Homosexuality and the campaign for immorality

IkeConn · 2022-06-22T03:21:52+00:00

I'll be glad when this queer fad is over.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T14:00:46+00:00

Okay so he starts out with Romans 1:18-32. Totally written by Paul and not Polycarp of Smyrna. It has a ton of words used nowhere else in the whole New Testament, and a ton more never used by Paul, and Marcion appears to have gone from 1:18 directly to 2:2. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. And Paul is definitely propheseying and quoting God here and not writing a personal letter to a church.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T14:12:10+00:00

I don't like how he twists it into being about a nation or society collectively. What is he even talking about? Romans 1:18-32 doesn't ever mention nations, only those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness". Furthermore when Paul ends the explanation of wrath he picks up in Romans 3 with an entirely new revelation, nullifying the previous one. The law came in specifically so that sin would increase, and no one can be justified by it. Thus the point of 1:18-2:29 is that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty and reap wrath from the law, which the interpolation of 1:19-2:1 breaks into and makes it unclear.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T14:17:51+00:00

Sex is the first thing that happens when "God abandons a nation"? I would think that a lot of things would happen, like corrupt governments and evil people and brutality. But sexual impurity is far worse than any of that?

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T14:32:02+00:00

Based on how he talks I feel like he was one of the early promoters of the new GOP that took over the platform 2 years ago. He paints a picture of the Democrats as overly-tolerant and allowing too much freedom, which is of course the complete opposite of reality. From what I remember he advocates for a theocracy that doesn't even allow religious freedom.

And if he's not getting political, then why is he talking politics?

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T14:35:47+00:00

you either warn them or affirm them

Is it impossible to not be obsessed with sexuality then?

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T14:49:35+00:00

Let's talk about 1 Corinthians chapter 6. Now if it had been present in Marcion's edition, there is a level of expectation that one of the church fathers would've quoted it against him to show instances of God's judgement, just as they did in Galatians 5. Yet they pass over it in silence along with many other sections there. Not only that, but the whole of chapters 5 and 6 appears to be an interpolation in response to people using chapter 7 to promote sexual immorality.

But where this gets more juicy is when we bring up how "homosexuals" was literally added by the translators. The only thing the original Greek mentions is something that church fathers complained about men comitting with their wives. And sometimes, it wasn't even used in a sexual context. Another term they sometimes try to translate this way means generally immoral or lazy. John MacArthur however has stated that he thinks this one is referring to male-to-female transitioners, something that didn't even exist in the first century, or if it did would not have been widely known. The literal word is "soft". Sometimes it meant "effeminate", but the ancients used that term to mean "bad", because they thought female=bad (not that everyone who used it believed that, but that's the explanation for the language of the day).

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T15:24:07+00:00

such were some you

I should mention that ητε can mean either "were" or "might be".

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T15:30:28+00:00

13:10 so basically salvation by faith and grace alone, and everyone is still a sinner, except for homosexuality where it suddenly becomes by works and committing this causes someone to lose their salvation. Every other sin and evil is excused, but this is unforgivable apparently. And not only the act, but even the temptation is unpardonable. About nothing else do I hear this. I definitely think there's some bias and diuble standards in there.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T19:35:11+00:00

It appears that he can't figure out the meaning of μαλακος, as here he claims it means a passive partner in a homosexual relationship, whereas here he claims it means male-to-females (or even men who merely don't follow gender roles). Admittedly that site doesn't show who answered the question, so I suppose it could've been one of his associates. But it fits his style, and he is said to fire church members for having even minor disagreements with him.

But I already explained that it literally says "soft". Not clearly "bottom homosexuals" or "effeminate men".

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T19:43:27+00:00

αρσενοκοιτης, manbed, that is not very clear. I suppose men can be lesbians, since church fathers complained about them doing this with their wives. Or maybe it meant something else, because there are plenty of terms for gays in ancient Greek, and they are not used.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T19:54:29+00:00

He mentions 1 Timothy. I forgot to mention about "manbed", the only other place it appears in the entire New Testament is in 1 Timothy. No surprises there.

1 Timothy 1:9, which he quotes, contradicts Paul's view, which is that the law came in specifically so that offense would increase and "the whole world be made accountable to God". The only way for justification is through faith and grace. But Polycarp or whoever wrote 1 Timothy says that the law applies to certain types of sinners and not others. So he basically wants to bring back works salvation, but doesn't like all the laws in the Old Testament, so he picks and chooses laws and adds a few of his own and claims to be Paul in saying so, and also that Paul holds infallible authority--after he was edited to conform to orthodox doctrine of course.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T20:01:56+00:00

Most major denominations affirm homosexuality? I must live in a bubble then, because the only ones I know of are weird liberal churches which also care more about politics than anything else, which hardly anyone goes to because they have decided they hate God (not only based solely on the actions of his supposed followers, but extreme and blatant exaggerations of them; which are slowly coming more true as they continually ask for it and incite it).

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T20:09:41+00:00

I had a great big huge lineman from the USA football team because I didn't know what might happen

I don't know anything about Troy Perry, but if he's a crazy liberal SJW then that's not a bad idea.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T20:14:19+00:00

I don't recall Paul ever confronting Nero.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T20:44:18+00:00

Deuteronomy 22:5 Orthodox Translation

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Deuteronomy 22:5:

לֹא־יִהְיֶ֤ה כְלִי־גֶ֙בֶר֙ עַל־אִשָּׁ֔ה וְלֹא־יִלְבַּ֥שׁ גֶּ֖בֶר שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֑ה כִּ֧י תֹועֲבַ֛ת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ כָּל־עֹ֥שֵׂה אֵֽלֶּה

Definition of גֶּבֶר: Strong man, from גָּבַר (to be strong)

It does not use איש (man) or זכר (male). This could be trying to enforce gender norms, but there was also Venus, whose male worshipers wore womens' clothing and female worshipers wore armor, like strong men. But in any case why are the statements 4 verses later, "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together" and "Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear" disregarded? Because we are not under the law? Then why were we still under the law 4 verses ago? There's a story in the Talmud about this kind of hypocrisy in Christianity, showing how it picks and chooses laws from the Old Testament as they are convenient. Unfortunately it is largely correct (and interestingly involves a very similar topic as this one):

Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher in their neighborhood who disseminated about himself the reputation that he does not accept bribes. They wanted to mock him and reveal his true nature. She privately gave him a golden lamp, and she and her brother came before him, approaching him as if they were seeking judgment. She said to the philosopher: "I want to share in the inheritance of my father’s estate." He said to them: "Divide it." Rabban Gamliel said to him: "It is written in our law: 'In a situation where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit.'" The philosopher said to him: "Since the day you were exiled from your land, the Law of Moses was taken away and the gospel was given in its place. It is written in the gospel: 'A son and a daughter shall inherit alike.'" The next day Rabban Gamliel brought the philosopher a Libyan donkey. Afterward, Rabban Gamliel and his sister came before the philosopher for a judgment. He said to them: "I proceeded to the end of the gospel, and it is written: 'I, gospel, did not come to subtract from the Law of Moses, and I did not come to add to the Law of Moses.' And it is written there: 'In a situation where there is a son, the daughter does not inherit.'" She said to him: "May your light shine like a lamp," alluding to the lamp she had given him. Rabban Gamliel said to him: "The donkey came and kicked the lamp, thereby revealing the entire episode."

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T20:53:20+00:00

And actually in the Hebrew, the statement would read this way: "A woman shall not use that which pertains to a man". It's a broad statement, "that which pertains to a man".

But the next part is explicit about the subject of garments. It says, "Anything that pertains to a strong man shall not [be] on a woman, and a strong man shall not put on a woman's garment".

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T20:59:49+00:00

Satan wants to come and obliterate [gender distinctions]

Rather I suspect him to be the one responsible for them in the first place, but regardless of who started it, Paul, the preacher's own apostle, seemed to consider it one of the "elemental principles of this world" which we are "enslaved to" by "those who by nature are not gods", alongside slavery and Jew vs Gentile. It's right there in Galatians 3 and 4. Not to mention all the things Jesus did which would've been considered emasculating in his time, and somewhat even today (this is a common argument against his "weak" teachings, ironically made mostly by Christians).

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T21:10:48+00:00

He quotes Deuteronomy 23:1:

No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut of may enter the assembly of the LORD.

This has to be one of the most anti-Christian points made in this entire sermon. The New Testament and even much of the Old is very clear that eunuchs are not only not condemned, but thought of highly. Moreover, he claims that this is a transsexual surgery. Nevermind the fact that such innovations did not yet exist, and castration was done for a multitude of other reasons. And if it was, why is he condemning the genuinely dysphoric and not the "gender identity" theorists promoting all the crazy SJW nonsense and god-hate?

Why does the law say these things then? It is a forgery, as God clearly condemns in Jeremiah 7-8:

How can you say, "We are wise, and Yahuweh's law is with us"? Behold, the false pen of scribes made [it] into falsehood."

Now does it make sense why Jesus contradicts it and always mentions it along with the "scribes and Pharisees"?

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T21:22:46+00:00

People say, "This releases me from being a captive in the wrong body". Let me tell you something, you're in the right body. You might not like it but it is the one God gave you.

His own "infallible" apostle regards the body and flesh in general as captivity. He says, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable," and almost never speaks of the flesh in a positive sense. I have the same question he asks the Galatians: "how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles, to which you want to be enslaved all over again?". We always make a big deal out of not being carnal and wordly and fleshly; yet in practice we bow to the carnal!

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T21:46:40+00:00

I am currently watching him turn to Leviticus 18, of which I have already exposed the fraudulent orthodox translation. He of course quotes the orthodox version: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it's an abomination." But I am going to make abundantly clear, as I have before, the serious problems with such a simple reading here. I would also discuss the applicability and reliability of the Old Testament law, but I have already covered that.

The main problem lies with the term מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י, translated "as with". But this is blatantly false. מִשְׁכָּב means "lying", as a noun, of either a place to lie down or the action of lying down. The extra י denotes a plural construct state, which means that the next object functions as its possessor. Thus the proper rendering is "And with a male you shall not lie a woman's lyings." Now, is this not implying the act of a man having another man ejaculate in his anus, as John correctly stated spreads AIDS and all kinds of STDs? But the "English language style improvement", while technically not wrong, removes this connotation and makes the statement far more broad, as if blanket banning any activity at all. Not only this, but "woman" in Hebrew is the same as the word for "wife", therefore "a wife's lyings" is possible. This doesn't sound like a big deal at first, but consider how "uncovering a man's nakedness" refers to his wife, and not him. By that logic, if "a wife's lyings" was intended, it could be prohibiting married men from lying down with other men, or lying down with men who are married, as that would be adultery. I don't think the original phrasing sounds like homosexuality at all, and I think translators know this too, which is why they always hide it and swap in "as with". Even interlinears lie about this one.

Edit: He has reached the parallel chapter 20, which has the same wording as chapter 18. Chapter 20 is basically just a copy of chapter 18 but with "give them the death penalty" added. A good example of how the human tampering nearly always pushes the texts in a more wrathful direction.

Vulptex · 2022-06-22T21:50:09+00:00

God abandons, and then judges, nations. I don't know how much time America has left. I really don't.

If his own book is to be believed, and assuming for a moment that this is the ultimate sin, it will not be until every last person is engaged in it. Because God waited until the whole world was evil to send the flood, and waited until every last inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah was evil to destroy them. Because individuals are not guilty of others' actions by association.

Vulptex · 2022-06-23T03:29:43+00:00

Ironically he goes on to cite the very Old Testament passage about eunuchs I was thinking of earlier:

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD, “To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off. “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath And holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

There's actually a lot in here contradicting the law, although there's also some pretty obvious edits trying to support it.

Vulptex · 2022-06-23T03:44:37+00:00

I suppose Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality because they tried to rape angels after they were already set to be destroyed.

Vulptex · 2022-06-23T03:48:42+00:00

From this time on [Sodom] the word for homosexual is the word sodomy

...in the English translation

Vulptex · 2022-06-23T03:53:55+00:00

"Sodomy" in 1 Kings 14:24 & Deuteronomy 23:17-18: קָדֵשׁ, meaning "temple prostitute".

Vulptex · 2022-06-23T04:00:21+00:00

So the downfall of Greece and Rome and every great empire was all due to the presence of homosexuality? (45:00)

Vulptex · 2022-06-23T05:45:15+00:00

Finally I must address the way this sermon is delivered. Most likely the majority of his congregation agrees with most of his sentiments. Therefore he is preaching to the choir. So is this really trying to warn sinners? With the way he depicts the situation, he should be depressed and worried, yet he seems filled with nothing but wrath. I think he's lost direction, like the bulk of churches.

whatever

MODERATORS