A Defense of a Christian Homophobe

A Defense of a Christian Homophobe April 17, 2015

ISIS homophobia stoning gays David BerzinsI’ve written a lot in support of same-sex marriage and the weakness of biblical arguments against homosexuality. Nevertheless, I want to point out some important areas where pastor David Berzins, in a recent rant in support of stoning of homosexuals, actually has it right.

After a fellow pastor pulled back from a fire ’n brimstone response to homosexuality, Berzins responded first by acknowledging that pastor’s good points.

He believes in the King James Bible, it’s [an] independent fundamentalist Baptist church, he believes homosexuality is wickedness, and he preaches against it.

Wow—what’s not to like? Simply this: “They don’t believe that [homosexuals] should be stoned [to death].”

Do you follow the Bible or not?

Berzins moved on to demand consistency from his fellow Christians.

And this is what drives me nuts: … the same Christians that are complaining about the Old Testament law being thrown out of the courtrooms now will not stand up in defense of a man of God [who] is believing that God’s word is pure and that God’s judgment is righteous on the sodomites.

He’s got a point. Fretting about the Ten Commandments not having a place of prominence in American government is a popular pastime among some Christians today. If the Commandments said only, “Be excellent to each other” (as philosophers Bill and Ted put it), that would be one thing. But in fact, they include demands that we have no other gods but Jehovah, make no graven images, not blaspheme, and keep the Sabbath day.

Is this desire that the government endorse the Ten Commandments just window dressing? Just an empty gesture that Christians can nevertheless feel good about? Of course it is, but let’s take these Christians at their word. Berzins puts them on the spot: why should society follow the Ten Commandments but not all of the Old Testament?

Moral vs. ritual law in the Old Testament

Christians typically get around this by distinguishing moral or divine law, which is still in force, from ritual law, applicable only during Old Testament times. These ritual laws would include kosher food rules and no work on the Sabbath.

It doesn’t work that way in practice. Many Christians, Berzins included, will pick and choose from the buffet as their fancy dictates. They’ll laugh at Old Testament prohibition against mixing fibers in fabrics or crops in a field and they’ll reject rules about slavery, but those rules against homosexuality look tempting. Only extremists like Berzins (and ISIS) go so far as keeping the punishment that goes with the crime.

Berzins is inconsistent about what he keeps and rejects, but that doesn’t make him wrong when he points out Christian inconsistency. Don’t like the gays? Conservative Christians often want to keep prohibitions against homosexuality. Think that stoning to death is just a little much for a civilized country in the 21st century? They’ll drop the Old Testament’s draconian punishments, which in most cases is death.

Stoning for the gays—who’s with me??

By this time in his sermon, Berzins has a good head of steam.

If you think they shouldn’t be put to death, fine. If you don’t think that should be the government’s role, but you believe the Bible and you’re against homosexuality? This is not a cause to break fellowship over. The Bible talks about people who need to be kicked out of the church like drunkards and extortioners and people like that. Yeah—break fellowship with those people. Don’t break fellowship with someone who simply believes that Leviticus 20:13 should be in application in our government today, as it used to be, by the way.

Sure, we’re all singing out of the same hymnal. So I want the government to stone gays to death and you don’t? No biggie, right? We’re still pretty much saying the same thing as long as we shun the drunkards and extortioners.

But once again, I must note where Berzins is right. In a long list of nutty crimes in Leviticus 13 (death for adulterers and rude children, exile for mediums and those who have sex during a woman’s period), God demands death for homosexual men. And at the birth of the United States, male homosexuality was a capital crime in each of the 13 colonies.

Fred “God hates fags!” Phelps was an extremist, but he knew his Bible. He wasn’t just making it up. And David “Stone them!” Berzins has a point when he demands Christian consistency.

For those of you who thought that the biggest problem in this country was not allowing bakers to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes, it’s nice that pastor Berzins is here to set us straight.

Saying someone shouldn’t be gay because it’s against your religion

is like saying someone shouldn’t eat a cupcake
because you are on a diet.
— Unknown

Image credit: Shutterstock

"Science is useful until it's not, I guess."

Was Jesus Born to a Virgin? ..."
"It was the "Professor" as the first word in the title that suggested that we ..."

Was Jesus Born to a Virgin? ..."
"If you are conversant with contemporary biblical scholarship [the New Biblical Scholars] you will know ..."

More Damning Bible Contradictions: #25 Was ..."
"I try to mix it up. I was quite pleased with this photo of mama, ..."

Was Jesus Born to a Virgin? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Greg G.

    If picking up sticks on the sabbath was worthy of the death penalty, it must be important whether it is a moral or a ritual commandment. Keeping the sabbath holy is one of the Ten Commandments. If you realize that it is wrong to kill a person for working on the sabbath, you should reconsider using the source as a basis for morality, ritual, or law.

    • adam

      Let’s face it, almost every ‘christian’ has better morals than the ‘god’ they claim to worship.

      • MNb

        I am tempted to reply “thank god” …..

  • adam

    I mean you either believe that it is the word of a ‘god’ or you dont:

  • Keiko Mushi

    My issue with the stoning thing is that they cherry pick stuff the stuff that they don’t like, such as homosexuality, rather than considering the other things that people could be killed over. This includes gossip, rebellious children and people that leave the faith of their father.

  • XTheist

    I really don’t get the moral/ritual distinction. What criteria do they use to distinguish the two? Whatever you find unpalatable is ritual and whatever you don’t mind is moral? A friend of mine on Facebook shared this video and it really made me facepalm, because I honestly think the straw-atheist here has a point, and I don’t see any explanation of the methodology they use to distinguish between moral and ritual law, just an assertion that the law is divided into those two categories. It allows them to balk at those who challenge them to be more scripturally consistent without explaining how to distinguish between moral and ritual.

    • I think you’ve got it–the keepers you label as “moral” and the silly stuff is “ritual.” Not that they’ll admit that, of course, but that’s how it works in practice IMO.

    • Neko

      In Catholicism (I think) the only binding moral law from the Old Testament is the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), because it’s believed both to have been a direct revelation from God and determined from the “natural law” (philosophical precepts that may be deduced through reason without direct revelation). “Ceremonial” and “judicial” traditions (like stoning) are temporal and non-binding.

      Hope this helps.

      • Scott_In_OH

        That’s interesting. I had not heard that. Can you point me toward some further reading?

        • Neko

          The scheme comes from Aquinas and is assimilated into the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


          Starts at number 1949.

        • Scott_In_OH

          Interesting. Thanks for that.

          Like a lot of the Catechism, it’s hard for me to get a firm handle on. You’re right that they seem to reduce the “Old Law” to the 10 Commandments (see, for example, paragraph 1962). What I don’t see, though, is a direct statement that all (or some) of the Levitical laws are now out of date. Maybe they imply that only the Levitical laws that can be derived from the 10 Commandments still matter? But I’m pretty sure the Jewish teaching is that all of those laws derived from the 10 Commandments.

          On the question of what it means for Jesus or his teaching to “fulfill” the Old Law, paragraph 1968 says it means to “reveal their entire divine and human truth.” That is, it shows all the implications of the Old Law in a way that transforms human hearts (i.e., desires), rather than simply prescribing or proscribing certain behaviors. Whether one is convinced by it or not, I think it’s a interesting explanation of what they are trying to say.

        • Pofarmer

          “I think it’s a interesting explanation of what they are trying to say.”

          If you can’t dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bullshit.

    • wtfwjtd

      This moral/ritual distinction is just more made-up stuff about made-up stuff. As you correctly discern, the rub is what criteria are used to distinguish between the two–and like all Christian morality, that distinction is arbitrary.

    • The problem is you can find Jesus himself saying the opposite (according to the Scripture anyway: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”-Matthew 5:18. Heaven and earth do not seem to have passed away yet, so I presume that the Jewish law is still binding. Of course, Jesus wasn’t really saying that, and no doubt the most wise theologians will explain.

      • Kodie

        Just a side question – I don’t want to have to look at the bible, so could you or someone give a quick summary about what “until all is accomplished” is supposed to mean? The passage says, “until heaven and earth pass away” and “until all is accomplished,” and are they the same thing? Heaven and earth haven’t passed away but has all been accomplished? Is this some vague drama to get your attention? Or is there more detail about what all is supposed to get accomplished before heaven and earth pass away? I think they are two different things and contradict each other.


        • I think it references the fact that the end of the world was going to happen very soon according to the belief at the time of the writing. He’d die, come back, raise the dead and judge humanity. Obviously at that point the Jewish law wouldn’t be important anymore. Then Jesus died and the world didn’t end. Early Christians had to move on, and if they wanted gentile converts, making them follow the Jewish law would be a big disincentive.

        • Kodie

          That makes sense I guess. Someone tell Jesus they’re not expecting him and already got a taste for bacon, and fact that they often celebrate his resurrection with a feast of ham.

        • A lot of the Gospels only make sense if you remember they expected the world to end very soon. Like “give all your money to the poor.” Now that sounds like what lots of doomsday sects do, right? People stopped doing that real quick when it didn’t happen, I’m sure.

        • Kodie

          Well, it just looks like this is one cult that didn’t know when to pack it in. Why would you even give your money to the poor if the world was going to end soon? It would end for poor people too. If you’re Heaven’s Gate or something, you’re getting on that comet and obviously no future use for your stuff, give it away to the poor. I would think if everyone gave their stuff away to the poor and the world didn’t end, that would be their lesson learned, but I guess not. Seems more like a trick to get people to get rid of all their resources and rely on the cult for everything, or give everything to the poor via the cult officers – an easy scam. Why do people still think this is real?

        • wtfwjtd

          “Why would you even give your money to the poor if the world was going to end soon?”

          I believe that would be done as a demonstration of faith, and also to get you a little better seat at the table.

        • TheNuszAbides

          as someone with no fortune (yet?) and whose death is not imminent (that i know of!), i profess the wisdom of St. Errol:


        • Kodie

          What if someone died gambling and won on their last $10?

          Personally, I’d be on the other side of death screaming “I can’t do anything right, I have the worst timing ever!” So I guess that still counts.

        • Because “the love of money is the root of all evil”, “love thy neighbor”, and “the first shall be last, and the last shall be first” in heaven. Jesus really hated the rich. There is even one verse in which he says the rich will all go to hell. Store up treasure in heaven by giving it all to the poor now, or be put in the hot seat for all eternity. The prosperity gospel types ignore all this, of course. Once the world didn’t end, they stopped telling people to give everything up, so to that extent it seems they did learn. As for why they think it’s real, people seem to have an infinite capacity to justify it for themselves.

        • Neko

          I doubt the early Christians were running a scam. They seem to have been true believers.

          Why do people still think this is real?

          It’s a compelling narrative that gives meaning to their lives.

        • TheNuszAbides

          God’s Properly Attentive Children ain’t got time to shun the pig-meat when they need to be all nice and strong for Armageddon…

      • Neko

        All the sayings of Jesus are attributions; who knows what he actually said or didn’t say. It was acceptable practice at the time for an author to create dialogue that he (or she) thought a person might properly have said; also the evangelists cribbed quite a bit from the Old Testament to supply dialogue. The author of Matthew was probably addressing Jewish Christians in a community observant of the Jewish law, hence the image of Jesus as the fulfillment of the law.

        • Of course that’s true. I’m simply assuming what they believe to be true (Jesus said all that) to show it doesn’t really work out due to the contradictions.

        • Neko

          Right. Sorry!

        • No problem 🙂

        • Greg G.

          Matthew may have been putting James’ ideas into Jesus’ mouth:

          The Sermon on the Mount Site: James and the Sermon on the Mount by Robert I. Kirby

          That’s something the author doesn’t consider.

        • Neko

          That is interesting! Thanks for the link.

  • Playonwords

    Obviously they are taking hints from Emo Phillips –

    Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

    He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

    He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

    Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

  • I think homosexuality gets a “pass” because it’s one sin that’s included in both the Old and New testaments. Typically, from my understanding, what’s included in both is considered relevant for all ages. And nowhere in the NT does it endorse stoning as punishment; the worst it says about gays is that they won’t make it to heaven.

    • Greg G.

      That is what I wanted to point out. They really like the New Testament but the Old Testament is both taken and left. They really like the Ten Commandments though not all of them are endorsed in the New Testament and Jesus effectively rejects keeping the sabbath holy.

      Then they want to argue in the existence of objective morality. If it was objectively moral to stone the sabbath day stick picker-upper yesterday, it is objectively moral to do it today and always will be.

      • Kodie

        They’ve had to make some concessions toward societal peace, refraining (mostly) from violence, and sticking with trying to work the laws. As far as objective morality, they like to say if there were no god, then what is to stop anyone from killing or raping or whatever… and then there is the part where US law limits them from acting out on their biblical imperatives, so that’s why they don’t act on them (mostly).

        Then society kind of alters every generation to where people today wouldn’t even think of ganging up on a gay person with rocks and killing them (as per the bible; some might just ’cause), of course they justify this by conflating murder as wrong, even though in certain circumstances god says it’s ok, they know some morals, they have learned some from shameful historical episodes of witch-burning and holocausts, of the sorts of things society frowns upon even more than homosexuality. There are some people who think they ought to be rounded up and segregated in camps – I mean, these are people who wouldn’t do that even to a Jew (maybe) – so they can’t procreate, and feed them, but then they will die off, or something, disregarding that they don’t naturally procreate together sexually anyway, nor do gay people come from having gay parents.

        Definitely are people who think shaming them is what to do, out of “love” and “concern”, to “correct” them, and part of their concern is not primarily that being gay is wrong, but how “society” will treat them.

        And then, besides which, they’re not afraid to stand up for their rights as bakers and florists and hospitals or whatever right now, but it’s pretty evident that the “homosexual agenda” isn’t going to subside just on their wishes, and they can’t do a lot more than agitate. What used to be considered a rare affliction, thanks so much to the threats of death and imprisonment that kept so many hidden in their closets, that a single example would be made an example of, and people would look the other way. I don’t know the whole history, but it does occur to me that stoning or something like that used to be almost as common as an out gay, and nobody would rat on anyone.

        Tell me if that needs more scare quotes.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible says stoning gays half to death isn’t good enough for them. They should be stoned completely to death. But now their goal is to destroy gay marriage by not baking wedding cakes for them.

        • Kodie

          Their goal seems to be to make life so uncomfortable for gay people that they move somewhere else, stop being gay, or hide being gay like they used to. They stop short of killing them (mostly) because (a) sometimes they can get them to kill themselves, or (b) they don’t want to be the one to do it. They’ve been altered socially to find murder distasteful and/or someone else’s job. If they can successfully put the toothpaste back in the tube, maybe stoning will come back into fashion. Until then, let’s blame all the natural disasters on god’s clear message of displeasure with homosexuality that he’s willing to do so much collateral damage.

        • And it’s even crazier when the pastors propose having a big pen where all the gays are kept so that when they die out, that’s that. As if it’s contagious. As if they don’t understand that gays come from straight parents.

        • Kodie

          I also wanted to put this into a general context – has something ever bothered you but you didn’t want to have to be the one to speak up, get harassed, backlash, scorn for making a big fuss over nothing? Obviously, society has put the pressure on religions as to proper functioning social behavior at least as far as stoning gay people goes. I imagine many of them wouldn’t mind a bit, and grumble among themselves, if someone else picked up a rock. You know how that RI atheist girl got death threats, and no florist in the state was willing to fill a flower delivery order from American Atheists (I think?) because it potentially would put their delivery drivers in danger? Because it’s really easy to threaten someone with death, but it’s really a rare, uncivilized piece of shit (and they know it) who will pick up that rock and do it. So they are limited by not only laws against murder, but social norms. So much for their objective morals – they are afraid for reasons other than god and their “objective morals” from carrying out biblical justice on people they probably wish someone would go ahead and sacrifice themselves to a life in prison for the glorious deed in god’s name.

    • That’s…actually much, much worse. Even if one doesn’t believe in hell, just that unbelievers die, they’re still worse off by far than straight people. Also, gays have to remain abstinent and alone their entire or face an eternity in hell, according to these people. So they would still have it worse than straight people. That doesn’t seem very loving of God to me.

      • Pofarmer

        Welcome to the Catholic vision for Gays. The reason why something like 36-60% of Catholic priests are Homosexual, depending on who’s numbers you believe.

        • So they think “I’m gay, but maybe it will be okay if I’m a priest and celibate”?
          I don’t want to excuse their actions by any means, they make their own choices, but could that have something to do with the problem of pedophilia within the Catholic church? That the nearest male “sexual partners” are little boys? 🙁

        • Kodie

          I’m not a Catholic, but it seems to be a problem of being forced and avowed into celibacy as the only avenue for a gay Catholic to live with themselves, seems like a good idea at the time to deal with it, when they know entering a heterosexual marriage would be unappealing and a lie, plus the whole tradition of younger males being altar boys. I don’t think girls do that.

          Also seems to me, another fine way of dealing with it would be for, you know, gay priests to get it on together without hurting anyone else. Maybe they do that too? There’s the idea that children can be manipulated to keep secrets – all the kids I know are tattle-tales and terrible at poker, so I don’t know why anyone thinks they can be trusted. Maybe so nobody would believe them if they did tell. Before homosexuals were allowed to be open in the military, what did they do? They didn’t find any little boys to keep their secrets. If so many Catholic priests are gay, there are other ways of solving this issue. But the celibacy is an issue, and you’re a trusted “type” of person, like a police officer (no, they are never corrupt, right?), so people leave their kids with them, and as far as I can tell, Catholic parents are proud of their own sons who seek the priesthood, do they not know they are gay? Nobody tells anyone these things. He’s sacrificing having a wife and a family for a greater calling! He’s not a conflicted homosexual Catholic checking out his only other option.

        • Neko

          Trust in priests and the hierarchy has been pretty much shattered. But you’re right that traditionally the priesthood offered a respectable option for homosexual men. Altar girls have become common, in the American RCC anyway, but traditionalist priests often institute an altar boys-only policy on the assumption that it will increase vocations to the priesthood (not to mention, out of sexism). Very controversial, needless to say.

        • Scott_In_OH

          plus the whole tradition of younger males being altar boys. I don’t think girls do that.

          Actually, there have been altar girls for quite a while, although not in all parishes. Girls have been victims of sexual abuse, as well.

          I 100% agree with the interpretation that many young men enter the priesthood partly because they think it will help them suppress their “sinful” sexual desires. Instead, for some of them, the desires get expressed in horribly destructive ways. But the Church doesn’t understand that that’s what’s happening.

        • Pofarmer

          “But the Church doesn’t understand that that’s what’s happening.”

          That’s what happens when your worldview is divorced from reality.

        • Lookingup73

          There is some logic to it. A priest doesn’t have to deal with sex at all. They are to remain celibate, yes, but they are not seen as sexual beings. So by becoming a priest, a young gay man can see a way to never really have to deal with “being gay”. There is an appeal there.

        • Neko

          The fact is, priests do have to deal with sex and a substantial percentage of priests are sexually active.

          Richard Sipe is the go-to guy on this front:


        • Lookingup73

          Yes. But that has nothing to do with what motivates the closeted man to pursue the priesthood.

        • Neko

          Nothing to do? How do you know this?

        • Lookingup73

          Nothing to do with my original comment. A gay man doesn’t contemplate the priesthood because it will bee a great place to have sex.

        • Neko

          Again, how do you know this?

        • Lookingup73

          Makes logical sense. Also I was such a seminarians and knew and meet several young men who definitely saw becoming a priest as a way to avoid dealing with being gay. It is not effective of course. Yes reality is priest deals with all sort of sexual desire. But the image is that they don’t. The seminarians find this out. But I never met a priest who became a priest because of all the tail they would get

        • Neko

          Ha! I defer to your experience.

          However, I have read of seminaries that were hotbeds of gay sex. I suppose they were exceptions. Also, I didn’t mean to suggest that gay men become priests primarily for sexual opportunity. I certainly don’t think that.

        • Lookingup73

          Oh I agree with the gay sex in seminaries. I am saying that folks dint go INTO thinking there will be all this sex. I was saying a motivation initially is the priesthood appears to be a place to forget about one’s sexual inclinations. Which in the end is extremely hard if not impossible to do. I think we are both actually on the same page. We might be taking about two different times in the vocation process!

        • Kodie

          I don’t really doubt anything you’ve said – a gay Catholic who loves his beliefs so much would probably assume he’d be taught how to suppress himself and be holier than his urges. A gay Catholic looking to hook up probably would consider becoming a priest as the last place to look. Then again there’s this pedophilia thing, probably aside from it. There is opportunity and then there is intention, and we know from a wide variety of careers that leave children alone with adults that a percentage of them intend toward a career that will feed them as many opportunities as they wish. I’m not trying to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia here, but priests also have the public image of avowing chastity. They seem to think with enough prayer, they can stop being normal adults, whereas a teacher or a coach has no restrictions on their sexuality, not even if they are closeted homosexuals, they can find consenting adults privately, and probably have a spouse at home and a family with them. It’s not like they’d have no access to sex as a priest would. A man “called” to the priesthood because he can’t stop thinking about dudes is probably seeking more to suppress the “dysfunction” in him, as per his religious beliefs.

        • Kodie

          I can imagine they are in denial and very optimistic.

        • Neko

          You’re right, but it’s an effect of opportunism rather than homosexuality per se. The Catholic Church’s own study of the sex abuse scandals confirms as much.

          Another problem is the deference that Catholics traditionally accorded the clergy as well as the Catholic Church’s by now well-known priority to protect its reputation and its priests at the expense of children.

        • MNb

          Yes. It’s okay to be a sinner – we all are – but it’s not okay to sin. If you want to know how it works – it’s not typically catholic – read this:


          Though sure enough the author later became a catholic indeed.
          I thoroughly despised the novel.

        • From what I understand, pedophiles are attracted to children period. Jobs like clergy allows theme access to children. I would imagine the number of pedophile priests is far lower than of homosexuals. Apparently it’s common for Catholic clergy to have affairs (whether heterosexual or homosexual) with other members or laity.

        • You mean, attracted to all children, or just of one sex? I didn’t know that priests so often had affairs, either. I’ve heard that psychopaths are attracted to this position, too, anything that gives them power of other people.

        • I mean attracted to children only, rather than children and adults as well. Some are attracted to children of both sexes, but I believe most have a preference, not just of sex but also age. I’m sure that sociopaths may be found as well (there is overlap with pedophilia also at times).

        • TheNuszAbides

          psychopaths are basically wired to be the ultimate ‘alphas’. i kind of hate to think what they could potentially get away with under the cover of the neurodiversity movement.

        • Greg G.

          I have always suspected that those with attractions that are not considered appropriate by their religion see going into the ministry and devoting themselves to it as a way of making their sexual desires irrelevant being too young and naive to understand the difficulties and frustrations of trying to suppress those desires. Their intentions may have been to do what they thought as good and to never act on their base desires. Unfortunately, they get overwhelmed and do great harm. Their superiors are more worried about the church than the victims or the potential victims.

        • I understand how they might think devoting themselves to God might be a “cure” for their desire, whatever that is. Of course they are then put in a position whose power and trust makes their decision backfire on everyone else if they abuse it after failing to be “cured.”

        • wtfwjtd

          And, remembering the religious mindset from when I was such, the expectation would be that God would “cure” you of your “sinful” desire. Literally. This almost never happens, of course, and the resultant inner conflict not only makes the subject completely miserable, but they are put in a position of doing great harm to others.

        • Not to mention that I’ve seen claims of religion curing mental illnesses (setting aside the fact that many think homosexuality is one). That’s just dangerous to those of us who have a mental illness.

        • wtfwjtd

          Sarah Palin’s “pray away the gay” highlights the idiocy of this mindset. And yes, it’s true, Christians who favor shunning LBGT people view it as a mental illness, or a “lifestyle choice”, being unable to face the fact that sexual identity is something that most people have little or no control over.

        • It’s some improvement over “we’re going to kill or imprison you” of course, but not by much.

        • TheNuszAbides

          pedophiles are attracted to children period.

          it is such a profoundly depressing onion to peel.
          it’s definitely important to distinguish between ‘disorder’ and ‘orientation’. this is of course a problem in itself, since

          1) scientific psychology (and slightly ‘younger’, psychiatry) has spent most of its trajectory relying on self-reporting and largely uninformed by ‘harder’ science until the last few decades;

          2) living memory includes older DSMs which classified homosexuality as a disorder;

          3) though this classification was erroneous in the sense of confusing correlation with causation, it was otherwise technically apt, because disorders are primarily defined as conditions/behavior which impair the subject’s functioning in society. (i.e. no shit people were stressed, depressed, guilt-ridden, suicidal, etc. when that’s what dominant forces in society imposed on them!). so those two factors (widespread prejudice and clinical criteria) combined made it take that much longer to rectify the error.

          4) the argument of homosexuality as natural behavior was essentially emotional/rhetorical (as, certainly, was the argument that it was unnatural) until the very recent discovery of genetic evidence (and better publicizing of a wide variety of nonhuman animal behaviors; i don’t even know how long those observations have been recorded but i never heard/saw the argument presented until the last several years) – not that progressive clarification is going to matter to the most far-gone of homophobes, those whose careers are built on the hatred, etc., of course.

          so, while stats like those Pofarmer mentioned are profound in their own way, there seems a serious limit to how instructive it might be to emphasize the nuances of pedophilia-as-disorder, pedophilia-as-[unacceptable]-orientation, and homosexuality-as-orientation; i.e. sorting out whether those who are born homosexual and develop pedophilia only apply the latter to one gender of child, or whether pedophiles are more likely to be bisexual, etc., is almost entirely a mere statistical exercise.

          in my opinion the most difficult hurdle in finding solutions is that, as much progress as has been made in the last few centuries (rights of defendants, prison conditions, narrowing scope or practice of the death penalty, and so on), human society at large still has an overwhelming punitive/vengeful tendency (i feel that’s a rather ‘safe’ hypothesis).
          the multiple reasons for a pedophile to hide their feelings/thoughts/behavior cannot be resolved by ‘simple justice’; the degree to which their urges can be denied/redirected cannot even be made clear unless they can feel safe seeking help, so it’s essentially a matter of pure luck that any of them realizes what he/she is and keeps this a secret indefinitely and manages to never act [criminally, traumatically] on those urges.

          having said all that, i am not at all empathetic to the church ‘closing ranks’, ‘looking out for their own’ and so on, since it is practically impossible for me to believe that an organization of that size and ‘pedigree’ and with so many conflicts of physical/spiritual interest (both internally and in dealing with the world outside, not to mention the whole vows of chastity + close contact with potential victims) is broadly compassionate/merciful, rather than simply desperate to save face and/or maintain the narrative that they answer to a higher power than “mere man-made laws” … i imagine if i knew of a specific and exceptional case i could feel sympathy for an individual or two, but i certainly don’t buy any weasel’s equivocation over who the real victims are.

        • There is still much to be learned, I’m sure. Psychology has only just begun to grow out of its infancy. As for me, the naturalness of something is irrelevant. Homosexuality is not inherently harmful, thus it’s acceptable. Pedophilia is, so it’s not. No matter how natural either is.

    • Kodie

      I don’t really think so. I think there is a deep prejudice and it has not too much to do with religion. People with a religion will dredge up any biblical justification to say it’s not them who hate, but god. Most people just are not gay and don’t know how that “works” and some of it is sexual promiscuity, some of it is sexual uh… “deviance” as they used to call it, I guess, and a heap of it is conflated with gender roles. If a man likes men, he must be like a woman? If two men get together, which one is the woman? Stuff like that. How can they raise children without someone to bathe and cook for the children, if they can’t make children to begin with, how would they even get children, who would give their children to a couple who are so horny they’d even have sex with someone of the same gender, they must not be able to get enough, and who would do the laundry and care for them? Men have roles, women have roles, if you have two the same, someone has to wish they were another gender, right? That’s how they think, it is a mystery to them, and therefore seems “not right” which is another way to say “wrong.”

      With other things like shellfish and pork and cheeseburgers, and mixed materials, these people can taste something and say there can’t be anything wrong with it, it’s delicious! These materials are so practical! It’s like, if everyone were normally bisexual, and got a try at having sex with a person of the same gender, they would be less uptight about it because it’s fine. Gossip is kind of horrible but it’s tempting and therefore “fine.” Bratty asshole children are nobody else’s fucking business, don’t judge those parents, these children are bright and will be the boss of your children someday shut the fuck up and mind your own business. Justifications are why the rest of these laws don’t matter. Homosexuality is something most people are not attracted to at all and is just a little harder for them to accept.

    • Pofarmer

      Homosexuality is vilified because it’s “safe”. Typically, a very small percentage of any congregation will be homosexual.

      • It does seem to me, though, that Haggard’s Law may be in play here. If you’re freaking out about your own homosexual tendencies (never mind that a nice solution would be to simply recategorize homosexuality as not sinful), a nice way to keep your libido in check is to get out in front on the gay hating. (1) Who’d suspect you? (2) Like a public declaration that you’re laying off sweets for Lent, everyone is watching you so the electric fence keeping you in check is stronger.

        • Kodie

          How does it keep anyone’s libido in check if it’s all they can think about? I used to know online a self-loathing gay Mormon, he was so torn up all the time. He never said anything about hating gay people, just that every so often he would succumb and feel guilty about it. It wasn’t a thing where he could be rational about his beliefs either – he loved being a Mormon. I think it is more about 1 and not at all about 2. Because someone can’t have a healthy relationship with whomever one pleases, drives them to have unhealthy expressions about it, obsessively. Not merely to throw people off the trail, but to maybe try to convince themselves and convince god that you really mean it, that really really was the last time. While he’s standing upright with his pants on, it’s fairly convenient to even feel otherwise disgusted by one’s own homosexual indulgences, and honestly believe, simultaneously, that homosexuality is disgusting enough to make it a central issue to one’s ministry.

          Anyway, about these homophobic secretly homosexual Christians – when they are doing their deeds, they don’t seem to think god is watching everywhere. They don’t shout out publicly against gay people and mutter under their breath, “forgive me Steve, I really cherish our times together”. The scandal is entirely social. I would even suspect they’re not able to hold together any healthy relationships that way – so much drama of the “we have to stop seeing each other” type – so that they could understand a beautiful loving relationship and how it is just like any other two people in love. Their own perversion of it probably makes them think this is dysfunctional for everyone … not unlike the so-called former atheists who find Jesus. I think their self-esteem issues and dislike for authority are just conflated with issues with addiction and so on. I sincerely believe there are people who think they are atheists because that is how the church describes them, and they fall into that category.

          Anyway, I don’t think people can stay away from something if they’re so obsessed that they can’t shut up about it. They’re not actually accountable to anyone if they keep that side of themselves private out of shame of being discovered, labeled, shunned, scandalized, etc. It’s kind of the same thing with anyone having an affair. They have to become obsessed with keeping the secret, they know is wrong, they know it will hurt people, mostly they know it will hurt themselves when the truth is found out.

        • Homophobic secretly homosexual? Sounds like Daffyd Thomas from “Mitchell and Webb Look.”


        • Mitchell and Webb? That’s David Walliams and Matt Lucas.

        • Whoops! That show is “Little Britain,” not “Mitchell and Webb.” Thanks for catching that.

        • MNb

          “about these homophobic secretly homosexual Christians – when they are doing their deeds, they don’t seem to think god is watching everywhere.”
          No, they have that excellent escape route: confess, repent and accept Jesus as their saviour. It’s where the term guilty pleasure comes from – meaning that the guilt actually increases the pleasure.

        • Greg G.

          How does it keep anyone’s libido in check if it’s all they can think about?

          Right. The problem is that keeping one’s libido “in check” without release makes one think about it all the more. It’s like trying to keep one’s urge to urinate in check by not peeing. Eventually, you can’t think about much else.

        • Neko

          Sometimes that’s certainly the case. More broadly, people are tribal and inclined to scapegoat. Christianity is organized around an ultimate scapegoat, after all.

          Hatred toward homosexuals is intimately related to misogyny, it seems to me. Assuming sodomy, the scandal is that a male would assume a female role.

        • smrnda

          I also think it plays into the need for rigid gender roles. “One man one woman” is usually built around fairly specific ideas about what men are women are supposed to be like and how they should behave. Working same sex relationships demonstrate a flaw in that thinking. Much of the thinking about roles is built on subservient roles for women and dominant but rigid roles for men. And then men are women are supposed to get together regularly to be policed by higher ranked members of the subculture to make sure they are doing it right.

          Odd, I always thought that if your relationship needed help, you would talk to *your partner.* My brief investigative stint into a church was weird. If a man needs info on how to make his wife happy, he’s supposed to spend a lot of time being ‘mentored’ by other men. Women are mentored by other women but frequently lectured at by men. This seemed to be quite a means of controlling people.

        • Neko

          You’re absolutely right about that. The only Christian church I’m familiar with is the Catholic Church. Catholic doctrine envisions the sexes in terms of “complementarity,” a kind of biological essentialism that in effect defines women in terms of motherhood (though not men in terms of fatherhood). Of course this is a bit of a problem in the 21st century, and women are leaving the Catholic Church in droves. The Church doesn’t teach subservience, but it still refers to the husband as the “head” of the family. I kid you not!

          Some of the mechanisms of control you describe were in effect until fairly recently but have broken down since the sixties. I’m curious what denomination you explored where you encountered this mentoring business. It sounds entirely dubious. “If a man needs info on how to make his wife happy, he’s supposed to spend a lot of time being ‘mentored’ by other men.” Really? Why doesn’t the dude just ask his wife what would make her happy?

        • I think self-hatred is also genuine here many times. They may hate themselves even more if the desire condemned is their own.

    • Actually, it says homosexuals and others won’t make it into ‘the Kingdom of God’, which is not Heaven; neither Jesus nor Paul suggest anyone is going to Heaven. Both promote a Kingdom here on Earth, arriving, according to them, in the first century. Given how that turned out, it’s safe to say nobody at all made it in, including the ‘saved’, Berzin and the rest of the righteous.

    • wtfwjtd

      The exact same thing could be said about divorce and re-marriage, and yet I don’t see the same fervor among Christians for publicly shaming and legally banning it.

      • MNb

        I don’t know about other countries, but Dutch christians totally used to publicly shame divorced women, let’s say 60 years ago. My parents only could divorce after my father pulled off the big lie: he was guilty of adultery with another woman (another man didn’t count – my father was gay). And that was 1969.

        • wtfwjtd

          My understanding is that here in the US Christians used to talk a tough game when it came to divorce, and no doubt there was some public shaming related to this, mainly directed at women. But to my knowledge there was never a serious attempt at banning divorcees from re-marrying, as it just wouldn’t work, since they’d lose something like half of their tithe-paying members. I think Po got it right, in his comment below, that Christians re-directed their ire at gays because they are a much smaller minority within their ranks, hence the fallout and negative financial consequences would be greatly reduced.

        • Kodie

          “Staying together for the children” was pretty big when I was a kid, maybe not for very long. Before, and still, at least in deeply religious circles, as far as I can tell, divorce was a scandal and a failure that left a woman with no resources. A man could cheat and it’s sort of a rock and a hard place. A woman couldn’t cheat or she’d be thrown out on her ass and her kids taken away. When I used to read Libby Anne’s blog, and her critiques of Mike and Debi Pearl’s books, it still seems within religious (fundamentalist) circles that divorce is not something you ever want to risk. Women are in these situations with no net, no job, no career, no financial security, or their own bank account. The religion advises them to choose to set themselves up to be screwed and don’t bother complaining about it later. Men are at will to divorce any woman who doesn’t please him, so there’s even that pressure. Abused women are afraid what’s going to happen to them if they leave, especially feeling like if their husband takes the kids too, considering them abandoned, or accusing her of parental abduction, and she just wants to be where they are so she can try to protect them.

          In the general culture, it’s a battle the religious have lost so they moved on. They lost the interracial marriage fight and they’ll lose the gay marriage fight, but they will still in their own communities shame and threaten anyone out of divorcing, marrying outside their own race, or marrying someone the same sex.

        • wtfwjtd

          And sickeningly, women are taught that abuse is their fault, they are catching hell from a wife-beater because they aren’t doing something right for Jesus. This is disgusting.

        • MNb

          It used to be that way in The Netherlands too; it gradually changed from 1960 on. I (from 1963) still have reas stories of children getting shamed in class for having divorced parents. This fortunately belongs to the past.

      • Scott_In_OH

        I keep telling people that I will not be surprised if divorce becomes a focal point again. Conservative Christians were up in arms when “no-fault divorce” laws came on the books, and I think they could be re-energized in the right circumstances.

        They would grant exceptions for themselves and their fellow congregants as necessary, of course.

  • 90Lew90

    You’ve nailed it again Bob. This is one of the things that baffles me about gay Christians. How do you square that circle? I know all of humanity is condemned in one way or another in Christianity, but why anyone who is condemned in such specific terms, and so bloody-mindedly, would sign up to it is beyond me. We have no reason to think Berzins’ prescription wouldn’t be carried out (again) if Christians had the power they so desperately crave.

    • Probably the same way that divorced people remain Christian. Never underestimate our species’ capacity for cognitive dissonance.

      • TheNuszAbides

        nor the capacity for ignoring/denying/failing to comprehend it.

    • MNb

      The usual answer is “but Jesus reformulated the Law”. Indeed the Bible would be a much better book (but still far from morally perfect) if everything was thrown out but the Gospels.

      • wtfwjtd

        The thing is, Jesus re-affirmed that the law was still firmly in force, while it was Paul who said the law no longer applies. When Christians say that the law no longer applies, and that Paul overrules Jesus, then Christians are agreeing that Paul is the real founder of Christianity, and Jesus was just a bit player. Go figure.

        • evodevo

          Yes. I have heard this meme from several fundies – all those proscriptions in Leviticus, etc. are laws of “man”, while the Ten Commandments, and of course the anti-gay passages, are the “laws of God”….. no realization that they are the “laws of Paul”, as is the “new covenant” nonsense.

        • Bobby English

          NO! NO! NO!

          It was from Zoroastrianism/Babylon that Jews got their laws on sex.

        • Bobby English

          Well said, wtfwjtd!

          Saul of Tarsus was NOT a Disciple/Apostle of Jesus!

          He is to the Gospel, what Ezra was to the TORAH.

          Jeremiah and Jesus preached the same message about the BLOODY SACRIFICES in the Temple (Jeremiah ch 7, underline verses 21-28).
          It was because of this preaching that both Jeremiah and Jesus were killed!

          The Temple and the Sacrifices were Big Business!

      • Bobby English

        NO! NO! NO!

        Jesus ENDORSED Moses and the TORAH (Matthew 5:17-19)

        Jesus was a TORAH Jew!

        It was the ROMAN Saul of Tarsus who changed the script!

        Study 2 Corinthians chapter 11 and Galatians ch 1 and 2.

        Jesus ENDORSED David and Solomon, two despicable human beings (2 Samuel 11:1-27) (1 Kings 11:1-11).

        To understand what Solomon did, Google, TALMUD, Sanhedrin 64a-64b.

        Without a knowledge of the Talmud aka Oral Tradition aka Traditions (Matthew ch 15; Matthew ch23), you will not understand the contention between Jesus the TORAH Jew and the Pharisees, TALMUDIC Jews.

    • I listened to a Ravi Zacharias presentation at an apologetics conference today. He gave a rather hideous example that may illustrate this point, but he was coming at it from the standpoint of how Stalin could keep killing his own people and yet avoid revolution.

      To prove his point, he had someone bring him a live chicken. He put the chicken under his arm and plucked out all its feathers while it was still alive. Then he put it down and it hobbled over to eat bread that he had cast on the floor. “That’s how,” Stalin said.

  • Charlie Johnson

    Christians still make good use of the capital punishment passages of the Bible, but it operates differently now. In the fundamentalist circle in which I was raised, it was sort of a “be grateful” thing. A child gets punished way over the top for a minor infraction? “Be grateful” we didn’t stone you. A teenage girl gets shunned for getting pregnant or even just for making out with her boyfriend? “Be grateful” we didn’t stone you.

    Basically, it allows Christians to be complete assholes while simultaneously presenting themselves as merciful. Don’t like how I’m treating you? It could be worse.

    • Bobby English

      “for making out”

      Do YOU mean having SEXUAL INTERCOURSE?

  • Margaret Whitestone

    “For those of you who thought that the biggest problem in this country was not allowing bakers to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes, it’s nice that pastor Berzins is here to set us straight.”

    I live in CA where some asshole wants to get the Sodomite Suppression Act on the ballot so law enforcement, or Joe Blow on the street, can execute gay people as God intended. I know cakes and flowers aren’t our biggest concerns.

    • It is hard to imagine that these jokers are getting airtime.

      • Margaret Whitestone

        They’re getting desperate, and like any cornered animal, they’re especially vicious.

      • Bobby English

        NO! NO! NO!

        The TORAH is quoted by JEWS as their MANDATE for ISRAEL.

        You need to study Numbers chapter 31!

        The TORAH is the Jewish MEIN KAMPF.

        Moses was a WAR CRIMINAL (Numbers 31:13-18)

        Ezra and Nehemiah were the first NAZI/ZIONISTS!

        You need to read both of these books!

  • RichardSRussell

    At least in this country, crazy people like Berzins can blather all they want, but the laws are made by civilized people who justly feel revulsion at the cruelty of stoning someone to death and would never let it happen. Not so in nations under sharia law, where that’s exactly the way it works. We here can be horrified at their behavior, but their own citizens should be terrified.

    • Kodie

      If that were the law of the land where you lived, how would you change anything? Say they should be terrified, so what is the first thing you’d have to do if you were terrified they might come after you next for some small mistake or even their mistake thinking you made a mistake you didn’t make? You have to join the mob and be first in line to pick up a stone to be as protected from it as you can. That does sicken me. And then there is… I mean, here in the US, if you see termites at your house, you are well within your rights to call up some specialist in extermination, and they will put a plastic tent over your house and gas the entire area. If you grew up in a culture that could see people who did certain acts or behaviors as if they were destroying your house, you would feel righteous to nip that in the bud and pick up a rock without being terrified of repercussions.

      Christians in the US also are repulsed by certain acts or behaviors and seem only to be kept in check from even feeling like stoning their targets of revulsion by human laws, human punishments within the law, and human criticism outside of the law. The last is something they are dealing with and pushing and mouthing off and voting as hard as they can. Gay people are coming out of the closet more easily than they used to but it is still a tough step that you can’t undo. We’re at a time when Christian bigots can still feel like they have a majority, and safety mouthing off, while their gay opposition is also growing in prominence and allies to mouth off back at them. I don’t think it had to be too long ago that Christian bigots could break the law and nobody (who counted) would notice. It wouldn’t be a crowd of people having zero shame, proudly stoning a gay person in a public arena to make an example of them, but in the alleys, at night, in the dark. Back to that public square situation, we also have social media now, cyberbullying, news of gay teens committing suicide because assholes make their lives totally hell. I don’t think those people feel like they should be punished, or even thought about how this electronic trail would lead right to them. Nobody would let a public stoning happen, but plenty seem to justify harassing people to death. I don’t think it’s just revulsion at the cruelty of stoning someone to death, it’s cowardice and obliviousness. There must also be people who are glad when something like that happens and that the bullies are heroes to them.

      • RichardSRussell

        If that were the law of the land where you lived, how would you change anything?

        The sad reality is that, if I had grown up in such a culture, I probably wouldn’t want to change it. 8^(

        • Kodie

          I am imagining a scenario where almost everyone hates a situation like this, but (a) there are laws in place and direct punishment for speaking out, and (b) they have no idea because they all can’t speak out that anyone else feels the same way. You still have to pick up that rock. What happens if you speak out, the punishment is still stoning, and nothing changes from the last guy who spoke out, and now he’s dead. He accomplished nothing, so his death was totally in vain.

      • Bobby English



        Typical framing of partner abuse as a heterosexual issue—with men abusing women—does a disservice to victims in abusive homosexual relationships.

        The Atlantic Daily newsletter


        (Walt Stoneburner/flickr)

        Two months into their relationship, Chris’s boyfriend José pushed him to the ground in a fit of anger and ripped the clothes off his body. “We had gone out dancing, and when we got home, I was changing in front of him,” said Chris, 34.

        “I had on my favorite pair of underwear; it was the pair I had worn the first time we went out. He saw the underwear, and just flew into a rage, saying, ‘How dare you wear those! Those are for me!'”

        José threw him on the floor of their bedroom closet, and smashed the only light bulb in the room, leaving them in darkness. He loomed above Chris on the floor as he tore the underwear away. That was the first time things had ever turned violent between the two.

        “I was in such a state of shock,” Chris recounted seven years later, his fingers tapping at a wine glass stem and his brown eyes drifting. “I thought, ‘Oh, he’s just jealous; it’s the drinking,’ and I let it go. There was a lot of drinking in this relationship. No drugs, but lots of drinking.”


        • News flash: homosexual couples can have problems, just like heterosexual couples can.

    • Bobby English


      Jews were in Arabia 500 years before the birth of Muhammad.

      (Be sure to Google this article:


      614-1096 C.E.

      From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.

      By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850

  • Snowflake

    I know a young JW man. We actually have many interesting and respectful conversations. I generally identify myself at work as a UU, not atheist. Anyway, this nice young man identifies as gay although reports he does not act on it. It breaks my heart to see the pain and self loathing he feels. Then on top of that he has to hear these people screech to stone the homosexuals. The total lack of compassion continues to amaze me.

  • bornin43

    Isn’t it funny how they want to stone homosexuals but you never hear an outcry to stone false prophets. There are so many that tell us of the end coming and other such ridiculous things that never come to pass, but you never hear a peep about stoning them as they are told in their OT. Just more hypocrisy/inconsistency.

    • Greg G.

      I am so stealing that argument!

      • wtfwjtd

        Hey Greg, have you taken a look at this:


        A lot of good, handy info in one convenient post.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t believe a word of it. They converted me over at Exploring our Matrix.

          Just kidding. Thank you.

        • Neko


      • @bornin43:disqus does have an excellent argument. I’ve emailed pastor Berzins to ask him about this and to see if he’d want this done to John Hagee’s empty claims about “something changing” because of the “four blood moons.”

        • wtfwjtd

          Oh oh, I anxiously await his prompt and courteous reply!

        • bornin43

          It’ll be interesting to see his response; if he even responds.

        • bornin43

          Also, how about Hal Lindsy? It’s too late for Harold Camping, we’ve already been relived of anymore of his nonsense.

      • bornin43

        No need to steal. You may have it. 🙂

    • Cognissive Disco Dance

      Presumably they don’t want to put the spotlight on themselves. And presumably they want to make it clear for the record they are totally not gay at all. He who shouts loudest is totally-est not-gay-est.

      • Well, sure. What else could bloviating against gays mean except that “I’m totally not gay!”?

    • From Deut. 18:20:

      But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

      This ends today’s reading. Praise the word of the Lord.

      • bornin43

        Thanks Bob, will try and remember to include reference from now on. Sorry about that.

        • Not a problem. I just added that verse because it supported your point.

      • Sometimes (like here) the bible uses the word “even” strangely.

        • I think I used the King James version. That accounts for the odd wording.

      • Bobby English

        Talmudic Jews TEACH – Jesus was a FALSE prophet and was rightly condemned:

        “… He[Jesus] is referred to in the Talmud as Otho Isch- “That man,” i.e. the one who is known to all. In the tract Abhodah Zarah, 6a, we read: “He is called a Christian who follows the false teachings of that man, who taught them to celebrate the feast on the first day of the Sabbath, that is, to worship on the first day after Sabbath…Talui, -“The one who was hanged”…” .

        Jewish sources avoid the Greek name “Jesus”, meaning ‘savior’, and abbreviate Jeschua to “Jeshu’ which means “may his name be blotted out!”

        • Michael Neville

          Actually Jesus or Jeschua was a cognitive of Joshua, a common Jewish name.

    • Bobby English

      The FALSE prophet wants to “blow” your mind – the Faggot wants to “blow” you, like Monica “blew” Bill.

  • Sophia Sadek

    Stone them all and Yahweh will find its own!

  • rerun

    Sorry, you got it wrong here Bob. Both Phelps and Berzins lack a solid grasp on how the OT is forward looking. They are poor examples of Biblical exegetes. You’re falling into the “use the worst examples possible” paradigm that you frequently employ like with Bible translations, commentaries, articles, etc.

    • Again, you’ll make this move along much faster if you are clear with what you’re concerned about. Obviously, now I must ask you why you disagree with Phelps and Berzins.

      Just a “Well, you’re wrong about that point” doesn’t help us much.

    • Greg G.

      Are you trying to say the “kill those who lie with a man ” is a bad translation? That’s what it says. Phelps and Berlin are reading what it says. You are reading into it what you wish it said.

    • MNb

      “They are poor examples of Biblical exegetes.”
      And you are the ultimate judge of what is a poor and what is a good example. Again zero argument, zero evidence.

  • Bobby English


    We have it straight from the mouth of none other than a Muslim cleric — a London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib.


    by Abu Nuwas:

    O the joy of sodomy!

    So now be sodomites, you Arabs.

    Turn not away from it–

    therein is wondrous pleasure.

    Take some coy lad with kiss-curls

    twisting on his temple

    and ride as he stands like some gazelle

    standing to her mate.

    A lad whom all can see girt with sword

    and belt not like your whore who has

    to go veiled.

    Make for smooth-faced boys and do your

    very best to mount them, for women are

    the mounts of the devils


    Satan Attends Every Childbirth; He Touches Every Infant

    Except for Mary and her Son Jesus, all babies cry during their birth, because Satan touches them… (Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.641)

    Whenever a child is born, Satan pricks it; that is why the child cries. Only Mary and Jesus were not pricked by Satan…(Sahih Muslim, 30.5837, 5838)

    Say prayer during sexual intercourse, and Satan will not touch your child…(Sahih Bukhari, 4.54.503


    “Anyone who consents to being called ‘Emir of the Believers’ is a passive homosexual. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, for example, who willingly assumed this title, was, without a doubt, a passive homosexual. The same goes for the caliphs Othman Ibn Affan, Muawiyya, Yazid, and the rulers and sultans of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, as well as some of the rulers and sultans of our day and age.

    For example, the king of Morocco bears this title. This is how you know that he is a passive homosexual. This is in addition to the evidence revealed by Western media, which showed that the current king of Morocco is indeed a passive homosexual who belongs to the homosexual community. This was leaked from his palace by his assistants, his servants, and his ‘boys,’ whom he would penetrate and who would penetrate him. They fled to Europe, sought asylum, and exposed all this.

    Cleric Yasser Habib exposes Kalifa Umar as a Sodomite

    It is told (in the hadith) that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could be cured only by semen. One should know that this is a well-known medical condition, which is also mentioned in sacred texts. Someone who, God forbid, has been penetrated in the anus, a worm grows within him, due to the semen discharged in him…

    A disease develops in his anus, and as a result, he cannot calm down, unless he is penetrated again and again.

    The Shiites are undoubtedly protected from this disease, and from committing this abominable and hideous act. As for the Nasibis (who hated the prophet Muhammad’s family), they are definitely afflicted with this homosexuality.

    One of the devils is present at the birth of every human being. If Allah knows that the newborn is one of our Shiites, He fends off that devil, who cannot harm the newborn. But if the newborn is not one of our Shiites, the devil inserts his index finger into the anus of the newborn, who thus becomes a passive homosexual. If the newborn is not a Shiite, the devil inserts his index finger into this newborn’s anus, and when he grows up, he becomes a passive homosexual.

    If the newborn is a female, the devil inserts his index finger into her vagina, and she becomes a whore. At that moment, the newborn cries loudly, as he comes out of his mother’s womb. Note that some children cry normally at birth, while others cry loudly and incessantly. You should know that this is the work of that devil, according to this narration.”

    When cleric Yasser Habib “says ‘passive homosexual’, he is referring to the receptive, submissive, female-equivalent partner. Dominant, inserting male homosexual activity is universally accepted in Islam. He has no problem with that. It’s grown men ‘catching’ that he has a problem with.”


    Surah 8:69: “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good.” (Yusuf Ali)


    “It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man’s legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not.”

    • Yeah, yeah–all Muslim men are fags. I’d like to see evidence from a Muslim source that a cleric wrote this.

      • Michael Neville

        No, not all Muslim men, only the Sunni.