« McCain Israeli Ad Campaign Links Obama to Ahmadenijad | Main | News: Gabrielle Union, Dobson, Hagee, Pharrell, Domestic Violence »

10 July 2008



Good for him, I would love it if he wins. (Although it's a long shot.) The word in question in the original Greek is arsenokoitai which means "those who bed males" (i.e. men who have sexual intercourse with males). In the historical context, it probably means "f--ers of males." This is not equivalent to homosexuality, (1) because it obviously does not include female homosexuality and (2) because in the ancient world the only people who would have been deemed "male" were those men who were liable to have procreative sex with a woman, namely those whom we today would refer to as either bisexuals or heterosexuals. So it's not about homosexuality, but about f--ing men who have sex with women.


Wow ...


Double WOW~!


oh woooooooooooow

taylor Siluwe

I hope he wins, too.

People have to understand that this homo hatred which leads to discrimination, violence and murder of LGBT men women and children HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

Over the years, religion has bore many horrible fruit, this unchecked homo-hatred is just its latest rotten creation. At least the religious nuts can't burn us at the stake anymore.

Maybe we should be thanking god for that....


Well, Do Jesus, as my Mother would say!

Talk about A Man Of Action! I am proud of this brother, representing himself no doubt, for the audacity of this statement and this move! WOW! You want to be hateful, well, HATE COUNTS! I love him! STAND BROTHER!!!!!!!

Call me in as a witness!


Mark, thanks much for the translation. I have a question for Rev. Kev. How do you teach that verse? I am not familiar with it.


Hallejuah. This is wonderful news, I wish him the best of luck and hope these so-called Christians take notice.


Preach on, Rev. Kev!


Ridiculous!! This is not a matter of whether the Bible has been interpreted correctly or not. That is irrelevant. It is within our first amendment right to publish whatever we want. Throughout all cultures, homosexuality has been deemed evil, bad, carnal, sinful by the Word of God. Only in the recent culture in which we now live where bad is considered good and good considered bad is homosexuality considered “ok.”

So the question remains, is the Bible still interpretable in light of this context. The original writers considered it evil and abominable. Does the Bible change with Culture? Please do not back up bad behavior on “It is cultural.”

This is not a good argument. Homosexuality is deemed evil by the Word of God. Is adultery and murder cultural? I think you would say not… therefore neither is homosexuality. Would we agree with a Christian suing a gay publisher because it caused them emotional distress? No, I don't think so.

Mel Smith

Heather, actually homosexuality was not always condemned in society. You argument is weak because you are only presenting your beliefs. I don't believe that God has a problem with gay people. The only people who have problems with gays are the modern day religious scribes. The Bible in it's origninal language is not anti gay. God does not have anything against gay folks. That's a lie creating by the heterosexual power structure.

Robert Jones, Jr.

This brightened my already sunny day.


And Heather, there are people who don't even have a word for murder in their lexicon. In some cultures the concept of murder is foreign.



I would be happy, for real and in detail, to speak on "that verse," but I am not sure which verse you are speaking of in this context. Biblically, there are a few that fundamentalists try to use.

If you are speaking to the verse that speaks about not laying with mankind as you lay with woman, it is an abomination, it's rather simple.

Firstly, there is understanding the context of the scripture. The Levites were preparing for war and trying to bolster their troops. The LAW to forbid men to lay with men as they lay with woman was put in place BECAUSE there were already homosexual-identified men and they, the leaders, felt like the needed every capable man and thus, they made it against the law to be who these men were already. If they were not already homosexual, there would have been no need to place it in the Law. Among the other "Laws" in the Code of the Levites are:

Not mixing fabrics (the concern was the somewhere the Sun, combining with the mixing fabrics, was causing men to become ill); Not eating certain meats (which all are consumed in our culture today, the concern then was that they couldn't be 'kept' or refrigerated and men were becoming ill); and the biggest, that men could not be present among their women when they were menstruating, which means that men had to move out of the home while their wives or daughters were on their periods.

All of these Laws were relevant to this people at this period in time. Period. There are 716 Levitical Codes and all of them are written among the same scripture that said "abomination" about men laying with men.

People, humans in flesh, have decided that they would ignore the other Codes/Laws, but that THAT ONE was one that they'd keep in the Law, thus condemning men who already existed.

God is not accidental in God's creation, and its insulting to the ideals and ideas of God to suggest that there are people who were created to be damned. Further, the word "homosexual" didn't come into the English nomenclature until 1946. Thus, the word could not have been in use or of use, in biblical times. It's a silly reference and it makes religious believers seem hateful.

It's ridiculous and I so respect this brother for being bold enough and assured enough to take this to court. I pray that it goes to the highest courts in the land.

God Bless Bradley Fowler!

P.S. Heather, the fallacy in your logic is that which is always espoused by fundamentalists, trying to condemn the homosexual being. Homosexual is a BE, a noun, an orientation, an identity. Homosexual, unlike DRINKING, SMOKING, CHEATING, LYING, is not an action. There are homosexuals who are in every country in the world and of every color, every lifestyle, every age and every economic status. Homosexuals are not a DO, to be lumped with the actions of people. Homosexuals are a BE, as with color and gender, and not some negotiable, avoidable action. The same Bible has told the "slave" to be a "good slave" and to honor your "master." The same Bible, which is used still today to keep women, like your Heather, out of pulpits around the country, says that women are to cover their heads and be silent in the presence of men. So, the Word of God, which I believe in with my entire soul, speaks to truths that are still present in and throughout the Bible, even as men and women try to use parts of make God seem hateful, ugly, unloving or unreasonable!


Thank you Archbishop Carl Bean, for reminding us of that AMAZINGLY ANOINTED TRUTH!

Lady T

I'm by no means a biblical expert. BUT I have studied Latin and Greek (the language of the New Testament where Corinthians is found) and "homosexual" does not appear ANYWHERE in the original texts. Anyone who speaks a language other than English can tell you how difficult it is to translate some words, you are stuck with concepts. Of course, the words "wicked" and "evil" are not hard to translate but...gay, homosexual, yeah those might be.
Anyway, I actually hope he wins (from a Christian). I think it's so easy to tweak one word for one's own purpose and create a whole new context for the reading. Regardless of what some people think, how you word something DOES matter.


interesting case and strategy, but dam he needs some REAL legal representation.

Tony O

I think he does not have representation because no one wanted to touch the case. He sounds very emotional. I love the idea of the suit, I hope he is in good mental health, tho. And preach on reverend!

Albert W

Love you, reverend, love your spirit.

Anton D

As Robert said above, this has brightened my day. I wish this man all the luck with the lawsuit. It certainly is the longest of long shots, but, if Focus on the Family is concerned, then I'm a happy camper.


I've always wondered how people like this "Heather" person suddenly drop out of the sky to leave a deposit of hatred in an otherwise unpolluted blog.

Do some of the hate groups pay people like "Heather" to sit around Googling certain culture-war issues all day? And, having found a sane blog, are they paid to inject a dose of their mental illness?

Does anyone know how this works?


Very good question, Jim. I'm not sure about that but there were several fundies and freepers in the comments. It seems like it happens whenever Rod posts a story on fundie-gay hating pastors, the praise team is activated. They must be paid by the word.


The most idiotic lawsuit of the year. The First Amendment guarantees religious liberty, including the right to interpret and publish the Bible. People have a right to interpret and disseminate the Bible regardless of who else is offended by its contents. Moreover, most scholars, theologians, and churches agree that the interpretations condemning homosexuality are accurate and reflect the original Greek and Hebrew texts. This is not just a matter of faith, but also of being historically accurate. The Bible is protected speech that represents the faith of millions and cannot be censored or changed just because someone disagrees with it. If the First Amendment means anything, it's that you can't force others to tamper with the Bible.


By the way, I am a Christian who thinks the church should affirm monogamous, lifelong same-sex relationships, but that does not mean I get to tell other churches and Christians what to do and think about this issue. The Constitution protects the right to different, even erroneous interpretations of the Bible and other texts. There is no right to force people to adopt your interpretation or relinquish an interpretation that you think oppresses you. There are many interpretations of the Bible and even more applications; all interpretations are protected by the Constitution. It is chilling that there are people on here who would force a publisher to adopt your own personal interpretation. YOu cannot dictate someone else's faith and interpretation of the Bible. This lawsuit will be summarily dismissed in short order. IT is transparently without merit.



This is not a matter of interpretation in terms of "he said, she said." This is a matter of a willful mistranslation to suit a social agenda.

As a professional translator myself, if I offer you a translation of a document originally in, say Italian, and I translate "mi dispiace" as "that makes me mad," then I have given you a bad translation and, if I had any money you could sue me. But at least in this case I could claim that I did not know that that was how you say "I'm sorry" in Italian and I will do better next time. Mi dispiace.

But if I am a multimillion dollar Bible translator and I purport to tell millions of the faithful that I Corinthians 6:9 mentions "homosexuals" when what it really says is "male-penetrators," then I really need to be held accountable. This is not a matter of free speech.

But you're right, it is a matter of faith. Say, you are a Bible-believing Christian who does not happen to speak Greek, then you are counting on a translator to tell you what the Bible says about this, that and the other thing. And you have a right to be told what it really says, not what the translator wants you to think it says. And if the translator disregards history and the history of words and translates that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a bicycle, then that is not an interpretation, that is an anachronistic mistranslation. In that case at least you ought to know that the bicycle was invented 100 years ago and not be fooled.

But if I translate arsenokoites, a compound word made up of the parts arseno- (male) and koites (one who 'beds' someone), as homosexuals, then I have deliberately introduced an error into the text that not everyone will be able to catch. You the reader may not know that the concept of homosexuality is not much older than the concept of bicycles, but as a professional, I am supposed to know that type of thing, and I do know it. But I want to promote a particular social agenda, so I put "homosexuals" in there, even though I know that Paul was referring to only a very specific and nowadays pretty rare homosexual configuration (outside of a prison context). I have thus deliberately mistranslated the Bible to further a social engineering agenda and I have hurt millions of people in the process. I as a translator can be held accountable to that.

Derrick from Philly

Interesting. Over on Towleroad it seemed the majority of comments were against this young man, and his effort on behalf of gay people. I wonder why?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad