Wednesday, October 17, 2018

I take The Bible Literally and beleive in Universal Salvation.

It annoys me how it's only with The Bible where people feel the need to go down this rabbit hole of "do you take the figures of speech literally?", no other book is talked about that way.  And yes there are also accounts of visions and dreams that use symbolic imagery.

One Baptist Pastor I used to know said he prefers to say he takes The Bible Seriously rather then Literally.  The thing is there are people who take nothing literally and feel from their POV they're taking it just as Literally.

What's important to be understood is that I'm a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist, and I believe in a literal Virgin Birth and Bodily Resurrection from The Dead.

I watched Brad Jersak's video about "How the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture" in which he makes many valid points I agree with.  But every time a prominent figure in the Universal Salvation community makes clear they're not a Creationist and don't take all of The Bible Literally, it reinforces a perception that you have to do that to believe God will Save Everyone.  But for me this doctrine is proven because I take Romans 5 highly literally.

Now I'm also not gonna say you have to agree with me on how to interpret Genesis to be a "True Christian", I'm not interested in heretic hunting.  The issue is I want Literalists to know that the Literal interpretation of Scripture supports Universal Salvation.  Ezekiel 16 taken literally promises restoration for Sodom.

Peter Hiett has an approach to Genesis and Revelation that is kind of similar, though he defines his view as being very literal.  The whole "time is relative from the viewpoint" argument could be useful to Creation Science.  But I am firmly against any view that has any kind of Death already happening prior to Adam's Sin not even mainly because of anything Genesis says, but because of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3, those Chapter make a literal chronological understanding of Genesis vital to New Testament theology.

Brad Jersak talks about The Bible coming in different genres, and yes I agree the Psalms and Job are no history books.  And most of Jesus parables are don't think are events that literally happened either.

But the problem is when does the Book of Genesis change genre from Myth to History?  Does it ever? Because it's clearly presenting itself as an ongoing unbroken narrative, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are there to connect it's three different eras.  And then Exodus and Numbers genealogically link themselves to the later part of Genesis.

It is only with Early Genesis that there is this attitude that thinking these events literally happened must somehow take away from learning it's applicable lessons.  I have a study called "Ye Hath God Said", I know full well there is a lesson to be learned.  But we also learn lessons from the narratives told about Jesus and the King & Prophets of Ancient Israel, that doesn't mean those events didn't happen.

I am absolutely someone who understands the importance of context, I just did a post on Dinosaurs and Dragons where I talk about the difference between literal zoological descriptions of animals and animals being used symbolically.

The issue when addressing the doctrine of Endless Torment in "Hell" isn't about if they're literal or not.  Even if you want to believe the KJV rendering are literally true it's still a matter of what's being called "Eternal" and what even does "Eternal" truly mean.  And then after that is the issue of understanding what the Greek and Hebrew truly said. 

The only area where my approach can even be slightly called a less literal one is how I approach the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16.  But again that is a parable, it's those wanting to Hellfire Preach from it treating it different then how they do other parables.  And I've done a post on that subject fully showing that even if it is a Literal even that actually happened it doesn't prove endless torment.  The idea of endless punishment is refuted by Luke 12.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Does God Love Everyone? Or Does He Hate Some People?

Calvanists will insist that God can't Love everyone because lots of verses refer to God's "Hate" or "Eminity" or "Loathing" or says he "abhors".  It's not just Calvanists though, the Pastor I do not like to name also does this and he considers himself an enemy of both Calvanism and Arminianism.  If you believe in the doctrine of endless torment or annihilation you can't honestly claim you think God Loves everyone including the unbelievers.

I could simply question the accuracy of equating those Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words with the modern English notion of "Hate".  However even the modern meaning of "Hate" does not carry the meaning they want it to, i.e. it's not mutually exclusive to Love.  The opposite of Love is indifference, there is a common expression that you can only truly Hate what you Love.  The only movies I've ever described myself as Hating are parts of Franchises that I Love, if I didn't care about the property in the first place I'd just forget about it.  And the only people I've ever truly felt like I hate are members of my own family when I'm really mad at them.

There is no single verse in Scripture that says the three word phrase "God Loved Everyone", but there is similarly no single verse clear statement on The Trinity. Jesus said God Loved The World in John 3:16, and in John 12 He says He will draw (can also be translated Romance) all humans unto himself.  Romans 11:32 says God will have Mercy on All.  1 John 2:2 specifically says Jesus died for the Sins of the whole world not just believers.  1 Timothy 2:4-6 also clearly God will have all to be saved.  1 Timothy 4:10 says Jesus is the Savior of All Men not just believers.

It's what's said about Esau in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 that is the crux of how Calvanists build their doctrine of God's Hate.  At the bottom of this post I'll link to an interesting Peter Hiett Sermon on the subject, but first I shall try to give my own take.

First of all there is no Verse anywhere in Scripture saying God "Hates" Esau in the present tense.  Both relevant verses say He "Hated" in the past tense.  In Hosea 9:15 God says he hated the children of Israel and loves them no more, same Hebrew word Malachi uses.  But when you read the whole book that clearly didn't stick.  Indeed this is a problem for the Calvanist misuse of "God never changes" since they say God's Love or Hate for someone never changes.

The reason why these Esau verses are vital to Calvinism is because of the contrast to how God Loved Jacob.  They assume they must be equal, that the Hate for Esau must be just as irrevocable as the Love for Jacob.  But Scripture says the opposite, Psalm 8 says God's Anger is for but a moment, while the Psalms also repeatedly say (if your KJV only) "His Mercy Endures Forever".  God's Hate can't be equal to his Love because God Is Love.

The Irony about using Paul's quotation of Malachi this way is that it's role in the grander meta-narrative of Romans is clearly that those God "Hated' in the Old Testament are being brought in now. Chuck Missler liked to say that Romans 9 is Israel's past, 10 the present (of Paul's time and probably still now) and 11 Israel's future.  In the present not only is Esau not still hated but if anything they've switched because Israel is now under Spiritual Blindness.  However that Blindness will be lifted, Romans 11 makes clear that after the "Fullness of the gentiles" are grafted into Israel, All Israel shall be Saved.

There had developed a Jewish tradition of identifying Rome specifically with Esau/Edom.  It's mostly associated with later Rabbinic tradition but there is a DSS manuscript that seems to imply this had developed already in the BC era by identifying the fourth Kings of Daniel 2/7 with Edom.  Maybe that's why Paul brought up Edom here, but either way the greater point is that Paul is trying to prove that God's love is not and never really was limited only to Israel.  I no longer think Rome literally genealogically descended from Edom, but I used to argue that in the past.

The basis in Genesis itself for what Malachi said is believed to be when The Angel told Rachel the younger of her twins will serve the elder, and yet no where does Genesis say Esau was hated.  Genesis 27:41 says Esau hated Jacob, but in the Hebrew that's a different word then Malachi used, a much rarer word that appears right next to Satan in the Strongs and is never used of God's feelings for anyone, at least not by a reliable source.

The same Hebrew word Malachi used is used in Genesis 29:30-33 in an interesting way.  Where it seemingly describes Leah being hated by Jacob.  But did Jacob permanently hate Leah?  No, he calls Leah Joseph's mother in chapter 37.  At this point in the narrative Leah feels hated because of how Jacob chose Rachel.  But then God opens her Womb which Provokes Rachel to Jealousy, again echoing terminology Paul uses in Romans where the fruitfulness of the Gentiles provokes Israel to jealously.

There are Prophecies that seem to refer to Edom as a nation (and Amalek a bastard offshoot) being permanently irrecoverably destroyed in a way no other nation is.  From Balaam's oracles about Amalek, to Obadiah, to Jeremiah 49 seemingly not promising Edom the restoration the other nations are, to Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36, and then of course what Malachi says at the start of his Prophecy.  And maybe that's true, maybe as a geo-political entity the nation of Edom will be no more, but that wouldn't preclude every single individual Edomite from still being resurrected to live in the New Creation as nationalized citizens of other nations.

But there are also potential translation issues with those prophecies, like Olam being translated Forever when it means Age.  And comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows at least one reference to Edom should really be Adam (spelled the same in Hebrew) and so perhaps more should be.  And then there is the really fringe part of my brain that contemplates Jeremiah's different treatment of Edom is because he and Obadiah 4 are saying Edom migrated to outer space.

Here is that Peter Hiett Sermon.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

We're not the ones Cherry Picking Verses

The critics of Universal Salvation like to claim we're taking random verses out of context and ignoring the clear overall message.  However it's their apparent Endless Torment verses that are far outnumbered by the verses that contract that idea.

Is what Jesus said on The Cross an obscure unimportant part of Scripture?  He said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".  He didn't say "if they repent forgive them", in fact what He said makes it impossible to repent, you can't repent of what you don't even know you did.

Is the Sermon on the Mount obscure?  Cause right at the start in Matthew 5:26 Jesus makes clear the Punishment is not endless but until the price is paid, Luke 12 backs that up.

Some people like to say everything you need to know about Salvation is in John's Gospel, well interestingly there are no declarations of Eternal Fire in John nor does it mention Hell, but in John 12:32 Jesus does say He will Draw all Humanity unto Himself.

1 Corinthians 15 is often refereed as the part of Scripture that most clearly explains what The Gospel is (it's The Resurrection).  And that happens to be one of our favorite chapters.  We're told all who Died because of Adam will Rise again because of Christ, and that Death and Hell will have no victory, the only time Paul ever refers to Hell btw.

It is common in Protestant and Evangelical circles to refer to Romans as the definitive statement of Christian Doctrine.  Chuck Missler liked to say the first 8 chapters were laying out the Doctrine of Salvation and then 9-11 are about Israel.  People less Dispensational then Missler would say those two sections aren't so easy to separate.  Well again Romans never refers to Hell or Eternal Fire.

Romans 1 contains a rhetorical rant about how many Jewish Believers viewed the Gentile world, drawing on the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon.  But he then spends chapter 2 into chapter 3 explaining how Israel is no better.  Then by the end of Chapter 3 and into chapter 4 he talks quite a bit about how in the present tense those who Believe are Saved and those who don't Believe are currently Unsaved.  But then in Romans 5 he looks forward to the future and firmly declares that ALL who were made Sinners in Adam will be made Righteous in Christ.

Romans 6 goes on to explain why we shouldn't take that as a license to Sin, but that doesn't take away the clear message of Romans 5.  Then we reach Romans 11, where he talks about Gentiles being rafted into Israel.  He says that the Fullness of The Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel shall be Saved.  For God consigned them all to disobedience so that he might have mercy on All.

I have done a post on how Revelation implies Universal Salvation, and also one on how the seeds of that message are planted right in The Torah.

The overarching meta narrative of The Bible clearly supports Universal Salvation, it's the doctrine of Endless Punishment that depends on cherry picking certain verses out of context.  Even if KJV onlyism were true that'd still be the case.

Sunday, September 9, 2018

I'm not an expert on Economics, but here is broadly what I support.

Hopefully someone who is more of an expert then me will get where I'm coming form and work out the details.

First you should know what some of the earliest posts I made this blog I'm not exactly gonna stand by anymore.  For example the post I made a little over 4 years ago on Taxation has some of what I still view as the truth in it, but in 2014 my politics were still broadly in Ron Paul mode.  The three documentaries I recommended in that post I'm not gonna recommend anymore, one was an Alex Jones film, another was one Alex Jones did repeatedly endorse.  I don't know much about the over all politics of the people behind The Money Masters.  But basically I don't care as much about the Federal Reserve as I once did, I think it does need more oversight but it's not my main boogeyman anymore.

I'm also undecided on what my ultimate position on Tariffs is.  I know I oppose all existing "Free Trade Agreements" but I'm not sure what to do after that.

At the end of this post I'm gonna link to three Peter Coffin videos.

Phase 1: Taxation.

The problem with how we talk about Taxes is that it simplistically comes down to Conservatives lower them and Liberals raise them, with not nearly enough discussion of the different kinds of Taxes.

There is even specifically more then one Tax called an Income Tax, so I need to be really specific about what I mean when I say I want an Income Tax abolished altogether.  What I'm referring to is sometimes called the Personal Income Tax or the Labor Income Tax.  It's the Tax on the worker's hourly wages.  The working class isn't making what they deserve to start with, so their wages certainly shouldn't be Taxed.

There might be some people who, compared to what the average America makes, seem to qualify as "Rich" that are making an hourly wage. But when I talk about the "Super Rich" I'm talking about people who even make Hollywood Celebrities and Rap Stars look humble.  Contrary to the impression you get from watching how the Business world is depicted in most movies and TV shows, most people holding the position of CEO are not the actual owners of the Company but a person hired to run the Company for them, like The Hand of The King on Game of Thrones.  But even owners who do hold that title themselves, whatever wage their paying themselves is a small percentage of their total income.  No one in the Fortune 500 is in any significant way effected by the Labor Income Tax.

So I ideally want the Basic Income Tax abolished, but for now I'm willing to settle for it being massively lowered.  It's percentage should certainly be lower then the Capital Gains percentage.

I do not want to lower the Capital Gains Tax, or any other type of Income Tax that focuses on big businesses.  In fact I want to introduce a new one.  I support the Wallstreet Sales Tax.  I suspect that can easily more then make up for the income the Government would lose by getting rid of the Labor Income Tax, but I don't know for certain since I'm not an expert.

It's not about "penalizing people who are more productive", it's about the fact that with great power comes great responsibility, and under Capitalism wealth is the only real power.

I believe the 50c3 Tax Exempt Status needs to be abolished.  Tax Exempt Foundations are a big part of how the Rich avoids paying the taxes they're already supposed to pay.

Also I fully support Legalizing marijuana and putting a Tax on that similar to the current Taxes on Tobacco and Alcohol.

Phase 2: Minimum Wage.

I fully support the current movement to raise the national Minimum Wage to $20 an hour.  In the long run I think the working class should be making even more then that, but this is a good place to start.

Phase 3: Basic Income.

As I've said before, I support having a Basic Income sometimes called a Guaranteed Minimum Income. (Scott Santens follows me on Twitter.) 

I think it's highly Immoral that so many Americans are offended by the notion of Feeding people who don't work.  Scarcity is a Myth, we are now producing enough to provide for everyone, we simply don't.  All life is Sacred whether or not one "Contributes to Society" and many may have the ability to contribute in ways that aren't so easy to make money off of.

The notion that if everyone gets money for Free we'll wind up with not enough people working to be able to Tax to pay for that simply isn't true.  Maybe if we tried to do it in our current Taxation system, but certainly not in a model like what I proposed above.

The two main Basic Income models being proposed as $10,000 a year, or $1000 a month which would come to $12,000 a year.  Most people are going to need or at least want more then that ultimately, especially if they're raising a family.  And those making Millions or Billions every year certainly aren't going to suddenly decide a Thousand a month is enough, those people are addicted to constantly making more money.

The people who are so lacking in ambition that $1000 a month would be enough for them, are mostly people who are having trouble holding a job anyway.  I can say that because I'm one of them.  But even then those people are a small percentage of those having trouble holding a job.  For many people their need to hold a "real job" are only slowing down their ability to peruse their true talents.

Now some Basic Income supporters are saying that it would be Cheaper then our current system of social safety nets and so we wouldn't even need to increase the Government's revenues.  I do want to increase the state's revenue since I want to keep at least some of those.  Charles Murray is a racist which is why some on the Left use his support of it against the Basic Income. The problem is people like Webster Tarpley are still Capitalist in their mindset, they still worship the idea of work.

Phase 4: I support having a single payer Health Care system, like most other developed nations.

Phase 5: If you wanna cut Government spending, it's military spending we waste the most money one.  Ron Paul proposed cutting the Defense Department's budget in half and that is one area I still agree with him on.   If you want to abolish some government agencies, abolish ICE, Homeland Security, the DEA and the ATF.  Not the the ones that regulate corporations.  We could also be spending a lot less money on Prison and the Police be decriminalizing Drugs and other Non Violent Victimless Crimes.

That's all the phases for now.

My ideal society arguably goes even beyond that.  But these proposals are the compromises that I think could vastly improve things.

Here are three Peter Coffin Videos I recommend.  The third is much longer then the others but still essential information.  I don't always agree with him, but these three videos are very informative and enlightening.

Why Criticize Capitalism?

Why We Need Single Payer Healthcare.


Thursday, September 6, 2018

What is The Gospel?

The word Gospel (Evangelion in Greek) means "Good News", so I have some good news to share.

I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

Yes I know that's a dated reference, but it has more meaning here then just my demonstrating my love of Memes.

You see the joke in those commercials was that the "good news" was good news only to the person speaking and not something the person being spoken to has any reason to care about, and certainly not the good news they needed at that time.  But the marketing hook of it is that it's news you can share if you also switch to Geico.

There was one specific commercial I remember depicting an inmate on Death Row who's going to be executed soon, and his lawyer tells him "I've got good news" and the inmate said thinks that means he got a pardon or something, but then the lawyer says "I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico".

You see I feel a lot of The Church especially in The West has become that very joke.  We're supposed to be telling people that death has no victory.  But instead we're telling them how we just saved a bunch of torment on our Hell insurance by switching to The Independent Fundamental Baptist Church of Philadelphia.  We're delivering a sales pitch not actual Good News.

Most Christians, at least in the West, think the Bad News we need saving from is Hell, and that they therefore need to convince people of the Bad News first.  But 1 Corinthians 15 which includes the most clear statement of what The Gospel is, is clear that the Bad News is Death, the Bad News is something people already fear.  Ancient Pagans had a concept of an After Life, but it wasn't a pleasant one.  The Gospel is The Resurrection.

But you're also not giving people good news if it's an ultimatum, or a threat.  1 Corinthians 15 says Everyone who Dies because of Adam will Rise because of Christ.  It isn't presented as a possibility it's presented as unavoidable.  It's a Free Gift not a Privilege.

I saw a description for one anti Universal Salvation YouTube video say "if everyone receives Grace no one receives Grace", which is basically the same as that mentality which The Incredibles ultimately vilifies "If everyone's special then nobody is".  The attitude that Grace is less if other aren't excluded is exactly the attitude Jesus was constantly trying to correct.  And guess what, every warning of "Hell" or Judgment Jesus gave was to believers, to the Pharisees (the Jewish sect early Christians broadly qualified as because the point was believing in The Resurrection) and his own Disciples, the Sheep and Goats parable was part of Matthew's Olvite Discourse, a speech given only to the 12.  The only exception is in Luke 12:47-48 where some judgment for non believers is alluded to, but it's clear those who do believe but still sin will have it worse.

These people are comparing Universal Salvation to the now constantly mocked idea of a participation trophy.  But that's not actually a valid comparison, the doctrine of Conditional or Exclusive Salvation should be compared to everyone on the losing team being killed or tortured for losing.  And in Calvinism it works like Pro Wrestling rather then a legit sport.

What Paul blatantly says in 1 Corinthians 15:55 is that it's Death and Hell who don't even get a participation Trophy.  Most Western Evangelicals think Satan gets the majority of Humanity, which would mean he wins.

So what is The Good News?

The Good News is that Jesus will Draw all Humans unto Himself according to John 12:32.

That all who Die will be Risen each in his order.  Some will face corrective punishments and be purified by fire.

But as Romans 5 explains all who are made Sinners in Adam will be made Righteous in Christ, for Grace will abound more then Sin.

And as Romans 11 explains the fullness of the Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel will be Saved.  For God consigned them all to Disobedience so that He might have Mercy on All.

Revelation 21-22 explains that some will at first be outside New Jerusalem in Outer Darkness when the New Creation begins, but the Gates of New Jerusalem will never be closed, and the Leaves of the Tree of Life are for the healing of the nations and a River of Pure water flows out of the City into the World.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

What was the nature of Jesus Atonement on The Cross?

There are a number of theories within Christianity about the nature of Christ's Atonement on the Cross, of what it's purpose was, including a number of different ones that can all be called Substiutionary Atonement.  However in the Western Evangelical Church the tendency has been to default to Penal Substitution, that He was taking the punishment for our Sins for us.

First of all I think it's possible that more then one theory of Atonement is true, that the act of the Creator of The Universe incarnating as a flesh and blood Son of Adam willingly laying down His own Life was a pretty big Stone that could kill a lot of different birds.

So on the YouTube Channel titled Early Church Faith there are three videos providing interesting takes on The Cross that I feel are all valid and interesting. Two are Brad Jersak, The Gospel In Chairs and The Cross Remembered, and then Dr. C Baxter Kruger's God In The Hands of Angry Sinners.  However they and a lot of my other allies in advocating for Universal Salvation often object to Penal Substitution, and I understand why, the way Penal Substitution is traditionally understood in a framework that assumes some suffer endless torment, is indeed twisted.

When people come from the starting place that Salvation is not being punished at all, then saying some temporary punishment will take place for people who are saved feels like adding to The Cross.  And so thus we sometimes respond by wanting to remove punishment from the scenario altogether.

Romans 6:23 says the Wages of Sin is Death but the Gift of God is Aionios Life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Hebrew 9:27 says it is appointed unto each Human once to die and after that the Judgment.  Therefore there must be a Judgment that is not the "wages of sin" in the same sense.

There are different kinds of Punishments.  A Death Sentence or Life in Prison is not done for correction, our Death Sentence is what Jesus paid for us.  But that doesn't preclude that some corrective Punishment will be necessary.

The misconception that forgiveness for Sin is inseparable from Salvation is why the Unpardonable Sin, Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit, confuses people.  They want to redefine it as something much more mystical and cosmic then what the immediate context implies.  It not being forgivable means you will be punished for it, but God's Punishments are not endless as Matthew 5:26 and Matthew 18:34 explain.  Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11 explain that God's punishments are for correction.  Luke 12:47-48 tells us that believers will receive more punishment then unbelievers.

So I can just look at the context of the unpardonable Sin in Matthew 12 and see that it's attributing something God did to Demons or Satan.

1 Corinthians 15 defines Jesus' Death as being for our Sins, 2 Corinthians says He was made Sin for Us.  1 John 2:2 and 4:10 calls his Death an Atonement (Propitiation in the KJV, the Greek word is clearly the equivalent to the Hebrew Kippur), likewise Romans 3:25.  Hebrews 2:9-15 says He died to defeat death, also agreeing with material from 1 Corinthians 15.  John The Baptist called Him the Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of The World, the Passover Lamb was offered to protect households from the Angel of Death.

So I don't know exactly which model is the most accurate.  But I believe that because of His Death and Resurrection from The Dead, Jesus Will Save Everyone.

Friday, August 24, 2018

The Christology of the Sanctity of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage.

So I've been talking on this Blog about how Paul said there is neither Male or Female in The Church.  And recently I've been noticing how traditionalists will say that it's important to defend "traditional marriage" because of how it's a picture of the relationship between Christ and Israel and/or The Church (whatever your view on The Bride of Christ doctrine is).

And it just occurred to me to ask, have they forgotten about Collisions 2:16-17?  Which Paulian Christianity has long viewed as arguing that the Sabbath, and The Holy Days and other aspects of The Law being type pictures of Christ are exactly why those mere terrestrial shadows of the truth don't actually matter, or at least aren't something to be dogmatic and legalistic about.

Or likewise Mark 2:27 where Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", which was one of his responses to the Pharisees overly strict legalistic attitude towards The Sabbath.  That same principle can be applied to marriage.  God didn't create Adam and Eve because He wanted Ken and Barbie dolls to play with, He created Eve so Adam wouldn't be alone.  Where the KJV says "Help Meet" other translations say Helper or Companion.  So when the companionship someone needs is from a person with the same reproductive organs they have, that is perfectly consistent with the intent of Genesis 2.  And likewise when some people needs more then one companion.

1 John 4:7.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
So there is no context in which it can ever be appropriate to call Love a Sin, in fact doing so could quite possibly be Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit.

Peter Hiett love mentions various Romantic movie in his Sermons and making then analogies for The Bride of Christ doctrine.  Well guess what, I'm capable of seeing the same analogy in Gay Romances, or Het ones but with the traditional roles reversed.