University Of Wakanda Preaches Homo Jeebus

This post won’t contain any new insights, but it is a service to Christ to regularly mock and denounce the “Associate Professors Of Jeebus Was A Homo”. They grew fat and lazy on easy wins while turning the rulers of society against God… such rulers were never comfortable with the concept that they were given their authority for the benefit of the people, not themselves… but now that they’re going after the dirt proles in what they expected to be a mop-up operation, they’re encountering the prophets and Pawlowskis of the True And Living God!

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For starters, Jesus wasn’t a homophobe

h ttps://www.yahoo.com/news/does-bible-homosexuality-starters-jesus-141828433.html

By Gerald West, Senior Professor of Biblical Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, 9 February 2023

University of… where is KwaZulu-Natal? Congo? Wakanda? -checks- South Africa. I was close. The Dark Continent did manage to produce an African success story of an advanced civilization, which lasted exactly as long as the sour cream-colored founders who built the place were able to keep the dark tide under control.

Anyway, I am holding the Bible in my hand here, and I am thinking it says Sodom about sodomy. But perhaps a government-credentialed usurper of Wakanda, err, South Africa knows something about Christ that we Christians didn’t for 5,000 years? One wonders what his source of new knowledge is.

Pope Francis was recently asked about his views on homosexuality. He reportedly replied: “.condemning [an unrepentant Sodomite] is a sin. Criminalising people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice.”

Either “Pachemama” Frankie lied, or… Frankie lied. There really isn’t a second perspective here. The only debate Christians have ever had about homosexuals is whether we should try to cure them if they haven’t yet crossed the line into Leviticus territory.

It.s a stance that has drawn the ire of some high-ranking bishops and ordinary Catholics, both on the African continent and elsewhere in the world.

As much as I sneer about Africa, their good clergy do tend to be more… action-oriented, than their glowie peers.

Some of these Catholics may argue that Pope Francis’s approach to LGBTI matters is a misinterpretation of Scripture (or the Bible). But is it?

“God said we’d die if we eat that fruit.”

“Are you SUUURE?”

Scripture is particularly important for Christians. When church leaders refer to “the Bible” or “the Scriptures., they usually mean “the Bible as we understand it through our theological doctrines.” The Bible is always interpreted by our churches through their particular theological lenses.

Double no. One, the Catholics use Traditions, which in the case of sodomy teach identically to Scripture. And two, the Protestants do not subordinate Scripture to “our modern culture of the moment”. The Bible is NEVER “interpreted though our theological doctrines”. It means what it says… an easy concept, unless one wants it to be hard.

As a biblical scholar, I would suggest that church leaders who use their cultures and theology to exclude homosexuals don’t read Scripture carefully. Instead, they allow their patriarchal fears to distort it, seeking to find in the Bible proof-texts that will support attitudes of exclusion.

I thought we were talking about homo? Why did he suddenly bring in patriarchy? Because sodomy and feminism both are violation of God’s natural, patriarchal order.

Mark.s Gospel, found in the New Testament, records that Jesus entered the Jerusalem temple on three occasions. First, he visited briefly, and “looked around at everything..

Always do your recon first. It’s a Biblical principle!

On the second visit he acted, driving “out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. (11:15). Jesus specifically targeted those who exploited the poorest of the people coming to the temple.

Not so fast. That verse is only half the sentence; note the lack of punctuation after ‘doves’. Verse 16: “…and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.” BOOM! Jesus targeted the people who turned the temple into a grift!

Et tu, Marxist Associate Professor of the Bible?

On his third visit, Jesus spent considerable time in the temple itself (11:27-13:2). He met the full array of temple leadership, including chief priests, teachers of the law and elders.

Who only… and ALL… noticed Jesus after He kicked them in the pocketbook.

Each of these leadership sectors used their interpretation of Scripture to exclude rather than to include.

No, they asked Christ by what authority He shut down their little racket. Christ pointed to John the Baptist.

The “ordinary people. (11:32 and 12:12) recognised that Jesus proclaimed a gospel of inclusion. They eagerly embraced him as he walked through the temple.

Odd that Professor Wakanda didn’t give a quote here. Let me help… (11:32) “They [temple priests] feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.” (12:12) “But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.” I don’t see a gospel of inclusion here. I see fear of mob violence.

In Mark 12:24, Jesus addresses the Sadducees, who were the traditional high priests of ancient Israel and played an important role in the temple. Among those who confronted Jesus, they represented the group that held to a conservative theological position and used their interpretation of the Scripture to exclude. Jesus said to them: “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?“

I was just about to say that to author Gerald West here. Is this not the reason you are mistaken about your supposed field of expertise, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? You cannot be an expert in Scripture while simultaneously denying God who wrote it. If you understood Scripture well enough to teach it, you would understand that 1. it is true, and 2. not subject to the arbitrary reinterpretation of your paymasters.

It is pure projection, Gerald’s accusation that Christians approach the Bible intending to make it fit their preexisting agenda.

Those who would exclude homosexuals from God’s kingdom choose to ignore Jesus, turning instead to the Old Testament . most particularly to Genesis 19, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Their interpretation of the story is that it is about homosexuality. It isn’t. It relates to hospitality.

The two angels… travelled into Sodom (Genesis 19:1) where they met Lot, Abraham’s nephew. What did Lot do? He offered hospitality.

The angels refused Lot’s hospitality. He offered, they refused, hospitality was satisfied. But Lot insisted… and what a coincidence, that the angels survived the night only because they were under Lot’s protection. (Aside from being angels, of course… Lot didn’t know.)

(19:2-4).My lords,. he said, .please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning..

.No,. they answered, .we will spend the night in the square..

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house.

See? Lot wasn’t showing hospitality. He was protecting the innocent. (19:7-8) “[Lot] said, .No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof..

No culture can reinterpret THAT. Although Africa tries:

The “men of Sodom. (19:4), as the Bible describes them, didn’t offer the same hospitality to these angels in disguise. Instead they sought to humiliate them (and Lot (19:9)) by threatening to rape them.

Keep lying, Gerald. Keep giving me ammo!

We know they were heterosexual because Lot, in attempting to protect himself and his guests, offered his virgin daughters to them (19:8).

And in (19:9), “.Get out of our way,. they replied.” They didn’t want women. They wanted men.

Heterosexual rape of men by men is a common act of humiliation. This is an extreme form of inhospitality.

You’re stupid, Gerald. Born stupid, raised stupid and paid to be stupid. Ehh, maybe not paid… you’re only an associate professor… maybe stupid is who you are, not just what you do.

When confronted by the inclusive gospel of Jesus and a careful reading of the story of Sodom as one about hospitality, those who disavow Pope Francis’s approach will likely jump to other Scriptures. Why?

Because Rule One of hermeneutics is that the Bible interprets itself. If you have an interpretation of one part of the Bible that contradicts another part, that means you’re doing it wrong. Here, Gerald’s claim that the Sodomites were being inhospitable is contradicted by Jude 7. “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” That’s not “lack of hospitality”.

That is, apparently, me “not being careful” about how I read the Bible.

Can Gerald even spell “hermeneutics”, or is he THAT stupid?

Because they have a patriarchal agenda and are looking for any Scripture that might support their position.

Et tu, Gerald? Do YOU have an agenda? Where did it come from and do you need a flashlight to show me?

But the other Scriptures they use also require careful reading. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example, are not about “homosexuality” as we now understand it . as the caring, loving and sexual relationship between people of the same sex.

(Lev. 18:22) “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, that is, wishing for better than starfish sex and not getting it, then it is an abomination and he shall be put to death. But not her. Punishing her for starfish sex would be patriarchal.”

(Lev. 20:13) “Thou shalt not miss a gay orgy in international airports, even unto monkeypox, because random sex with strangers is the foundation of loving and caring relationships.”

In Galatians 3:28…

Who is jumping Scriptures to support his agenda NOW, professor?

Paul built his theological argument on the Jew-Greek distinction, but then extended it to the slave-free distinction and the male-female distinction. Christians . no matter which church they belong to . should follow Paul and extend it to the heterosexual-homosexual distinction.

But you do see that there are still Jews? You do see that there is still a patriarchy to smash? You do see, Gerald, that you are full of lies and Damned to Hell? It’s only what you’re an expert in.