Fundamentalist Dialogues Part 2

I have received questions as to why we are engaging in this series of dialogues instead of continuing on with the study of Jesus’ life as we did last year. I have every intention of continuing the studies we began last year, God willing, but I will be unable to do so until I am recovered from my surgery, etc. The emails I am sending you covers material I sent to this person over the summer. It is my hope that this material might be something that you would find useful, helping you yourself to respond to questions, comments and criticisms that might be posed to you by fundamentalists, since they nearly always all say the same things.

Further, as you read through these emails you will note how, when he runs out of arguments to make, he begins to repeat himself, just as though he never heard my responses the first time. I believe that the fact that he does repeat himself so much only demonstrates his closed mind. He apparently was unable to comprehend anything that didn’t agree with his opinion, so he had to ask over and over again. For example, he asks which modern translation I used when I quoted Deuteronomy 23:17 when I had already told him that it was the N.I.V.

I hope also, in sharing this material with you, that this material may help to open your hearts and help to alleviate some of the pain that you might have experienced from those who have oppressed you with this negative rhetoric. It is my hope by allowing you to read his words that you would notice, not only that he becomes repetitious, not only is he obviously lacking in biblical scholarship, but that he has no qualms about taking scripture out of context, that he has no qualms about twisting scripture to enhance his own point of view, and that he has no qualms about demanding that GLBT folk be condemned under the Jewish Law, even while admitting that Christians no longer are under the Law (which you have to admit is really quite a twist).

Lastly, if you still hold within you any sense or fear that God might reject you because of what you were told by misinformed or just plain mean-spirited so-called religious authorities, it is my prayer that in being a witness to these dialogues, you might come to be able to put those erroneous religious authorities in their rightful place–that you will be able to diffuse any power they held over you. That’s how you free your spirit.

As you saw in last week’s dialogue, the emails I began receiving came to me as though from someone who wasn’t too familiar with scripture and was questioning the word abomination, and most especially how it related to what he apparently had been taught with respect to the passages in Leviticus which historically have been erroneously interpreted to be condemnations of homosexuality.

In this week’s email, we will discover that this person is a homophobic fundamentalist whose intention is to promote his anti-homosexual agenda and attempt to “prove” to me that my teachings are in error. You will soon see that the tables were quickly turned on him.

To help you grasp his mindset, below you will find the email he sent to me in its entirety. Following his email, I take his email and respond to it, section by section. Remember also that this email is in response to an email I wrote to him previously, so you might need to refer back to last week’s email to get the entire picture of what he is referring to.

If abomination means “idolatry” in every passages, including Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, it is strange that the word “idolatry” does not appear in these passages.

There is nothing in the context that indicates this was “temple worship” as this was in the days of Moses and they were not in the land of Canaan. You need to read Leviticus and see that there was no “idol temple” in the area. Therefore, Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 still stands for any who do this in the old testament.
Now, I find the Bible is a good commentary, so if abomination means “idolatry” then where did you find that?

In Prov. 6:16-19, I find that there are seven things which are an abomination.
“16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”

Please notice that “idolatry” is not in Prov. 6! Therefore, “abomination” is more than Idolatry.

Now to Strong’s: 8441.

Strong gives a general meaning: “properly something disgusting, that an abhorence.” Then he says “especially idolatry or (concretly) an idol.” Idolatry is simply a primary example of what is an abomination. There are many other things listed by Strongs that are abominable, whether they are done in the context of worshipping a false god.
Are we to conclude that Prov. 6:16-19 is done only in context of idolatry or worshipping a false god? I absolutely think not.

Brown-Brigg’s Hebrew Lexicon:
1. A disgusting thing, abomination, abominable.
2. In ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages.
3. In the ethical sense (of wickedness, etc.)

The Complete Word Study Dictionary
1. A feminine noun meaning abomination.
2. This word is understood in the context of Law:
a. It identifies food Deut. 14:3
b. The activity of the idolater Is. 41:24
c. The practice of child sacrifice Deut. 12:31
d. Intermarriage by the Israelites Mal. 2:11
e. The religious activities of the wicked Prov. 21:27
f. The homosexual behavior Lev. 18:22 (This is not in any way referring to worship in idol temples but refers to anyone doing this at any time.)
g. Prov. 8:7 - “For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.”

References in the Strong will give much more about what is an abomination. There is no question that idolatry is an abomination, but abomination refers to many other sinful practices, and a study of the all the scriptures that are listed in Strongs under the word “abomination” & “abominations” & “abominable” reveals this. I did not list all the references, but enough to show you have read Strongs incorrectly.

Deut. 23:17 - what modern translation are you referring to?

Romans 1:21-28 “21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

Yes, they turned to idols, but that is not all they did! Vile affections - of women, men leaving the natural use of the women burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” This is not idolatry - this what women & men were doing to each other!

GOD SAID: “ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (GEN. 2:24-25)

JESUS SAID: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4-5)

THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” (Ephesians 5:31)

NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE MARRIAGE OF MAN TO MAN OR WOMAN TO WOMAN!

THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE THAT ALLOWS MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN AND WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN OR BOTH HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS.

V writes: If abomination means “idolatry” in every passages, including Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, it is strange that the word “idolatry” does not appear in these passages.

Rev. Y. responds: I’ve never said that abomination means idolatry in every passage in the Bible. You asked me that question before. Here, again, is how I replied the last time:

While I’m not saying that abomination necessarily means “idolatry” every place in the Bible I am saying that it does so very often. And it does so in the passages you mentioned, as well as in other passages as relates to what people believe refers to homosexuality.

That’s in response to the first part of your sentence. Secondly, the word toevah or toebah does appear, which includes “especially” (see Strong’s) the concept of idolatry.

V writes: There is nothing in the context that indicates this was “temple worship” as this was in the days of Moses and they were not in the land of Canaan. You need to read Leviticus and see that there was no “idol temple” in the area. Therefore, Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 still stands for any who do this in the old testament.

Rev. Y. responds: Now, you apparently are taking the position that since the Israelites were not yet in the land of Canaan when Leviticus was written, then what is written there can’t have anything to do with the religious practices of the Canaanites. You are incorrect. Go back and read Leviticus 18:3b: “…and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.” So the warnings in Chapter 18 DO specifically relate to the practices of the Canaanites. Further, have you noticed that verses 21 and 23, in addition to verse 22, all speak to idolatry? Verse 21 speaks of idolatry in the form of child sacrifice to the fire god, Molech, verse 22 speaks of temple (or cultic) prostitution, and verse 23 addresses bestiality. You may notice that the word idolatry does not appear in any of these passages, though that is the message being given.

By the way, before you argue with me that bestiality doesn’t have anything to do with idolatry, let me give you clarification of the word from “The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:”
Bestiality: Sexual relations with a beast. This form of vice was considered loathsome and abhorrent, partly because of its associations with certain pagan rites and mythology…”
We, of course, do not know how the particular verses and chapters of the bible were arranged originally, but verses 21 to 23 are a natural grouping of condemnation against idolatry.

V writes: Now, I find the Bible is a good commentary, so if abomination means “idolatry” then where did you find that?

Rev. Y responds: Let’s not make this a circular argument, V. The definition of the word toevah/toebah is the answer to your question.

V writes: In Prov. 6:16-19, I find that there are seven things which are an abomination.
“16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
Please notice that “idolatry” is not in Prov. 6! Therefore, “abomination” is more than Idolatry.

Rev. Y responds: Surely you are not trying to say that because Proverbs 6:16 to 19 does not include idolatry, then idolatry is not an abomination. Again, I’ve never said that abomination refers only to idolatry, but I am saying that the most important form of abomination is idolatry. What is the First Commandment? What is the first and most important prayer of the Jewish people? “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” By the way, if homosexuality was such an abhorrence to God, why is it not one of the Ten Commandments?

V. writes: Now to Strong’s: 8441. Strong gives a general meaning: “properly something disgusting, that an abhorence.” Then he says “especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol.” Idolatry is simply a primary example of what is an abomination. There are many other things listed by Strongs that are abominable, whether they are done in the context of worshipping a false god.

Rev. Y responds: I agree, but using your own words–idolatry is a PRIMARY example of what is an abomination.

V writes: Are we to conclude that Prov. 6:16-19 is done only in context of idolatry or worshipping a false god? I absolutely think not.

Rev. Y responds: There you go again–putting words in my mouth that I never said.

V writes: Brown-Brigg’s Hebrew Lexicon:
1. A disgusting thing, abomination, abominable.
2. In ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages.
3. In the ethical sense (of wickedness, etc.)

V writes: The Complete Word Study Dictionary:
1. A feminine noun meaning abomination.
2. This word is understood in the context of Law:
a. It identifies food Deut. 14:3
b. The activity of the idolater Is. 41:24
c. The practice of child sacrifice Deut. 12:31
d. Intermarriage by the Israelites Mal. 2:11
e. The religious activities of the wicked Prov. 21:27
f. The homosexual behavior Lev. 18:22 (This is not in any way refering to worship in idol temples but refers to anyone doing this at any time.)
g. Prov. 8:7 - “For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.”

Rev. Y responds: Well, now, this is fun.
#2: Assuming that your church is Christian, I’m sure that you are aware that Christians are freed from the Law. (Galatians 2:16 “…know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”)
#a: Romans 10:9 - 15: Peter had a dream where a sheet containing all kinds of unclean animals were being let down to earth and a voice said, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice replied, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” So we see that food is NOT any kind of abomination to God.
#’s b, c, e and f all are about idolatry, though #e can also refer to other things. The fact that you choose not to accept that Lev. 18:22 is about idolatry doesn’t make you right. There is plenty of evidence that the subject is cultic or temple prostitution right from the Bible, which I have already shown you, but which I will clarify again below.

V. writes: References in the Strong will give much more about what is an abomination. There is no question that idolatry is an abomination, but abomination refers to many other sinful practices, and a study of the all the scriptures that are listed in Strongs under the word “abomination” & “abominations” & “abominable” reveals this. I did not list all the references, but enough to show you have read Strongs incorrectly.

Rev. Y. responds: How so? Are you still stuck on the mistaken idea that I think abomination means idolatry in every place in the Bible?

Rev. Y. responds: Surely you are familiar with the New International Version of the Bible. If not, you need to look. It reads, “No Israelite man or woman is to become a temple prostitute.” That’s just one translation, but there are others, if you care to look.

Further, the latest translation of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, also reads, “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute.”

So, you have concrete evidence here that though older translations (written prior to 1928 when the Ugaritic library was found) indicate that Deuteronomy 23:17 was assumed to be a condemnation against homosexuality, the modern translators show that the condemnation was against (same-sex, sexual activity) in the practice of idolatry. HERE YOU HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF BIBLICAL CONDEMNATION OF IDOLATROUS PRACTICES OF MEN LYING WITH MEN AND WOMEN LYING WITH WOMEN. THE CONDEMNATION IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY PER SE, BUT OF IDOLATRY, WHICH IS WHAT TEMPLE OR CULTIC PROSTITUTION WAS ALL ABOUT.

V. writes: Romans 1:21-28 “21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

Rev. Y. responds: You’re totally missing the point Paul is making here, Vernon. Notice the first three words of verse 26? “For this cause” For this reason. For what cause? What was the reason that these things were being done? Paul tells us that the reason the people were doing these things was in the practice of IDOLATRY. From verse 18 to the end of the chapter, the WHOLE thrust of Paul’s message is IDOLATRY.

You don’t agree? Then let’s do a basic English lesson. Now, I’m using the N.I.V. translation of the bible, but it should work in other translations, too. Looks like it works in the translation you used above. Remember that a pronoun takes the place of a noun. Which noun? The last previous noun shown. Let’s begin with verse 18. There we find that God’s wrath is against those who suppress the truth about God by their wickedness. Verse 19 has two “them’s,” referring to those who suppress the truth about God–will you accept the word “idolaters” here? Verses 21, 22 and 23 further clarify that those whom Paul is speaking about are idolaters (notice that the pronouns still refer back to those who suppress the truth about God–i.e. idolaters.) Verse 24 brings in the sexual component of the idolaters (notice the pronoun them). Verse 25 pronouns still refer back to verse 18, and further clarify that they are idolaters.

Now we come to verse 26. We have no new nouns here. Just more pronouns which HAVE TO (if you’re using correct English) refer back to those who suppress the truth about God–I.e. IDOLATERS.

Paul specifically points out that it is IN THE CAUSE OF IDOLATRY that these people were being condemned for their sexual practices, NOT HOMOSEXUALITY. In fact, Paul’s theme that idolatry is the condemnation here is continued in verse 28, and carried through to the end of the chapter. Do you suppose that Paul would interject a condemnation of homosexuality right in the middle of a discourse on idolatry without there being a connection to the topic at hand? Of course not. This is the proof, if you would accept it, that the condemnation of men lying with men and women lying with women refers only to the idolatrous practices of people seeking the services of the temple prostitutes. It does not speak at all to the subject of homosexuals or homosexuality, since surely most of the idol worshippers who engaged in the practice would have been heterosexual, assuming the population would have been 90% heterosexual as it is today.

V. writes: GOD SAID: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (GEN. 2:24-25)

Rev. Y. responds: Are you trying to pull passages out of context to try to say that the bible only approves of heterosexual relationships? You will note below that the verses were speaking of different things. The theme of these verses above is that the people were not conscious of their nakedness, to contrast the fact that after eating the forbidden fruit they became ashamed of their nakedness (Gen 3:10). Also, don’t you find it strange that God speaks here of mother and father to the FIRST people (before parents existed)? Further, did you notice that the term “wife” is used without benefit of marriage? I’m pointing these things out to show you that you cannot take the verses literally, because they weren’t meant to be taken literally. Nor should they be taken to mean that the only “approved” relationships are between men and women, to the exclusion of homosexual relationships.

V. writes: JESUS SAID: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4-5)

Rev. Y. responds: Here Jesus is addressing the subject of divorce, saying that it was not God’s intention originally that men should divorce their wives (in that culture women did not have the option to divorce). By the way, in just a few verses later–11 and 12–some scholars believe that Jesus addressed the subject of homosexuality, speaking of eunuchs (unmarried men) in a positive way. I won’t get into it here, because it would take too long, but I just wanted to make you aware of it. The subject of eunuchs and what Jesus was talking about is thoroughly discussed in my studies on Homosexuality and the Bible on the Website.

V writes: THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” (Ephesians 5:31)

Rev. Y. responds: In this passage Paul is using this as an analogy to speak of Christ and the Church (verse 32).

V. writes: NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE MARRIAGE OF MAN TO MAN OR WOMAN TO WOMAN!

Rev. Y. responds: Nowhere in scripture are homosexual marriages condemned. Tell me, in the light of your comment above, why is it that in so many heterosexual marriage ceremonies, with all the passages in the Bible that speak of love, the ones used most often are words spoken by one woman to another: “….Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me.” (Ruth 1:16,17) If these aren’t marriage vows, I don’t know what is (in the light of Genesis 2:24). And apparently an awful lot of heterosexual couples agree with me.

Before you tell me that this was just a close friendship and had nothing to do with the love of one woman for another (which, by the way is what makes a person homosexual–and not whether or not they actually engage in sexual acts), let me refer you to Ruth 4:17. Ruth had married Boaz (because that is what women had to do to survive in those days) and had a son. But the women of Bethlehem recognized the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. Verse 4:17 tells us, “The women living there said, “Naomi has a son.” They understood that the parents of this son, Obed, were Ruth and Naomi, two women. Obed was the father of Jesse, the father of King David, and the ancestor of Jesus Himself.

V. writes: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE THAT ALLOWS MEN HAVING SEX WITH MEN AND WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN OR BOTH HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS.

Rev. Y. responds: And while the bible does condemn bestiality (and rightly so, since it is sex between different orders of creation), the bible doesn’t even address the subject of homosexual love as we know it today in a negative way. One of the things I have discovered over the years in discussing this subject with people is that many are so blinded by their revulsion of the idea of sex between same-gendered people, that they never even think about the concept of love. People who would never even consider dwelling on the sexual practices of their heterosexual married neighbors or pondering over what they do in bed, have no difficulty trying to imagine what must go on between homosexual partners, and finding disgust in that.

The reality of life is that God created most people to be heterosexual, but God also created homosexuals. It has been scientifically determined that a person’s sexual orientation is established by the age of three, so a person’s sexuality is a gift from God, not something that is chosen. While many Christian denominations today now recognize that the homosexual orientation is immutable, they take the stance that it is a cross that the homosexual has to bear in loneliness. In other words they say, “It’s o.k. to be homosexual as long as you don’t practice it.” They forget that God said, “It is not good for (a person) to be alone…” (Gen. 2:18).

The Bible tells us that the most important thing in life is love–indeed, that God is Love. Jesus told us that all of the Law and the Prophets are encompassed by the Law of Love–love for God, love for neighbor, love for self. Then people come along and tell homosexuals that the most important thing they have to do is to despise themselves–to “turn away” from what God created them to be. Supposed Christians throw homosexuals out of their churches and then condemn them for not having a moral center. Where is the homosexual to find a moral center if not in church? Supposed Christians work to make it impossible for homosexuals to marry, then condemn them for engaging in sex without the benefit of marriage.

Christian clergy, who supposedly have studied the Bible and should know better, keep using out of date, not to mention scant, scriptural references that supposedly condemn homosexuality when it in fact doesn’t, but the clergy are so busy holding onto tradition that they can’t allow any new scholarship to shake what they have previously been taught. At the very least, if they can’t reconcile new teaching to the old, they should practice and teach the Christian concept of non-judgment, for which there are bountiful numbers of passages invoking same. They would do well to heed Paul’s warning of Romans 2:1 that whenever people pass judgment on others they are condemning themselves, for they, too, are engaging in idolatry–for they take for themselves the prerogative which only belongs to God. Only God has the right to judge others. Only God has the right to condemn. Only God knows what is in a person’s heart. And only God can judge the homosexual. All others need not apply.

Freeing the Spirit Bible Commentaries
A Ministry of the Universal Fellowship
Of Metropolitan Community Churches

The Fundamentalist Dialogues

Part 2