Abortion is not new. People have been killing babies for millennia.

Abram came from a long history of pagan worship in Ur that included child sacrifice, which is probably why God tested his faithfulness with the gruesome task of sacrificing his own son (s. Gen 22).

Later, in Phoenicia and then in Israel the worshipers of Baal would light fires inside the statue called Topheth and when the hands of the statue were glowing with red heat, the worshipers would place an infant upon the red hot hands and burn the child alive as it screamed until fainting from the pain.

King Josiah eventually destroyed Topheth. “He [Josiah] desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech” (2Ki 23:10 NIV).

And then in the first century, the women of Rome would insert poisons into their wombs to kill their children, which is why Paul made it a priority to tell the women in Ephesus that God would protect them through childbearing (s. 1 Tim 2:15). Kostenberger explains that the term, σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, (Eng. ‘saved through the childbearing’) is a reference to protection while she is pregnant. He also argues that the use of the article with the preposition, διὰ, with the genitive, should be translated ‘throughout the course of the pregnancy’ (Winter, Roman Wives, p.110).

And today, we kill babies while they are still in the womb and use foreign langauges like the Latin word for baby, fetus, thereby attempting to remove personal guilt, as we don’t have to watch the baby cook on the hands of Topheth or be cast down onto rocks from the edge of a cliff; we don’t even hear them scream.

Why have children, for thousands of years, been slaughtered by the adults who are supposed to love and care for them?

In every case throughout history the sacrifice of children has been done for the purpose of prosperity. By giving the sacrifice the aborting donors hoped that the gods would open the heavens and pour out blessings up them.

In Ur, Phoenicia, and Israel babies were killed to please the pagan gods so that they would receive rain, healthy crops, and (ironically) pregnant women. In first century Rome there was a stigma attached to being pregnant, because of the preoccupation with the form of the feminine body, causing women to take preventative measures against getting pregnant or poisoning their wombs to end pregnancies. Abortion methods were even deadly to many women, yet they feared being out of shape more than death.

Even today young people are force-fed the propaganda that having a child will ruin their lives and any chances of prospering. And though it is much more difficult to attain the financial status that allows for the easier life, having a child does not mark the end of prosperity.

If young people could grasp the wisdom that waiting for marriage to have sex is much more beneficial, despite the advice of liberal fundamentalists, we would all find that less children would have to be sacrificed for the sake of prosperity.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

Bruce W. Winter Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of the New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 110.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

You may have to subscribe to the feed, once you get there, 

in order to get the latest messages, which are

“Treasure” by Johnny

and

“Ancient Ways: Weeks 1 and 2″ by Vance.

“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.” –1 Corinthians 6::9-10 (NAS)

Was Paul a closed-minded Pharisee whose teachings need to be evaluated and updated, or are the truths of his teachings simply offensive to those who choose not to follow God?

The parental care gene, fos B, is essential for getting female mice to retrieve and nurse their young. Other than this lack of nurturing ability, the mice that have the fos B gene removed are completely normal, including normal mammary gland development.

According to Dr. James C. Peterson, human beings also have the fos B gene, but it does not determine whether a mother cares for her children. Peterson also points out that a human’s genetic tendency to eat until one builds up a substantial amount of fat does not mean that it is healthy for the person to do so; responding to anger with violence is not the healthiest response in an interdependent society; nor is having multiple sexual partners healthy for all involved, even though we have a genetic propensity to spread our genes. “Genetic tendency does not have to be mechanically obeyed. It does for worker ants, but not for human beings” (Peterson, Genetic Turning Points, p. 47).

The debate over the causes and origins of homosexual behavior is ongoing. Until 1973 homosexuality was categorized as a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association. Whether it is a person’s environment or genetics that is the cause of homosexual behavior is debated strongly by sociologists and scientists who both have strong evidence to support their beliefs.

Some experiments on the human brains of homosexual and heterosexuals have revealed differences in the hypothalamus. Other tests have revealed that prenatal exposure to high levels of androgen cause a fetus to become attracted to females. Female rats that were given male levels of androgens were sexually driven toward other female rats, and would even attempt to mount other females to mate. Another study revealed 5 genetic markers on a section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. This finding has been dubbed “the gay gene” (Ryan D. Johnson, Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture, April 20, 2003).

Apparently, finding a genetic link to homosexuality is not a good thing for some homosexuals. The problem with any of these studies is that, if a genetic link to homosexual behavior is discovered, the fear is that homosexuality will become a “problem that needs to be fixed.” By removing the genetic codes that cause homosexuality, the person will not have these tendencies. This leads to the fear that mothers of children with these genetic propensities will opt for abortions, or have the genetic codes removed.

In an article I wrote on July 3, 2009, “Acting Like Animals,” I made the argument that, if human beings are expected to allow, even encourage, homosexual behavior to be practiced because it is a natural behavior, then why would we not allow racists to practice racism as a natural form of ethnocentricity or preservation of species?

If it is true that we can control our eating habits, sexual desires, and even nurturing habits, despite powerful genetic drives, then why are so many people closing their minds about the possibility of controlling one’s homosexual tendencies.

The desire to overeat and have too many sexual partners are very strong genetic drives, yet obesity is considered an epidemic and promiscuity has caused the government to develop a medication that is given to toddlers so that they will not develop cancer from sexually transmitted diseases (namely genital warts) later in life.

Christians are being judged for judging the homosexual lifestyle as “sinful behavior.” But is the judgment really that different from pointing out one’s natural tendency to overeat, become physically abusive, or commit adultery, which, like homosexuality, are all counterproductive to the betterment of a healthy society?

If the Kingdom of Heaven starts with the people of God doing the will of God on earth in order to make the world a better, healthier place to live, then why would the members of that Kingdom not discourage any behavior that it deems unhealthy for society?

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:

James C. Peterson Genetic Turning Points (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001) pp. 46-7.

Johnson, Ryan D. “Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture.” Online. 20 April 2003.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Gainey, Jonathan P. “Acting Like Animals.” Online. 3 July 2009.
http://flocksdiner.com/index.php?paged=2

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

“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” (1Sa 18:1-4 KJV).

Tom Horner follows this passage with the following conclusion:

“Jonathan was obviously smitten. ‘But cannot two men be good friends,’ someone said to me recently, ‘without the issue of homosexuality being raised?’ Yes, they can. But when the two men come from a society that for two hundred years had lived in the shadow of the Philistine culture, which accepted homosexuality…when one of them—who is a social superior of the two—publically makes a display of his love; when the two of them make a lifetime pact openly; when they meet secretly and kiss each other and shed copious tears at parting; when one of them proclaims that his love for the other surpassed his love of women—and all this is present in the David-Jonathan liaison—we have every reason to believe that a homosexual relationship existed.”

Toshio Tsumura, the author of The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary) explains that the Hebrew attachment phrase in verse 1 refers to an “inseparable devotion,” which is the same as that used in Genesis 14:33, “’So now, if the boy is not with us when I go back to your servant my father and if my father, whose life is closely bound up (or ’knit’) with the boy’s life,’” NIV). Surely Jacob was not “in love” with his son, Benjamin, as this phrase to Horner would imply. Tsumura goes on to explain that the theme of chapter 18 is the love and hate toward David. Saul’s hate grows stronger and stronger (see vv.10-11), while Jonathan’s devotion, like that of Jacob’s toward Benjamin, is equally strong. Also, Saul (like Joseph) would not let David (like Benjamin) return to his father.

Biblical phraseology is not Western, nor is it filled with Philistine idioms. The Hebrew language of First Samuel is that of the Eastern, Semitic people of Israel. Forcing Western idiomatic phraseology upon the writings of ancient Hebrew authors is irresponsible and reeks of eisegesis.

The two expressions of love and hate for David, like the same two expressions toward Jesus in the first century, are seen in extreme measure. And it’s important to note that love in the Near Eastern world was used as a political term of loyalty (Woodhouse and Hughes, p. 349). Jesus expects this same kind of passionate and committed love from his disciples. Jesus said to Simon, “…’Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he said, ‘you know that I love you’” (John 21:15b NIV).

The beauty of David is also used as a confirmation of David’s attraction as a homosexual or to homosexuals. But the mention of male attractiveness is not completely uncommon among Jewish writers. “Rabbi Yohanan said, ‘I have survived from the beautiful of Jerusalem.’ One who wishes to see the beauty of R. Yohanan should bring a brand new silver cup and fill it with the red seeds of a pomegranate and place around its rim a garland of roses, and let him place it where the sun meets the shade, and that vision is the beauty of R. Yohanan” (reference found in Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition, p. 106.).

The kiss between David and Jonathan is not a foreign concept between heterosexual men in the East (see 1 Samuel 20:41). Isaac asked his son to kiss him in Genesis 27:26. It is said of Absalom, David’s son, that anyone who approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand and kiss them. And even more insinuating for anyone looking for evidence of homosexuality among the men of the Bible, Absalom is said to have “stole the hearts of the men of Israel.” Like father, like son?

Finally, David also kissed his old friend, Barzillai. “Then all the people went over the Jordan, and the king went over. And the king kissed Barzillai and blessed him, and he returned to his own home” (2Sa 19:39 ESV).

Kissing, male beauty, and love—these are all concepts that can lead the biased mind to find what it looks for, if he or she is searching for homosexuality between David and Jonathan. But a proper historical, sociological, and contextual study reveals that the Eastern writer of First Samuel neither leaves any such clues nor insinuates even the slightest of innuendos.

Jonathan’s loyalty toward David as the up-and-coming king of Israel was recorded in the Hebrew texts as a powerful expression of love and commitment. Any assumptions of homosexuality are nothing more than the presumptions of modern readers seeking to justify homosexuality in our day, and in the Church.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited:
Tom Horner Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press ®, 1978) pp. 27-8.

Toshio Tsumura The First Book of Samuel: New International Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007) p. 471.

John R. Woodhouse and Kent Hughes 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008) p. 349.

Steven Greenberg Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2004) p. 106.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

Homophobia in the Church? Really? I’m shocked…..not! What is this strange behavior that Christians have such a difficult time dealing with?

Prostitution, drug addictions, adultery, stealing, among other sins are all offensive but dealt with in most congregations. But homosexuality is placed in a category of its own. Few have ever been able to separate the sin from the sinner when it comes to this specialized abomination.

Paul says that those who commit the sin of ἀρσενοκοίτης (transliteration: arsenokeetase) will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. In an earlier article, “Homo-sex God”, which I wrote in 2008, I mentioned that ἀρσενοκοίτης comes from two words, arsen (male) and keetase (bed), which is interpreted to mean male bed partners. According to Dale Martin, those who read these two words together to create male bed partners are wrong, as this is like saying that partnership is a ship of partners, when the word has nothing to do with a sea vessel.

The renowned textual critic, Gordon Fee, explains that the word μαλακοὶ (transliteration: malakee), translated male prostitutes, literally means soft or effeminate and probably refers to the young, passive, male partners of homosexual pederastic relationships that were common in Greco-Roman society. The word μαλακοὶ became a derogatory term for effeminate men, especially the young men who would sell themselves as sexual slaves for older men. Jews and Gentiles apposed many forms of pederasty. Paul, being a Jew, would have considered such behavior to be sinful.

How do we know that Paul would have considered homosexuality to be sinful? We have to familiarize ourselves with the teachings that Paul would have learned, accepted, and taught.

First, Leviticus 18:22:

” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable’”

is pretty clear that this behavior is unacceptable. Further affirmation that homosexuality will not be tolerated within the Jewish world is found in Leviticus 20:13:

“And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

But what is really interesting is how seldom homosexuality is brought up in the Old Testament Scriptures. Why?

Jewish sages believed that homosexuality was not a temptation for Jews. There are teachings in the Mishnah which state that an unmarried male is not to teach children because of the temptation of pederasty, but these are followed by the statement,

“Israel is not suspected [of males who would be tempted to engage in homosexuality or bestiality]” (TKid. 5.10; cf. also Kid. 82a).

Paul’s emphasis on homosexuality was born of his own Jewish cultural understandings and education. Though homosexuality was not a sin that Jews dealt with often, it was considered sinful. Paul’s Jewish education and cultural background, coupled with his position as the apostle to the non-Jews whose world was filled with this particular sinful behavior, made it necessary for him to teach against homosexuality throughout the Gentile world.

Moving forward, we will have to find a way to accept the sinner and condemn the sin, even with this specially categorized sinful behavior among those who are seeking to know the Christ. The place to start is to notice the plank in our own eyes and remember that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and by grace God has offered us a home among his people.

The ignorance of not knowing how to deal with homosexuality in the Church is making a mockery of Christianity’s claims of love and forgiveness. We have to find a way to rid ourselves of this phobia.

In His dust,
Johnny

Works Cited: 

Gordon D. Fee The New International Commentary: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987). 

Robin Scroggs The New Testament and Homosexuality (USA: Fortress Press, 1983).

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved

I have been criticized, from time to time, because I allow my wife to assert authority, when I should be the “leader.” It should be said that those who are dishing out the criticism are always those who are from a much different generation, and, ironically, they are usually women.

Growing up in the 70’s and 80’s was a confusing time for the male species of the human animal. The women’s lib movement was in full swing, and men were forced to establish themselves in a new role: holding doors and offering to carry books had become taboos. The boys who grew up in that era were losing the sense of awe for women and their mysteriously magical aura that our grandparents worked hard to instill. Women were now to be equal with men, according to that which Americans believed was dominant behavior, such as working outside the home, leading in business and government, and even wearing suits. Women believed that those sociological behaviors represented “being on top.”

We may be naïve or simply ignorant enough to believe that the gender war is a unique trend, but it is actually a cultural battle that is as old as the Garden of Eden.

The myth of Lilith is an ancient Jewish story of Adam’s first wife. In the story, Adam would not allow Lilith to dominate (be on top) during sex, so she left him in anger and became a demon of the night who seduces men into having sex so that she can give birth to demon children.

Even more similar to our current male v. female battle for dominance, is that of the real-life, first century, anti-traditional “New Woman” of Rome. As women were beginning to gain their own wealth and education, they were also losing the respect and adoration of the public who thought that women were most beautiful and respectable when they carried themselves more modestly. Like the high classed prostitutes of first century Rome, these new women wore expensive clothing that revealed more than was expected along with costly jewelry and bodily décor.

The difficulty for Paul in his first letter to Timothy rests in the cultural and sociological crux of this gender war. In Ephesus, the new woman posed a difficulty for the Christian church, as Christian women were to resist attracting others to themselves rather than to Christ.

“I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1Timothy 2:9-10 NIV).

The confusion for modern readers concerning the above passage from Paul’s first letter to Timothy lies within our misunderstanding of Paul’s battle with the first century women’s lib movement in Rome, which is not completely unlike our own gender crisis in America today. Right or wrong, people will always find it difficult to know our role as human beings, because of our desire to dominate.

“To the woman he said…’Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’” (Gen 3:16b NIV).

The desire to be on top is a problem that neither Lilith, Eve, the new woman of Rome nor modern women have been able to resist. And modesty is something that both, men and women, would do better to display more often.

In His dust,

Johnny

Works Cited:

Philip H. Towner New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 197.

Bruce W. Winter After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 123.

© 2009 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved