Facebook Smackdown of Anti-Gay Christian

by Luke Muehlhauser on June 6, 2010 in Funny

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

al friedlander June 6, 2010 at 11:04 am

Wow, you can’t front on that.

The response that’s always confused me a tad whenever Leviticus is brought up is something that goes along the lines of “God changed His mind”. In other words, the ‘old laws’ only applied for what was best in that time period, and now, things are drastically different.

The interesting notion brought up in this exchange is, indeed, if old Leviticus law is no longer valid ‘today’, what exactly verifies homosexuality as a sin?


Justfinethanks June 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm

The response that’s always confused me a tad whenever Leviticus is brought up is something that goes along the lines of “God changed His mind”.

That’s always baffled me as well, because saying that the execution of homosexuals was ok during a certain time in a certain culture basically a version of cultural relativism, something Christians claim they are adamantly against.

Also, I’m not sure how you can claim that you believe in “objective moral values” if they can change according to where and when you live. If the answer to “what is moral?” changes according to where and when you live, isn’t that the definition of subjectivity?

So called “covenant theology” doesn’t solve this problem. It just describes it.

The interesting notion brought up in this exchange is, indeed, if old Leviticus law is no longer valid ‘today’, what exactly verifies homosexuality as a sin?

Most conservative Christians would direct you to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

This is from the NIV. Some translations translate “male prostitutes” as “effeminate,” which in my mind implies that just acting a little fruity is enough to exclude you from heaven.


Alexandros Marinos June 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Actually, about the Corinthians quote, the original uses the terms “μαλακοὶ” and “ἀρσενοκοῖται” which have been translated in NIV as “effeminate” and “homosexuals” respectively. The first I am not qualified to judge the translation of but I can kind of see how it would be used like that. The second, I can say as a native Greek speaker that it refers to “those who lay with men”, presumably being men themselves. My point is that both the NT and OT verses refer to male homosexuality. Lesbianism apparently is fine by the almighty. (yet more proof that god, if he exists, is a man).


Kristy June 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm

I totally want Lacey to be my Facebook friend!


Haecceitas June 6, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Alexandros Marinos, you might want to check Romans 1:26 if you think that Paul commented exclusively on male homosexuality.


Alexandros Marinos June 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm

The ancient Greek version of that I can find is the following, I believe it is in the original language.

“Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας. αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν”

What it says is that women changed their natural use to that which is against nature. The way it says against nature (παρὰ φύσιν) is commonly understood in modern Greek to be a reference to umm… unnatural intercourse, that would require a man to perform. And then 27 talks about men leaving the natural use of the woman blah blah. It is interesting to note that the woman is being spoken of as having a natural and an unnatural use. I suspect the bible writers did not even conceive the idea that two women could have sex with each other.


Bebok June 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm


I think it’s better idea to translate chresis as “intimacy” than as “use”, like Liddell-Scott-Jones suggests:



Alexandros Marinos June 6, 2010 at 3:17 pm


heh, you conjugated my name right! I had to do a double take :)

Is there any reason you’d favour the third option given by only one dictionary? I find it especially stretching to apply to this definition of χρήσις the adjectives ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’. Keep in mind that as far as I know, when the bible refers to sexual intimacy as ‘knowing’ it uses the verb “γνωρίζω”, which is what I think you are hinting to?


Bebok June 7, 2010 at 5:10 am


What do you mean by “the option given by only one dictionary”? It’s in every dictionary I know, and LSJ refers specifically to Ep. Rom. 1.26. Thayer’s Lexicon also refers to this fragment saying “use: of the sexual use of a woman”. My point was that “intimacy” was better because it was less ambiguous. But anyway, “use” or “function” must refer to sexual activity, I think. I’m not sure how you understand “use of women” and why you think “natural” and “unnatural” can’t apply to it. I didn’t try to hint at “gnorizo” in any way. Yes, it can mean “to become acquainted with a partner”, but that’s a different kettle of fish.


Alexandros Marinos June 7, 2010 at 8:45 am

Fair enough about ‘gnorizo’.

The reason I mentioned the adjectives, is that ‘χρήσις’ as stated here seems to me to be unidirectional (men use women) rather than bidirectional (mutual). Applying that verb to a woman and saying it is natural or unnatural seems to strengthen the effect. In essence a woman is seen as ‘having’ a χρήσις, not that it is a reference to the action of intimacy that gets instantiated between two.

Another clue is that when the text is translated into modern Greek, the word χρήσις remains, and I am more certain that it doesn’t have that definition in modern Greek.

At this point however I must say that I am only an amateur, basing my analysis on knowing modern rather than ancient Greek. So there is plenty of room for me to be wrong.


Bebok June 8, 2010 at 6:38 am

It’s pretty unclear whether a woman is an object of “chresis” here or “chresis” means something more like “a relantionship”. But in any case, I think you can equally easily apply “physike” to “chresis”. As I understand it, “physike chresis” refers to heterosexuality and “chresis para physin” to something that is against it, therefore homosexuality (women are ‘used’ not by men, but other women). Next sentence, 1.27, suggests the topic here is sexual orientation – it begins with homoios (“in the same manner”) and says that men began having sex with each other.
It’s worth noting that the passage is not about natural born gays, but about pagans who didn’t worship God properly, so he turned them into horny gays, which was too bad for them, because God hated gays and thought they deserved death.


Caspar June 17, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Why can’t I share this on Facebook? You would increase your readership 10-fold with a share option.


Leave a Comment