This is a follow-up to my post, "PUTIN, MOSCOW BAN HOMOSEXUAL PARADES: PETITION, NO."

I don't subscribe to Biblical Fundamentalism in the way that term is customarily understood as of the time of this writing. I am not a literalist in that sense. I am a literalist/figurativist. I'm not a disciple of John Nelson Darby or Cyrus Scofield — or Paul for that matter. I don't subscribe to the rapture of Darby (See also: ON GLENN BECK, SOCIAL JUSTICE, ECONOMIC JUSTICE, COMMUNISTS, NAZIS, AND CHURCHES) or Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye-type books.

I'm also not a King James Version Only member. The Johannine Comma is a real error in the KJV. However, the differences between the KJV and the oldest known texts are not many. Also, the KJV is the direct result of monarchical forces set against the people. King James was an extreme elitist and homosexual. He was working through religion to attempt to reinforce the notion of the divine right of kings and the temporal, worldly hierarchical structure that James wanted to see to it supported in full his claim to ultimate, sole sovereignty apart from the people. His concept was decidedly antichrist. James wanted an end to the Geneva Bible's more-populist sway in English speaking and reading circles. The KJV fell prey a bit itself to the political correctness of its time. The Geneva Bible, on the other hand, is the interpretation of Calvinists, is it not? I do not hold with Calvin or Calvinism. I am not a member of the Reformed movement. Frankly, I'm not a Protestant. Neither am I Catholic or Orthodox, in the Eastern Orthodox or Russian or Greek, etc., senses. I am not any of those for the reason that they have not brought forth (The Christian Commons Project) nor sufficiently tried.

The NIV (New International Version) though is not a good effort. It too is politically correct for this time. Deborah L. Collins, of the MidActsDispensationalist site, has a post, "TAKE THE NIV 'ACID TEST'!" It raises some interesting points about the NIV. (Also, I found the post via Mark has an interesting take on "Easter" at the end of this post citing Deborah's post.)

The NIV, published by Zondervan, was chaired by the Old Testament Committee by a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra. Virginia Mollenkott is a lesbian and was the stylistic editor for the NIV. The version is a deliberate work to alter perceptions concerning, among many other things (it is secular leaning on account of its humanistic, ecumenical, and syncretistic tendencies, not that the KJV doesn't fall prey at all to such) the harmful (and therefore sinful in Jesus's New Testament teaching) behavior that is homosexuality even in thought or feeling.

The homosexuals are using the following to self-authorize [from Strong's]:
From H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: - sodomite, unclean.

This refers to "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Deuteronomy 23:17 KJV)

Sodomites in the NIV is rendered "male shrine prostitutes." Is that enough to authorize homosexuality?

Now, as I've pointed out already, as Christians, we must concern ourselves with Jesus's teachings. If Jesus said be harmless as doves, which he did, and if homosexuality is harmful (regardless of any Old Testament wordings or translation or any other non-Jesus New Testament words), then Jesus taught, and still teaches, against homosexuality. I say not just the act or outward behavior (acting out) but homosexuality, per se, because he also taught that we are not to even fantasize evil that is harmfulness.

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:28 KJV)

What the homosexuals are doing is claiming that Jesus didn't specifically mention "homosexuality." They claim based upon that that homosexuality isn't prohibited by Jesus, as if homosexuality outside of the shrine and/or not paying mammon for the act renders the behavior acceptable or at least vague enough that readers ought to be uncertain concerning the iniquity inherent in that behavior. The homosexuals do not address the harmfulness inherent in homosexuality; or if they do, they point out harmfulness in the acts of others who are not homosexuals, as if that non-homosexual harmfulness excuses homosexuality. Losing that argument, they turn to authorizing homosexuality on wholly mundane grounds of democratic, human, and/or civil rights. They then however don't address the hypocrisy in anti-sexual behavior of other types, such as pedophilia and bestiality. Some will claim the acceptability of homosexuality with disgust for pedophilia, etc. However, that just brings them to the same position of particular anti-homosexuals (who don't emphasizes harmlessness) vis-a-vis homosexuals as those homosexuals have vis-a-vis the pedophiles, etc. It's a slippery slope to Hell.

Barring that argument, they turn to genetics as an excuse and to call people to have compassion toward homosexuals. However, homosexuality is a choice. Regardless though, as Christians, we are to approach it from Jesus's words and deeds. He healed where there was faith and the absence of hypocrisy. It is generalized doubt and hypocrisy that retards the healing.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.