Monday, August 25, 2014

I have some advise for anyone who might be a Parent.

This should be common sense, but it seems for many parents it's not.

Don't try to keep your kids from doing something you yourself are doing, that applies to drinking, smoking, extra-marital sex, whatever kind of thing it is doesn't matter, just don't.

Saying "I pay the bills I make the rules" is a legal augment not a Moral one. Forbidding someone to do something your doing is the definition of hypocrisy, period. But it's not even a good legal argument, a just ruler follows the rules they expect their subjects to follow.

The most effective way to encourage whatever Morality you believe in is to lead by example.

Levitcus 19:20, slavery and sex

Leviticus 19:20 is a situation that is uncomfortable for modern readers to begin with. But the KJV rendering here is one of the most problematic of all of those very few places I'm willing to consider the KJV translation outright wrong.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
First off a lot is added to the translation that is not really in the text, including each occurrence of the word "she".

Second, both "whosover" and "husband' are the same word in the Hebrew, Ish which also means man.

Third, The word for "betrothed" here (Charaph. (khaw-raf')) is used many other times but the KJV only translates it "betrothed" in this one passage, no other occurrence is a meaning linked to marriage at all. 'aras is the usual word for betrothed. Ya`ad is another word the KJV translated that way in the context of dealing with a Slave, but it's also usually translated something else, but is much closer to being accurate then Charaph here. Charaph is most often translated reproach, and then several times defy, but also words like rail, upbraid and winter.

Fourth, Biqqoreth (bik-ko-reth) which is translated "scourged" only appears this one time, but various other translators feel this word means something like a trail or investigation rather then punishment. Some have also interpreted it as being a financial compensation that is to be paid. But the investigation theory makes most sense given the root it comes from. Bagar, which gets translated --(make) inquire (-ry), (make) search, seek out.

An online Jewish Translation of the Masoretic Text renders this.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; there shall be inquisition; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
This particularl Jewish translation seems to mostly just follow the KJV and fix things they consider wrong because of Christian bias.

The following verses make clear that ONLY the Man is at fault here. So the KJV translating this as though the female slave still received some punishment is absolutely absurd, in fact it seems grammatically awkward even in the greater context of what the KJV says.

I think a good rendering is

A man that inseminates a woman, that is a bondmaid, designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; there shall be an inquest; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

Friday, August 22, 2014

Margaret Sanger(Planned Parenthood founder)quotes

I’m not taking these from Pro-Life propaganda sources, these are independently sourced directly from her own writings.  Their indisputable.
[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
-Commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.
-Speech quoted in “Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do.” The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.
All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class
-“Morality and Birth Control”, February-March, 1918, pp. 11,14.
As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation…. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
-“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.
Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
-“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.
The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.
-“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.
..give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
-“A Plan for Peace”, April 1932, pp. 107-108
Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing… Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand. [npg] In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York.
-Autobiography 1938, Chapter 29, “While the Doctors Consult”, p. 366.
In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of ‘fit’ and ‘unfit.’ Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.
-The Pivot of Civilization1922, Chapter 8, “Dangers of Cradle Competition”
Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.
-The Pivot of Civilization1922, Chapter 8, “Dangers of Cradle Competition”
Our ‘overhead’ expense in segregating the delinquent, the defective and the dependent, in prisons, asylums and permanent homes, our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrate our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism. No industrial corporation could maintain its existence upon such a foundation. Yet hardheaded ‘captains of industry,’ financiers who pride themselves upon their cool-headed and keen-sighted business ability are dropping millions into rosewater philanthropies and charities that are silly at best and vicious at worst. In our dealings with such elements there is a bland maladministration and misuse of huge sums that should in all righteousness be used for the development and education of the healthy elements of the community.
-The Pivot of Civilization1922, Chapter 12, “Woman and the Future”
The following is not her’s in origin, but she still said it.
The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.
-W.E.B. DuBois, Birth Control Review, June 1932. Quoted by Sanger in her proposal for the “Negro Project.”
Below is not directly her’s but fromBirthControlReview.
Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.
-Ernst Rudin, Birth Control Review, April 1933.

It is not my desire to turn anyone I disagree with into a 2 Dimensional Cartoon villain.  So I will not deny she also expressed legitimate concerns about Women’s rights.

Actually what’s amusing is she still in-spite of all this would not agree with the modern Pro-Choice movement’s insistence that the Unborn don’t qualify as Human beings.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Saturday, August 9, 2014

You do not need to Repent to be Saved

There are a number of verses you can cite out of context to make it sound like you need to Repent to be Saved, but it's the same with Baptism, in fact their in the same passages often. But no serious Christian today thinks Baptism is necessary for Salvation, after all Paul makes a point out of how he's only ever Baptized two people in 1 Corinthians. But many Evangelicals won't apply the same logic to the references to Repentance that they do to Baptism, which is arguably referenced more often then Repentance is.

How often Salvation is discussed without mentioning it is a more powerful argument. It doesn't occur in Romans 10 when Paul declares "All who call upon the name of The Lord shall be Saved", and plenty of similar places. (Same verses that refute the idea of Baptism being required)

The Gospel of John does not use the word Repent, or Repentance or any other form of the word even once.  Some argue that everything we need to know to be saved in the Gospel according to John, based on how it ends. To me for any of the four to lack reference to Repentance would be odd if it was necessary for Salvation.

It never occurs in James epistle, or Jude's and only once in Peter's two epistles. And it is a rare occurrence in Paul's Epistles. Only showing up Twice in Romans, a few times in 2nd Corinthians and Hebrews. When something doesn't show up until a 2nd epistle to the same recipient, that usually means it was a lower priority.

Romans is called the definitive statement on Christian doctrine. The first 8 Chapters nail down the fact that Salvation if by faith alone. And the word "Repent" appears only once in Chapter 2, where we haven't gotten to Salvation yet, Paul is still laying out how Sinful the state of mankind is. It never appears in Galatians, the other key Gospel on Faith vs Works.

That's the thing, people claim they believe salvation is by faith alone not works, but still Preach that you need to Repent to be saved. Repentance is a work, most of God's commands are commands not to Sin, even not Sinning is a work.

Other verses
"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." - Acts 16:31
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." - Romans 4:5
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:28
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8,9
It's also never brought up in the account of how the Ethiopian Eunuch is saved in Acts 8.

Repentance is something we should be doing, after we're saved, as part of our walk with Christ. But it's not necessary for salvation, and we won't lose Salvation by failing to do it, but we still ought to do it.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Is it inherently immoral to use something for something other then it's purpose?

Let's just say hypothetically I was willing to concede the "Conservative" argument that our Biology proves God clearly designed us for inter-sex relations exclusively and there for that's the only intent.

Is there any other thing where we consider it a Sin, or an abuse, or even disrespectful to use something for something or anything other then it's created purpose?

We proponents of Intelligent Design keep using the analogy of a Human Designer designing artificial inventions.  I can list endless examples of people commonly using an invention or a created object for something other then it's original created purpose.  We use newspapers to discipline dogs, tins cans for target practice, anything with a significant density as a paper weight.

But people aren't like God, so let's look at how humans use what God gave us.

Our hands are what were deigned to hold things, but if their full we'll also use out chins or mouths.

That analogy might seem silly to you.  But to people who aren't conditioned to be grossed out by it calling Homosexual affection unnatural is silly.

God clearly did not originally create Animals to be food for Humans, in fact it was a Sin for us to eat them Pre-Flood.  But that was changed after The Flood.

And was the created purpose of Trees to be cut down for humans to make various artificial objects out of them?

So that makes it clear to me God is capable of accepting flexibility in how we use what he created.  As long as we're not breaking The Golden Rule, or worshiping a false god.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

I’m growing more and more unsure I qualify as a Libertarian

I’m growing more and more unsure I qualify as a Libertarian.  I ultimately don’t care if I’m a “True Libertarian” or not.  I’ll continue to be an ally of the Libertarian movement because I certainly identify with them more then I do either Democrats or Republicans, “Liberals” or “Conservatives”, Occupy Wallstreet or Tea Partiers, ect.  And ultimately more so then I do other Third Parties like the Green Party or the Constitution Party, but I certainly still respect those more then I do either major party.

In theory the Constitution Part should be perfect for me, because I am a patriotic American who thinks the United States Government should have to follow the United States Constitution, in a lot of ways that overlaps with Libertarian ideals, but not always.  Problem is they have too many “Social Conservative” tendencies when it comes to issues like Drugs and Gay rights and Marriage and so on.

Now I know the Constitution isn’t perfect, but that’s why it includes a process by which it can be amended.  There are Amendments I’d like to make to the Constitution, starting with repealing the 16th, but also on issues like Term Limits (for Judges and Senators) and Common Law rights (not all of them are enshrined in the Constitution which surprises people) especially Jury Nullification.  But I would go through the proper procedures to Amend it, not simply ignore it as both Democrats and Republicans do when the Constitution doesn’t fit with their personal agenda.

I identify as a Libertarians mainly because I believe in individual rights.  I believe all victimless Crimes should be legal, each individual person, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, or personal preferences should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t threaten the Life, Liberty or Property of another individual.  This makes me “Liberal” on drugs, prostitution and gambling laws, as well as Gay Rights and Marriage, but “conservative” on Gun Rights and Hate Speech laws and Property rights.

Where I differ from a lot of fellow Libertarians is I don’t consider the State to be the only threat to individual rights.  Corporations/Employers and religious institutions can be just as big a threat, even more so sometimes.  If you have the Money and/or charisma you can make your own personal army or police force just as powerful as any state sanctioned one.

So the thing is, to me the State in addition to being restrained from violating our rights, I also believe has an obligation, as the only institution that is owned by the people(or is supposed to be) to protect it’s Citizens from other institutions that threaten their rights. That doesn’t mean I’m like a “Liberal” who thinks the state should provide for us and take care of all of our needs.  It just means I believe other institutions, like other individuals, should be restrained from abusing their power just as the State needs to be restrained.

So when Lew Rockwell said in his recent article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
Yes, we do believe in unfashionable things like the abolition of antidiscrimination law. If we didn’t, we would not be libertarians.
Well if that’s his definition of Libertarian then I don’t fit nor do I want to.  I do support the Civil Rights act and Voting rights act, though there may be details in them I don’t like.  The Federal Government is given authority on those issues by the 13th-15th Amendments.  To respond to other things in the article, I am a “Feminist” in it’s truest original definition, as I feel all Libertarians should be, we want Women to have the same rights as Men.  Crazy people on the far Left have hijacked the term, so we should try to hijack it back.

There is one other institution that is popular to hate in Libertarian circles today almost as much as the state, and that’s Unions.  But rather then simply being concerned with their abuse of power they become like radical “Conservatives” who think they shouldn’t exist.  I believe in Checks and Balances and Unions are an important check on the power Employers have over their Employees.  One of my arguments for legalizing Prostitution is that I’d like to see Prostitutes Unionize to protect them from Pimps.

I’m also not entirely against Safety Nets like Food Stamps.  But under the 10th Amendment I feel they should be handled by State and Local governments, not a once size fits all policy.

Basically I’m not an Anarchist or an “Anachro-Capitalist”.  True Capitalism means a Free Market, but a True Free Market does NOT mean NO regulations
"There can be no Freedom without the Law"-Charlton Heston as Moses in The Ten Commandments.
The Regulations the Democrats advocate for aren’t the ones that will solve any problems.  But breaking up Monopolies is important, and yes I know the lame argument that “the Government is a Monopoly” well unlike any corporation it’s supposed to be ran directly by us.  And under the U.S. constitution we do have a degree of competition between the various State and Local Governments.

I am always distrustful of Government, but that’s distinct from wanting to abolish government.

The Problem with our Taxation debates

The media tends to frame debates over taxes in ways that are a complete fraud, and don't even get close to the problem.

Republicans claim they want to lower taxes for everyone, but only wind up lowering them for the rich.

Democrats claim they only want to raise taxes on the rich, but wind up only raising them for the middle and working classes.

An example would be the stupid tax plan Obama and Warren Buffett were promoting, which the media falsely claimed the Occupy Movement supported. It's a complete sham because it will NOT raise Warren Buffett's or any of the super-rich elitists' taxes by one cent. They don't even pay the 13% capital gains tax they're supposed to pay because of the foundations and various other loopholes, so simply raising the capital gains tax doesn't hurt them at all. The plan will only raise the taxes of people making a few hundred thousand a year, or some people who just barely qualify as millionaires. That means mostly small business owners.

If Republicans really are the party of lower taxes, they should have responded to the question "Is it unfair Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage in taxes then he does" with "Yes - that's why we want to lower her taxes". Instead, they decided to start complaining about people who contribute nothing in taxes because they're not making any money. That just tends to confirm they are everything Liberals say they are.

Now, I agree completely that our current tax system is completely unfair and absurd. Part of the problem is what qualifies as "rich". I'm afraid our economy today is way too complicated to simply put everyone into three simple categories - poor, working class, and rich. No one distrusts the super-rich more than me, but not all people who qualify as wealthy are the enemy. Making 100 thousand or even 500 thousand does not really make one rich; they're above average, obviously, but still not truly rich. Millionaires qualify as rich, but they're not super-rich. The real villains are smaller than just the top 1%, it's more like .001%. The total worldwide is probably less than ten thousand individuals.

Republicans want to get rid of the capital gains tax (or at-least lower it drastically). I do not; it's one of the taxes that actually is constitutional. In fact it was the only tax the Federal government had before the Civil War. I think it should be lowered for people making less than a million a year off capital gains, and raised for those making over 100 million, and certainly for billionaires. But before even addressing rates, the various loop holes need to be closed and the 501 Tax Exempt Foundations need to be no longer tax exempt.

We need to eliminate the Personal Income tax on labor, which is basically a form of slavery. No super-rich pay the Personal Income tax because they don't make a salary, so that won't lower their taxes one red cent. Don't let any Democrats deceive you about that.

In 1895 the United States Supreme Court, in its ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., held a tax based on receipts from the use of property to be unconstitutional. The Court held that taxes on rents from real estate, on interest income from personal property and other income from personal property (which includes dividend income) were treated as direct taxes on property, and therefore had to be apportioned. Since apportionment of income taxes is impractical, this had the effect of prohibiting a federal tax on income from property.  In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The United States Supreme Court in its ruling Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. stated that the amendment conferred no new power of taxation

The 16th Amendment makes the Business or Corporate Income tax more valid, but a personal income tax on wages is still by definition slavery. I'd like to see the 16th Amendment repealed, but I still do not oppose having a Corporate Income tax, only the Personal Income tax.

It doesn't even help fund the Government anyway. The majority of it goes right to paying off the interest on the national debt, not even lowering it at all (I think usury should be illegal anyway). The rest of that money is essentially how the IRS funds itself. I want the IRS shut down, so no problem there.

We also need to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Three documentaries I recommend to educate people on the non-necessity of the Fed would be The Money Masters, America: Freedom to Fascism, and Fall of The Republic. We need to go back to Congress being the ones printing the money. Whether that's done with a Gold standard or not is another debate, but anything is better than what we have now.

We should also reinstate tariffs. Those are basically fees the Federal Government charges on anything imported into the U.S. from overseas. This would give the Federal Government a source of Income independent of taxes and help destroy the incentive for outsourcing. It will need to be done carefully - we can't put 'em all back overnight, but they should be reinstated, giving those affected advance warning.

I also support the legalization of marijuana and charging a tax on it, like what's done with tobacco and alcohol. The industrial use of hemp for paper, cloth, and ethanol also ought to be encouraged.

The Politics of Family Values

Family is important in The Bible, very important. But, it's also been important to Pagans as well.  Some modern Christians seem to think only Judeo-Christians have ever valued the importance of Family, but that's not the case. There have of course been certain differences in how different cultures have viewed the Family.

My point today is, the Idea of "Family Values" Politics is a product of Pagan Rome, one of many aspects of Roman Pagan religion that became Christianized chiefly during the 4th Century A.D. (From Constantine to Theodosius) when the Church married The World. It's popular to talk about that as a time when Rome became Christian, but those of us who truly follow Biblical principles know it was really for the most part Rome changing the Church, not the Church changing Rome.

Specifically this aspect of Pagan Roman culture was masterminded by Gaius Julius Octavius Caesar Augustus. The man who effectively ended the Republic and ushered in the Principate, and who in my mind was a forerunner of The Antichrist.

A few decades into his reign, Augusts began pushing "Family Values" legislation, on the (claimed) belief that the deterioration of the Family was hurting the Roman state. But just like all our modern politicians who make themselves champions of "Family Values" he couldn't even enforce them within his own family. So in 2 B.C. he was forced to exile his own Daughter, Julia The Elder, for cheating on the Husband he forced her to marry (also forcing said Husband, future Emperor Tiberius, to divorce the woman he was already married to and was very much in love with). Another scandal occurred again latter with her daughter Julia The Younger.

This continued to be important to upper class of Rome.  I know people have this image in their head of how "Decadent and Horny" Rome was, Chuck Missler who I respect still naively refers to how "Documented' said decadence was.   But the truth is the documentation all comes from Historians of the Senatorial class, and all for the purpose of vilifying certain Emperors hostile to their aristocratic interests, so such activity while likely true to an extent was beyond any doubt exaggerated.

In my view, what actually weakens the Biblical family is the Government getting involved in Family affairs at all, whether with a Liberal or a Conservative agenda. God ordained the Family BEFORE the State.

I view the definition of marriage Biblically as being between a man and a woman.  But it doesn't in my mind effect that at all if homosexuals live together, call it marriage and such marriages are recognized by the state. To me in an ideal world the State shouldn't be "recognizing" any Marriages, it's not their damn business.

The way Christians should lead is by example, by following our family values ourselves, and showing that living that way is healthier and more fulfilling then just screwing everything in sight. Using force never achieves anything.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Libertarianism and The Bible

I'm not writing this to defend myself, being a Biblical Fundamentalist who often calls himself a Libertarian,  I'm doing it as a general guide to help other Bible believers. While I do call myself a Libertarian from time to time, I do also question if I really qualify.

 I'm certainly closer then a number of Libertarians in the public eye, like Glenn Beck and other Fox News Libertarians, who call themselves Libertarians without any hesitation even though their really just slightly more mild Neo-Cons at worst and Paleo-Conservatives at best.

I'm not sure what else to call myself, "Constitutionalist" is meaningless today, since every American thinks their beliefs match the Constitution, and the so called "Constitution Party" too often falls inline with the Republican party on Social Issues.   I love Ron Paul but I have a few disagreements with him, as well as with Gary Johnson and Chuck Baldwin, both of whom I've also voted for.

The Bible on politics is complicated.  The New Testament doesn't feature any clear
instruction manual for government, certain passages like Romans 13 are misused and abused in support of bind loyalty to the State, when their really only stating that the State does have a valid role to play and therefore we shouldn't be anarchists (I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's material on Romans 13).  The Hebrew Bible's detailed rules we know from Acts 10, 15 and Galatians and Hebrews shouldn't be strictly legalistically followed by Christians, or at-least we shouldn't feel obligated to do so. So strictly speaking a Christian isn't quite required to hold any specific political philosophy.

The Covenant Code (Exodus 20:19-23-33), The Deuteronomic Code and parts of Leviticus and Numbers deal with the Civil Laws and Government of ancient Israel. Their obviously not a Libertarian law code. No nation has ever been truly Libertarian, and Ancient Israel wasn't even as close as our Constitution was/is.   But, this was the Law for God's Chosen people, who he had a special relationship with.
Roger Williams, a seventeenth-century Christian minister and founder of Rhode Island, interpreted several passages in the Old and New Testament to support limiting government interference in religious matters. Williams published The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, describing his analysis of why a civil government should be separate from religion according to the Bible. Williams believed that Israel was a unique covenant kingdom and not an appropriate model for New Testament Christians who believed that the Old Testament covenant had been fulfilled. Therefore, the more informative Old Testament examples of civil government were "good" non-covenant kings such as Artaxerxes {and Cyrus}, who tolerated the Jews and did not insist that they follow his state religion.
James P. Byrd, The challenges of Roger Williams: Religious Liberty, Violent Persecution, and the Bible (Mercer University Press, 2002)
http://books.google.com/books?id=M4FK-j35y...=gbs_navlinks_s(accessed on Google Book on July 20, 2009)
But even then, The Law of Moses is surprisingly more Libertarian then you might think. And was so on the very matters that often keeps Christians from being Libertarian, Libertarians believing vices shouldn't be outlawed.  The Law Code of Moses never outlaws Prostitution, (not in general only temple prostitution), or drinking/drunkenness, and both are clearly painted as sinful.  And Alcohol is the only narcotic it addressed at all.

I have a separate article on Capital Punishment.  I believe despite it's being in The Torah that New Testament believers should oppose it on this side of The Cross.

The Bible has a lot to say about Private Property but I won't get into that here.

1 Chronicles 21 condemns David for attempting to carry out a Census.

Many Atheist Libertarians are inclined to distrust Christian Libertarians in actual positions of power, they fear no matter how much they want to be against theocracy inevitably their faith will subconsciously influence them. Well I'm not claiming my Libertarian tendencies are in-spite of my faith, they're because of it.

 For one I firmly believe the New Testament is against Organized religion all together, The Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us,  It is a doctrine of my faith to oppose institutional religion. And a State religion is by definition organized, and as we Libertarians know that's the worst organizer of all.

Jesus defined Satan as the "Ruler of the world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) Paul affirms that in 2 Corinthian 4:4. When Satan tempted Jesus he offered him all the kingdoms of the world, and Jesus didn't deny he had the authority to do that. Ephesians 6:12 and Daniel 10 show that Fallen Angels and Demonic forced control the nations behind the scenes. And we see in David and Solomon even the best leaders can be corrupted by power.

In a sense, someone who has a very strict moral code can even easier come to the Libertarian conclusion that the state can't regulate Morality. Since even our thoughts can be sinful, and "All have sinned". The issue is where to draw the line, I'm firmly Libertarian on "social issues" for Federal, State and Local governments. Now it doesn't turn out that way with many Christians of course, but that's an argument I recommend Libertarians make to Christians.

I've seen some Christians claim there is no such thing as a "Victimless Crime" while their arguments for saying that are nice philosophical points to make when discussing Moral or Ethical behavior, it does not contradict the Jeffersonian principle that unless what you're doing violates or hinders the right to Life, Liberty or Property of someone else, the state has no business telling you that you can of can't do it.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I define Life as beginning at Conception, but defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I've become less radically "Pro-Life" over time.

Life is an important thing to protect, and so is Freedom of Choice, a good Libertarian and a good Christian believes in both of those things. Abortion represents an area where the two conflict, it's perfectly natural that different people will have different views on where to draw the line. But it's unfortunately standard on both sides to engage in demonizing the other.

I've shown, in another article of mine, that Life Begins at Conception Biblically, and that Abortion fits the Biblical definition of Murder.  But not all acts of Murder are equal, I do not view a woman who has an abortion, especially a teenage girl, the same as I do an Ax murderer. However I'll never agree with the most radical "Pro-Choice" people who want abortion to be treated like any ordinary medical procedure like having your tonsils removed.

I should also add that I oppose the Death Penalty

I'm going to give some advice to both sides. But I kind of have more for Pro-Life precisely because that's where I firmly was once and still identify with them more culturally as a Fundamentalist Christian.

To Pro-Lifers.
1. Don't engage in Slut shamming, I know only a loud Minority do that, but it's still important advice. And be careful because something can sound that way whether you intended it to or not.
2. Stop naively confusing the "Morning after Pill" with Abortion, it's not, the "Morning After Pill" will not terminate a pregnancy. it's merely a last resort to prevent conception. I go into more detail on that near the end of the defining when life begins dissertation.
3. When asked about the Rape exception, no matter what your view on that is don't answer with "Punish the Rapist not the Baby" a desire to punish is not why a women in that situation desires an Abortion.
4. Understand that Abortion is not a vice, the majority of ordinary people who are Politically "Pro-Choice" do want to lower the number of Abortions.
5. To many Pro-Chociers proving the child is alive won't be enough. They cite the issue of Autonomy, that no person has to right to use another person's body without their consent. No matter how innocent or dependent on that for their own life they are. This argument is why I feel we need to at least concede the Rape Exception.

And stop supporting Republicans, they're not Pro-Life their just using you. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have ended legal Abortion, but when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress NO ONE made any effort to support his bill.

To Pro-Choicers.
1. No matter how much of a Woman's rights issue it is to you, that does not mean Pro-Lifers are automatically misogynists. There are and have been plenty of Pro-Life Feminists, including early Feminists before it became popular.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index
2. And quit that silly "If a Fetus is alive so is a Sperm" and "If Abortion is murder so is Masturbation". It's a silly argument, it's not that difficult to understand the view that it's the uniting of the Sperm and Egg and their merging together that is the beginning of Life. Agree with it or not, it's not difficult to understand.

Basically both sides need to quit insisting the other is lying about what they say motivates them. That is inherently naive and hateful.

There is a claim that Numbers 5:11-31 is an Abortion ritual, though I see no reference to a pregnancy in it.  There are a lot of ways that passage is used against The Bible by modern critics.  Thing is, it's the opposite of the kinds of "Ordeals" used to expose "witches" in medieval times.  In this case it is something supernatural happening that was harmful to the woman. To my knowledge drinking bitter water would not actually scientifically cause that effect (Nahmandies also pointed this out).  It is actually my theory that this story is here for the purpose of allowing a husband an excuse to let his wife get away with adultery, I don't believe anyone was ever in fact condemned by this ritual.

Abortion is not a defining issue in how I vote either way. My general philosophy is that the more the Mainstream Media makes a big deal of something, the more it's likely a distraction from what the people in power don't want us knowing they're doing. I never vote for Republicans or Democrats (except Ron Paul), when choosing a 3rd Party candidate to support, I've supported both Pro-Life (Chuck Baldwin) and Pro-Choice (Gary Johnson) ones.

The Bible defines Life as beginning at Conception.

As a Libertarian I do not want the law defining anything based solely on what The Bible says, so for this post I'm putting the legal/political debate aside for a moment (it's an issue Libertarians are divided on anyway). I do see people constantly question that The Bible defines Life as beginning at Conception and thus Abortion as Murder, so I'm going to address that here.

In Jeremiah chapter 1 God SPEAKS to Jeremiah in his Mother's Womb.

Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." David is saying he was Sinful at Conception, you can only be Sinful if your alive, but more then that, Sin is unique to Human life, Animals are never defined as Sinning Biblically even at their most animalistic. Some will try to argue this refers to Sex, that is idiotic, I've written entire articles elsewhere on how that's not how the Bible views Sex, but either way Psalm 51 is David talking about HIS Sin.

Abortion as an intentional act is specifically mentioned only once. Amos 1:13 "Thus saith YHWH; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped open the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:" Clearly not approved of.

Genesis 16:11 "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son" Not Fetus not Zygote but Child.

Exodus 21:22-23, isn't entirely clear to modern readers. The issue is what "mischief follow" (which should be translated "evil follow") means, some people want to think it means the Mother dieing, I don't think that's logical. the earlier phrase "fruit depart from her" does not necessarily mean the Baby died, it is possible rarely for the baby to survive a miscarriage if it happens late enough in the pregnancy. I think the "Evil following" can refer to either the child or the mother dieing.

Psalm 139:13-16 actually describes the Conception process, with amazing Scientific accuracy for over 3000 years ago.

Isaiah 44:2&24 also clearly refer to conception.

We know from Genesis 9:4-6, Leviticus 17:11&14, and Deuteronomy 12:23 that "The Blood is the Life" and that the Shedding of Man's Blood is murder. Genesis 4 also bares this out. The "Fetus" has a Heartbeat at 21-24 days, before most women ever know their Pregnant.

Let's look at the New Testament.
Like 1:15 "and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Luke 1:41- "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." Remember that if your ever quizzed on when the Ministry of John The Baptist began.

Life ultimately can't be defined purely Scientifically "A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"-Dr. Manhattan.

Lots of people have been declared "Legally dead" because their heart stopped but been revived. And some people can even be declared "Brain Dead" but other parts of their bodies still function. So if the end of life can be as ambiguous as it's start. Yet many Pro-Choice people will call you an Idiot if you choose to define life as beginning for example even as soon as it's Heart Beats. The most common argument is "Viability" well lots of born individuals lack "viability".

Problem exist even when defining the beginning of life Metaphysically or spiritually. It's often worded as a matter of when the Soul enters the Body/Fetus/Zygote or whatever you call it. But you see The Bible does not support the idea of Pre-Existence, though it's part of many apostasies.

Genesis 2:7 "And Yahweh God formed Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Adam became a living soul." Doesn't say a Soul entered him, it says he "became a living soul". I don't believe it's only the body created at conception, I believe the soul and spirit are as well.

Conception is a process that begins when the sperm enters the egg, not merely a "moment". A process which as I said early on here The bible describes in detail, the "Zygote" may not be "a living soul" when the process begins, but it is by the end I believe.

One fact that is no common knowledge is that the sperm usually doesn't reach the egg till over 12 hours after ejaculation. This ignorance is why the "morning after pill" is often incorrectly defined as a type of abortion. There is an Abortion pill now, but it's a very separate pill.

The morning after pill is merely a sort of concentrated birth control pill, (which women are told not to take if their already on the pill). It will not harm an already conceived "zygote", it merely attempts to prevent conception from happening. It's not the same as Abortion and whether you view birth control itself as wrong or not it can't be called murder, and so as a Libertarian I certainly don't want the morning after pill to be illegal.

Defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I have a post on the Politics and Religion forum dealing with that more.

Incest in The Bible

This is my dissertation on Incest in The Bible, what it deems a Sin and what isn't, and it's history.

First as a Six Day Young Earth Creationist, I take note of the fact that the Incest restrictions don't come until the time of Moses. And I believe Cain and Seth married their full Sisters as did all Adam and Eve's children.

Critics of The Bible love to view this argument as absurd. But Genesis 20:12 shows us that Abraham and Sarah where brother and sister. "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.". The later incest restrictions don't just generically condemn Brother-Sister incest, they specifically single out half siblings sharing the same father. And Abraham and Sarah is one of the most approved romantic relationships in The Bible. God specifically wanted Abraham's descendents through her, not anyone else, to inherit the Covenant.

Back to Genesis 4, some take verses 16 and 17 "And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived". As implying Cain met his wife in Nod, after traveling away to a distant land and thus proving the existence of tribes at the time independent of Adam and Eve.  It doesn't say that however, it doesn't depict how they met at all, just says that's when she conceived Cain's First-Born son. I think he was already married to this woman before he slew Able.

Either way though, I believe over a century had passed by the time Cain killed Able (about 9 months before Seth was born is my conjectured timing) Plenty of time for some of Adam and Eve's children to travel about, they were commanded to Fill and Populate the Earth from the start.

Another thing, Adam was basically married to his Clone.

The reason Genetic problems occur because of Incest is because of The Fall, Genetic mistakes always occur in the gene pool, and closer related individuals are more likely to have similar mistakes. But closer to when this deterioration started it was far less of a problem. I suspect God was preemptive and that it still wasn't until awhile after the time of Moses (Ussher dated it to 1492 B.C. I'm undecided on if I agree with Ussher's date, but Ussher's is the youngest I can accept) that noticeable problems would have been a concern.

All pagan mythologies have Brother-Sister incest (And other forms, but that's most common) among the gods. Even the mythologies of cultures that all through our recorded history of them disapproved of Brother-Sister incest, like the Greeks and Romans. I believe the reason this happens is that it's the distant memory of when Brother-Sister incest was not just allowed but nearly universal.

Now to get to the The Law.

 Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 27 are the three passages listing Incest restrictions. Only L20 and D27 list punishments to be carried out, so only those were part of Israel's civil law code. L18 is what deals with what's immoral but not necessarily illegal. Notice there is plenty included in L18 but not the other two, while the others never condemn anything L18 doesn't. This is consistent with what I'd expect from what I argued in my Libertarianism and The Bible article.

Wikipedia, and I expect other places, accuse these passages of not condemning Father-Daughter incest. This is incorrect. L18:17 says "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness." This basically says you can't have sex with any descendant of any woman you have had sex with. Since there was no artificial insemination back then, there was no way your daughter or granddaughter didn't qualify. I've seen people argue this is refereeing only to having a threesome with a mother and daughter, I think that's silly, it doesn't specify at the same time.

Wikipedia has a chart covering the various incest restrictions of the three chapters, but that chart made some mistakes, the one I addressed above and others, so I made my correction of it, and will share it with you all here.

Boxes filled in Red are condemned in that chapter, being still white and empty means it's not.


Step Siblings are ok. I don't know if that's illegal today, but people do have a tendency to consider it gross. It doesn't address anyone related by Adoption either, unless The Law simply doesn't consider adopted children/siblings distinct.

Some relations not allowed aren't biological ones, so genetic issues weren't their only concern. Inheritance and some other things were in mind too.

No same gender examples are covered, to some this would be because homosexuality is a sin altogether, but as I argued elsewhere, it's not. Genetic issues were not the only concern, but all the concerns did come basically down to reproduction in some way. So there was no reason to be concerned with same gender examples.

You'll notice they're not entirely gender neutral. The genders are different, including in how our Genetics work (Mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by the mother being one example). The main gender difference is, no restrictions on uncles marrying nieces, while nephews marrying aunts depends. Modern conventions are inclined to be the opposite here, if the relation implies the man is older then that's far more likely to be condemned as perverted. But as long as the younger is already an adult and consents I don't care.

It also doesn't address Cousins. Cousin relationships are inherently the most common (We're all Cousins ultimately if you believe The Bible) but First or even Second Cousin relationships tend to be viewed as wrong in most parts of the western world today. But at different periods this was different. The Bible not only doesn't outlaw Cousin relations, no matter how close, but it encourages First Cousin marriages in certain circumstances.

Most notably The Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Inheritance in Ancient Israel was normally Pater-lineal, but Zelophehad had no sons, so God decided in such a circumstance daughters could inherit so long as they married within their tribe, preferably their nearest kinsmen. They wound up marrying their first cousins.

Reheboam had many wives, all three named were fairly close cousins, and the mother of his successor was a first cousin. From what I argued before, pre-Moses examples don't prove anything, but I still feel like noting Jacob was married to two first cousins, and Issac to his first cousin once removed.

And if you consider Deutercanoical books like Tobit canon (as Catholics do).  Well that is a book that in the form we have it in is practically making it a sin not to marry your Cousin.  It seems the Book Tobit as we know it is a product of a time when Israelites were so paranoid about mixing with foreigners, they felt you should marry your nearest relation possible that's not forbidden in Leviticus 18.  Reason why I specify "as we know it" is because I have my personal theory that in the original version Sarah wasn't Tobit's cousin, in fact I speculate her name means Princess for a reason.  But that's for another topic on another blog.  Point here remains that if you think Tobit as it appears in the Septuagint, Catholic Bibles, or the 1611 KJV is God's word (I don't) then you have a pretty firmly pro Cousin marriage text in your Canon.

Genetically, between any two people there is always at least a 2% risk of these kinds of genetic problems.  Incest only increases the risk of it. First cousin relations (if there were few or no prior examples of incest in the shared ancestry) only increases the risk to 4%. So it's really not a big deal at all.

Today, for many reasons I don't think Gentile nations on this side of the Cross should be basing their Civil Laws on Ancient Israel's.

Genetic concerns are (or should be) the only concern of our modern civil laws. Some consider relations that imply a large age-gap should also be inherently wrong, but we have Statutory Rape laws (Which I feel need improving but I don't oppose having them) to protect minors. If both are adults and consent then I don't care and don't think the state should.

As a Libertarian I think only the most direct Heterosexual examples should be illegal, Biological Brother-Sister relations, and direct ancestors or descendants. But all incest laws outlawing anything else I oppose.

But to an extent I'm beginning to think perhaps any Incest laws are bad. The reasoning is the concern of genetic issues in the offspring makes it not a victim less crime. But that's basically Eugenics logic, and allowing the State permission to forbid reproduction in the case of Incest sets a precedent that could prove very dangerous.

Women can be Pastors/Preachers.

Those who insist that women should not be allowed to be Pastors really have only one Bible passage they base that view on - 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Most articles on the subject never cite any other verses.

It is inadvisable to build a doctrine on something mentioned only once; the Bible is a massive book the repeats itself frequently for a reason. Every detail of it is important and inspired, but not everything in it is doctrine.

The passage in 1 Timothy only says a woman shouldn't teach or hold authority over a man. Speaking for myself, I look upon the roles of Pastor/Preacher as neither a position of authority (the only Authority in the Church is the Holy Spirit), nor strictly speaking a teacher. The Pastor is simply someone who declares the Word of God.

1 Timothy 2:12 ought not be regarded as a blanket rule for all women in all churches. If it were, then women could not speak at all, for the same verse that tells them not to teach also tells them to be silent.

This is the chief passage that is used to oppose women preaching and yet strictly speaking it says nothing about preaching, nor does it say anything about a public worship or church service. On the contrary, this passage is giving instructions to wives as to how they were to conduct themselves in regard to their husband. Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:35, "And if they will LEARN anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Now he states in 1 Tim. 2:12 that women should learn in silence, and should not usurp authority over the man. Paul is dealing with more of a home problem than a church problem.  This is purely about the relationship between husband and wife.

Acts 18:25-26 and II Chronicles 34:22-24 clearly refute any notion that women can't teach men as an absolute rule.

To cite 1 Corinthians 14:34-5 as saying women shouldn't speak in church is to take the passage out of context. To do so ignores the point of Paul's entire message to the Corinthians. It's dealing with the problem of people blurting things out exuberantly disrupting the sermon. Elsewhere Paul speaks of women prophesying in church in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and onward deals with things going on in church.

The point of Titus 1:6-7 is a warning against Polygamy (the exact meaning in the Greek is that there be only one wife, not 'at least one', as some make it sound). Paul himself was single and clearly served as a preacher.  Some say Paul wasn't a pastor because neither the word Elder, or Bishop was ever used of him.  Lots of time a word doesn't get used of someone it qualified for.

Something else I would like to point out is that whenever one sees the term 'man' or 'men' in the New Testament, if the word in Greek is 'anthropos', then it actually means 'man' as in 'mankind', i.e. the Human race. 'Arseno' is the term for the male gender. I've discussed that elsewhere. By the same token, in the Old Testament, if the Hebrew is 'adam' or 'enosh', that denotes 'mankind' also; 'ish' and 'zakar' are gender-specific.

The Great Commission, Mark 16:15, "Preach the Gospel," is intended for ALL believers, and to all the Church. The command to "preach the Gospel" makes no distinction between male and female.

Women preachers are a fulfillment of prophecy (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17-18). "and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy".

Both the Hebrew (N@biy'ah (neb-ee-yaw'); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 5031), and Greek (Prophetis (prof-ay'-tis); Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4398) are used for 'prophetess', meaning "female prophet".

The role of 'prophet' means "public expounder," and is not limited to just supernatural predictions of the future. The Pastor/Preacher is the post-Pentecost equivalent of the office of 'prophet' in ancient Israel.

As a verb, "prophesy" means "to speak forth, or flow forth." 1 Cor. 14:3 says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men ('anthopos', meaning 'mankind') to edification, and exhortation and comfort."

The dictionary says that to prophesy is "to speak under divine inspiration...to preach."

Therefore we learn from the original translation, from the Bible interpretation, and from the dictionary, that to prophesy means more than to tell the future, but to speak publicly about the past, present, or future. It is to preach under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

A number of prophetesses are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

Miriam the sister of Moses was a prophetess, while Aaron held the office of priest, and Moses was the civil head of State during the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness (Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1; Micah 6:4).

Deborah was a prophetess as well as a judge (judges were the civil heads of state for Israel during the period between Joshua and Saul; Judges 4:4-5). The Bible mentions no fewer than four female heads of state - Deborah; the Queen of Sheba; Athaliah, and Kandake queen of Ethiopia from Acts 8. Only Athaliah is portrayed negatively (Jezebel was not a Queen-Regent, she was influential but did not officially rule). The other three are all positive figures in the Biblical narrative, so female leaders may well have a better over all track record then males.

Isaiah 8:3 mentions a prophetess.

And then there is Huldah from 2 Kings 22:14 and 2 Chronicles 34:22, to whom King Josiah and the Priests had to go to for Divine counsel since the Ark was already gone.

There's also Noadiah from Nehemiah 6:14

I should note also that the Talmud counts the mother of Samuel as well as David's wife Abigail both as prophetesses, although they are not so named in scripture. They did not serve that office but they did prophesy.

In the New Testament yet another prophetess is mentioned in connection with the Nativity - Anna the daughter of Phanuel of the Tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36).

Entering the Dispensation of Grace, it's important to remember that the first news of the Resurrection of Christ was relayed by women to a group of men.

Phillip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9).

Priscilla is almost always listed before her husband Aquila whenever they are mentioned. Perhaps both were preaching, but she certainly was.  Paul lists her first in Romans 16 and refers to the church that is in their home, it makes nos sense for her to be listed first if she's not the leader.

In Romans 16:1-2, Phebe is called a "succourer" in the KJV translation; the Greek word is 'prostatis' (pros-tat'-is); Word Origin: Greek, Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4368 - meaning a woman set over others, a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources.  The feminine for of the same word the KJV translated "rule" in I Timothy 5:17, it's used through out the pastoral epistles to refer to the Overseer's authority.

She is also called a deacone.

1 Timothy 5:2 refers to women Elders, Elder is a synonym for Bishop.  Titus 2:3 also in the Greek.

I could also appeal to Junia or numerous other women mentioned in Romans 16.  Or Nympha from Colossians, which the KJV erroneously changes into a male name and adds a male pronoun.  The church met in her house.

But I shall finish with Euodia and Syntyche form Philippians 4.

When he describes the ministry of Euodia and Syntyche, Paul uses a couple of the same terms he had previously applied to Timothy and Epaphroditus.  Paul writes that Euodia and Syntyche had contended together with him “in the Gospel”.  Earlier in the same letter, Paul had also described Timothy as someone who had served with him “in the Gospel” (Phil. 2:22).  Paul goes on to refer to Euodia and Syntyche as his “fellow-workers“.  Earlier, Paul had also referred to Epaphroditus as his “fellow-worker” (Phil. 2:25).  So, according to Paul, the ministries of the women Euodia and Syntyche were comparable to the ministries of the men Timothy and Epaphroditus.

 Early church bishop and theologian, John Chrysostom (c349-407), believed that Euodia and Syntyche were leaders in the Philippian church.  Moreover, he compared them to Phoebe, a woman minister (diakonos) in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1-2).  In his 13th Homily on Philippians he wrote:
 These women [Euodia and Syntyche] seem to me to be the chief of the Church which was there, and [Paul] commends them to some notable man whom he calls his yokefellow; [Paul] commends them to him, as to a fellow-worker, and fellow-soldier, and brother, and companion, as he does in the Epistle to the Romans, when he says, I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a minister of the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). (Homilies on Philippians, 13)
 It was not unusual for women to have, leadership roles in Philippi.  Philippi was the chief city of Macedonia (Acts 16:12) and it has been well documented that Macedonian women enjoyed greater freedoms, rights and powers than many other women of that time.
“If Macedonia produced perhaps the most competent group of men the world had yet seen, the women were in all respects the men’s counterparts; they played a large part in affairs, received envoys and obtained concessions for them from their husbands, built temples, founded cities, engaged mercenaries, commanded armies, held fortresses, and acted on occasion as regents or even co rulers.”  W. Tarn and G.T. Griffith in Hellenistic Civilisation, 3rd Edition, 1952, pp89,99; quoted by Ralph Martin (1983:16)
“We can see this [freedom of women] even in the narrative in Acts of Paul’s work in Macedonia.  In Philippi, Paul’s first contact was with the meeting for prayer by a riverside, and he spoke to the women gathered there (Acts 16:13).  Lydia was obviously a leading figure in Philippi (Acts 16:14).[6]  In Thessalonica, many of the chief women were won for Christianity, and the same thing happened at Berea (Acts 17:4 & 12). …it is well worth remembering, when we are thinking of the place of women in the early church and of Paul’s attitude to them, that in the Macedonian churches they clearly had a leading place.” (William Barclay 2003:86)
 Were Euodia and Syntyche church leaders?  Paul’s letter to the Philippians differs to his other letters because Paul specifically includes the overseers (episkopoi) and ministers (diakonoi) in his opening greeting.  Instead of the traditional English translation of “overseers and deacons”,  FF Bruce (1981) translates this phrase in Philippians 1:1 as “chief pastors and other ministers” which may more faithfully convey the meaning of these roles in New Testament times.  It does seem possible that Euodia, Syntyche, and possibly Clement who is mentioned with them, were the overseers or chief pastors of house churches at Philippi.  In the 1st century, independently wealthy women, as well as men, who hosted a church in their own homes may have functioned as overseers (episkopoi).  At the very least, Euodia and Syntyche, like many other 1st century Christian women, were ministers (diakonoi).

So there is certainly no Biblical reason women can't preach.

New insight, what we call the Pasotrial Epistles, should be called the Paulian Pastoral Epistles.  There are two other Pastoral Epistles in The Bible, 2 John and 3rd John.

For some additional context, here  is my post on traditional traditional gender roles in The Bible in general.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Christians should oppose Capital Punishment

Don't simply throw all the Old Testament passages on Capital Punishment at me, we are under the New Testament, and are no longer bound by The Law. We are under the dispensation of Grace.

People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.

Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.

"for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.

I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".

People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.

Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8

John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.

Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin.  That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.

Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.

On The Old Testament

Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.

The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.

In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.

Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".

The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.

And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.

Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.

Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.

In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree.  Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab.  They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them.  Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.

Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.

This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.

The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).

Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.

Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.

The Evolutionary Science of Homophobia, and how Homosexuality proves Creationism

[Update Jun 16th 2016: This post I will completely redo in the future. The Basic point I still stand by, but it remains one of my most poorly articulated arguments.  For now don't use this as a source for anything.]

I'm rare among modern Pro-Gay Christians in also being a Fundamentalist/Bible Literalist, and visa-versa. What I find saddest about that is I've had trouble on Facebook finding fellow Pro-Gay Christians who are also enemies of the Theory of Evolution.

See, the arguments the Republican Party Christians use when they're trying to add secular non Biblical reasons for supporting their position on Homosexuality, all in fact sound very Darwinian and Materialist to me. Insisting that only the sex that can continue the reproduction of the species is valid. To Evolutionists the only reason sex is so pleasurable is to motivate us to engage in it and make sure the species continues.

And I have encountered Atheists online who are Homophobic for all these reasons. It's not just radical Christians who propagate modern Homophobia. These encounters were on IMDB a long time ago so I can no longer document them. But these were Atheist individuals who had no problem questioning my masculinity (the usual overlap of Sexism and Homophobia) for not liking Sports, and liking TV shows stereotypically meant for women.  They pretty blatantly accused all Bisexuals of just lying for attention.  They claimed they weren't homophobic but clearly were.

It's because I believe in Intelligent Design and Six-Day Young Earth Creationism, and that God gave us a Spirit and a Soul, not just flesh, that I believe sex has a spiritual purpose too, not just biological. And because I don't hand wave away the Song of Solomon and it's details I know that God is okay with sexual expressions that are non reproductive. Sex is also an expression of Love, the love between a Man and a Woman is not the only love The Bible considers valid.

To some of the most Anti-Christian people out there right now, it's pretty obvious that Homophobia wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for The Bible verses that get misused on that subject.  But I think that assumption is wrong.

The Homophobia of the last two centuries is a uniquely vile monster unprecedented in earlier eras of Secular or Church history. However the basic fallen human sensibilities that lead to it can be documented to have existed in the BC era (Plato).  Just look at how Julius Caesar was denigrated by being called "Every woman's man and every man's woman". The roots of the Church's homophobia seemed to enter the Church very early on, but no earlier then it's Anti-Semitic tendencies which popped up in the Second Century.  The seeds of Evolutionary thinking also existed among the Greek Philosophers, like Anaximander, Empedocles, Epicurus and Lucretius (Epicurus is known to have condemned Homosexuality).  And it was Augustine of Hippo (the same Church Father most responsible for codifying Traditional Christianity's prudishness) who was among the first Christians to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The Stoics who were the adversaries of the Epicureans and argued for Intelligent Design were all for Same-Sex love.  Their Monotheism was by no means Biblical but still monotheistic.  The original Stoics that is, Roman Stoics like Cicero did tend to disapprove of Same-Sex relations because of the prudish nature of Roman society.

But our modern notions of Sexual Orientation were purely the invention of Enlightenment and Victorian scientists and psychologists. And indeed it was not originally conservative Christians who (from the Evolutionists' POV) "Rejected Science", who first sought to proclaim Homosexuality a "Pathology", to label it a mental disorder the same as Pedophilia, or an addiction the same as Alcoholism.  And Lesbianism in particular an example of how scary and threatening untamed female sexuality is, and thus labeled it another symptom of "hysteria".  No, it was Secular Scientists who first did this, Scientists who whether professing "Christians" or not, embraced the ideas of Darwin and Galton and their fore-bearers.

Creationists have a long history of pointing out how the Evolutionary theory has contributed to the history of the evils of Racism and Eugenics. Darwin's book was racist in it's very name, and filled with Racist and Sexist comments.  I would not however fall into the trap of saying that Evolution created Racism, I would say it's the other way around.

It's now a proven scientific fact that Homosexuality and Bisexuality are perfectly natural and normal variations of human and animal sexuality. And to me that is a problem for the Theory of Evolution, whether Evolutionists want to admit that or not. I know all the usual arguments about how homosexuality can be genetic even when homosexuals don't usually reproduce, but those are rationalizations. If the Evolutionary model were true, any genes that do not further propagate the species should have been gotten rid of by "Natural Selection" ages ago.

Now the key objection an Atheist Evolutionist would make here is that they would not, today at least, campaign for making it illegal, or calling anything immoral. But my point is at it's core, seeing Gay Sex as worthless because they can't reproduce, is inherently Materialist.

So I think Creationists should embrace LGBT people, as proving what Jesus said about being "Born Eunuchs", and disproving the logic of Darwinian Natural Selection.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Condoned Homosexual Affection

Possible Homosexual relationships in The Bible.

I wasn't originally going to cover this at all, but I've decided I should.

None of these are provable beyond any shadow of a doubt, they're all ones that have been speculated about before; on all but the first I’ll cover my position is, it's very likely. An important thing to remember is people didn’t think in “Orientations” like we do now, it was much more normal for Sexuality to be "Fluid". And men weren’t as insecure about their masculinity. I for one don’t like to put people in boxes; I think most people are more capable of being “Bisexual” then they might realize.

Ruth and Naomi

Some people see a Lesbian affection here, but I think that Ruth saw Naomi as a surrogate mother. At any rate, Ruth's expression of devotion to Naomi is often cited in wedding ceremonies. Symbolically, their relationship is how the relationship between the Church (Ruth) and Israel (Naomi) is supposed to be.  But it's fasicnating that what Ruth says to Naomi is quoted often in Wedding vows.

David and Jonathon

Probably the most infamous Bromance in the Bible (Yes I actually used that word in reference to a Biblical relationship). There are 3 things in the narrative mainly that make people see a possible romantic affection between the 2.

1. 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”

The thing about Jonathon disrobing here is that it’s symbolic of his normal right as Saul’s successor being given to David.

2. 1 Samuel 20:30 “Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?”

This is often read as Saul suspecting such a relationship, and not being happy about it. But the main issue here is he’s accusing Jonathon of betraying his own family. An unrelated note “son of the perverse rebellious woman” is a pretty good literal translation of the Hebrew phrase used here, but the thing lost in translation is that it’s also a vulgarity, some translations have rendered it “Son of a Bitch” but I don’t think even that is harsh enough to convey Saul’s intent here, but also that expression has become more of a generic insult then what Saul is saying.

3. From David’s song mourning Saul and Jonathon’s deaths. 2 Samuel 1:26 “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.”

That too can be interpreted different ways. Also the timing to remember is this was written well before what would become David's most significant female relationship, Bathsheba.

People who like to compare various Biblical narratives to other myths from Pagan mythology, like to equate David and Jonathon with various mythical heroic Bromances, which are also often interpreted to have homosexual undertones. Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Herakles and Iolaus, Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades, Alexander and Hephaestion ect… Modern examples of relationships following this pattern include Hamlet and Horatio, Echolat and Simolor Holmes and Watson, Batman and Robin, Frodo and Sam, House and Wilson ect… The flaw in such an analogy is those follow a more clear Mentor/Student or Hero/Sidekick pattern, in this Biblical example Jonathon is older and yet is the lesser figure.

Daniel

Chapter 1 verse 9 “Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. ” Again, we don’t have a great deal of detail, but it is interesting.

The New Testament

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Tell the story of a Centurion who asked Jesus  to heal his “Servant” and shows greater faith then all the children of Israel as he knows Jesus can heal him without even being present. The word translated servant has some ambiguity involved, it was common in Rome for soldiers to be engaged in homosexual relationships with younger servants or pupils. Some think this was such a relationship and I think that’s highly possible.

Then there is what Jesus says in Matthew 19 verses 11 and 12. “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Clearly more then the standard definition of “Eunuch” is what Jesus has in mind here. Some see it as simply referring to people for whom a vow of Chastity would be easier than others, or people who are Asexual. But some see him as possibly having Homosexuals, or Transgender/Transsexual or Intersex people ect… I think all those readings could have some truth to them.

I feel like adding, that any Christian who objects to transgender people by saying “God doesn’t make mistakes” does not fully understand Genesis. God only directly created 2 people, Adam, and then Havvah who he cloned from a sample of Adam’s DNA. We are merely imperfect copies of Adam, because of the Fall in Genesis 3 genetic mistakes often happen, and screw ups in the Gender defining chromosomes/hormones ect… can certainly be among those. Remember Biblically we all consist of 3 components, the Body, the Spirit and the Soul. So yes I think a person meant to be a Man could be born in a biologically female body, or visa versa.

And I don’t think such a person seeking an operation would be wrong. A person born blind seeking an operation to restore their sight certainly isn’t. I feel now like directing readers to John Chapter 9.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Corinthians and Timothy

Arsenokoites (Strong # 733) and Malakos (Strong # 3120)

Here is the KJV rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9&10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

How to translate two words that appear in the Greek of this passage is the final issue of my dissertation. The word rendered "effeminate" is Malakos. Malakos is used three other times in the Bible, but in none of those occasions as a title of some specific sin as it clearly is here, and they're certainly not sexual in nature. On those three (twice in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25) occasions the KJV renders it "soft". Both passages Jesus is using it to describe people in royal courts who live decadent lifestyles.

The context here appears to be sexual in nature, following adulterers, but it can’t be known for certain, these two words, if they're sexual, end the sexual section, and are followed by economic sins. Instances of the use of Malakos in earlier secular literature are: Herodotus: Histories 7.153 & 13.51; Aristophanes: Wasps 1455, Plutus 488; Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33; Plato: Republic 556c. Where it can have sexual connotations, but not homosexual. Aristotle says specifically that "Malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. This kind of fits with Jesus linking it to decadence.  The Aristotle work in question does discus homosexual acts, but doesn't link Malakos to them.

But even the extent to which "effeminate" could be accurate, what calling a Man "effeminate" meant in Ancient Greeco-Roman culture was not exactly the same as today. For one thing, in Rome particularly, a man behaving effeminately for the sake of attracting a sexual partner was probably seeking women. Back then Men looked down on "girly men" like they do today, and that tended to include those men who had homosexual inclinations. And I know it's trendy to act like women being attracted to feminine looking men is some new fad inflicted on the modern world by Pop Boy Bands and Twilight, but it's really not. Adonis was a pretty boy in Greek mythology, not a muscular hairy perfect manifestation of masculinity like people want to in-part on the word today.

Traits the ancient Greeco-Romans considered "effeminate" included such behavior as bathing frequently, shaving, frequent dancing or laughing, wearing cologne, eating too much or wearing fine undergarments.  Again, all this backs up how Jesus linked Malakos to decadence.

If Paul had meant Crossdressers as people tend to take him to mean now days, he'd have probably used androgynes like Philo did.

Arsenokoites is what’s rendered abusers of themselves with mankind. It appears elsewhere in scripture only once, another writing of Paul. 1 Timothy 1:10 “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” is the KJV rendering. The italics is how the word in question is rendered.  More modern Bible translations often render this word simply Homosexuals, Homosexual offenders, practicing homosexuals, or Sodomites.

In this case the KJV is less indisputably about simply Homosexuality then most more modern ones. Because it uses words like "Abusers" or "Defilers". Yes I know from the current standard conservative POV homosexuality is itself an Abuse or a Defileing. But that's not how you build doctrine.  It's interesting that King James himself was Bisexual, but disapproved of "buggery", a British slang term for Anal intercourse.  (Those who deny King James was in any way Queer base their evidence solely on his love for his wife and that he disapproved of "buggery".)

The complication with this word is that Paul appears to have coined it himself. These two verses are the probably the oldest examples of it being used at all. There were a number of Greek words for male-male Homosexual behavior Paul could have used, like erastês and erômenos, androkoitēs, paiderastia, catamite, arrenomixia, androbateo, androbates, arrenomanes, maiandro or ganymede.

A popular form of the traditional view is that Malakos means the passive partner and Arsenokotis the active partner.  However if that was Paul's intent he's have used erastês and erômenos.

Arsenokoites is a compound word, combining Arsen (which was already mentioned in the study on Romans 1), and the other is Koite (Strong # 2845) which literally means bed but can be an idiom for sex.  Compound words are not as easy to decipher as they look.   For example Lady-killer doesn't mean “Lady who kills” or “Killer of ladies”.

One interpretation is offered by Paul R. Johnson for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue). In this article he wrote:

“The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy.”

Problem is I also disagree that The Bible only approves of absolute Monagamy.  And it's also in plural here because all the words listed are. 

A common theory is that it derives from the Septuagint renderings of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Where Zakar is translated Arsen and Mishkab is rendered Koite, and they are used right next to each other. I tend to reject the assumption that NT authors used the Septuagint, but it could likely have looked that way in any Greek rendering, including if Paul constructed one himself.  It is possible that Paul might have been referring to the same thing he addressed before in Romans, where he used the word Arsen. This view is the only option available really that uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. But the issue then is, what was Leviticus actually referring to? I addressed that and also Romans 1.

Some early Christian writings turn the word into a verb as arsenokoitia. None of the early uses of the word are apparently using it to mean homosexuals. And some contradict it, like John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, around A.D. 575.

“One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling , and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). [Jacob with Leah and Rachel]
Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one's son; another the wife of one's brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father's concubine.
Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.”
Seems not to imply inherently Homosexual. It's confusing frankly cause it isn't even clear if he's left the subject of Incest when he uses this word. I have my own separate study on incest restrictions in The Bible, which does not exactly agree with this commentary on the subject.

There was also found an old inscription in a house in Greece somewhere that says "Beware a male arsenokoite". So again, further evidence it was a sin women could commit with men as well as men could.

I believe the word is probably another reference to Temple Prostitution/sacred-marriage, or at most specifically Anal intercourse. Either way it’s certainly not a blanket condemnation of Homosexuality as a whole.

Around the year 2 B.C. Strabo (VIII,6,20) in his geographic/historical description of the town of Corinth wrote some remarks concerning female temple servants in the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, which perhaps should be dated somewhere in the period 700-400 B.C.:[See Introduction in [Baladié]. The fragment is in Geographika VIII,6,20]

“The temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it employed more than a thousand hetairas,[The Greek εταίρα (hetaira) means literally: female companion, female mate.] whom both men and women had given to the goddess. Many people visisted the town on account of them, and thus these hetairas contributed to the riches of the town: for the ship captains frivolously spent their money there, hence the saying: ‘The voyage to Corinth is not for every man’. (The story goes of a hetaira being reproached by a woman for not loving her job and not touching wool,[One of the main tasks of these women was the processing of wool (source: [Radt,6], p. 484)] and answering her: ‘However you may behold me, yet in this short time I have already taken down three pieces’.)”
[The Greek text has here a blue pun which is hardly translatable. ιστός means: 1) (the standing posts of a) weaving loom (n.b.: ancient Greece initially knew the vertical loom); 2) mast; 3) (metonym.) woven tissue. καθει̃λον ιστους means then, firstly: taking down the woven web from the loom; secondly: lowering the mast. Thirdly the hint on ‘lowering’ some other kind of ‘mast’. (Sources: Greek dictionary, [Baladië], [Radt,2], [Radt,6].)]

The text in more than one way hints at the sexual business of those ladies. Remarks elsewhere of Strabo (XII,3,36: “women earning money with their bodies”) as well as Athenaeus (XIII,574: “in the lovely beds picking the fruits of the mildest bloom”) concerning this temple describe this character even more graphic.

In 464 B.C., a man named Xenophon, a citizen of Corinth who was an acclaimed runner and winner of pentathlon at the Olympic Games, dedicated one hundred young girls to the temple of the goddess as a sign of thanksgiving. We know this because of a hymn which Pindar was commissioned to write (fragment 122 Snell), celebrating "the very welcoming girls, servants of Peïtho and luxurious Corinth".[(French) Trans. Jean-Paul Savignac for les éditions La Différence, 1990.]

So Cornith was another ancient center of Temple Prostitution. None of these references confirm Males being used in the same purpose as we know happened with the Ancient Canaanites, but it still could have been likely. But again, maybe it's wrong even to assume the word Arsenokoitis refereed to men, though ending with an "s" in Greek is usually Grammatically Masculine, though some exceptions exist. Or it could be he's talking about the Men who are the clients of the Temple Prostitutes, or maybe both.

You may be thinking, "if you're saying it's so difficult to even know what this word means doesn't that hurt the idea of The Bible being inspired/preserved? Why would the Holy Spirit use a word he knew would become obscure?"  Well that's why I somewhat support the theory of connecting it to Leviticus 18:22, that's the only approach that qualifies as using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, everything I've pointed out just helps back up my view that to Paul Leviticus 18:22 meant the same thing I argued it meant.

But also we're not supposed to build Doctrine on Vice Lists (not moral doctrine), vice lists just say, so and so are sinners, but once your saved you're not longer considered whatever type of sinner you are, your name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, which means at the White Throne we're judged based on Christ's works not our own.  You may lose your rewards or inheritance from continuing in those sins, but not your Salvation.  So for that reason it doesn't matter too much how certain we are what these verses refer to.

I have read some attempts to justify why Paul needed to invent a word rather then just use ones that already existed while maintaining it's all Homosexual behavior.  Two of them are exact opposites.

One argued that the other terms are to broad (My whole objection to saying it condemns all same-sex affection is that that is too broad).  Many examples they say are about any non reproductive sex particularly Anal, but don't these same Christians also think of those as sins?

In arguing that Androkoites is too broad they assert "Andros can also mean Mankind/Humanity", that is plainly wrong, Anthropos is the Greek for Mankind/Humanity, Andros is frequently clearly used as the counterpart to Gune which means woman/wife.  The Bible never uses Andros but it does use Anthropos in contexts clearly not meant to exclude women.  To this day, Misandry refer to hating males and Miantrobe to one who hated humanity.  Even so that doesn't change that no idiot would think a condemnation of Androkoites was any sex with a human being.

But another argued that Androkoites is too specific.  That Andros means "adult male" and thus Androkoites excludes Pedastry.  Why wouldn't Paul just use more then one word and list Pedastry as a separate sin?

But if the motive for constructing Arsenokoites to to be broad in it's same-sex condemnation, then it means something that he still constructed a word that cannot include Lesbianism.  Maleness is quite inherent in it, if it was a sin that could be committed by a woman or with a woman, or that a woman could be the victim of (which is implied by some Extra-Biblical uses of it) they'd have to do it with or to a male, or be something a male does to or with them.

If The Holy Spirit wanted to create a Greek term equivalent to our Homosexual, the Homo part does in fact come from Koine Greek, Homios, which means "the same" or "likewise".  If Paul had constructed Homiokoites no one would have thought any other sameness was being forbidden to have sex with, most sex was between people of the same nation/tribe back then since the world wasn't as globalized yet, the exceptions were often scandalous.  And Christians are advised to only have relations with people of the same faith.

To others the comparison to androkoites is key.  If Androkoites means male same-sex acts, and Arsen is basically a synonym of Andros, then how can Arsenokoites mean something different?

Again constructing composite words is complicated, sometimes the entire reason when creating a new one to replace one word in an existing one with a synonym is to prevent confusion when something different is very much your intent.  Both words likely have something to do with males and beds/sex, but putting those two nouns together could have lots of meanings, and one meaning "male homosexual" was already covered.

Mostly they argue for it drawing on Levitcus to prove their point.  But that presumes what Leviticus is about is being interpreted correctly.  And to me how Arsneokoites was used by many post Paul authors shows the word certainly could have been about ritual anal sex, which is what I argued Leviticus 18:22 is about.

Some of the earliest extra-Biblical uses of the word are in Vice lists that are not of Sexual sins but of economic or exploitative sins.  In the second century Apocryphal Acts of John, John condemns a rich man of Ephesus.
You who delight in gold and ivory and jewels, do you see your loved (possessions) when night comes on? And you who give way to soft clothing, and then depart from life, will these things be useful in the place where you are going? And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoités, the thief and all of this band. ...So, men of Ephesus, change your ways; for you know this also, that kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers shall go naked from this world and come to eternal misery and torment (section 36)
Sexual sins are denounced earlier in section 35, effectively a different list.

The two times Paul uses it are also next to Sins of an economic or exploitative nature, next to thieves in Corinthians and Manstealers in Timothy.  It could be some form of Sex-Slavery is in mind.  Which could overlap with forms of Temple Prostitution, since as I already showed some women were sold to Sex Goddess temples without their own consent.

It's also used in a similar fashion in the Jewish Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10.  This reference could work against the assumption Paul invented it, it's date of origin in uncertain but it's not Christian in origin, rather Hellenistic Judaism.  However most scholars agree it's under gone some Christian redaction.
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life.
Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder.) Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.)
Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly.
Nothing here is a sexual sin except disputably arsenokoitein  Another vice list in the same book is primarily about Sexual sins, 2.279-82.

Theophilus of Antioch in his treatise addressed to Autolychus, has a vice list that begins with sexual sins, then lists three economic or exploitative sins, then Arsenokoites, then more sins that are not sexual.  He does later in the same work have another list listing it next to Sexual sins, but also next to  greed and idolatry.

Hippolytus of Rome used it in Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.22-23.  Hippolytus claims to be passing along a Gnostic myth about the seduction of Eve and Adam by the evil being Naas. Naas came to Eve, deceived her, and committed adultery with her. He then came to Adam and "possessed him like a boy (slave)." This is how, according to the myth, moicheia (adultery) and arsenokoitia came into the world.  The language about Naas's treatment of Adam, indeed, which could be read "taking or possessing him like a slave," could connote exploitation and even rape. The context allows a reading of arsenokoitia to imply the unjust and coercive use of another person sexually.

The third-century writer Bardesanes is quoted in Eusebius's Preparation for the Gospel 6.1 0.2 5.  Bardesanes is remarking that the peoples who live east of the Euphrates River take the charge of arsenokoitia very seriously: "From the Euphrates River all the way to the ocean in the East, a man who is derided as a murderer or thief will not be the least bit angry; but if he is derided as an arsenokoités, he will defend himself to the point of murder. [Among the Greeks, wise men who have lovers (ermenous echontes, males whom they love; "favorites") are not condemned]"

The text seems to have gone through some corruption in transmission. The sentence in brackets does not occur in the Syriac fragments of Bardesanes's text or in the other ancient authors who seem to know Bardesanes's account, leading Jacoby, the editor of the Greek fragments, to suggest that Eusebius himself supplied the comment.  (Ibid.; see also Die Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen in Rufius Übersetzung, rev. 1 ed. Bernard Rehm, earlier ed. Georg Strecker (Berlin: Akademie, 1994), , 284-87.)  Thus Eusebius's text would provide evidence only that he or other post-Constantine Christian scribes wanted to equate arsenokoités with Homosexuality.

Hippolytus and Eusebius are the oldest references that even come close to using it in a way that backs up viewing it as Homosexuality.  Hippolytus is recounting a Gnostic myth in a work dedicated to condemning the Gnostics, Augustinin sexual morality comes from Augustine's Gnostic background.  And Eusebius was a leader in the post Constantine agenda to reconcile Christianity with socially conservative Roman culture.

On the subject of the last issue I addressed at the end of the Romans study. Reading on in 1 Corinthians 6 it's clear that there where Christians saved out of every Sin being listed here.

And that is the end of my dissertation, I hope I have succeeded in opening minds and increasing knowledge of God’s Word.