I write specifically of Dan Zelzell in the Christian Post, about the label 'gay Christian' being unwise.
Zelzell starts off already convinced gay is sinful when he puts it into the following list: "Quick-Tempered Christians," "Gay Christians," "Anxious Christians," "Judgmental Christians." He has not shown that gay is sinful before putting it into that list of clearly sinful acts. Just as Jesus showed that "divorce" was not at the beginning, it is not always sinful as in the case of an unfaithful spouse; in like manner gay orientation did not exist in the beginning, but it is not always sin.
He then mentions a study that indicates 83% of gays/queers experienced childhood trauma and is a cause of same-sex attraction. That study does NOT indicate the trauma is what caused the homosexual orientation. He then denies DNA causes homosexual orientation, but scientific studies show the cause to come from multiple causes, not just DNA. He refers to gayness as "mysteriously" simmering in the sin nature. He is distorting science in order to make homosexual orientation come from a choice, rather than from factors not chosen by the gay. I find it ludicrous that he refers to it as a mystery, therefore he cannot understand it, but then proceeds to claim authority to oppose the science. Just a little research shows that to be misleading, or maybe even a prevarication. In a rather brief summation of the current state of science you find the following:
Homosexual orientation likely arises from a mix of biological, genetic, and possibly prenatal environmental factors. Social and cultural influences shape how it is understood and expressed, but do not cause it. No single cause has been definitively identified, and much remains to be discovered about the specific pathways that influence sexual orientation.
Zelzell then attempts to prove what he has assumed up to this point, that homosexuality is a choice and is sin. He quotes what appears to be the NIV condemning "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders". He claims Paul was inspired to use these "extremely revealing" labels. Well, claiming that malakos translated "effeminate" traditionally as in the KJV is incorrect, that is foolishness. You cannot find malakos used in a sexual conduct of any kind anywhere else in the NT, or in the Greek OT. You cannot find that definition in the Classical Greek Lexicon LSJ. So, you'll search a long time before you'll ever find a clear basis to make malakos mean "male prostitute" in the NT.
The next distorted translation or misleading rendering is "homosexual offenders". For one thing, this supposed inspired label from Paul never existed until the late 19th century and coming into English around 1900. If "homosexual' is used as adjectival noun, it merely means the offense spoken of was by two or more males; which can mean rape, coercion or abuse of any kind. The sin is what the offense is that Paul means, not that it refers to two gay males.
The KJV, RV, ASV, YLT did not use "homosexual" or any synonym thereof, and this practice is continued in the REB, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue. It is extremely strange that the meaning of those translations is cast aside by so-called evangelicals for "homosexual" a word and concept not in existence in the time of Paul. Paul apparently created the word. We know what the KJV, RV, ASV and YLT meant because the 1828 Webster's Dictionary tells us:
"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
The meaning in one word was "sodomite", one that deceives, a ravisher. The standard translations after the 1946 RSV corrected the erroneous use of "homosexuals". Those calling themselves evangelicals insist upon re-translating in their versions in order to support their clear bias, their homophobia. That is NOT any different than the Jehovah's Witnesses translating "a god" in John 1:1 to support their theology! The JWs & evangelicals have a belief, then go so far as mis-translate to support it, to prop it up. It is clear that their claimed phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" is a transparent attempt to hide their hateful homophobia!
Zelzell starts off already convinced gay is sinful when he puts it into the following list: "Quick-Tempered Christians," "Gay Christians," "Anxious Christians," "Judgmental Christians." He has not shown that gay is sinful before putting it into that list of clearly sinful acts. Just as Jesus showed that "divorce" was not at the beginning, it is not always sinful as in the case of an unfaithful spouse; in like manner gay orientation did not exist in the beginning, but it is not always sin.
He then mentions a study that indicates 83% of gays/queers experienced childhood trauma and is a cause of same-sex attraction. That study does NOT indicate the trauma is what caused the homosexual orientation. He then denies DNA causes homosexual orientation, but scientific studies show the cause to come from multiple causes, not just DNA. He refers to gayness as "mysteriously" simmering in the sin nature. He is distorting science in order to make homosexual orientation come from a choice, rather than from factors not chosen by the gay. I find it ludicrous that he refers to it as a mystery, therefore he cannot understand it, but then proceeds to claim authority to oppose the science. Just a little research shows that to be misleading, or maybe even a prevarication. In a rather brief summation of the current state of science you find the following:
Homosexual orientation likely arises from a mix of biological, genetic, and possibly prenatal environmental factors. Social and cultural influences shape how it is understood and expressed, but do not cause it. No single cause has been definitively identified, and much remains to be discovered about the specific pathways that influence sexual orientation.
Zelzell then attempts to prove what he has assumed up to this point, that homosexuality is a choice and is sin. He quotes what appears to be the NIV condemning "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders". He claims Paul was inspired to use these "extremely revealing" labels. Well, claiming that malakos translated "effeminate" traditionally as in the KJV is incorrect, that is foolishness. You cannot find malakos used in a sexual conduct of any kind anywhere else in the NT, or in the Greek OT. You cannot find that definition in the Classical Greek Lexicon LSJ. So, you'll search a long time before you'll ever find a clear basis to make malakos mean "male prostitute" in the NT.
The next distorted translation or misleading rendering is "homosexual offenders". For one thing, this supposed inspired label from Paul never existed until the late 19th century and coming into English around 1900. If "homosexual' is used as adjectival noun, it merely means the offense spoken of was by two or more males; which can mean rape, coercion or abuse of any kind. The sin is what the offense is that Paul means, not that it refers to two gay males.
The KJV, RV, ASV, YLT did not use "homosexual" or any synonym thereof, and this practice is continued in the REB, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue. It is extremely strange that the meaning of those translations is cast aside by so-called evangelicals for "homosexual" a word and concept not in existence in the time of Paul. Paul apparently created the word. We know what the KJV, RV, ASV and YLT meant because the 1828 Webster's Dictionary tells us:
"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
The meaning in one word was "sodomite", one that deceives, a ravisher. The standard translations after the 1946 RSV corrected the erroneous use of "homosexuals". Those calling themselves evangelicals insist upon re-translating in their versions in order to support their clear bias, their homophobia. That is NOT any different than the Jehovah's Witnesses translating "a god" in John 1:1 to support their theology! The JWs & evangelicals have a belief, then go so far as mis-translate to support it, to prop it up. It is clear that their claimed phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner" is a transparent attempt to hide their hateful homophobia!
