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, which is covered under each state’s Religious Freedom Restoration laws, which govern disputes between business owners and the public.

        No. The Kim Davis dispute is not about any of those. It is about a government worker, sworn to uphold and obey the laws, denying the Constitutional right of a marriage license to a gay couple.

        And where does denying an individual’s constitutional right based on religious beliefs stop? If a clerk doesn’t want to serve people who have been divorced, can they deny a license to that couple based on their sincere religious beliefs? Can they deny a license to an interracial couple? Can they deny a license to a Muslim woman and a Christian man? Can they deny a license to a convicted murderer who served his time? Where does it end?

      • Hello,

        This woman refused to issue Marriage licence to ANY couple, in protest to this “gay marriage” being forced on her, within her official job.

        The over-used and abused discrimination / victim card don’t and won’t play with this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s