God Didn’t Make That, but He Loves You and Other Truths About the Homosexual Lifestyle

God Didn’t Make That, but He Loves You and Other Truths About the Homosexual Lifestyle May 21, 2018

I’m going to preface this piece with the acknowledgment that to date, there has been no official statement from the Vatican, regarding Pope Francis’ beliefs on this particular situation. Until there is, we’re going to take the claims of Juan Carlos Cruz with a grain of salt, and proceed accordingly.

To begin, who is Juan Carlos Cruz?

He’s a survivor of sexual abuse at the hands of a Chilean Catholic priest.

He’s also a gay man.

In April, Cruz spent three days in the Vatican with Pope Francis, discussing the sexual abuse he suffered and his sexuality.

His abuser, Fernando Karadima, was found guilty by the Vatican of the charges of sexual abuse against him back in 2011.

It has apparently been an ongoing scandal, with far reaching implications. On Friday of last week, every Catholic bishop in Chile offered their resignation to Pope Francis. This was after an emergency three day summit at the Vatican, where they discussed the depth of the sex abuse scandal that rocked the nation’s Catholic base.

In total, 31 active bishops and three retired bishops announced in a statement that they had offered to resign over the scandal and place the issue “in the hands of the Holy Father so that he might freely decide for each one of us.”

That’s big.

To date, there has been no word on whether those resignations have been accepted or what the next move for the Catholic church in Chile will look like.

But back to Juan Carlos Cruz and his time spent with Pope Francis.

Cruz has stepped forward to offer part of what he drew from his conversations with the head of the Catholic church, and if what he’s saying is true, it flies in the face of not just what has been taught by the Catholic church from its conception, but from the Word of God, itself.

Describing his encounter with the Pope to CNN, Cruz said: “You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”

Record scratch.

That’s not true.

This is not to take away from the pain of Cruz’s experience, nor that of any of the victims of abuse at the hands of corrupt Chilean priests.

The priests are the “bad guys” in this scenario. They took their positions of influence and power and created a class of victims. What they did was against the teachings of Christ and the Word of God.

Understanding that, also understand this:

God did not create homosexuality or make anyone gay.

To believe this is to believe our Father in Heaven changes and contradicts Himself.

He does not (Malachi 3:6).

I’ve heard this corrupted line of reasoning before, that those caught in the gay lifestyle were created that way.

In Genesis 2:24, God lays the groundwork for sexuality and marriage.

CEB – “This is the reason that a man leaves his father and mother and embraces his wife, and they become one flesh.”

It’s specific. There’s no room left for interpretation. Father, mother, man, wife.

The harsher, pre-grace Old Testament version specifically notes in Leviticus 18:22 (AMP):

“You shall not lie [intimately] with a male as one lies with a female; it is repulsive.”

So what about the New Testament? Did Jesus come and wipe away the old rules and make it an anything goes society?

Not at all.

Mark 10:6-9 NLT – But ‘God made them male and female’[a] from the beginning of creation. ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife,[b] and the two are united into one.’[c] Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

Romans 1:26-27 NIV – 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

God’s Word is clear, from beginning to end. And He will not contradict Himself to create that which He calls repulsive or an abomination. To suggest it makes no sense and distorts the truth of Who God is.

The more likely scenario that is troublesome and against human nature here is that homosexuality is a result of the Fall of Man from the beginning.

Adam’s first act of pride and disobedience in the Garden of Eden introduced sin into the world. As a result, the children born after carried the DNA of Adam, a sinful man.

Sickness, birth defects, disorders, and every manner of perversion were visited through the seed of Adam.

Are people “born gay”?

I believe they are, but they were never meant to live that life, any more than the original intent for life was to be born deaf or blind.

Am I calling homosexuality a “birth defect”?

I’m saying it is a perversion of God’s plan. It is a spiritual defect, exacerbated by a church that has failed to exhibit the compassion of Christ for far too long, and a dark world that tells them they can live outside of God’s will, as long as it “feels good” right now.

If God can love the lame and destitute, as Jesus Christ showed by preaching and healing the sick or granting forgiveness to the woman caught in adultery, He can surely love the homosexual.

There are no levels of sin, except in our own view.

God loves all sinners, but He calls them all to abandon their flesh and to live according to His way, because He knows best for us.

God showed that He loves us, even in our sin, by sending His best to stand as a sacrifice for those sins, but it’s a free gift of grace that only becomes valid when it is accepted.

This world has burdened us all with struggles, some more devastating than others. We were told to expect troubles in this world. We were, however, given a promise of something better, if we have faith, grow and persevere, dying to self and picking up the cross of Christ.

There is grace and forgiveness at the cross for the homosexual, loved by an almighty God, in spite of the worldly stumbling block placed on them.

That being said, God does not ignore sin, and has given ample warning through His Word. To suggest anything outside of that is dangerous.

Did the pope tell Cruz to roll on in his homosexuality, or was there more to it?

Until he speaks clearly and openly to address Cruz’s claims, we should reserve judgment.

We should also pray for the LGBT community, that they understand that their worth in the eyes of God is immeasurable. There is grace available to them, and that a rejection of the LGBT lifestyle by Christians is not a rejection of them, as human beings. They are loved.

We, the Body of Christ, need to do more to get that message across.






"Oh, look everybody. There's little Andre again, hurling his eight year old, little league (attempted) ..."

Is the Trump-Kim Love Affair on ..."
"Because your mentally ill and deranged"

Is the Trump-Kim Love Affair on ..."
"I stopped right at "foreign policy goals benefit Russia" I couldn't read anymore. I'm an ..."

Is the Trump-Kim Love Affair on ..."
"Nah, Susan just got burned out. When you're constantly having to smack down these brain ..."

Rep. Justin Amash Nails Trump’s Mercenary ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Wile F. Coyote

    Levant authors writing ~2500-1700 years ago knew virtually nothing about biology, chemistry, genome, etc., and the Biblical references cited in this post eloquently demonstrate that fact.

  • Peter Bateman Mockridge

    didn’t even know the term “homosexual”,either, Wiley. This is yet another vile take on ancient wisdom scriptures written for their time, not this. I’d love to see these folks stop “proof-texting.”

  • Eriu Draca

    You do realize people who do not believe in the biblical, christian God do not have to abide by rules and laws of Christianity. People believe in different Gods and Goddesses and no God/s and that is ok. And I the United States it is Unconstitutional to make and enforce a law based on a religious (and solely religious) reasoning. Because we do not have the right to force someone who is not a member of a religion to follow social and lifestyle rules of that religion. There are actions and explicit crimes and wrong such as murder, theft, rape, assault, that happen to be forbidden In Most religions but they are objectively wrong by all accounts. But sexuality and sexual acts between consenting adults are only the business of those adults and cannot police those acts according to spirituality belief system. You can think and believe what you want but you CANNOT force others to do the same. Christianity is no more “right” or “true” than any other religion. Advocating for legislation to limit the rights and prosecute people based on biblical principles is Christian sharia law that our founders wanted to wholeheartedly prevent in a free country.

  • art scott
  • art scott


    There is no Greek word for gay or homosexual

  • art scott
  • art scott

    Susan Wright should be blessed. God needs to give her a gay child.


  • Craig Belcourt

    Excellent presentation on what should be every Christians position on homosexuality.

  • Carlos Santiago

    I believe in biblical inerrancy of the manuscripts however I think we are going too far if we state scripture gives only one model for relationships. The scripture context of Mark 10 was the answering the legalist question regarding male and female. Jesus quotes the husband/wife answer to the lawyer because that was the specific divorce situation asked about. Everything changed since the fall. Read Genesis 2 and 3 and you will see God created Adam and Eve naked, and they were to eat only fruit and nuts. The animals were not eaten; only named. Man after the fall survived by not wandering in the Garden but by the sweat of his brow .After the fall. Everything changed. In Matthew 19:12 God tells us of other models God has created ” For there are eunuchs who were born that way as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Again, these are all evidently allowed after the fall. In another place 1 Corinthians 7:7 Paul tells us celibacy is a gift of God. Finally, Paul also tells us 1 Corinthians 7:9 it is better to marry than to be consumed with passion. Lastly even If this was an Old Covenant law we are now under the New Covenant of faith alone. If you want to be legalistic judge by the Fruit of the Spirit., as explained by Paul in Galatians 5.
    Sometimes those that have changed themselves from a practice (that caused a distance from God) are no longer welcomed by the old practicers. That said the Greek work sometimes translated as homosexual is malakoi, and is translated as “soft.” Paul is saying “soft people” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Another potential take is that it refers to a male prostitutes in the secular Temple. Each person is advised to examine themselves (2 Corinthians 13:5) and remove the sin (Greek hamartia) that is within us that causes us to miss the mark.

  • Carlos Santiago

    Chemical weapons, opiates addiction, biological weapons, carbon emissions, genetically engineered foods?

  • Carlos Santiago

    What are they selling?

  • Wile F. Coyote

    That’s a long one. I’ll take a look at it when I have an hour.

  • Wile F. Coyote

    You believe in Biblical inerrancy, you say. Care to address the challenge below?

    ‘Dan Barker, former fundamentalist child preacher and now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has a simple challenge for Bible believers: “Tell me what happened on the original Easter Sunday. Just a simple chronology. Who went where and did what and said what and saw what? And in what order? Be sure to include everything mentioned in any of the gospels.”

    Nobody can meet this challenge, because the gospels are horribly contradictory. (Don’t take my word for it, read them yourself: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.)’

    Four people out of an extremely close group of thirteen, who travel and dine and repose at night together, day in and day out, and are all present in Jerusalem on the day in question, and for weeks afterward.

    More than enough time to get their stories straight.

    If there was one thing an “innerant” account ought to be consistent about, you’d think it would be the rise-from-the-dead thing that is the promise the cult is based upon.



  • Amen and amen!!!

  • Susan, your logic is so full of contradictions. You use the word “but” far too often, and thus you add to the divisive hypocrisy that plagues today’s American Christendom. Are people born gay or not? Please clarify.

  • S. Harold Thompson

    Actually, they had two words in the Greek of the day for “homosexual.” Koine Greek was a very rich language and the two terms were Arsenokoitai (the more active partner in a homosexual relationship) and Malakoi (the more passive partner in a homosexual relationship), both of which are third person plurals (all-inclusive), which means that in I Corinthians 6, where both of these words are used, everything said about homosexuality and other sins mentioned there (and there are several) applies to all participants in those sins and the context makes it clear that the application was not only for that time, but for all time. The context of this verse (vs. 9) is interesting – this verse is given in the context of Paul scolding the Corinthians believers for taking each other to court, which he indicates is wrong. He continues in verse 9 by letting them know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God (in other words, God will pass judgment on those defrauding others) and then Paul offers an entire list of those whom God has judged and will judge with a judgment that does not permit them to enter heaven, unless they repent. Included in the list is homosexuality, but it is quite a list (the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy persons, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers – which is what some were having to deal with in the church. The concluding verse before Paul transitions to another closely related subject in verse 12 happens to be verse 11, which indicates there were persons in the church at Corinth who had done all of the sins in the list Paul recorded, but it is stated in the past tense – they were no longer doing these sins and Paul indicates why – they had been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. In other words, they had repented of each and every one of these sins and placed their trust in Christ for salvation, and were baptized in His name and were now seeking to live for Christ. I have given you the context and I have not taken the verse out of context to apply it to a situation that it does not fit (proof-texting).
    All of you need to read the following book by Dr. J. Alan Branch, PhD. By the way, I am not Dr. Branch, but I am another seminary professor who has read his book and I recommend it to you.

    Branch, J. Alan. Born This Way: Homosexuality, Science, and the Scriptures. Wooster, Ohio: Weaver

    Book Company, 2016.

  • Roger Morris

    Another uninformed opinion on human psychobiology that completely lacks substance and supporting evidence.

  • Roger Morris

    Probably because the Ancient Greeks considered male to male the highest form of love.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    I thought I made that very clear.
    For some [not all], I believe they are, but they werent meant to live that way.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Like, I said, read the book and then you will understand – you can see in the book just how well-informed some who disagree with you truly are.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    I’ve had one child, extremely heterosexual, and I think the baby-making boat has sailed.
    That being said, were my child gay, I’d adore him as much as I adore my normal child. And I would talk to him [or her] about the love of God and overcoming disabilities that the world saddles people with, because of the first sin that introduced such things into the world.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    You do realize this was written by a Christian for Christians, right?
    That being said, it’s not my job to convince you. I just lay the truth out there. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict your heart of the truth. At least you cant say no one ever told you.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    What are your qualifications for discussing Greek? Arsenokoitai is the third person plural in Koine Greek for males who engage in sexual activity with persons of their own sex. Malakoi is the third person plural in Koine Greek for males who allow themselves to be used like females by males who prefer to engage in sexual activity with persons of their own sex. These two words are rightly translated as homosexuals. Anyone who has studied Koine Greek at a CHEA-recognized institution of higher learning will be aware of this.

  • art scott

    Being Gay is not a sin
    Nor is it a disability

    It is actually against the for licensed counselors to practice repairative therapy here in the USA.

    Suicide rates have sky rocketed in religious/ Christian groups including Mormons.

    Rather than trying to change a loved ones sexual orientation and risk suicide ideation, joining groups like PFLAG and Soulforce.org and finding churches that are Open and Affirming is in your child’s best interest.

    Become a knowledgeable loving parent. Deal with your own misgivings and or dissapointments.

    All the best
    Art Scott
    MS Clinical Mental Health Counseling
    Licensed Intern

  • art scott

    I have spoken with many Greek people who are native speakers. King James himself was Gay. He appointed 50 translators. The words your referencing are about male prostitution not two committed males in a monogamous relationship.

    Pulling words representing male prostitution is both weird and out of context.

    The number of men I personally know who are in the closet within churches as Pastor’s who defraud their wives and family is a huge number. By misquoting passages that have been mistranslated is Wrong and represents Spiritual Violence.

    For further support and truthful spiritual insights go to



  • art scott

    Great points. Thank you for your honesty.

    Art Scott


  • Again, you use the “but” logic… That sounds like “Oh you were born autistic but you were not meant to live as an autistic person” Who else can they be? Ah but of course if the person is born cisgender (and probably white too) then God intends them to live just as they are. Why the conformance to a binary male and female paradigm when such conformance strikingly contradicts nature and the gospel-induced reformations in the kingdom? Galatians 3 clearly says that one of the three reformations brought about by the gospel is a kingdom of no male and female. Continuing to enforce male and female binaries is nothing more than resisting new wine gospel reformation.

  • art scott
  • As a parent of one in the LGBT realm, I would point out that this statement is suicide-inducing…. Please for the love of God and all that is good don’t share this line of thinking with LGBTQIA people –> “And I would talk to him [or her] about the love of God and overcoming disabilities that the world saddles people with, because of the first sin that introduced such things into the world” <– the words "overcoming disabilities" and "first sin" are triggers that lead to darkness.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Art, I have to tell you that modern Greek and Koine Greek differ greatly. Native Greek speakers of today are not experts in Koine Greek (for the most part – a few scholars are). There is a greater difference in modern Greek and Koine Greek than there is in the English of Shakespeare and the King James and modern English. Experts in Koine Greek, with PhD’s from schools such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, the Universities of Aberdeen, persons under whom I have studied, all would disagree with you. Go to a Greek-English Lexicon of Koine Greek and just see what I mean. If all you have for credentials in a discussion of Koine Greek is that you know a few modern native Greek speakers, you are not qualified to discuss this subject.

  • art scott
  • art scott


  • art scott
  • art scott
  • art scott
  • art scott

    Reference gaychurch.org


    Homosexual: The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same”, and the Latin term sexualis, meaning sex. The term “homosexual” is of modern origin, and it wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible was the first translation to use the word homosexual.

    Sodomite: There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy.” A Sodomite was simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite was an inhabitant of Moab. Any translation of the New Testament making use of the words “sodomy” or “sodomite” are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.”

  • art scott

    Quoting same references

    “Arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai) – This Greek noun is formed from the joining together of the Greek adjectival prefix for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). Literally then it would mean, “male beds.” It is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is the first appearance of the word in preserved Greek literature and outside of these two verses this word does not appear in the New Testament. The Greek word arsenokoitai is mentioned in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 and its meaning is debated. Because of the obscurity of this word and the lack of outside sources to shed light on its meaning, we must derive its meaning from the text.”

  • art scott
  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    It’s like you read bits and pieces to fit in with the narrative that you came prepackaged with.
    Actually read it to try and understand, rather than read it looking for a point to argue against. It’ll get you further.

  • Barrie Beaumont

    Sadly you resort to your personal understanding and accept it as being a means to diminish the scriptural text. The Bible may be easy for some to read yet present difficulties for others. The distinguishing point is found in reading and understanding the scriptural text. What is God conveying to both Christians and non Christians and us all pursuing the means to do that.

    As a mature age theology student I search for the meaning of the text, but because I do not understand sufficient Greek, I resort to consulting an exegetical commentary to explain the text and its meaning to me.The authors of these commentaries are experts, they understand Greek; they translate and explain verse by verse the the variances in translation, ie, where one Greek word may have different meanings depending on the intent of the text. I read the text with a commentary alongside me which takes time, but I don’t move on until I am reasonably satisfied that I understand the text. Yes, I do pursue the meaning, and yes, it does get me into trouble with some of my peers who know the story but may be not its contextual meaning.

    You say the the gospels “are horribly contradictory.” I suggest that the use of “horribly” is way out of application here and you have chosen it to support your than obvious purpose.The word means “causing or likely to cause horror; very unpleasant.” You have chosen it to exaggerate and degrade the text.

    Any one who has ‘dipped their toe’ into theology to upgrade their biblical understanding is aware that there are some texts which give the appearance of being contradictory. Are they? No they are not, and there are ample means of researching each text considered to be contradictory by those who do not understand them, dont bother, or want to understand and those who attempt to devalue God’s word.

    One excellent source and probably the best to understand these incorrectly named “contradictions’ is “The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.” Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation. Authored by Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe. 2nd Ed, 2008, Baker Books. It covers all your “contradictions.”

    I seriously doubt that you will bother to check this book out because of your mindset and, if so will you accept the findings? Despite my doubts I hope that you do.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    I dont write the rules. I just try and follow them.
    Take it up with God when the time comes.
    It’s not my job to convince you. I only give you the truth. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict your heart.

  • Alan Drake

    So we do not truly have any confidence that arsenokoitai actually means homosexual ?

    I have read the claim that malakoi could have meant men that were close shaven with long hair (vs good Jewish men of that era that had beards & short hair). This “look” appeared feminine to Jews.

    Fortunately “not an issue” for this recently convinced Quaker.

  • art scott
  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    If you love your child and have an actual relationship with them, it’s not ‘suicide inducing.’

  • art scott

    Me and God are close and I have walked with since 1969. Interesting to note God has 365 warnings in the NT for heterosexuals who are married. Which rules are you breaking? Judging others?

  • LiteSign

    As I read through your post and your subsequent comments in response to others, I had some thoughts…

    I always find it interesting that some Christians quote a passage of Scripture and then say, “Hey, I didn’t make the rules. Take it up with God. I only give you the truth.”
    Actually you are only giving YOUR version of the truth (since I’m assuming God didn’t consult with you when it was written), and then throwing the weight of God behind it as if HE is agreeing with everything they say.

    If you take the Old Testament narrative at total face value, the reason God created male and female may not have anything to do with the sexuality of the future population, but it was because that was the only way to get a future population. The fact that God didn’t make “Adam and Steve” instead of Adam and Eve may have nothing to do with God’s intent for sexuality, but rather is the simple fact that God needed a male and female for procreation to occur. Thus it is “truth” that God created Adam and Eve, but it is “your truth” as to what that creative act actually means.

    I also find it interesting when “truths” are picked for what serves a person’s theology. For instance, what about the “truth” that “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave, his female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything which belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21) If we take the implications of that “truth”, YOU are merely the property of your husband…after all, lumped in with all of the man’s other property is his wife.

    And I’m not even certain how legitimate it is for you to be posting on a blog related to spiritual truths anyway, since “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2: 11-14) So the Adam and Eve narrative used to “prove” your truths around sexuality also indicate the “truth” that women are to blame for the entirety of sin and the source of deception.

    This patriarchal way of thinking should still be in effect today…after all God doesn’t change His mind, right?

    And if you don’t like that categorization, “Hey, I didn’t make the rules. Take it up with God. I only give you the truth.”

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    That would make sense if there was a single thing I’d said that suggested the key to Heaven is to be heterosexual.
    As it is, I did not.
    In fact, I’m confused as heck how somebody who claims to have ‘walked with God’ for almost as long as I’ve been alive has a problem with me reaching out to the Evangelical community and telling us to love those who are in lifestyles we see as harmful, in spite of their sin.
    Is that not what we’re called to do?
    I gave SEVERAL verses to back up my belief that homosexuality is wrong, in the eyes of God, given that He did not create us that way.
    We are very much called to love the sinner, while hating the sin. Jesus displayed this over and over again.
    There’s no way to claim a close walk with God or a true understanding of His Word if you insist that it’s ‘anything goes,’ even to the perversion of His creation.

  • art scott

    I graduated from Liberty University. I am at peace with rejoice daily in His blessings provisions and daily answers to prayer. Unlike many gay men I have known for over 40 years who hide in fake heterosexual marriages and play with men behind ther wives back, I have decided years ago to live honestly. I have held the secrets of many married men. I know personally many Evangelical ministers who are secretly gay.

    Neither you nor I have the authority or right to judge others. You have some issues to work through. Try looking in your own mirror and be responsible for yourself and work on your own relationship with God and your mate.

    I have only witnessed one Christian couple whose life I would want to emulate. I know and have met thousands of straight ccouples in 63 years.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    You are partially correct, Art. Begin Gay is not a disability, but it is a sin. I noted the numerous articles you sent my way via e-mail, but they fail to take into account the widely accepted Greek scholarship in the field and what the lexicons accepted by those having PhD’s in New Testament and Koine Greek have to say about the words Arsenokaitai and Malakoi. The best scholarship was lacking in the items you sent me. You need to look at these words in sources like The Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other well-respected similar sources (there are several such lexicons available. I can tell you that scholars like the late Dr. Bruce Metzger (professor of NT and Greek at Princeton) and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (a native Greek speaker who had a research doctorate in New Testament and Greek) would disagree with you. The Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich lexicon defines the root word Arsenokoites as any man who has sex with another man as with a woman. Do note the word ANY, as it is all-inclusive. The same widely-accepted lexicon defines Malakos (the root for Malakoi) as men and boys who are sodomized (the meaning associated with the word is widely known, no matter what you say) by other males and these persons so used are also called catamites. The same lexicon says that defining the term as ‘male prostitutes’ is too narrow a rendering of the word and that ‘sexual pervert’ is too broad (likely because there are other forms of sexual perversion as well). I have a Master of Divinity degree and a Doctor of Ministry and I took enough Greek so that I have as much Greek as some of the PhD’s I know. I did not take as much Hebrew as they did, but I have had the privilege of working with world class scholars of both languages, so I know what the most widely-accepted (and best) sources for both languages are. You know counseling, Art, and that’s great, but you don’t know what you claimed to know about Koine Greek when you accused me of mistranslation. You are clearly intelligent and you write well, but you need to stay on your own turf and quit leading people astray. I write what I write out of concern – I don’t want anyone going to Hell when they can repent of sin (any sin) and trust Christ for salvation and have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help them deal with sin. I don’t hate homosexuals – I have known too many people who have gone in that direction. I just know what the Bible says about the matter and I am concerned for them.

  • art scott

    Joshua you sound like a man who is sexually frustrated and you just like to argue. Your words sound like a man who is gay yet frustrated because of your need to obey rules scriptures and wish you could sexually be you. Come out. God made you as a gay man.

  • “Actually you are only giving YOUR version of the truth (since I’m assuming God didn’t consult with you when it was written), and then throwing the weight of God behind it as if HE is agreeing with everything they say.”

    Bingo! I’ve been in these debates for the past 6 or 7 years (and written multiple books about these so-called gay debates). This non sequitur line of thinking bugs me the most, I think.

  • Ok, so I’ll start again and ignore your flimsy Biblical exegesis. Your title of your article in the Patheos article reads “God did not make you gay”. Deep in your article you say “Are people “born gay”? I believe they are…” My question is simple. Which is it? Did God make people gay or not?

  • A better, more honest title of your article would be: “God made you gay, but he says you are an abomination, but he loves you, but he will only love you if you conform to a straight, male/female binary, but only if you never act on your lgbtqia impulses. Oh and this is God’s best for you!”

  • I beg to differ. And I beg you to watch this from Google.

  • usc1801

    Where does this article state for laws banning gays? This is an article for Christians about Christian beliefs. No where does she advocate for banning gays or gay behavior. Just make stuff up.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    That’s not the title of the article. Dude… all you had to do is look at the top of the page you’re commenting on to get the right title. That’s just lazy.
    And no. God does NOT make people gay, but because of the introduction of sin into the world, sometimes things go wrong and those things God never meant to be happen. Some people [not all] ARE ‘born gay,’ but not because God made them gay. Sin in the world infected them in the womb, just like some are born blind or deaf.
    The sin seed of Adam corrupts God’s creation. There is a way out, however. They may not ever stop ‘being gay,’ but the love of God will help them endure and live a God-pleasing life. It is possible, but it requires denying their own sin nature, the same as is required for everyone who believes. Whatever is sinful in us, we deny it.

  • I’m not lazy. Patheos titled your article “God Did Not Make You Gay” in the email I got Wednesday from their subscription service. You titled it “God Didn’t Make That…” which is dehumanizing. The Patheos title at least emphasizes “you”. Essentially what your thoughts here convey to readers is dehumanizing — there is a dehumanizing tone to this line of Christian thinking. But no worries. The Holy Spirit is doing a grand revival among millions of Christians outside the gates of Christendom (some of whom commented here in this thread). LGBTQIA Christians are ushering in the kingdom of God like never before in history. And best of all–Jesus is sitting there at the “gay table”, welcoming and eating and drinking and celebrating the new wine with them!

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    Patheos didnt write this. I wrote this, so go with my title.
    And it’s not dehumanizing. You’re playing a role now, pretending to be delicate and easily offended, as if you dont understand the title.
    And I have no doubt there are homosexuals in Heaven, but not those who gave into their flesh [sin] nature. Those who overcame are absolutely there. To tell people they can live opposed to the Word of God and it be ‘no big deal’ is a death sentence.

  • zigthenzag

    Do you believe that likewise, Christian heterosexuals who “gave into their flesh [sin] nature” will likewise be left out of heaven? Cause if so Heaven will be mighty empty. And that’s part of the problem with the prohibition on homosexuals. Heterosexuals can “mess up” over and over and over and have sex before marriage (or do everything but) and as long as they ask God for forgiveness, there is no problem, no social stigma, in fact it’s even regarded as normal. Not so with the homosexual Christian. There is no grace for their sexual life period. There is a huge stigma about it. Something “wrong” with them.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    God’s rules apply to all. I never suggested otherwise.
    As for the ‘prohibition on homosexuals,’ it’s not the people. It’s the perversion of the natural, God-created order of things. Are you even remotely familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?
    You’re basically making arguments against things I never said or insinuated, simply because you are uncomfortable with the truth I laid out there.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    We dont follow King James.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    A few here have attempted to unwrap your entire post.
    I wont, other than to say, I dont think you know the meaning of the word: contradictory.
    You obviously dont, since there is nothing contradictory about the Scriptures, or the verses you mentioned. ‘Contradictory’ means inconsistent or opposed to each other, btw.
    They all tell of the same event, but each person is telling it in their way. Not a single one loses the fact that Jesus was crucified, buried, and on that third day, as they arrived at the tomb, it was empty.
    If you’re quibbling over HOW they told the story, rather than focusing on the what happened, then it’s not a problem with the Bible. It’s a problem with you and your focus.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    You sound like somebody frustrated because you know the lie you’re perpetuating about God is wrong and will lead many away from God, so you choose to lash out at Joshua’s very reasonable reply to you.

  • Wile F. Coyote

    My focus informs me that the problem with the four verses cited by Dan Barker have nothing to do with my focus, nor with translations from original languages to KJV, or any other, versions of The Bible.

    The problem with the four verses is that four different accounts of the “resurrection” myth are believed to each be accurate because of Divine influence upon the authors of those disparate accounts, in spite of the extreme discrepencies between each which cannot be reconciled, which failed to be resolved even after centuries of editorial opportunity between the time each “account” found its way onto a scroll and their inclusion into doctrinal canon some three centuries following.

    My focus on ‘what happened’ also informs me that only belief in supernatural miracles permits one to privilege the Christian version of the dying-then-rising deity tale, which existed in a variety of cultures (including Levantine Judaism) on the planet prior to the nascent Jesus Judaism cum Christianity version, or to even be able to accept that such an occurrence is even hypothetically reasonable. My disbelief could not be more profound.

    Sufficient evidence establishing an external creator agency and actors, and the possibiity of virgin birth and resurrection or any of the other fantastic events extant in world mythologies (including the three Abrahamic ones), would necessitate acceptance of such facts. That goes without saying.

    Should such evidence ever be produced, my opinion regarding the applicable event(s) will change. Such events, however (which I will not hold my breath anticipating), will not have any more relationship with my ‘focus’ than current evaluation of fantastic mythological claims presently has.

  • zigthenzag

    Why do we condemn slavery? The Bible says very clearly that slaves should obey their masters. Right there in black and white. Moreover, there are many other verses seeming to condone slavery in the Bible. For hundreds of years it was thus interpreted. As an educated person you must know that Southern theologians in the 19th century with a comprehensive and throrough knowledge of ancient languages argued passionately in favor of the institution of slavery based on various biblical passages. And yet. Today we see those learned people were wrong and misguided. Why? Did the Greek change? Did the Hebrew change? Did God change? No. Our understanding of the institution of slavery changed, and thus did our interpretation of the Scripture that we once used to defend it.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    I happen to agree with everything you have said. It was Noah who cursed Canaan, a son of Ham, saying that He would be a servant of servants to his brothers, but we don’t know that Ham or Canaan were black and, as it was Noah who pronounced the curse, it should be evident to all that God did not pronounce the curse – the curse truly had no lasting standing and was no justification for slavery. If you are somehow trying to equate the present understanding of the Christian right concerning homosexuality with the old understanding of some in the south regarding slavery (based upon the misinterpretation of Genesis 9:25-26), then you should know that no such misinterpretation of what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality has occurred. Slavery never should have existed at all and it certainly never should have existed in the U.S.A.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Hello, Art. I have been busy, so I am just now getting back to you. I am glad you found the etymology of the word Arsenokoitai and I do understand how it looks, but words derived from two words do not always yield the meaning we assume they will yield once combined. In the case you mention the idea was that one was dealing with a man who liked bedding other males (hence male beds). We have a similar difficulty with a word in modern English that I know you are familiar with, Art – homophobia. “Homo” means humans and phobia means “fear of.” Logically, when combined, the result should mean “fear of humans” or “fear of humanity,” but that is not how the final product is used and the same was true for Arsenokoitai; Bible scholars have known what it meant for nearly two millennia. I am certain you would call me a “homophobe,” Art, but I don’t have anything against my fellow human beings and I don’t hate homosexuals – I do believe the Bible. Arsenokoitai actually has a better etymology (a more logical one, at least) than homophobia does in English. Homophobia was clearly contrived (and poorly) as a way to silence opponents.

  • “If you are somehow trying to equate the present understanding of the Christian right concerning homosexuality with the old understanding of some in the south regarding slavery (based upon the misinterpretation of Genesis 9:25-26), then you should know that no such misinterpretation of what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality has occurred.”

    Ah but such a misinterpretation HAS occurred regarding homosexuality. The comparison is a semantic one, yes, but valuable indeed. While slavery and homosexuality have little in common, both issues have been misinterpreted by evangelicals. In both cases, they spin up a narrative leaving out other Bible verses.

    Even one of the greatest evangelical Christian theologians of our day admits the misinterpretation (Richard Hays, in his book “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”). Hays’ example is this: modern evangelicals have misinterpreted the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis 19. Hays says (and I agree) that Genesis 19 has nothing to do with the modern “gay debates”.

    Genesis 19 has been sorely misinterpreted (even in this thread). Read Ezekiel 16:48-52 to find out what destroyed the cities. God’s wrath on those cities was not because of some homosexual act (which Genesis 19 says never actually happened). The act of homosexual gang rape that was imagined was not why God destroyed the cities.

    And further misinterpreting Genesis 19, evangelicals hardly EVER mention one of great sins in the story– the fact that Lot offered his own daughters to the sex craved men outside. Why do evangelicals rarely if ever preach against Lot’s willingness to let his daughters be sexually molested/raped? Furthermore, why do they stand by idly in our generation when so many are abused, defending the men who allowed the abuse? Are they blind to Scripture?

  • Read this book if you want a more robust, friendly view of homosexuals (I don’t agree with Hay’s conclusions, but he refutes the childish Sodom and Gomorrah and Romans 1 stories)


  • Joshua Sonofnone

    I disagree with Hays and with you at this point. It was actually a combination of all of the horrible sins taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexuality was only one of them) that caused God to destroy those cities and I have decried Lot’s willingness to allow his daughters to be molested/raped from the pulpit. I would point out that not every evangelical was in favor of slavery in the U.S. when slavery existed and in northern pulpits there was generally no misinterpretation by evangelicals on this matter. The Bible nowhere supports slavery – it does support Christians being content in whatever state they find themselves, which did include slavery (difficult, I know). The Bible does condemn homosexuality in both Testaments, so the Bible is consistent on both points. It is liberal theologians and those who want to disagree with the Bible (for their own purposes) who seek to contend for these positions that are contrary to the Bible.

  • zigthenzag

    “The Bible nowhere supports slavery – it does support Christians being content in whatever state they find themselves, which did include slavery (difficult, I know).”

    The Bible doesn’t say “slaves, be content in whatever circumstances you find yourselves.” The Bible directs Slaves to be obedient. If the Bible had meant to tell slaves to be content was not God capable to say what he actually meant? Why not direct them to be content in difficult circumstances rather than obedient?

    “It is liberal theologians and those who want to disagree with the Bible (for their own purposes) who seek to contend for these positions that are contrary to the Bible.”

    So would many 19th century theologians have said to you had you tried to tell them the Bible didn’t support slavery. For them the issue of slavery was as crystal clear as the issue of homosexuality is to you. You are bringing your modern sensibilities regarding slavery to bear on your interpretation of the Scriptures regarding that issue.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Frist, you imply that I believe the Bible specifically says, “slaves, be content in whatever circumstances you find yourselves.” The Bible indicates that Christians are to be content with their circumstances and there were Christians who were slaves. Your statement that slaves are to be obedient is correct. Slaves were also encouraged (in the New Testament) to buy their freedom if they could do so. As to Exodus 21:20-21, the point actually being made is that slaves are not to be beaten to death – consider the world as it was then; this was actually imposing a restriction on masters and was a move towards better treatment of slaves – I agree that it is still harsh. However, slavery is never really supported and homosexuality is clearly condemned as sin in both Testaments. Your comparison of the two conditions is truly invalid, since homosexuals are usually not slaves and are engaging in sinful behavior of their own free will. I wish people who don’t possess graduate level or doctoral level degrees in theology or biblical studies would quit trying to pass themselves off as experts about the Bible – the lack of real knowledge about the Bible really comes through in some of these posts.

  • zigthenzag

    You acknowledge that the Bible instructs slaves to be obedient. Do you believe that is true today? Must slaves who wish to live scripturally be obedient to their masters? Or may the seek freedom?

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    I have read your most recent comments that were sent directly to me and you are correct at some points and incorrect at others. There surely have been individuals more educated than I am (although I have an earned doctorate in the theological field), I do not regard my desire to protect people from false information and poor interpretations as being elitist. I just wish people who truly don’t know anything about exegesis and the biblical languages would quit feeding the public all of the misinformed drivel I see on some of these sites because people are being led astray.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    At least I am trained in biblical interpretation (and at doctoral level) and I can tell you that your hermeneutic is way off base, just like the 19th century theologians with whom we both disagreed. I never said that the Bible told all slaves to be content whatever their circumstances and the Bible does not say that. I did note that Christians are to be content, whatever their circumstances, which could include slavery, difficult though that would be. Comparing slavery and homosexuality in the present or in biblical times is an apples to oranges comparison. The reason homosexuals want to make such a comparison is to make the case that they were persecuted. Interesting, I recently read a post on Patheos in which the author claimed that first century Christians were never persecuted, just prosecuted in accordance with Roman law. This would mean that Hitler’s treatment of the Jews in World War II was not persecution, but only prosecution under German law (I hope everyone knows better than this – it was monstrous persecution, obviously). Moreover, this same type of logical fallacy would say that because Jim Crow laws were just that (laws), African Americans were not persecuted, but were only prosecuted after having been freed from slavery (ludicrous!).
    According to this type of logic, homosexuals have never truly been persecuted in America when laws against sodomy, etc. were used to arrest and try them for deviant behavior, but were merely prosecuted. After all, many homosexuals are employed in fields where they make very good wages and where they have privileges, influence, and access that the average American seems to lack – this was not true for first century Christians, or African American slaves and the Jews in World War II Germany, who may have done well before Hitler came to power, but who were divested of their wealth and status. It seems that prosecution and persecution can be concurrent, even taking the form of the very same action.
    Modern sensibilities! Not only does my understanding of prosecution and persecution transcend the limits of time, but my hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is consistent across time – I apply what I know from my training and study under competent, credentialed theologians and Bible scholars (and I want you to know I was trained by liberals, moderates, conservatives, and fundamentalists). I have ended up disagreeing with the liberals and moderates, but I understand their positions.
    Perhaps persecution is best identified by the persons experiencing it. I don’t agree that my preaching against homosexuality as sin is persecution because I preach against all kinds of sins (as identified in the Bible), but the cold-blooded mass murder of the 50-plus homosexuals in the bar in Florida should be called persecution in anyone’s book. I am not in favor of violence, but I am not in favor of anyone being silenced in this debate, even those who disagree with me most vociferously. We should be free to continue to communicate and disagree so that those who read these posts can make up their own minds.

  • zigthenzag

    You never answered this: You acknowledge that the Bible instructs slaves to be obedient. Do you believe that is true today? Must slaves who wish to live scripturally be obedient to their masters? Or may they seek freedom?

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Dear Zigthenzag,
    I am happy to give you an answer. You won’t like it, but it is still an answer. The Christian life is not easy. Christians who are or were slaves were to obey their masters, however, slavery was not commended in the New Testament and slaves are definitely permitted to purchase their freedom if they can do so. Occasionally, other remedies took place. You may recall that Paul returned Onesimus to his master, but implored (practically commanded) his master (another disciple) to treat Onesimus well, even though Onesimus had run away. Slaves were actually emancipated and adopted into Roman families by their former owners in some instances (it was not that common, of course). Like you, I am happy our country did away with slavery, which never should have existed in a nation with our founding documents and founding principles. In spite of the fact that our beginning was flawed by slavery, I do believe that having these founding principles in place challenged the collective conscience of the nation such that slavery was eventually ended – I am sad to have to say that I do not believe slavery would have ended in the U.S. as soon as it did without having those founding principles in place.

  • zigthenzag

    You almost answered my question. I specifically asked about today, and your answer was unclear because you focused on the past. Do you believe slaves in the present time who wish to live scripturally should obey their masters?

  • art scott

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe This is an excellent reference source for you Joshua

  • art scott
  • art scott


  • art scott

    Men loving men and getting married has been commonplace for Centuries. The Supreme ruled Gay Marriage is legal in all 50 States. Promoting hate and using mistranslated Scriptures mocks God, causes suicide ideation in thousands of young people. It is against the law for Licensed therapist to use repairitve therapy.


  • zigthenzag

    I’m trying to get you to answer a question which you have avoided 3 times now, which suggests you don’t want to answer.

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Tell me why you want the answer and I will answer your question more directly. Are you somehow involved in human trafficking, which the Bible condemns?

  • zigthenzag

    Replying to your other comment (because it’s not moderated I’m not allowed to reply so am replying here): I’m not trying to play “gotcha.” I’m trying to understand your position. That’s common and even necessary in debate.

    Thanks for your answer. So then if I understand your position, it is that Christians in the ancient world were required to obey their masters (with the understanding that they could buy their freedom), because slavery was legal. Christians who might find themselves in slavery in 2018 are not required to obey their masters, or those who hold them captive, because slavery is illegal. Is that correct?

  • Joshua Sonofnone

    Since it seems that you are being straightforward and not seeking an answer for any illicit reasons, I will tell you that you have correctly understood my position in your answer above. There are other seminary professors who would disagree with me as well as those who would agree. Some would say that a Christian is still obligated to obey a slave master if the Christian is living in slavery where the practice is legal, but that the slave in this type of circumstance would still have the right to seek freedom by legal means. I believe all Christians would agree that God has effectively condemned slavery, but not every Christian would agree with me when it comes to how a Christian who is enslaved should respond to the condition of being enslaved. Does this answer help to clarify matters further for you? – I am not being a jerk, but I actually want to know if this answer serves to make you aware of my opinion.

  • zigthenzag

    It seems strange to me, and a bit like you (and other conservative Christians) want to have it both ways. On slavery, you accept the idea that the commands of Scripture are not applicable across times and cultures. According to you, the commandments for slaves to be obedient were applicable for New Testament times, but are no longer applicable, because the laws and culture changed. However on Homosexuality, you posit that Scripture should be applied exactly as it applied back then, regardless of laws and culture (if I understand your position correctly). To me that is an inconsistent hermaneutic.