Messages By: tulseyjoe

And in those two places, it is in the very same context of in the Book of Leviticus, chapters 18, 19, and 20. If you don't read all three of those same chapters together, you are missing the actual context of them.  

I see that people are posting messages here without even reading what other members of Dr. Phil's internet community are writing.  

Real homosexual men don't lie with another male pretending that the male is a woman. In the context of Leviticus' chapters, a heterosexual man goes to a pagan temple to make a sexual sacrifice to the Canaanite fertility goddess, Asherah (also known as Astarte or Asteroth).  

The purpose of the sacrifice of semen (called "seed" in the KJV) to the goddess is to "plant a 'seed' in the male holy person doing a stand-in for Asherah and that "holy" person dressed up like a woman, too. The holy person knows that he is not the goddess; but, in the spiritual/psychological mind of the heterosexual man who is a Canaanite to begin with in that context, HE IS HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN  . . .  NOT WITH ANOTHER MAN!  

In those 3 chapters, the Israelites are being told not to follow certain religious practices related to the CANAANITE culture. In modern times, we refer to the CANAANITES as PHOENICIANS, but, they were actually the very same people!  

Oh, the residents of Sodom were not Canaanites; because Sodom was NOT in Canaan at all and any well-read student of the Bible would know that when Abram (later called Abraham) and his nephew, Lot, decided that the country of Canaan was not big enough for both of them and all of their sheep and cattle, etc., Lot moved to the east across the Jordan River out of the country of Canaan into the "Plain of Jordan" (just called Jordan in modern times). 

In Romans 1, where it mentions men having sex with each other, the sexual activity actually takes place in a pagan place of worship where fertility gods are honored. Roman holy men in service to pagan gods also dressed up like females as in the Canaan. And, in the Roman pagan places of worship of fertility deities, where male gods were also revered, women strapped on male sexual devices and pretended to represent the god. It was not considered a natural sex act for a woman to pretend to be a man and have anal sexual intercourse with a heterosexual man.  

Actually there are two different versions of creation in the Bible.  

In Genesis chapter 1, male and female human beings, plural of each gender, were made at the very same time. And, there is says that God said "be fruitful and multiply." Humans are made after the land animals are created. In that chapter, God (plural) states, "Let us make humans in our images (literally)."  

But, in Genesis chapter 2, a human being (the proper translation of "adam" in context) is created and then God creates plants and also creates the garden/park known as "Eden." Then, God (the Hebrew word is actually plural, not singular) puts the human, aka the adam (the Hebrew word for "the" is used there), in the garden. 

When they (God) realized that the human is lonely, they said literally, "It is not good for the human to be alone; let US (plural) make a helper suitable for him."  

The KJV has "help meet" (note TWO words) for "helper suitable." "Helper" in the Hebrew text is "ezer" which is masculine (that's male in sex/gender). Some people think that "meet" means "mate" when "ezer" is another word for "mate." A helper who is a woman would be an "ezerah," which is the female form of "ezer." "Neged" is the word translated as "meet" or "suitable." A "neged" can be an identical copy of an original. Or it can be a copy of something with everything reversed as far as viewing is concerned.  

So the first adam had an identical copy of himself made (by God) which would have been a mirror image of himself if he were to look into a mirror.  

If you properly read the text, it was not God who said that the 2nd human being was an "eshah" (meaning taken from an "eesh") or was a "woman" because the 2nd person was taken from a "man," it was the 1st human who said that.  

Not even one time in Genesis chapter 2 does God tell those two humans they created to "be fruitful and multiply." Nothing is related to sexual reproduction until Genesis chapter 2 after the two humans eat of the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." That was the only thing the humans were told not to do. 

In chapter 3, when God (plural) asks, "Adam, where are you?" The verb in that question is plural and "adam," being a colletive noun, has the same spelling in Hebrew in both the singular and plural. "Adam" is like our words, "sheep" or "deer," which are spelled the same in singular or plural usage.  

Also, God NEVER calls/names the 2nd person "Eve." It is the first human who gives "her" that name. In Genesis 5, it is stated that God called both male and female human beings "adam."  

Oh, are you asking which version of the Holy Bible does the Gay Christian Network use? From what I can figure by checking out the site, at gaychristian.net, members of the network use a variety of translations. 

I myself use several versions of the Bible as well as a Hebrew version of the Hebrew Scriptures, called the Old Testament by modern "Christians" and two versions of the Greek Language New Testament, since most modern translations in English sort of base their translations on one of those two. The KJV used what was called the "Textus Receptus" as their basic source, which is also what the Roman Catholic Church's Latin Vulgate used.  

While the Hebrew Text Bible I have is called the "Masoretic Text," I often pretend that the vowel points in and/or around each of the Hebrew letters are not there and I look at the word as it was written in Hebrew Originally. Those "vowel points" did NOT exist yet at the time of Jesus. They were added by some Jews many years after he was on earth in human form.  

Can you prove that? After the Bible was officially complied as a collection of books in 397 AD, by the Eastern Orthodox people, there is no evidence that the churches even taught their parishoners to read from a Bible. 

I know for a fact here in Oklahoma that as a general rule members of Roman Catholic Churches were told NOT to own a Bible, let alone read one. It was not until the 1970s before they approved of church members owning a Bible and reading it on their own. 

Why were they told not to read the Bible? Because the RCC leaders were supposedly afraid that they would misinterpret what they read. And only an ordained minister in the RCC was allowed to interpret what they read in the Scriptures. Well, that meant that the Holy Spirit must not be involved with the church member's walk with the Lord or the fact that the RCC people were afraid that some church doctrines and traditions were NOT supported by what was written in the Bible. 

And, also, Jesus, Himself, did not approve of spiritual leaders being called "Father" or by any other title.  

One thing has been proven in this message board discussion about Wednesday's show, lots of people don't know when things are meant to be taken as literal and when some things are meant to be taken as figures of speech or metaphors by the Bibles authors. Jesus used parables, made up stories, a whole lot of times to teach a particular doctrine. They had truth in them; but, they were not actual literal events.  

There is no such thing as a practicing homosexual, just like there is no such thing as a practicing heterosexual, or even a practicing bisexual. 

Heterosexuals who are homophobic often refer to gays as "practicing homosexuals." That implies that one has to work at his sexual orientation to be a homosexual. But, those same heterosexuals will try to claim that they themselves are not "practicing heterosexuals;" they claim they were just born that way.  

Well, one does not have to practice the sexual orientation with which one was born. One CANNOT make his body experience a physiological sexual attraction toward another person, opposite gender or same gender; and that's because one's body experiences those physiological sexual attractions occasionally directed toward another close person close by without one even having to think about the person close by or even be thinking about sex.  

I have known about and personally known men who were exclusively heterosexual that were insulted when a homosexual man told them that they were not sexually attracted to them. Somehow, they had the idea that all homosexual men were sexually interested in all men. Some of those heterosexual men could not look at another woman without thinking about sex with her, especially if the woman was better than average looking. 

But, the gay man would tell them, in words to this effect, "Oh, I think that you are good looking; but, I have no interest in sexual activity with you at all. I don't have any sexual feelings for you."  

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, aka NARTH, is not reliable when it comes to their attempt prove that homosexuality is a disorder and/or that one can change his sexual orientation from being exclusively homosexual to being exclusively heterosexual.  

NARTH has some members who have questionable lives of their own and some even have children who are still homosexual. So, in the latter situation, that is proof that their program does NOT work! Oh, note that they are registered as a "dot com" (.com) outfit and not a "dot org" (.org) outfit. 

So, the cited NARTH document should and must not be considered valid. I noticed that they give a link to what is supposed to be their source of information; but, you cannot read that source unless you subscribe to the cited journal.  

I also noted that the study of domestic violence was supposedly done as a sampling in only four large metropolitan areas in the USA. I guess that was the same sampling research which declared that 4 per cent or less of the total population of the USA is exclusively homosexual in their sexual orientation.  

In the 21 plus years that I have been out of the proverbial "homosexual closet," and openly gay, I have noticed that domestic (long-term same-gender relationship) violence is really very rare with gay men who are just normal men in their mannerisms and public and/or with family behavior. I used to live in LA and I know the truth.  

Most of the religious holidays which are observed by "Christians" were originally pagan festival days.  

Due to an error in the KJV Bible translation, where the Greek Bible Text word, literally translated from Hebrew, for "Passover" was mistranslated as "Easter" in the English Bible, "Christians" have been calling what should be called "Passover or Resurrection Sunday" "Easter" instead. There is no word in the Bible that can be properly translated as "Easter."  

Most of those christianized pagan holidays originated in countries where the Roman Catholic Church was involved in various goverments taking over those areas of the world. The real truth is that while the RCC church leaders assumed that the pagans (which literally means "people from rural areas and communities) completely adopted the RCC's version of Christianity, the people really just substituted Catholic names for their continued non-christian religious practices and non-christian saints and/or gods.  

I was a Spanish Education major in College and I did study what was done in the name of Christianity in the countries where Spain had the approval of the RCC Pope to supposedly claim the "discovered" land for the Church and for God.  

And as an educated theologian, I know for a fact that the only special holy day, aka holiday, observed by the followers of Jesus the Christ was just called "Passover." And that was because it is stated in the New Testament books that Jesus was the Passover Lamb, the Passover meal, etc. But, instead of making the Passover event of  Jesus, aka The Christ, an annual thing; the Believers (the true Bible name now substituted by the pagan epithet "Christian") just celebrated Passover on the evening of the first day of the week, after they got off of work, if employed. And that get together on the evening of the first day of the week was a service with a pot-luck meal which included the LORD's Supper, aka communion or Eucharist, as a part of that meal. The meal was actually a service with during the meal having dinner speakers, too.  

Pedophile, in the original Greek language meant one, adult or minor person, who loved in a normal human friendship way, those who were boys.  

If a normal father loved, with respect, his son, he would be called a pedophile. 

The English language users have screwed up words and misused them out of their original context for a long time now.  

According to the Greek period times, a pederast (English translation) was one, adult or minor person, who had sexual activity with a boy. A boy who had sexual activity with a boy his own age would literally be a pederast.  The "ped" part of the word is from "pedo" meaning "boy," and the "erast" part of the word is from "eros," which is "love" expressed in a sexual manner, or just merely "sexual gratification," figuratively speaking. 

In the USA, we now call a "philanderer" one who uses women for his own benefit without any respect for the opposite sex. But, the word is from "philandros," which literally means "one who is fond of men" or "one who loves men in a normal human way." The Bible in the Greek text used a form of "philandros," when refering to a woman (wife) who loved her man (husband).  

The word "Christian" is used exactly 3 times in the Bible. It was NOT a name that the followers of Jesus during the 1st Century AD called each other. The called each other "Believers" and what they believed "The Way" because Jesus said He was The Way."  

Greek-speaking pagan residents of Antioch, Syria coined the word "Christian" to refer to those who preached about "The Anointed (One)" who was called Jesus. "Christos" (Anointed) was the Greek translation of the Hebrew word which we now call "Messiah" (oh, that means "Anointed," too).  

"Christian" is first used in the passive voice in the Book of Acts when Paul and Barnabus were preaching in Koine Greek about "The Christ" in Antioch. Later, when Paul is giving his testimony of how he persecuted those who believed in Jesus and even had them put to death and how he met the LORD (aka the Christ), the Roman official said, in words to this effect, "After telling me this, you think you have persuaded me to be Christian?"  

The only other time the word "Christian" appears in the Bible is in the Epistle "1st Peter." And in that context, Peter writes that if you are mockingly (being made fun of) called "Christian" and you are living right for Jesus the Christ, doing what Jesus preached, consider that an honor.  

But . . . . , Peter NEVER said "Call yourself a 'Christian'." 

You are right. It is literally stated in all Bible translations that Jesus the Christ is The Word, aka "The Word of God."  

None of the authors of the Bibles book ever state that any Bible is the word of God. In fact, there was no real Bible as we know it until 397 AD. Oh, all of the books in it existed before 97 AD; 300 years before the Bible collection was officially closed with no more books to be added to it. In around 404 AD, a pope in Rome wrote a papal bull (official paper) and he wrote "The Canon (of the Bible) is now closed." Because of what he wrote, Roman Catholic Church members often claim that their denomination put the Bible together. At the time the Bible was officially canonized in 397 AD, the church denomination which did the collecting just considered the church in Rome just to be like any individual church.