Angry Young Preacher: The Bible Says Gay People Should Be Executed (Humanely)

Here’s the interview

I’m confused. Reading DL, I thought only Muslims hated gays

R2 DL is deluded. They believe whites are perfect, accepting, kind, respectful people while everyone else isn’t.

They’re the worst ones. Like I said the other day, they all focus on black homophobic people when 9 out of 10 times they mind their business and disagree with you but won’t pay you mind. The white ones will try killing you.

It’s a shame the Internet has given stupid people such a platform. In olden times we would never even know this hateful little shit even existed.

And now he has a way to reach many other homophobic people r4.

He didn't write the Bible? I question whether he has even read it!

The “Sodomites” aka gays were burned to death in the Bible

Any guesses as to what his Grindr handle is?

The most religious are also the ones with great mental health issues

I have no doubt he’ll one day be caught in a gay scandal. His type always are.

I know plenty of religious people The majority of them don't think about gay people. They have their own lives to live.

It's people like preacher Matt, who think about gay people all day long (while the world is literally burning down). People like matt can only be one of two things. Gay and in the closet and/or mentally ill. It's just those two options

The whole “they’re closeted” argument is most times bullshit. Some people are just HATEFUL, like those cops we see killing black people. They’re filled with HATE.

Yes, they are filled with hate. And it starts with their self-hate.

No. It’s not always about one self. What causes a white man to hate a black man so much he can kill him? His own “self hate”? Think about that shit.

He is a repressed hokosexual just like Pence.

Hate is based in fear.

She needs to work on the foundation. Leaning a little too much towards red. Perhaps something a little more subtle. Like blackface.

The lady doth protest too much!!

Oh he gay.

Caught with a 16 year old boy in 3-2-1.

You mean God didn't write the Bible? He just hired guys who knew steno?

And I am willing to bet you he's had many big ol' cocks in his mouth.

Not to mention all the bog ol' cocks he's had in his ass...

R4. In olden times, we would just slap stupid little cunts like that.

all the DL entitled gay ought to realize that most of the people on Earth want you dead....but never mind...go on with you Ryan Murphy narratives and feel safe in your fantasies

I'll bet he has an EXTENSIVE dildo/toy collection

[quote]The “Sodomites” aka gays were burned to death in the Bible

R7/OP, your statement is pretty much identical with something Matt Powell would say. But the identification of "Sodomites" (a non-biblical word) with "gays" is incorrect. What Genesis 19 depicts is sexual assault, not same-sex relationships. It does not typify homosexuality any more than raping women typifies heterosexuality.

Sodom and Gomorrah didn't exist. The narrative of Genesis 19 is plagiarized from the older story in Judges 19, in many places word-for-word. The Genesis passage represents an embellishment of the other, giving it what the scribes felt was a more satisfying, vengeful ending. Nothing sexes up a story like striking people blind, and raining fire and brimstone on them.

Another clue that it's fictional is that the names of the towns in Genesis 19 are reflections of the roles they play in the narrative: 'Sodom' means 'burnt,' 'Gomorrah' means 'terrible people,' and 'Zoar' means 'little.' Ask yourself - how can a town be named 'burnt' *before* its supposed judgment fell? It's a literary device.

But other passages in the bible illustrate how the story was interpreted. "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). The New Testament taught that it was inhospitality; Mark 6:10-11; Matt.10:14-15; Lk.10:10-12, where towns' refusal to receive evangelists is expressly compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing there about homosexuality.

All of Matt Powell's claims are similarly answerable.

Dash him against the rocks, Jesus!!

Most of DL feels this way, except they'd add in the straights and wouldn't do it humanely.

Whether they were called this or that, they Were for sure told be killed

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22[1]

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13[2]

Ah, R29 - you've come to the passages Powell is misusing to justify killing gays, specifically Leviticus 20:13. It is a reiteration of 18:22, but arranged according to penalty.

The original Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 isn't as clear as commonly rendered in English bibles. A word-for-word translation runs something like this: 'And with male not lay/lyings beds of woman; abomination it.' The exact meaning of this is inscrutable, likely that of an idiom now lost to us, in the same way the meaning and context of Deuteronomy 14:21b ('not do boil a young goat milk of his mother') was lost to the medieval rabbis who eventually concluded - almost certainly mistakenly - that it was somehow banning the mixture of meat and dairy products.

Anyone who tells you that Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality is handing you a load of bull.

Overall, Leviticus chapter 18 is a halakhic meditation¹ on other passages of scripture, specifically Ezekiel 22-23 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18.² The Deuteronomy passage condemns temple functionaries who served the larger Hebrew/Canaanite pantheon, gods besides just YHWH, and Ezekiel chapters 22-23 inveigh against political alliances with nations that worshiped other gods. (In Ezekiel chapters 22-23, the whole spiel from Leviticus 18 is on display - different types of illicit sexual unions, bestiality, and even human sacrifice - for example, compare Ezek.23:37 to Lev.18:21). To the mindset of the Deuteronomist, all such worship was characterized as 'prostitution,' even though there was no literal sexual activity involved; the invective in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel was metaphorical. This was how the [italic]qedeshim[/italic] ('holy ones') of Deut.23.17 and 1 Kings 14:24 wound up mischaracterized as "shrine prostitutes," which in turn led to the mistaken impression that some kind of same-sex sexual activity was in view. The Leviticus passages are really an abstruse prohibition of idolatry. Nothing about them has anything to do with homosexuality.

¹ Halakhic commentary is where sages studied passages of scripture (in this case, Ezekiel 22-23 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18), and articulated what they felt were the issues as discrete laws. The overall effect was to translate what had been metaphorical language (for example, Ezekiel 23:20) into a literal precept (Leviticus 18:23).

² How can Leviticus be commentary upon Deuteronomy and especially Ezekiel? Because books of the bible were not composed in the order in which they are placed, nor were they written by those to whom they are attributed. Leviticus is a priestly work from as late as the 1st century BCE/CE, as much an unrealized hypothetical as Ezekiel's temple; its precepts were never actually put into practice. Centuries later Rabbinic Judaism placed the book among the writings of 'Moses,' the Torah, when it began to be read, memorized, and recited by Jews - but not particularly followed, since the context to which it was depicted as belonging no longer existed.

R30 the verses are very blatant. Millions of people believe it his way. Your way is gay revision

[quote][R30] the verses are very blatant. Millions of people believe it his way. Your way is gay revision

No, it's critical scholarship, taking into account the context of the passages and what they were addressing. No other text in the bible cites the passages or offers anything resembling Powell's interpretation. Desperate to make their interpretation implicit, evangelicals keep altering bible texts to make them say what they would prefer.

Nor does it matter if [italic]trillions[/italic] believe it that way. (It's the fallacious [italic]argumentum ad populum.[/italic]) Most of the same believe that the earth is six thousand years old, and was made in six days. But facts are facts. Here's some more.

𝑎) The Western world isn't a theocracy; it's against the law to enact that kind of penalty against anyone, no matter what you think the bible says.

𝑏) Leviticus was written by early Common Era Jews 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Jews. Are you Jewish? Do you follow everything else in the 'Holiness Code'? If not, then you have no business urging it on anyone else.

𝑐) 'Leviticus' was a meditation/commentary on other passages of scripture - Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, etc - outlining a kind of ideal Temple service (post-70 CE, after they'd lost the temple) which was never carried out in practice - sort of like Ezekiel's outline for a temple which was never built. It's fiction. What Leviticus proposes is simply preposterous, something that could never have been actually carried out (sin offerings/animal slaughter on that kind of scale?), sort of like how Bishop John Colenso demonstrated through mathematics that the Jewish Wandering in the Wilderness accounts could never have happened. It is likely that most Jews never knew about Leviticus until two or three centuries further on, when the radically sectarian writing, formerly intended only for the eyes of priests and scribes, was copied into the Masoretic and was given a place among the supposed 'Mosaic' corpus and read aloud, once Jewish religion transitioned into a scripture-centric form.

Another reason for placing Leviticus later is how spare the New Testament is in citing it - clear quotes from it only occur in pseudepigraphal texts from the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries (i.e. 1 Peter 1:16).

And others say otherwise r32

R31, this is pretty standard Bible study stuff.

I grew up in religious schools and I used to love this kind of close examination of text and context. Thank you R30 for taking me back to fourth period Bible Study. I enjoyed it.

Even though I am no longer religious, Bible Study gave me the skills for close reading and cross checking. I use them a lot these days to slice though all the internet bullshit and government deceit.

Like most dimwitted religious people he obviously thinks the Bible was written by God himself rather than by a bunch of men who either in their delusions thought that God was speaking through them, or more likely were just con men trying to put together something that would scare the populace into doing whatever they were told.

It was weird that he did not seem to understand the cultures in which the Bible was written. One of the things you learn if you have any religious education is that the Bible may be divinely inspired but was influenced by the culture each book was written in.

As one of my teachers said, the Bible begins with two contradictory creation stories---which is a signal that you cannot take anything in the Bible at face value.

[quote]the Bible may be divinely inspired

Or not.

Plain and simple: somebody needs to slap the shit out of Miss Thing Young Preacher and tell her she is a fucking nobody piece of shit.

He BELIEVES the Bible says that? Hasn't he read the friggin thing?

By the way, how do you think #metoo will go for this part of the Sodom story?

"Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”" The same scenario recurs in Judges 19, so I'm thinking it must have been a bit of a hot fantasy back in the day.

Anyway, somebody ask young Mattie if he hopes to offer his virgin daughters up for gang rape one day to prevent homosexuality.

The Bible literally says that

What's the Bible say about False Prophets?

Wonder if this guy eats shrimp, cuts his hair, wears polycotton, etc?

The Bible condemns alot of stuff that everyone does all the time.

Does he hate divorced people because the Bible calls that out a number of times.

Leviticus is a rule book for those who want to be Levite Priests.

Hey. Millions upon millions of people believe this. More people are homophobic than pro gay. And trust me, we are gonna he next target. They may not want us dead but they hate us.

They came for Hispanics first, and then black people.

Gays are next. They feel we are destroying their country and what it stands for. Quit being naive.

R40, the Bible literally says, twice, that it's fine to offer your virgin daughters up for gang rape. Who gives a crap what else it says after that?

Jesus, of course, never said anything remotely like any of this stuff. He said Judge not lest ye be judged, and Love thy neighbor as thyself, and He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.

I follow the Wizard of Oz as my holy book.

I grew up in a Christian Church... if there is anyone that the Preachers put fear in their congregations about it is homosexual men. Gay men are their enemy, they loathe the "faggots", and heard many many preachers, ALL WHITE, bring up gays from the pulpit. I remember my Pastor, here in Brooklyn, NY, say that if a gay man came to church they can sit all the way in the back by themself, but if he sees one interacting with one of the little boys or teen guys he will make sure they are arrested, and they should feel lucky he didn't kill them with his bare hands. If you were his server or something he would be nothing but kind to you, of course, and that is where I learned that just because they are kind to you does not mean they like you.

TOLERANCE IS NOT ACCEPTANCE.

And I have known liberals who are homophobic too. There is this lie that if you are liberal you are automatically pro Gay and not racist. That is bullshit.

Of course there are individuals who are Christians who have their own brains and don't listen to what the Pastor says, and have no issues with gays too.

R47 - do you still go that church? How did others respond to what he said about gays? I mean - Brooklyn, of all places.

Okay, I looked up the part about "scientists hiding the truth about the sun and the moon". This man sounds rather... special.

r49 he is a radical. Not all Preachers think like that. Some Preachers literally make up their own things, like one Preacher from North Carolina I met years ago who believed wearing eye glasses was a sin.

r48 no lol. I grew up going there and was Christian schooled. My family still attends though, but almost all the other Churches believe its a sin, so doesn't make a big difference. There is a new Pastor now anyway, the original Pastor's son in law took over. He, like many, is anti gay, but not as nasty about it. He did try making me go to conversion camp. I stopped going after that, 10 years ago. I was 23.

The congregation? They shouted things like "Amen" and clapped. Mostly the men. And his congregation was one of the largest in NYC, and about 80% white.

Kuh-ween.

These are but 2 of the many passages in the Great Book Of Fairy Tales that talks about owning and beating your slaves. And this is a book religious people think should be a guide for a good life? IMO anyone who is religious and believes in the Bible is delusional at best, or suffering from a level of clinical stupidity.

[quote] Exodus 21:20-21 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

[quote] Leviticus 25:44-46 "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."

Before reading the headline, I thought he was just another Instahoe or someone with an OnlyFans.

R32 you're an insane academic scholar. Too bad you can't live in the real world.

So what is a humane way to kill people? I would have to say the guillotine. The fastest. Hanging, lethal injection, the electric chair and stoning all seem problematic to me.

Anyone who believes in God and is okay with the death penalty is a massive hypocrite. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord", "THOU SHALT NOT KILL", one of the Ten Commandments.

[quote]And others say otherwise [R32]... The Bible literally says that

No, it doesn't, R33/R40/OP. The bible was not written in English, but in Hebrew (maybe. There's also the theory of Septuagint Priority, but that's another discussion altogether). The passages are far less explicit in Hebrew, and there's also the matter of them being meditations on other passages of scripture.

I have to wonder, though. You seem to have posted the OP with the link as though you were condemning Matt Powell, or at least encouraging outrage at his homophobic position. But your subsequent posts in this thread tend to suggest you agree with him; you seem to insist upon the fundamentalist reading. What was your point? Explain yourself.

The evangelical school of interpretation is not the only game in town. Theological homophobia, like theological racism and sexism before it, is going away. Evangelicals can stick with it if they wish, but someday soon they'll discover that the only believers with whom they have anything in common will be those fellowshipping in Klan churches.

R57 yes, it does.

Okay, OP/R57. How and why? Let's have your exegesis, and an explanation of why you think that's the case.

Meantime, moving on. It's not really true that biblical marriage is always between man and woman. Take for instance the way the bible describes David and Jonathan's relationship, which basically ticks all the boxes for the biblical criteria for what constitutes a marriage. Consider:

"As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Samuel 18:1). That "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and 𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑙" (Genesis 2:7) illustrates the Hebrew concept of the 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑙 as representing both spiritual and physical elements. This tells us that Jonathan's and David's love for one another was both emotional and physical, which for them surpassed "the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26).

Compare "And from that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father’s house" (1 Samuel 18:2) with "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑠ℎ" (Genesis 2:24) - just as the passage reads, "𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑘𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑑." David left the house of his parents to be united to Jonathan.

"Then Jonathan made a 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan removed the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, his sword, his bow, and his belt" (1 Samuel 18:3-4), i.e. Jonathan stripped completely naked before David, most unusual unless a sign of sexual intimacy, both then and now.

That the relationship was sexual in nature is further reinforced by Saul's accusation (1 Sam.20:30b: "…do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s 𝑛𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠?" The expression reflects the language of the Holiness Code in describing sexual offenses, cf. Leviticus 18:7-17). Saul's outburst was followed by Jonathan secretly meeting David in a concealed place, where the passage offers another of those odd euphemisms peculiar to Jewish scripture, suggesting the two had intercourse and climaxed (1 Sam.20:35-41); Jonathan's subsequent vow (v.42) was the equivalent of a marriage vow.

Although Saul is depicted as condemning the relationship, there is no indication that the narrative did so, or that God did so.

There is a final admission that this 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 was tantamount to a marriage, in 1 Samuel 18:21b, so stunning that translators have taken pains to render it in such a way as to conceal what it actually says: "This day you shall be my son-in-law 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑎𝑖𝑛" (meaning, "today, you are son-in-law with two of my children," that is, Jonathan and Michal).

The relationship between Jonathan and David was in every sense what we would consider a marriage, or at the very least an uncondemned sexual relationship.

I don’t agree with the meaning, but the revisionist version youre trying to force is as wrong as saying only black people fought at Stonewall. It’s all LIES

[quote]...as wrong as saying only black people fought at Stonewall.

R60/OP - But I never said anything even remotely like that. That's a strawman of the position I took there.

[quote]I don’t agree with the meaning, but the revisionist version youre trying to force is... all LIES

How is it 'lies'? Explain.

You say you don't agree with the meaning you attribute to those passages, but you nonetheless insist on the validity of the interpretation. Why?

No, the revisionism is trying to make the Bible into Victorian prudery. It was not. Gay sex is all over it, and indeed ordinary business deals were routinely signed with a handjob, which has been mistranslated "put his hand under his thigh" to swear. The word translated "thigh" was more frequently used to mean penis.

[quote]No, the revisionism is trying to make the Bible into Victorian prudery.

I'm the one who's being accused of 'revisionism.' How does anything I've said equal "Victorian prudery"? Have you actually read any of it?

Is it my denial of temple prostitution among the [italic]qedeshim[/italic]?

[quote] Gay sex is all over it, and indeed ordinary business deals were routinely signed with a handjob, which has been mistranslated "put his hand under his thigh" to swear. The word translated "thigh" was more frequently used to mean penis.

Correct, R62. I don't disagree with any of that, although I'm not sure that the 'oath' was a handjob, since that might take too long to bring to completion. I tend to see it as cupping the genitals with one's right hand, and bowing to touch one's forehead or lips to the penis as a sign of complete obeisance.

This has turned into one of the nuttiest DL threads ever.

[quote]This has turned into one of the nuttiest DL threads ever.

In what sense, R64/R54? You're actually more comfortable with homophobic biblical interpretations?

Most evangelical takes on the bible apropos homosexuality are fairly new, developed since they began their anti-gay culture war in the late 1970s, intensifying until the present. It's not what Christians have always believed. Hell, in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church used to sanction same-sex unions ceremonially in what could be considered gay marriages (see John Boswell, [italic]Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe[/italic] [1995], and other books by the same author).

R65 they’re literally Homophobic. You trying to twist it doesn’t change that. Just accept it and move on. Wtf.

Cursed shall be his basket and kneading-trough !

[italic]Who's[/italic] 'literally' homophobic? Matt Powell, sure. Evangelicals, of course. But who else are you talking about?

Look, the bible [italic]can't[/italic] be 'homophobic, because it doesn't say [italic]anything[/italic] about homosexuality. How could it? It was written across roughly a 700-year period, from the 3rd century BCE (late Iron Age) to 400 CE (early Common Era). Both the term 'homosexual' and the concept of sexual orientation weren't coined until the last quarter of the 19th century CE. They are anachronistic for the bible. Attempts to place that word or read the concept into the bible are misinformed at best, and dishonest at worst. It's like trying to claim that the bible condemns automobiles, or smartphones.

In order to make that case, though, Christians have been altering the wording of the bible in order to make it seem like it addresses homosexuality. It's been going on pretty much since the bible first made it into the English language. In 1611, the KJV translators added the non-biblical word "sodomites" to their renderings of 1 Kings 14:24 (cf. 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7) in an effort to dishonestly link the '𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚' ("holy ones") to the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. There's no textual basis for doing so - none of these texts mention 'Sodom' in any way. (Nor is Genesis 19 even about same-sex relations; see my post at R26.) They also rendered 1 Corinthians 6:9 to indict masturbation ("𝑎𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 with mankind"). It's possible that the translating committee was scandalized by the conduct of King James I at court with his male 'favourites,' and so they chose this way of 'preaching at the king.' But it has had far-reaching consequences for gays across the four centuries since.

Attacks on gays have tended to come at times when they're noticed by society. For instance, in the wake of WWII, there had developed a dawning awareness of gays as a social movement. Evangelicals lost their minds, and the more visible gays became, the more they wanted a bible that would more expressly condemn them. So in 1946, the new edition of the RSV became the first bible to include the word 'homosexuals', dishonestly foisted onto the text. Other modern bible publishers, under pressure from evangelicals, soon followed suit.

In 1992, the Roman Catholic Catechism was altered to include, for the first time, teaching on homosexuality. The Church had shifted its position from outright condemnation to condemnation of homosexual 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠. Soon, bible versions like the ESV, NLT, and NET altered their renderings of 1 Corinthians 6:9 to read '𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 homosexuals,' a particularly cynical addition, since there's nothing like that in the underlying Greek.

As I remarked, it's about 𝑛𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒. In Italy during the 11th-12th centuries, homosexuals had begun to congregate in cities like Florence, at the baths. Ecclesiastics took note, and soon the Corpus Juris Canonici incorporated official condemnations of homosexuals. These sorts of waves of condemnation characterized the whole medieval period, interspersed with periods of relative toleration.

But I'm documenting efforts by Christians to try to make the bible reflect their prejudices against same-sex relations. While it's true that the bible is a terrible book, full of all sorts of barbarities unacceptable in our time, condemnation of homosexuality is simply not one of them. One has to twist the bible to pretend that it is.

R62, I think it's important to distinguish, however, between "gay sex" and a common ancient societal practice which, to our eyes, codes as 'gay.' Throughout history, people who experience sexual attraction primarily towards members of their own sex would still have occurred at somewhat the same percentage as those of us who are left-handed - meaning that the majority of people in the Iron Age Levant who practiced putting their hand under someone's "thigh" as a sign of obeisance or fealty were not "homosexual" as we understand it. Most were not doing it out of same-sex attraction, but because it was the common custom for such oaths.

I’ve never seen someone try to rewrite the Bible to badly

R70/OP, for all of your protests, you haven't offered a single counter-argument or critique to anything I've said here.

By posting the Matt Powell link, it was your intention all along to promote homophobia, and to rub Dataloungers' noses in it. You weren't anticipating critical exegesis to answer it. Right about now you're probably desperately wishing you could self-delete your thread. But you can't.

Another text evangelical homophobes love to cite is Romans 1:26-27, without understanding its context. Romans 1:18-32¹ could be called 'the Christian version of 'Pandora's Box.'² Although vv. 26-27 does mention same-sex relations (it's one of only two passages in the bible that does, the other being 1 Sam.20:30, where Saul accuses Jonathan of it), there's not even really a prohibition there. It is also recounted in the past tense, as something which has already taken place, rather than as anything that will happen if 'x' isn't avoided. The author of Romans speaks of same-sex relations as though they were inevitable, and can even be understood as essentially saying 'God made them do it' ("therefore [bold]𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐠𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫[/bold]" to this or that trait, vv.24, 26, and 28). The author traces the beginning of mankind's fall, starting at creation (v.20) with his abandonment of God (v.21), which led to idol worship (v.23), leading to descriptions of all of mankind's failures of character; from vv.28-31 the list gets pretty comprehensive, covering what everyone has been guilty of at one time or another, as a proposed etiology for why people die (v.32). It doesn't offer this diagnosis as something of which only *some* are guilty (of which, were *they* to judge, they alone would be hypocritical), but of a̲l̲l̲ . Everyone dies - not just those who participate in same-sex relations, not just the sinners, but *everyone*. Even the Christians, those sanctified souls who regard themselves as 'forgiven.' The capstone of the passage is Romans 2:1, ostensibly addressed to the believers at Rome: "You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on another. For on whatever grounds you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Anyone who tries to use Romans to condemn LGBTs condemns himself, not them.

It bears repeating: Everybody dies, even Christians. It isn't something that happens only to LGBTs, but to hear the way evangelicals try to use Romans 1, you'd think it was.

¹ Romans 1:18 through 2:29, an interpolation, likely formed an anonymous sermon preached in some Hellenistic synagogue and circulated among Jews of the Diaspora, as J.C. O'Neill has suggested ['Paul's Letter to the Romans,' 1975]). The foibles list of 1:18-31 can be seen as generally headed under 'things Gentiles do.' The fragment would have been conserved by proto-orthodox ecclesiastics and inserted into the text of 'Romans,' with a gloss added at 2:16 to further 'Christianize' it.

² Pandora's Box is a Greek myth that explains why there's troubles in the world, like sickness and death, the same way the anonymous author of Romans 1:18-2:29 blames the origins of man's foibles and subsequent death upon mankind having forgotten God. The two myths have more in common than one might think on first glance - both blame the origins of the world's afflictions on women - or more specifically, one woman - the Greek, on Pandora, and the Christian, on Eve (cf. 1 Timothy 2:14, "And it was not Adam [here an analogue to the Greek Epimetheus] who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression").