Are you ready to discover the biblical truth about homosexuality that cuts through confusion and brings real clarity? In this inspiring teaching, we guide you through Scripture with honesty and integrity to reveal what God actually says on this vital topic.

Many today find themselves torn between modern societal pressures and ancient biblical principles, searching for a path of genuine righteousness and clarity. This video bridges that divide, equipping you with solid, scriptural evidence and deep historical insight so you can confidently understand and defend biblical truth. We pull back the curtain on common misconceptions, delivering an educational powerhouse of a teaching that empowers your walk with both God and Jesus, and grounds your faith in unshakeable reality.

Whether you’re exploring this subject for the first time, wrestling with difficult questions, or seeking a deeper understanding of biblical teaching, this video will equip you with knowledge, clarity, and confidence. So come and join us as we learn the God Honest Truth about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

#homosexuality #LGBTQIA #lgbtqcommunity #Pride #pridemonth #queer #lesbian #GodHonestTruth

AI Research Reports

GHT Notes

Transcript

---

Teaching Introduction

What if one of the most controversial issues of our time isn’t controversial because the Bible is unclear, but because most people haven’t taken the time to examine what the Bible actually says? Homosexuality has become a defining topic in modern culture. But when cultural opinions collide with scripture, which one should have the final authority? If you’ve ever wondered whether the Bible actually addresses homosexuality or whether you have inherited assumptions instead of truth, then this teaching is for you. Don’t click away. Stay with us. Keep watching and discover the life-changing truth that sets hearts free. We’re about to examine the God-honest truth about homosexuality.

Video Start

All right. So this teaching is going to be all about homosexuality and scripture, what scripture has to say about it, as well as some historical information. We also got a bunch of statistical, medicinal, and epidemiological information coming your way as well regarding the subject. And near the end, there’s going to be a very, very powerful bit of information coming your way that may change the way you look at a certain book forever. Not going to let it out too soon. You have to wait for that. And it’s coming up. It made my jaw drop when I came across this. I have even went through and I verified the information. It is true. The information coming to you is true. And it really made my jaw drop. I thought I’d seen it all. Apparently not. But it’s coming your way in this particular teaching.

Now, what we’re going to bring to you tonight is going to be a lot of information, but there’s still a whole lot more that goes into it. We do advise everyone, like always, to go forward from here. Do your own research. Do additional research. Educate yourself even further. This is just a starting point. This is not the end-all be-all. This is just a starting point. So go forth, do your own research, do your own studies.

And if you want even more information than what you get here in this particular presentation, make sure you go to our website at www.godhonesttruth.com. Click on the post for this particular episode and there you’ll find the on-demand video. You’ll also find the draw slides that you can go through at your own pace. You’ll be able to find the AI research reports that we had done concerning this topic. Multiple ones there. We also have provided for you the notes that we have personally taken and given to you, our own personal notes. There’s also going to be a transcript up there if that is of benefit to you as well. And it’s all there on www.godhonesttruth.com.

Now, of course, we’ve also made it easier for you to go down below, look in the description, and we’ve placed a convenient link for you to click on down there, and that’ll take you directly to that article post on our website. So that link should be down there in the description. Whether you’re watching on an audio podcasting platform or a video platform, it should be down there all the same.

Now, I do want to give a very stern warning about the teaching coming up. This is going to be very involved. There’s going to be a lot of mature adult information coming your way. I don’t know who’s there with you, who you want to see this, but I just want you to know the subject matter that’s going to be spoken about during this teaching is of a very mature, very adult nature. This is not one of those subjects, one of those teachings where I’m going to hold back as far as the language goes. So some of the language is actually going to get very, very graphic. But I think it’s actually necessary to use certain specific language in order to convey the information that is going on. It’s not going to be profanity, but it is going to be very, very graphic in its detail.

So I just want to let you know that before we get started in case you have anyone there that you do want to take a certain amount of caution with as far as what they are able to see and also hear. But yeah, of course you know us—we’ll have the information up on the slides here. It’s all going to be text and no pictures, but still it’s going to be some very, very adult information, very mature information, very graphic information that’s going to be on your screen.

Road Map

So now let’s move on and look at the road map for this teaching that we’re going to be getting into. Some of the information that we’re going to be going over—some of the vast generalized areas. Anyways, first off, we’re going to start out with scripture and look at the scriptural perspective regarding the subject of homosexuality. From there, we’re going to look at some lessons that we can learn from Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as addressing some of the things that are repeatedly brought up about Sodom and Gomorrah.

As well, we’re going to take a brief overview of marriage and how that pertains to the subject matter at hand. We’re going to examine some of the seriousness of the situation of homosexuality from the scriptures, and it is very, very serious according to scriptures. We’re going to look at some common objections that are frequently brought up to defend certain positions. We’re then going to look at some of the secular evidence coming from the medical field, coming from statistics, et cetera, et cetera. So that is very good too, especially if you want some information to present to people that’s not of a religious or biblical nature.

We’re also going to be learning some of the plans of war that have been waged against the world. This is going to be one of those eye-opening shocking things. If you’ve never heard it before, you may not know there’s an actual road map and blueprints for waging war against those who may disagree with a certain position, but there is. And I’m going to show it to you black and white, as they say, in front of your face during that section. Then we’re going to look at some things that you may or may not know about the King James I of England or King James the Sixth of Scotland, whichever way you want to put it. This King James is the very King James that commissioned the King James translation. Stay tuned. Then we’re going to wrap everything up in a summary.

Terminology

So before we get started, let’s go ahead and clear up some terminology just to help clear up some confusion that may occur during the course of this teaching. Some today attempt to claim that there is a difference between the acts, the physical acts that scripture describes, and the modern concept of identity. However, scripture frequently identifies people according to their conduct, according to what they actually do. According to scripture, you are what you do. If you steal, you’re considered a thief. If you lie, you’re considered a liar. If a woman commits adultery, she is considered an adulteress. If a man commits adultery, he is considered an adulterer. If someone murders someone else, they are considered a murderer. You are what you do. You are defined by what you do, your actions frequently. And that is what we find in scripture.

When scripture uses moral categories such as thief, adulterer, idolator, homosexual, sodomite, or liar, these categories are based on conduct rather than an internal identity separate from conduct. You can feel however you want to feel, but it’s your actions that people are going to see and notice. Yeshua, in case you didn’t know, was tempted just like we are, but he never committed sin. He was tempted with sin, but he did not commit sin. That’s how we can say he is sinless. It wasn’t his temptations that he was identified by. Rather, it was his actions that he was identified by. A life of sinless actions led to a sinless and spotless sacrifice for our sins.

Temptation itself—and this is something that maybe you did or did not think about before, and if you disagree, that’s fine. Let us know in the comments below. Maybe we can get into a discussion about this—but temptation itself does not equal sin. When you’re tempted by something, that is not the breaking of the commandment. And remember, sin is the breaking of the Torah. Temptation is not breaking the Torah. It’s when you choose to do something against the Torah and you do it, that is sin, not temptation.

So then, by their fruits you shall know them. This is the words of Yeshua himself. Again, emphasizing the point that by their fruits, by their actions that you shall know them, not by their temptations. Now, for this presentation, just to clear everything up so we’re all on the same page, for this particular presentation, homosexual and sodomite will be defined and used as men who engage in any sexual acts with other men of any age. This also includes men who consort with both men and women. We’re not using all these various conflation words and confusion tactics. No. Homosexual or sodomite is men who have sex with men in any capacity, in any way, regardless of whether they are married to a woman or have a relationship with a woman or not. If they are involved with a man in any way sexually, that is going to fall under the term homosexual or sodomite for this particular presentation.

Also, in the research I was doing or additional research I was doing for this particular presentation this week, I came across these particular gems. Let’s just say. Anyways, this comes from the CDC and some of the information I was getting from them. But it says here:

“The term MSM often is used clinically to refer to sexual behavior alone, regardless of sexual orientation. For example, a person might identify as heterosexual but still be classified as a man who has sex with men. Sexual orientation is independent of gender identity.”

End quote. And this really illustrates the craziness and the confusion that these people want to put out there to confuse the issue, to try and defend what they want to defend, not necessarily defending the truth. They’re saying that a person can identify as heterosexual but still be classified as gay or homosexual. And that’s not true. It doesn’t matter what you identify as. It doesn’t matter what you feel. What you do, that’s what defines you. And if you are a man who has sex with other men in any capacity, that makes you a homosexual. Period. End of sentence. Done. We don’t need all this confusion stuff.

Scripture’s Sacred Stance

So now, moving on, looking at scripture’s stance on homosexuality and what the Bible actually says. And pretty much all of you know this already, so we’ll just go over it again for those of you who may not know, or may not know some of the verses we’re going to present. First things first, Genesis 1:28:

“And Elohim blessed them. And Elohim said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heaven, and over all creeping creatures on the earth.'”

So here we’re seeing that the very first command that was given to Adam and Eve were to be fruitful and increase and fill the earth. In a nutshell, go have babies. Go have lots of babies. Fill the earth. And of course, Adam and Eve couldn’t fill the earth on their own. Even with their long lifespans, they wouldn’t have been able to do that. But you get the general gist of it—they were to go forth and procreate, have other human beings who would then serve and worship Yahweh. Why do I bring this up? Well, if you’re not getting it already, here it is. Homosexuals cannot procreate.

Now, according to I think it’s Tolkien who actually said this particular phrase, but that evil cannot create. It can only destroy and infect that which has already been created. And this is something we see with homosexuality. And there’s no debate, no argument that homosexuals cannot reproduce. It’s obvious. Anyone who knows basic biology understands this. You can only do that with a man and a woman. That’s how you reproduce. So if we’re talking right now just strictly according to scripture, the command was to be fruitful and increase. Homosexuality would go in stark contrast against that.

But you may be saying, “What about people who don’t get married? What about them?” Well, we can see examples from scripture, many, many examples where it be a prophet or Messiah or someone else who did not get married and nothing is ever said against them. In fact, we know our Messiah was not married. And because he was a sinless, spotless lamb for our sacrifice, we know that it was not a sin for him to remain unmarried. Other times, people like Jeremiah—which I have the verse here on screen—the prophet Jeremiah was actually commanded by Yahweh to not get married. So it’s not a requirement that you get married and produce children.

But Adam and Eve were told this is a general—not how should I say it—it’s not a global command. So those of you who are and have the ability, it’s usually a good idea to produce more children to worship and serve Yahweh, but it’s not required. If you want to stay single, stay single and serve Yahweh. Paul himself said that he would rather people be like him and remain unmarried. But if you cannot contain the fire, as Paul puts it, then get married and save yourself that way. As far as you know, not getting into other forms of sin or not getting into certain forms of sexual sins. He said to get married so that you would not go into certain forms of sexual sins.

Going on, looking at Leviticus 18:22:

“And do not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

And then Leviticus 20:13:

“And a man who lies with a male as he lies with a woman. Both of them have done an abomination. They shall certainly be put to death. Their blood is upon them.”

Here we see that with marriage, homosexuality already contradicts that particular concept. We’ll look at that a little bit more in detail coming up. But it specifically says in scripture, “Do not commit homosexual acts. Do not lie with a man as you do with a woman.” It is an abomination. Now, what is abomination? Abomination means something that’s utterly detestable, utterly disgusting, unnatural, immoral, completely off the rails. Disgusting. That’s what abomination means.

Now, just to put it in further detail for those of you who are like me and who enjoy getting in the weeds and nerdy and all that, here is the Hebrew word, Strong’s H8441. That’s Strong’s H8441. And that’s the Hebrew word “toa” or “to eva.” And here, according to the outline of biblical usage, it defines it as a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in a ritual sense or in an ethical sense, meaning wicked. And then the Strong’s definition has it pretty much defined the same way: abhorrence, especially idolatry, abominable custom or thing, abomination. Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon—pretty much the exact same thing—abomination. You see his Hebrew lexicon. Pretty much the exact same thing. Abomination. As well as Jastrow’s dictionary of the Targums and Klein dictionary: abominable, shameful, idolatry, horrible deed. Then finally, your Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. It defines this “toa” as abhorrence, abomination, abomination, abhorrence, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera—something absolutely utterly disgusting and detestable. That’s what the Hebrew word “toa” or our American, I’m sorry, English word abomination means in context of scripture right here.

And scripture defines homosexuality as “toa.” It describes homosexuality as an abomination. It describes homosexuality as something that is utterly disgusting, utterly detestable. That kind of act. We go on and look at Deuteronomy 22:5:

“A woman does not wear that which pertains to a man, nor does a man put on a woman’s garment. For whoever does this is an abomination to Yahweh, your Elohim.”

Going even further than prohibiting homosexuality, scripture also prohibits men dressing like women, women dressing like men, and transgenderism as well. There are clearly defined boundaries. There are men and there are women and sex gender is the same thing. There is no difference between sex and gender. You are female and if you’re female in sex, you’re also female in gender. If you are male in sex, you are male in gender. No difference. They’re the same thing. And transgenderism is something that the Bible prohibits along with homosexuality.

Now, some people will bring up this verse to state that it was actually referring to military garb, talking about men who would dress up as women to try to avoid military service, whether it be a draft, being called up, stuff like that. It’s irrelevant. It still pertains to a man wearing a woman’s garment for any reason. To escape military duty, to look like a woman, to try to put themselves forth as a woman, it doesn’t matter. It is still prohibiting a man dressing up like a woman. And don’t get into the details of this too. It’s not saying that way back then it was saying men should not put on this particular robe in this particular style. No, this is actually one of those things that is culturally adaptable. It says women’s garment. It doesn’t say a specific shape or size or color. No. Whatever culture defines at that time as a woman’s garment, that’s what a man is not supposed to wear.

And whatever a man wears, that’s what a woman is not supposed to wear. Plain and simple. And yeah, culture changes a lot of times, or eventually changes anyways, but it’s still what a culture or what you define as a woman’s garment. That’s what you should not wear as a man. And as a man’s garment, that’s what you should not wear as a woman. Then we look at 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

“Because it’s not just the Tanakh that prohibits homosexuality and transgenderism. It is also spoken about negatively and prohibited in the Brit Hadasha, or the so-called New Testament as well. So let’s look at 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

‘And we know that the Torah is good if one uses it legitimately, knowing this, that the Torah is not laid down for a righteous being, but for the lawless and unruly, for the wicked and for the sinners, for the wrongdoers and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for those who for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else that is contrary to sound teaching, according to the esteemed good news of the blessed Elohim, which was entrusted to me.'”

Now here, this word that I just read in this translation, which is the Scriptures 2009, the word they use here is sodomite. However, other translations use other words, but they all mean the exact same content. Here in the ESV, it uses “those who practice homosexuality.” In the LSB, it uses the word “homosexuals.” In the Emphatic Diaglott, he uses the word “sodomize,” just like with the Scriptures 2009. And in the King James Version, remember that the King James Version says “those that defile themselves with mankind.”

So it’s all the exact same thing. Men who have sex with men, whether you define that as homosexuality, as sodomy, as defiling with mankind, et cetera, et cetera. It’s all the exact same concept.

Then we go on and we look at Acts 15:28-29. And this is going to be in connection with the verse we just read. Let’s look at that real quick one more time. The Torah is laid down for the lawless and the unruly, including the homosexuals and the sodomites. And then we look at Acts 15:28-29. And here, this is the Jerusalem council. And pay special attention to what they’re saying here. It says here in Acts 15:28-29:

“For it seemed good to the set-apart spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessities that you abstain from what is offered to idols and blood and what is strangled and whoring. If you keep yourselves from these, you shall do well. Be strong.”

Now certain translations, instead of “and whoring,” it actually translates it as sexual immorality or fornication, things like that. So what is something that could be included in sexual immorality or fornication? Well, that would be homosexuality. So when you first start, come to Yeshua, when you first get saved, these are the things that you are to immediately stop doing and then learn the rest as you go and hear the Torah. What’s one of the things that you should immediately stop doing? It’s sexual fornication, sexual immorality, including homosexuality. Put that together. So when you become a Christian, that’s one of the things you should absolutely drop from day one—your homosexual lifestyle choice.

Looking at Romans 1:26-27:

“Because of this, Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature. And likewise the men also having left natural relations with woman burned in their lust for one another. Men with men committing indecency and receiving back the reward which was due for their strain.”

This passage right here is contested sometimes as to what it actually means. So let’s go ahead and look at some things that we can definitely get out of this and definitely know for sure, especially that very last part where it says “Also the men having left natural relations with woman burn in their lust for one another for other men committing indecency men with men.” Clear, clear as a bell, clear as the daylight. Here it is, specifically and unambiguously with no debate, talking about homosexuality. It’s again prohibiting homosexuality, even in the first part right there, that’s what usually gets contested.

And if anyone has a particular way of interpreting this, by all means, let us know down in the comments so we can all learn from this. But right there where it says, “For even their women exchange natural relations for what is against nature.” Now, some people actually go forth and say this is a prohibition against lesbianism. And I can see why they would say that. What is against nature? Well, it’s natural to be with a man because you reproduce with a man if you’re a woman, right? But it doesn’t actually say women with women like it says down later, men with men. So that’s what kind of throws the monkey wrench into the whole interpretation process here.

One of the books I read a while back, which was called “Created to be His Helpmate,” it was by Debbie Pearl and it was written by a woman and it was written to women actually about submission and being the godly wife that you’re supposed to be and stuff like that. But she actually comments on this particular section right there. And she is the wife of a preacher. So they go over a lot of in-depth kind of stuff like this. But her interpretation that she put forth in this book was actually anal sex. Is that when it says, “For even their women exchange natural relations for what is against nature,” she put forth the interpretation that is speaking about anal sex, not lesbianism. So there’s also that as well.

Take it for what you will. Interpret it the way that you will. If you have one of, if you agree with one of those interpretations, let us know down in the comments. If you have a different interpretation even, let us know that as well. And it would also be interesting if you could back up your interpretation with evidence. What do you base this on? How did you come to this? Things like that. Is it the surrounding contemporary culture of the day, the word studies that you’ve done? What is it that led you to this particular interpretation? I’m going to leave that to you, but I just want you to know there is some varying interpretations as far as that one particular passage goes.

But after this particular passage, it goes on to say in Romans 1:28-32:

“And even as they did not think it worthwhile to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind to do what is improper, having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits, whisperers, slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless, who though they have, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practice such deserve death. Not only do they do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.”

That comes right after that first passage we read. And it’s all connected. It’s all one, talking about among other things homosexuals. And what does this passage we just read say about these homosexuals? It says they did not think it worthwhile to possess the knowledge of Elohim. We see that in our world today, especially. Then it goes on to say that Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind to do what is improper. Definitely descriptive of the homosexual movement nowadays—doing what is improper. If you’ve ever seen some sort of pride parade, even just still pictures, completely improper. And especially the things they try to do in front of children. Yeah. Picture definition of improper.

Then it goes on to say they had been filled with all unrighteousness, with whoring, wickedness, greed, evil. Exactly. So it’s just then there’s the end. Sorry. There’s the end. It says, “Though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practice such deserve death, not only do they do the same, but they also approve of those who practice them.” So not only are they committing homosexuality, even though they know it’s against scripture, they commit homosexuality and then they approve of others who also commit homosexuality. And it’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point. And scripture said all this two thousand years ago. It’s absolutely amazing.

And yeah, as you go through these scriptures, you just read them on your own. It just kind of jumps out at you when you’re, you know, studying subjects like this. You’ve got that subject in your mind and you’re thinking, “Wow, this actually says this and it’s lining up with what we see in today’s day and age.” It’s just absolutely amazing.

Then going on, looking at 1 Corinthians chapter 6:9-10:

“Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the reign of Elohim? Do not be deceived. Neither those who nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy of gain, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor swindlers shall inherit the reign of Elohim.”

But once again, prohibited still by the Brit Hadasha, and homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Right here on the page, there’s zero way to deny that. It’s right there. It says it black and white as it were. You’ve got to change your life around if you want to have eternal life. That includes leaving behind your homosexual lifestyle choices.

It goes on then in the very next verse in 1 Corinthians chapter 6:11 to say this:

“And such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were set apart or made holy, but you were declared right in the name of the master Yeshua and by the spirit of our Elohim.”

So you may have made these bad mistakes, these bad lifestyle choices in the past. But once you come to Yeshua, you become washed. You become set apart. You become made holy. You become declared right. When you leave all that behind, you are now different. You are no longer a homosexual. You are now a Christian. You are now a follower of Messiah. You’re now a Messianic as it were. You are no longer homosexual. Here Paul says, “as some of you were,” indicating past tense. So you may in the past have been an idolator, an adulterer, a homosexual, a thief, someone who was a drunkard, et cetera, et cetera. But you can change. You can be washed. You can be saved. You can enter the kingdom of heaven if you turn away from all that and leave it in your past. Become someone who is not that. Get your head on straight and get right with scripture because if you die as a homosexual, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That’s not my words. That’s the words of scripture right there, 1 Corinthians chapter 6.

Sodom and Gomorrah

So now let’s go ahead and look at the lessons we can learn from Sodom and Gomorrah. Everyone’s pretty familiar with the prohibitions in scripture. Just want to go ahead and read that for your remembrance to remind you of what it actually says as well as anyone who may not be familiar with it. But now we’re going to move on and look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and what we can actually learn, the various aspects and things that we can learn from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

First of all, we look at Genesis chapter 18 where the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, or at least starts out. But in Genesis 18:20-21:

“And Yahweh said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very heavy, I am going down now to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to me. And if not, I know.'”

So Yahweh didn’t just take someone’s word for what was going on. He went down there and wanted to see for himself to see if that outcry and what was going on was actually true, what had been reported to him.

Then we go on and look in Genesis 19:4-8:

“Before they laid down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every part, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us and let us know them.’ So Lot went out to them through the doorway and shut the door behind him and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do no evil. Look, please, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Please, let me bring them out to you and do to them as you wish. Only do no deed to these men because they have come under the shadow of my roof.'”

First of all, what’s something that we can definitely know from this particular passage? Well, the word “know” here is a Hebrew idiom meaning to have sex with. Now, it can also mean something like mental knowledge, stuff like that. But it’s all dependent on the context. For instance, we look in Genesis 4:1, and it says:

“Adam knew Hawah, or Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain and said, ‘I have gained a man, Yahweh.'”

In context, we can see that Adam knew Hawah, Adam knew Eve. That is talking about sex. Genesis 4:17:

“And Cain knew his wife and she conceived and bore Hanok.”

Again, context tells us that this word “knew” or “to know” means to have sex with because they conceived and bore Hanok and bore other children. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah here in Genesis chapter 19, we also know that too because Lot says or uses the same word “know” to reference his daughters who were still virgins. Now, they wouldn’t be virgins if they had already had sex. So obviously in context, this word “know” means to have sex with.

And the men of the city of Sodom are wanting to have homosexual sex with the men who came into Lot’s house. If the crowd had merely wanted to question or even meet the visitors that came in, then Lot offering his daughters to the mob would have made absolutely no sense. So obviously this mob is wanting to gang rape homosexually the men that came into Lot’s house.

Another thing to point out here too—it seems rather odd to us that Lot would offer his daughters to be gang raped instead of the guest under his roof. It’s very, very odd and it’s not something that we would do nowadays. And I would go so far as to say it’s not something that everyone would do back then as well. We have this story as well as another story in Judges, I think it is. But anyways, just because a story or an action is recorded does not mean it’s endorsed in scripture. So just know that this is not scripture endorsing the gang rape of virgin daughters. It’s not that at all.

So then it comes to the question of why would Lot do this? I mean, number one, well, just start out kind of simply and easily. Back then, taking care of guests within your domicile, within your residence, was a very, very serious thing and people tried to make sure they were comfortable, make sure they were fed and taken care of and make sure they were protected. So taking care of visitors was definitely something very important, and it would have been important to Lot as well. But does that really justify what he did or make sense of it, make us understand what he was trying to do with his daughters in place of the men? Not really sure. I don’t think so.

One thing that kind of struck me is that maybe Lot here is thinking of the lesser of two evils. That both are evil. The gang rape of these men homosexually would be evil, but the gang rape of his daughters would also be very evil. And maybe Lot was actually trying to put forth the lesser of two evils. Maybe that was it. Not really sure. I’m not going to try to rationalize and justify what Lot tried to do, but that’s what we get from scripture. It’s just some options to help you think about and try to come to your own understanding interpretation of what Lot was trying to do because scripture actually makes no description of what Lot was thinking, of his reasoning, or why he actually offered his daughters instead of letting the men come in or sending visitors out and stuff like that.

Lot knew that homosexuality was wrong and what they were doing was wrong in multiple aspects. The homosexuality aspect, the gang rape aspect, the protection or non-protection of his visitors, et cetera, et cetera. So from just right here, this particular story, the actual scene of the crime, we can learn that the men of Sodom, this mob of men, were wanting to have homosexual sex with the male angels that came into Lot’s house. We know that for sure. No doubt about it.

So then we go on and we look at Genesis chapter 19:8 and 14. And here, Lot—this is just a little bit of information to show you that Lot’s daughters, it talks about Lot’s daughters having husbands, but it also talks about Lot’s daughters not knowing men. And this is another aspect that would have made it even more evil than what most people understand too. But here Lot says in Genesis 19:8 and 14:

“Look, please, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Please, let me bring them out to you and do to them as you wish. Only do no deed to these men because they have come under the shadow of my roof. And Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law who had married his daughters and said, ‘Get up, get out of this place, for Yahweh is going to destroy this city.’ But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be as one joking.”

So why would they be referred to as sons-in-law if they weren’t married? Because I mean, they hadn’t consummated. His daughters were still virgins. So it’s obviously they weren’t married in our sense of the word because they hadn’t consummated. Well, back in biblical times, if you ever remember our teaching on adultery, is that back in scripture when a man and woman were betrothed, they were actually considered married at that point. And if another man comes up and has sex with the betrothed woman, even though the actual ceremony hasn’t taken place yet, even though the actual consummation hasn’t taken place yet, it was still considered adultery.

We get a good example of this from the story of Joseph and Mary before Yeshua was born in Matthew 1:18-19. It says:

“After his mother Miriam was engaged to Yoseph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant from the set-apart spirit. And Yoseph, her husband, being righteous and not wishing to make a show of her, had in mind to put her away secretly.”

So Joseph and Mary had not consummated yet. They had not even went through the actual ceremony yet. So they would not be married in what we would nowadays consider married. But in scriptural terms, they were still considered married pretty much. I mean, definitely to the point where if the woman had sex with someone else before the actual ceremony and consummation took place with her husband or to her betrothed, that was considered adultery according to scripture.

So that’s just a little bit about Lot’s daughters who had not known man yet. And like I said, it throws another aspect of evil into it because if they actually went through with taking Lot’s daughters and gang raped them, that would be a case of adultery at that point. And this is something Lot would have known. So again, that kind of throws another monkey wrench into the whole thinking of Lot and why would he do that and offer his daughters to this mob? It’s I don’t have a good answer. And if you have an interpretation, by all means, let us know. And let us know what you’re thinking. But yeah, it’s very, very strange and very, very hard to try and understand why Lot would do such a thing.

Moving on to Ezekiel 16:49-50:

“See, this was the crookedness of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters had pride, sufficiency of bread, and unconcerned ease. And she did not help the poor and needy, and they were haughty and did abomination before me. And I took them away when I saw it.”

This is Yahweh speaking here. And a lot of people who try to promote and put forth homosexuality will actually put forth this verse and others like it, saying that well, when the Bible describes the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, it doesn’t actually list homosexuality. So therefore we cannot conclude that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality. Therefore the Bible is not completely against homosexuality. That’s not what we get from the scripture.

Notice here at the very end where it says they were haughty and did abomination before me. What’s an abomination? Various things are considered to be an abomination. Eating shrimp is considered an abomination. Eating pork is considered an abomination. Homosexuality is considered an abomination. So yes, it actually does include homosexuality as under the umbrella term of abomination in the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. So yes, it does list homosexuality as one of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now, if you’re saying just because it doesn’t say the exact word homosexuality, then Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t guilty of that. Well, then you’re trying to say also that Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t guilty of trying to gang rape either. Are you now going to say that gang rape is okay? I’m not, because it’s all listed again under the word abomination. The biblical picture is not either or. It’s actually a portrait of a society that has become thoroughly corrupt in many, many areas, including the corruption of homosexuality.

And here down below, you can actually see some other translations of the way they actually translate it as well. With ESV, it says “abomination” as well as the LSB. When the BBE says “they did what was disgusting,” again, abomination. The Septuagint says “wrought iniquities.” The NSB says “did disgusting things,” again, abomination. The ISV says “committed detestable practices,” again, abomination. And it’s all an umbrella term for various things, including homosexuality.

So going on, looking at Jude 1:7:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them in a similar way to these, having given themselves over to whoring and gone after strange flesh are set forth as an example undergoing judicial punishment of everlasting fire.”

Again, going after strange flesh. That is a reference, a direct reference to number one, homosexuality, and then other things as well. But again, you cannot escape the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged and destroyed for many things, but one of those things was homosexuality. It was wrong back then. It continues to be wrong through the rest of the Tanakh. We can see already that the Brit Hadasha continues the prohibition against homosexuality. So even in the so-called New Testament, it’s still wrong to commit homosexuality.

Another thing too, this is kind of tangential, but here in Jude 1:7, it says that Sodom and Gomorrah were undergoing judicial punishment of everlasting fire. Is there anywhere on earth that’s still being burned with fire? No. No. This is an idiom that means an everlasting fire. They were destroyed with fire and that destruction is everlasting. That’s what it meant. It doesn’t mean that there’s still flames going on where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood. Nothing like that. It means that the destruction that happened by fire, that destruction is everlasting. Keep that in mind for other subjects as well.

Marriage

Then going on, taking a brief overlook at the concept of marriage, especially as it comes from scripture. Starting out with Genesis chapter 2:18 and 20-24:

“And Yahweh Elohim said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I am going to make a helper for him as his counterpart.’ So the man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field, but for the man there was not found a helper for him as his counterpart. So Yahweh Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. And the rib which Yahweh Elohim had taken from the man, he made into a woman. And he brought her to the man. And the man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called woman, because she was taken out of a man. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'”

So here we can see that Yahweh saw that it was not good for the man to be alone. So what does he do? He creates a helpmate, a helper for him. And what Yahweh creates is woman. How does this help him? Well, it helps him because Adam has one set of abilities and one set, one way of thinking, stuff like that. The woman that’s created has another set of abilities and another way of thinking, stuff like that. And they are to complement each other and fill in each other’s gaps that they don’t naturally have themselves. That is a helper and that is a helpmate, especially in the area of procreation. This is something that homosexuality can never accomplish. Yet another reason why homosexuality is wrong according to scripture.

We look again at Genesis 1:26-28:

“And Elohim said, ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping creatures that creep on the ground.’ And Elohim created the man in his image. In the image of Elohim, he created him. Male and female he created them. And Elohim blessed them. And Elohim said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase and fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over all creeping creatures on the earth.'”

Again, Yahweh told the man and woman to be fruitful and increase, fill the earth. Again, homosexuality is in direct contradiction to this. It does not fulfill the command. Can never fulfill the command. And that’s just the God-honest truth. Another way that homosexuality is contradiction to scriptural teaching.

Going on, looking at 1 Corinthians 11:8-12:

“For man is not from woman, but woman from man. For man also was not created for the woman, but woman for the man. Because of this, the woman also have authority on her head because of the messengers. However, man is not independent of woman, nor woman independent of man in the master. Whereas the woman was from the man, even so the man is also through the woman, but all are from Elohim.”

So once again, men were not created for women, but women were created for men. Women were created for men by Yahweh as we just saw back in the book of Genesis. It’s not men created for men. No, that would be antiscriptural. Here, scripture says the woman was created for the man. We already went over why. They complement each other, helping fill in the gaps that each one wouldn’t have on their own, and that cannot happen with homosexuality.

It goes on to say that the woman ought to have authority on her head. This gets into the issue of patriarchy. And we’ll get into some more verses here on this too. But from the very beginning, and we’ll show you here in just a moment, from the very beginning, patriarchy, the headship, the leadership of the man was from the very, very beginning. And it doesn’t matter if it was a monogamous relationship, the man was still the head. If it was a polygamous relationship with a man having more than one wife, the man was still the head, still the leader. This cannot ever happen in a homosexual relationship. You’ve got two men. It’s like a body with two heads and no support. It’s anti-biblical.

You’ve got lesbianism. You’ve got two women there with no head because there’s no man in the relationship. So again, they’re running around like a body without a head. And that is against scripture as well. Going back to another possible interpretation of the passage we read earlier about the women going into unnatural acts or leaving the natural for the unnatural. Leaving the natural process or the natural situation with a woman having a head, headship over her, to an unnatural relationship where she doesn’t have headship over her. So just add that into your interpretation of that particular passage as well.

So yeah, from 1 Corinthians chapter 11, we get that woman was created for man, not man for man. And that woman ought to have authority on her head where the man is the head of the family. And you can’t have two heads. And if you have two women in a relationship, that’s not a marriage in the first place. But number two, you don’t have headship or leadership there because you don’t have a man there to guide. Plain and simple. But if you don’t believe this whole patriarchy thing, let’s go ahead and look at some more verses to help substantiate that as well.

Look at Genesis 3:6-7:

“And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise. And she took of its fruit and ate. And she also gave to her husband with her and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.”

So here we see that Eve saw she was being deceived by the serpent. She saw that the tree was good for food. So she took some of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which they were forbidden from eating from. She took some of that fruit and she ate. Now, let’s stop right there. And if you look at this verse, stop right there at that point in this passage. What does it say happened once Eve took of the fruit and ate? It doesn’t record anything happening. It’s just like another day going on just like it always had. And it doesn’t actually describe how long a time it was before she went on to the next step of giving her husband the food. But eventually, however long that was, she eventually did give the fruit to her husband and he ate. Then what does it say happened? It says that then after Adam ate, then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked.

So it’s because of Adam’s failure as the leader of his family, as the head of his family. Because of his failure, their eyes were opened and sin entered the world. His failure as the patriarch of that family. Now we have sin. This is described even further in other passages. We look at Romans 5:12:

“For this reason, even as through one man sin did enter the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”

So here we see that it was through one man, Adam, that we just read that sin entered the world. Who was the first to break the commandment of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Well, it was Eve. But who was in charge at that time? Who was in the leadership position? Who was in the headship position? It was Adam. Therefore, because Adam failed, he failed in his leadership role. Through one man, sin did enter the world. Again, illustrating that patriarchy was from the very beginning, even before the fall.

Then we go on, look at Romans 5:15-17:

“But the favorable gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass many died, much more the favor of Elohim, and the gift in favor of the one man, Yeshua Messiah, overflowed to many. And the favorable gift is not as by one having sinned. For indeed the judgment was of one to condemnation, but the favorable gift of many trespasses unto righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one, death did reign through the one, much more those who receive the overflowing favor and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life through the one Yeshua Messiah.”

So there is hope through Yeshua. If you have made bad decisions, you have committed abominable acts in the past, you’ve had a lifestyle that you shouldn’t have had, that’s contrary to scripture, there is hope for you. You can be cleansed, you can be washed, you can be made holy. And that has happened time and time again throughout history. But there is hope for you.

Anyways, going back and looking at this, it also says that through one man’s trespass, many died. Again, reiterating that point that sin entered the world when Eve ate of the fruit. It was only when Adam ate and failed in his role as the patriarch, as the leader of his family, and then it affected everyone all the way down to our day and age.

Then going back and looking at Genesis 3:16:

“To the woman, he said, ‘I greatly increase your sorrow and your conception. Bring forth children in pain, and your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you.'”

Again, going back to the concept and the biblical concrete commandment and concept of patriarchy where the husband is the head of the wife, head of the family, the leader of the family. It says that your husband does rule over you. As a quick side note too, this is not a generalized thing where all men have authority over all women. No, that’s not it. If you’re a married man out there watching me right now, I’m married. I have headship and authority over my wife or my wives in my family, but I do not have authority over your wife. You are the one that has authority over your wife. Just want to clear that up.

If you’re out there and if someone is not my wife, they’re even unmarried, I still don’t have authority over them. I only have authority over those under my purview in my circle. So my wife or my wives and my children, not your wife, not your wives, not your children. Make sense? You are the head of your family. You are the leader of your family, not me. So this goes back to what we say repeatedly on streams: that whatever we say here, we put forth the best effort and as much as we can put forth the God-honest truth for you to help you make decisions on your own. But at the end of the day, the final decision for you and your family comes down to you as the patriarch, as the head of your family. No one else has authority over you and your family. Just Yeshua, not some pope, not some preacher, not some cardinal, nothing like that. It’s you as the head, as the man of your family.

So now going back and looking again at 1 Corinthians 11:3:

“And I wish you to know that the head of every man is the Messiah and the head of woman is the man and the head of Messiah is Elohim.”

Once again, reinforcing that whole concept of patriarchy where the man is the head of the family, the head of the woman and the children. This is not something that can happen in homosexual relationships because never does scripture ever say that the man or husband A is the head of husband B. No. Nothing like that. It’s always man and woman. And anything else is contradictory to scripture. When you have two homosexuals, you do not have a body because you only have two heads. There’s no foundation and there’s going to be that struggle between who’s going to be the authority. You have two women, two lesbians. You have no head because there’s no man in the relationship. Again, you have that struggle because there’s no one there to lead. There’s no head. Never says that woman A is the head of woman B. No, it says the head of woman is the man, her husband.

We go on, looking at Ephesians chapter 5:22-24:

“Wives, subject or submit yourselves to your own husbands as to the master because the husband is the head of the wife as also the Messiah is head of the assembly and he is savior of the body. But as the assembly is subject to Messiah, so also let the wives be to their husbands in every respect. Let the wives be to their own husbands in every respect.”

So again, scripture specifically stating wives submit to your husbands. Not husbands submit to your husband. Not wives submit to your wife. No, it’s the wife that submits to the husband. That’s the biblical setup.

Ephesians 5:25-28:

“Husbands, love your wives as Messiah also did love the assembly and gave himself for it in order to set it apart and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word in order to present it to himself a splendid assembly, not having spot or wrinkle or any of this sort, but that it might be set apart and blameless. In this way, husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”

Again, do you see anything in that passage or anywhere else in scripture about husbands love your husbands or wives love your wives? No. Because scripture condemns and prohibits homosexuality. And I don’t want to beat a dead horse. You’ve already heard everything before this. But yeah, there’s many other verses too that we could go into, but for sake of time, we won’t. But let it be known, we’ve already seen that scripture undebatably prohibits homosexuality.

Magnitude of the Matter

We’ll get into some of the objections here in a minute, but as you go through, as you read it, as the word speaks to you, it’s clear that scripture prohibits homosexuality. And to a very great degree, it’s a very ginormous magnitude in considering. And let’s take a moment and look at the magnitude of the matter at hand and the magnitude that scripture places on this particular subject.

When we look at the scriptural stance on homosexuality, there are some things that if you commit a sin, then you, if you steal something, then you pay back what you stole plus two fifths. If you commit other sins, you do certain sacrifices, et cetera, et cetera. There are various consequences for various sins, various breaking of certain commandments. There are some commandments that are extremely serious and extremely important to understand. And these particular commandments, if you break them, they are prescribed the death penalty for the punishment. These are things like idolatry and getting other people to engage in idolatry. The Bible prescribes the death penalty. Speaking sacrilegiously, blasphemously against God or cursing his name. That is the death penalty. Witchcraft, sorcery, mediums, breaking the Sabbath, speaking in the name of other gods or falsely claiming to speak for Yahweh. Premeditated murder, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, incest, bestiality, rape, seduction of a betrothed virgin. All of that, adultery included, all of that is so serious that the Bible prescribes the death penalty.

 

And every time it does, what does it say? The reason it’s prescribing this for is so that you can put the evil out of your midst, to get evil out of your midst. Another thing that is also prescribed the death penalty in scripture is homosexuality. Again, it says to get the evil out of your midst. So scripture unequivocally, undebatably condemns homosexuality as an evil, as an abomination.

 

Now, before we go too far, since we’re looking at the death penalty for all these things, including homosexuality, let’s go ahead and do a quick refresher on the death penalty and the way it’s carried out in scripture. I didn’t put it in the slides here, but you can find it in the notes. I’ve got a whole section there about the death penalty in scripture. But anyways, in order for the death penalty to be carried out, you need a Sanhedrin. So in other words, we need a theocracy under Yahweh, not a theocracy under some false fairy tale god like Buddha or Allah. We have to have a theocracy under Yahweh with a Sanhedrin set up, the righteous judges—or as righteous as can be, anyways—judges there.

 

Then you also got to have two or three witnesses because the matter cannot be established on one witness. It has to be established on at least two or three witnesses. That’s to go before the judges, the Sanhedrin. It’s got to be the case be presented, the evidence put forth. And if there are false witnesses put forth, then those witnesses, once they’re found out to be false, are to be given what they were seeking for the accused. If they were seeking the death penalty for the accused and they found out to be a false witness, they got the death penalty for being that false witness.

 

So yeah, you’ve got this whole process that has to go and be in order before you can actually carry out the death penalty according to scripture. So now you may be asking, in today’s day and age, okay, well all these things here you got listed, why not go out and kill everyone who’s doing this? Cause there’s a lot of people doing all these. And you’re right, there’s a lot of people doing all these. But we do not live in a theocracy right now. And as such, we will not be able to go through the process and do the things that scripture requires for the death penalty to be carried out according to scripture. If we did go out, take matters into our own hands, and circumvent the path that scripture lays out, we would actually be going contrary to scripture ourselves.

 

Now, if a theocracy is ever set up in our lifetimes, we know it’s going to be at the end of days, but if it’s ever set up in our lifetimes, that’s another discussion. Definitely.

 

Popular Protests

 

So now, moving on, we’re not even halfway done yet, but hang on, we’re still going. Moving on, looking at some popular objections or some common objections to scripture, to Christianity, to the prohibition against the Bible condemning homosexuality, et cetera, et cetera.

 

Born Gay

 

Number one, and you’ve probably heard this a lot, is that homosexuals are just, they’re born gay. That’s the way they are. They can’t help it. Everyone is born a certain way, and they are just born gay, right? Let’s examine that. Let’s think about that real quick. If you’re born a certain way, that means that it’s in your genes. It’s in your DNA, things like that. So is that true for homosexuality? Well, let’s look at genetically identical twins. They have actually done studies and you can go out and find examples of this in real life. Genetically identical twins where they have the exact same DNA. One of them is gay, the other’s not. So is it actually genetic? Are they actually born gay? Nope, not at all. That’s one piece of evidence against that particular argument.

 

Another one was where there is no past family history of homosexuality. For instance, if you have a girl, well, obviously other people in your family in your lineage have had girls before. You had a boy, same thing. If you had a child with red hair or blue eyes or something like that, it’s because it’s in their genes and it was somewhere in your family lineage. Well, people who have had zero history of homosexuality, their child suddenly turns out to be gay. How do you explain that? Because there’s no genetic history, how can you even say that they were born gay? That’s in their genes. It’s not true. So another piece of evidence against this whole born gay nonsense.

 

No genetic or DNA links have been found for homosexuality. And that’s a God-honest fact. They have done all sorts of mapping of the human genome. They’ve looked at the DNA. They’ve looked at all this other stuff. They found what, you know, would make you things like diseased or have certain sicknesses, your hair color, et cetera, et cetera. But zero, not one single gene has ever been found and ever will be found for homosexuality. And that’s because it’s not genetic. They’re not born that way.

 

If people are born gay, they wouldn’t stop or they won’t have the ability to stop being gay either. Take for instance, if you’re someone who is born black and a preacher comes up to you and says, “Son, it’s a sin to be black. I want you to get right and get white.” And the guy, the black guy says, “Oh, I’m such a sinner. I fall on my knees and turn everything around.” Is he going to stop being black? No. He can’t do that because being a certain skin color is not a sin. It has nothing. Salvation has nothing to do with skin color or your ethnicity or anything like that. But a black guy cannot stop being black. A white guy cannot stop being white, et cetera, et cetera. It’s because they were born that way. It’s actually in their genes and it can be proven.

 

However, on the reverse side, if someone is gay, they can stop being gay. And lots and lots of people have gotten their lives right and stopped being gay. They’ve turned around. They have actually turned around and gotten married to women and had children and had fulfilling, happy lives. Why can they do that when a black man can’t stop being black, but a gay man can stop being gay? It is because being gay, being homosexual, is a choice. It is not genetic. It’s not something you’re born as. So here are a bunch of pieces of evidence for why no one is born gay, but there’s other reasons as well. If you have additional reasons, by all means, let us know. Send them to us. Put it down in the comments. We would love to add it to the notes and for the presentation that we do again in a few years because we revisit these every so often. But yeah, there are multiple reasons why people are not born gay.

 

Behind Closed Doors, What’s It Matter?

 

Another objection: if it doesn’t hurt anyone, if it’s behind closed doors, then what does it matter? It doesn’t affect you. Why should you be concerned with what happens behind someone’s closed door? Well, here’s the problem: it doesn’t stay behind closed doors. If you look at pride parades and the corruption of the children they do through pride parades, you look at the transvestite readings they do in schools nowadays and the drag shows they do in schools, it’s not staying behind closed doors. You can’t even start with that because it’s out in the public. They want it out in the public. They want it out in your face. And we’ll look at that when we look at the blueprints here in just a moment, coming up in another section. But it doesn’t stay behind closed doors.

 

It hurts people when these things infringe on religious beliefs. When people are forced to bake cakes or take photos or any other thing against their own beliefs. We’ve heard all these stories where the person who baked cakes refused to do so for a gay wedding and they come against him with everything they had to put him out of the business, to ruin his life. But on the flip side, if a gay baker refused to do a cake for a natural wedding, or what they call a heterosexual wedding, then no one would come against them. In fact, if someone tried to come against them, they would be run out of town. So yeah, it does hurt people when their religious beliefs are oppressed, when they are forced to do something they don’t want to do. That is one reason why it hurts people.

 

Even though you may claim that’s behind closed doors, it’s really not. It hurts people when free speech is oppressed to protect the ideology. Think about this: when you start talking about homosexuality—and this happened to me just this period when I was doing the research here—I was on Reddit and people had put stuff up about homosexuality and I come and put up there the actual scriptural stance that homosexuality was an abomination and here are some of the reasons why it’s prohibited, why it’s a sin, et cetera, et cetera. Removed, done. But you put up anything that was pro-homosexual, nothing was ever said about that. So free speech gets oppressed in this whole world of nowadays of pro-homosexuality. You cannot say anything against it or else you are prosecuted. You are jailed. Sometimes you are shouted down. You can’t have a conversation about this topic if you are not pro-homosexual.

 

They’ll put you up on TV, on talk shows, on movies, on billboards, on advertisements, everything else. If you are pro-homosexual. But it doesn’t matter what you say. If you are anti-homosexual, if you’re like we are, of the stance of “Well, homosexuality is a sin according to scripture,” you don’t even use derogatory slang. You don’t use profanity, nothing like that. It doesn’t matter. They’re still going to shut you down. They’re still going to oppress your free speech because you’re not on their side. You’re not pro-homosexual. So free speech gets censored and oppressed. It’s this—it doesn’t stay behind closed doors. That’s how it hurts people again because free speech gets oppressed and they want to enforce an echo chamber in order to perpetuate their ideology, to perpetuate what they want to perpetuate. They’re not after the truth and that’s why they oppress free speech.

 

It hurts people when children don’t get the benefit of a mother and a father like they deserve. And yes, all children deserve a mother and a father, not two mothers alone, not two fathers. Children deserve a mother and a father. They need to see what it is to be a man, what to expect from a man. They need to see what it is to be a woman, what to expect from a woman. It’s out of balance when a child does not get the benefit of a mother and a father.

 

A while back I watched a video of this woman who she’s grown now, but she was actually raised by two lesbians and she’s married now to a man with kids of her own. And she says that looking back at her childhood, she really wish she would have had that benefit of a father. Now, she doesn’t hate the lesbians who raised her, but she says that she really wish she would have had that benefit of a father now that she sees her children getting the benefit of a mother and a father. It’s impactful.

 

But yeah, it doesn’t stay behind closed doors. When this ideology comes out and it affects children to where they do not get the benefit of a mother and father, yeah, that’s another way it hurts people.

 

It hurts people when theology is twisted, distorted, and corrupted in order to fit the narrative. And we’ll look at that here in just a moment too. But theology, especially nowadays, gets completely twisted and distorted and corrupted to put forth this idea that homosexuality is okay, especially according to scripture. They will take words and they will twist them. They will make them out to be concepts that the Bible didn’t even put forth. We’ll look at some of that here in just a moment. They’ll even try to twist the life of Jesus, the life of Yeshua, to say that it’s okay to be homosexual according to scripture. We’ll look at that here in just a moment too. But yeah, it doesn’t stay behind closed doors. It is affecting the theology. It’s affecting doctrine. And it’s been twisted. That’s why, you know, it affects other people. It doesn’t stay behind closed doors.

 

Sorry, I’m just trying not to, trying to keep it professional, I guess you could say, and educational, not to get animated or emotional about it. So yeah.

 

Not In The Bible Until 1946

 

Anyways, now moving on into another objection real quick. Homosexuality wasn’t even in the Bible until 1949, or 1946, whatever it is. So obviously the Bible wasn’t condemning homosexuality before it was put in there in 1946. Was that actually true? Is that a probable objection? This is one of the newer ones that I’ve come across, this particular objection. So is it true? Was homosexuality not in the Bible until 1946? Well, yes and no. The actual word homosexuality was not in there. It doesn’t mean the concept wasn’t in there. It just means the actual English word was not in there. This is a fallacy known as radical linguistic determinism.

 

I actually had to learn this particular fallacy coming up this week. But while language absolutely changes how humans perceive and categorize the world, radical linguistic determinism incorrectly claims that language literally creates physical reality. For instance, saying that homosexuality wasn’t in the Bible until 1946 is trying to make the claim that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality until 1946. That’s just not true.

 

Imagine you are walking through a dense, unexplored rainforest and you trip over a heavy, jagged piece of metallic rock that has never been documented by science. You don’t have a name for it yet. And if someone argues that the rock didn’t exist until you went home, wrote a research paper, and named it Trippium, they are definitely committing this fallacy. The rock was heavy and solid long before you tripped over it, long before you stubbed your toe on it. And same thing with homosexuality. The claim is that homosexuality didn’t exist until the late nineteenth century, which is when the word homosexuality was actually coined, and then it was included in one of the first translations to include it, which was the RSV in 1946.

 

But these people who say this are confusing the coining of the English word homosexual with the actual existence of same-sex behavior, which has been practiced for millennia. The modern social identity and terminology might be relatively new, but the behavioral reality is as old as humanity itself. The English translations of scripture may not have had the actual word homosexuality in it until 1946, but that’s the way language works. English wasn’t even a thing when scripture was originally written down. So obviously it couldn’t have had the exact word, but the concept was there regardless. In the original Hebrew, the concept of homosexuality was there and strictly forbidden. In the Greek, the word may not have been there for homosexuality, but the concept was definitely there for homosexuality and was strictly forbidden in the Greek as well. So don’t start with this nonsense about the actual word not being in the Bible until 1946. The concept was still there and it was strictly forbidden in the Bible long before, millennia before 1946.

 

So going on to look at some of the history and the beginnings of this particular misconception about homosexuality and scripture. This is an article titled “How a Bible Error Changed History and Turned Gays into Pariahs.” That’s the title of the article. It says here, this goes on the history of this whole objection a little bit on it. Anyways, it says here, quote:

 

“Ed Oxford and Kathy Baldock have been dedicated to researching the roots of anti-gay theology. Oxford states, ‘We went to Leviticus 18:22 and the translator is translating it for me word for word.’ In the English where it says, ‘Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination.’ The German version says, ‘Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.’ Then we went to Leviticus 20:13. Same thing, young boys. So we went to First Corinthians to see how they translated our original Greek word and instead of homosexuals it said boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God. Further from there Oxford shares: I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. They use the word knabe and schandel. Knabe is boy, schandel is molester.'”

 

End quote. So here is pretty much the root of this whole fallacious objection about the word homosexual not being in the translations until 1946. This man, these researchers, I guess the article starts out saying that they have been dedicated to researching the root of anti-gay theology, as if it started sometime recently. Okay, there’s an error right there. Starting out, you can see how they’re already trying to incorrectly and falsely frame the situation or frame the argument. The prohibition against homosexuality was long before the twentieth century, long before the nineteenth century, long before King James, long before the Greek. It’s not a recent thing. The prohibition against homosexuality has been going on from the scriptures for millennia.

 

They go on to state that they went and looked at the German translations, the German versions. I’m going to stop right there. What is, for those of you, some of you probably this is already clicking in your mind, but for those of you who don’t automatically register this, what is the error they’re committing right here? Okay, here it is in a nutshell. The Bible was not written in German. The original scriptures were not penned down in German. That’s the fallacy that is causing their whole misunderstanding. And I actually don’t think it’s a misunderstanding on their part. They’re actually twisting it here to try and make their case. And it’s evil. It’s corruption. What they’re doing. But the Bible was not penned down in German.

 

It was originally written, the Tanakh in Hebrew and then it was translated into Greek, the Septuagint. And then as far as we know, the Brit Hadasha was written in Greek originally because the oldest surviving copies we have are in Greek. So therefore, that’s what leads us to the conclusion that the Brit Hadasha was originally written in Greek. German didn’t come about until many, many, many, many, many, many, many centuries, hundreds of years later. So by them going to the German is creating a false foundation to begin with. They should have went back to the original Hebrew. And you look at Hebrew in Leviticus 18, I’m sorry, Leviticus 18:22 various places like that you see that the word for boy is not there. But they’re claiming that the word for boy is in the German and that’s what they’re basing this entire thing on. This whole word knabe and schnodder that the German is saying, this is actually saying boy molester, not to grown homosexuals. But is that true?

 

Well, let’s go on and look at this. This is a dictionary, a German dictionary from 1796, long before the word homosexual was ever coined to be a one-word description of the acts that are committed. Long before the RSV put the word homosexual in their translation in 1946. Here in this German translation, the root “nabe,” it says here, “In the broadest sense, any young male person, even a young man, that is a male person until shortly after entering manhood. A meaning now obsolete in high German, in which it still appears several times in the German Bible. In a jocular sense, one still says an old boy, an altern.”

 

So again, this base word, the word boy is in German, used for all age groups, not just German back then. It was used in the broadest sense or in certain senses as a young male person but not always. Again, it depends on the context, and this is where they’re making or one of the areas where they’re making an error.

 

It goes on, and this is the full word there that they were doing their whole foundation on. This whole word “nabe schandler,” no, I’m going to say it again. Knabe schandler, if I’m pronouncing that correctly. I don’t speak German, but anyways, quote:

 

“The boy defiler. Nabe and schandler, genative plural nominative singular, same as the nominative singular. A person of the male sex who defiles boys, and in a broader sense defiles other male persons, that is abuses them for the satisfaction of lust. Hence the noun knabe and skanderei, the act of boy defiling and pederasty sodomy, and the adjective and adverb knabe and skandisch pertaining to boy defiling sodomites et cetera, et cetera.”

 

But again, another use of this word is “defiles other male persons.” So it also applies, again in context. It can also mean defiling other male persons of the same age, older man, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn’t have to mean just young boys. That’s where these so-called professors made one of their errors—is thinking that the German, which again is not the original language of the scriptures anyways, but that this German meant just young boys. That’s not true. Back then when Luther and these German translations, they were looking at, when they did their translation into German, they didn’t have a singular word like we do nowadays—homosexual—to describe the act. In fact, they used this word “nabe schandler” or “knabe schandler” to describe homosexuality. And that’s homosexuality, male to male, with any age group. Not old to young, not young to old, not old to old. It’s for any age group. That’s just the truth of the matter.

 

And here’s some of the notes I had on this particular subject or this particular concept here. Analyzing words purely by their component parts can be misleading as idioms and cultural definitions change over time, and they have. We saw that words like worship changed from the original King James English to the word worship we have nowadays. And this word here in German did the same thing. And it led to the error that these professors made in their assumption that started this whole nonsense about homosexuality not being in the Bible until 1946.

 

“Knabe schandler” was used back then as a synonym for a sodomite, for a buggerer, for a homosexual. So “knabe schandler” meant homosexual, pure and simple. While “knabe schandler” explicitly contains the root for boy, it historically functioned as a broad idiomatic term for any man engaging in same-sex intercourse. It was used interchangeably with sodomite for centuries before the modern precise distinction between adult homosexuality and child abuse was codified in the language. And that’s an important point right there. It’s only been recently that we’ve tried to separate the terms.

 

Back in the Roman culture, it was a part of Roman culture for a man in authority to take, as it were, to have sex with anyone under his purview. That included men as well. And that was homosexual, pure and through. And it was wrong. It was condemned according to scripture. But nowadays we want to try and make a distinction between that, which is referred to nowadays as pederasty, and homosexuality, which there is no distinction. It’s a distinction without a difference anyways. But that’s just the way Roman culture was. But before we started separating it, and that’s been a recent development, before we tried to separate these various concepts for millennia, it was all the same thing. It was a male with male. That’s homosexuality. Doesn’t matter the age. Doesn’t matter the situation. It’s all condemned. It’s all prohibited. And that’s just the God-honest truth.

 

To Luther and back then, those who were writing these German translations, to Luther and his contemporaries, “knabe schandler,” it was the standard available vernacular term for someone committing the act of sodomy with any male. That’s what they used to describe the act of homosexuality—male with male. It doesn’t matter about love. It doesn’t matter about age distinction. No, they use this word for our word homosexual. So again, even in the German, it’s still saying homosexuality is forbidden. It’s wrong.

 

Now, if you want to verify this, if you want to check what I’m saying, go to my notes that we put up there for you to view. And here we actually extracted the German from this particular German dictionary. We extracted the German text. We had it translated and then we put the link down there where you can go see the actual scan for yourself if you don’t even believe that or want to go off that. So we’ve got all this information there for you to go and verify for yourself. Yeah. And even in the German, it’s still condemning and prohibiting homosexuality just like the original Hebrew did, just like the Greek did in the Brit Hadasha. It’s all condemned by scripture.

 

So some of the errors that these professors or these researchers made. Number one, this is obviously confirmation bias and intentionally twisting the research and what they were finding in order to find what they wanted to find, in order to prove what they wanted to prove. They were, for lack of a better term, exegesis-ing instead of exegeting and just circular reasoning through and through. The German word for “knabe schandler” refers to any homosexual interaction, whether it be with young boys or even with older boys, up to and including full-grown men and even elderly men.

 

The German translation isn’t the original, like we said before, and it isn’t the standard. The original is the standard. Even if the German translation states young boys and only means males under the age of twelve—even though it doesn’t—it would still be irrelevant because the Hebrew is the original that we should trace back all the way to the roots, not a German translation produced many millennia after the Hebrew text was first written down. The English word homosexual may be modern, but the core moral teaching and the prohibition against homosexuality exist in the earliest manuscripts and translations using older phrases and terms. Biblical injunctions against same-sex behavior predate the English word by millennia. It even predates the German word by millennia. Homosexual refers to any male-to-male unnatural acts regardless of the age of either participant.

 

And the article that we just quoted from, talking about the research of those two researchers, the article states that the word using the word homosexual in the 1946 RSV translation became the fuel for the anti-gay movement, which is absolutely false. As if no one opposed homosexuality before 1946, God Almighty and every single Bible-following Christian since the creation of the world has disagreed with homosexuality and has instead agreed with and followed God. No way around it. Homosexuality may be the English word that was first put in the RSV in 1946, but the concept, the act of homosexuality has been forbidden ever since the creation of the world. There’s no way around it.

 

Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality

 

Another objection. This is one I’ve seen fairly recently, but it bears examining. But this objection goes something to the effect of Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Therefore, Jesus was just all about love and people and everything else is okay because Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Okay. Is that true? Well, let’s look at that real quick. It’s put forth as though not saying anything is given a nod and making that thing okay. It’s an argument from silence as it were. But just to state it directly, no. Jesus never said anything directly or specifically about homosexuality. But in that way, that statement is true.

 

However, notice that Jesus did say that he did not come to abolish the law. The law contains prohibition against homosexuality. So if you’re going off what Jesus did say, remember he said he did not come to abolish the law. He did not come to abolish the Torah. And the law, the Torah prohibits homosexuality. If you say that the Old Testament though was done away with and that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuals, then in order to have a chance at rationalizing homosexuality in the Bible, you’d also have to cut out the writings of Paul after Jesus as well. And at that point, what do you have left? I mean, it’s not even a Thomas Jefferson Bible at that point. And that was pretty bad. But you don’t have anything left. And if you don’t have a Bible left, then how can you even call yourself a Christian? Because you have no standard to go off on. You’re just making it up as you go. And how is that a Christian? How is that Christianity? How is that being Messianic or whichever term you want to use? You don’t.

 

And the thing is Torah has not been done away with. Homosexuality is condemned. It doesn’t matter whether Jesus said anything about it or not. And actually the silence from Jesus specifically about homosexuality is actually evidence against homosexuality. And we’ll look at that in just a moment. However, Jesus did address the topic of marriage and sexuality by stating what marriage is. He’s stating what it is not. Jesus referenced marriage when he was talking to the Pharisees about divorce. He said that in the beginning Yahweh created them male and female. That was marriage. So by stating what marriage is, he is by implication stating what marriage is not.

 

When he states that marriage is between men and women, he’s emphatically and I guess you could say implicitly stating and confirming that marriage is not between men and men or women and women. So now the argument from silence. A lot of times you get the impression that argument from silence is a bad thing, is that it’s a fallacy. But it can be, and a lot of times it is. But sometimes argument from silence is actually a good thing and it’s actually a valid form of logic and to be able to derive stuff from various things that you examine.

 

Let’s take a look at this particular concept here about Jesus not saying anything specifically and directly about homosexuality. We’ve been going through this series on the Shabbat lately. We’ve got a whole series going, still going. And for those of you who haven’t seen it, please go check it out. Join us for this study on Shabbat. But one thing we looked at in our examination of Shabbat and the Brit Hadasha is that we saw that in the Brit Hadasha there was no conflict between Yeshua and the Pharisees over which day of the week the Shabbat was.

 

We see that the seventh day Shabbat was established and commanded in the Tanakh, the so-called Old Testament. We know it was a serious thing and that it requires the death penalty for anyone breaking Shabbat. That’s the way it was established in the Tanakh. So then we go into the Brit Hadasha and any kind of change would have required a proclamation from someone with the appropriate authority. But we don’t see that. We don’t see anyone with authority, whether it be Yeshua, which would have had the authority presumably. We don’t see Paul changing it. We don’t see John or Peter or anyone else changing it. It’s just non-existent in the Brit Hadasha that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day. There is a silence on a change of day for the Sabbath in the Brit Hadasha, or the so-called New Testament.

 

So in this context, since it’s already established in the Tanakh and there’s silence on a change of day in the Brit Hadasha, we can use the argument from silence to establish and prove that since there was no mention of a change then there is no change. Silence confirms the continuation of an already established command and concretely proves that there is no change in doctrine on the Sabbath day. It’s still the seventh day Sabbath. In fact, had we seen a change, or had there been an actual change of the day of the week as to what the Sabbath was, there would have been a great uproar and that would have definitely been recorded. But we don’t see any conflict about which day of the week the Sabbath is on.

 

Now, let’s take that that we just examined, that argument from silence, and apply it to this whole objection about, well, Jesus never said anything specifically and directly about homosexuality. Well, homosexuality was strictly condemned and forbidden in the Tanakh. No debate about it. It was condemned and prohibited. Again, a change would have required a proclamation from someone with the appropriate authority—Yahweh, Yeshua. Maybe you would say some of the apostles after the time of Yeshua would have had the authority. We don’t see anyone changing the prohibition. And that’s what would have had to have happened in order for homosexuality to now be okay with scripture. Someone with authority would have had to have changed that doctrine. And we do not see that. There is no change in doctrine. There’s no statement about homosexuality now being okay. There’s a silence on the change of prohibition of homosexuality in the Brit Hadasha.

 

But once again, the silence confirms the continuation of an already established command and concretely proves that there was no change in this doctrine either. So it’s the silence that proves that homosexuality is still forbidden. Even in the Brit Hadasha, even though Jesus didn’t say anything about it, it’s still prohibited and the silence proves it. Any perceived major shifts in practice, such as the doing away with the Torah, the allowance of homosexuality, the change in the Sabbath, it would have triggered a massive heated debate in scripture and you would have seen it.

 

In fact, we look at the example of Paul. There were false witnesses that came against Paul and said that he was doing away and teaching against the Torah. Okay. Well, Paul wanted to correct this. So he went forth and there’s plenty of writings about how Paul does not teach against the Torah. There’s plenty to show that Paul exemplified this because he even took a Nazarite vow to prove that he kept the Torah. If there had been a major change in various subjects, like the doing away with the Torah, changing of the day of the week for the Sabbath to making homosexuality something okay, now there would have been something in scripture about it. And there’s nothing. There’s nothing about a change in any of these. So once again, the silence about a change only proves that the prohibition still stands.

 

Secular Statistics

 

So now moving on, let’s look at some secular information that comes from outside of scripture. We’ve got the scriptural foundation and we know that scripture unequivocally condemns and prohibits homosexuality. So now what about some outside information to back this up or to see what it says? Maybe even in contradiction to what the Bible says. Well, there’s no contradiction to the Bible, but you get what I’m saying. This is going to be rather shocking for some of you who have never seen some of this. And it goes against the popular narrative nowadays in our common culture. So get ready for this. And again, all the information and the links are there in the notes if you want to go look at it for yourself and verify what’s being said and also for additional information as well.

 

But this comes from the National Library of Medicine and that comes from the National Institute of Health. This is definitely not a religious organization. That’s why I put it up here. And it says here, quote:

 

“Compared to insertive vaginal sex, the per act risk of HIV acquisition is estimated to be 35 times higher for receptive anal sex and 2.8 times higher for insertive anal sex.”

 

End quote. So just to break this down for you real quick, and again, this is where it’s going to get really graphic, and I warned you ahead of time, but it’s time for that. Now what it’s saying here is that homosexuals, the person that is the pin cushion in this scenario, the receptive man is thirty-five times as likely to contract HIV as someone who is in a natural setup. And this would be in a natural setup, the woman will be the one receiving the act. The male receiver is thirty-five times as likely to get HIV as a woman would be in natural sex. In addition, the homosexual man who is giving the sexual act, who is the one penetrating the other one, is two point eight times as likely to get HIV as a man who is performing sex, vaginal sex on a woman.

 

So again, homosexuality is detrimental to people and you’re much more likely to get STDs, especially HIV, from anal sex, from homosexuality, than you are if you are in a natural heterosexual union. And the facts bear it out. This comes, this is not a religious organization. This is not someone who is biased against homosexuality. In fact, as we read earlier, the CDC was trying to conflate and confuse the issue earlier to prop up their stance, which is probably pro-homosexual. But they’re putting out the facts here. And these facts state that it’s much more detrimental to be homosexual and to engage in homosexual acts than it is to engage in natural acts. And it’s straight from the horse’s mouth, the CDC, the National Institute of Health in this particular case.

 

But going on, looking at this comes from sciencedirect.com and they say here, quote:

 

“Our findings show that the high probability of transmission per act through receptive anal intercourse has a central role in explaining the disproportionate disease burden in homosexuals. HIV can be transmitted through large homosexual networks at great speed. Molecular epidemiological data show substantial clustering of HIV infections in homosexual networks and higher rates of dual variant and multiple variant HIV infection in homosexuals than in heterosexual people in the same populations.”

 

So these diseases, these STDs, these STIs, whichever way you want to put it, are transmitted at a higher rate and clustered much more predominantly within homosexuals than it is within natural people, within the heterosexual people. And that’s because homosexual acts transmit diseases much more readily than natural or heterosexual acts do. And it’s because of the way our bodies are created and designed. A woman’s body is designed for sex because that is the procreative process. She is designed, her body is created with that in mind. So she can be able to take it, at least willingly. Anyways, we won’t get into the whole rape issue, but we’re assuming willingness here during all these conversations. But her body is designed to receive the sex from a male. That’s obvious. Her body is made for the receptive process of sexual procreation.

 

However, a man’s body is not made to receive or to be penetrated by anything else. In fact, the anal lining is very, very thin and it tears very easily and is not made to repel various diseases and stuff like this that may be introduced. And that’s why, well, number one, homosexuality is forbidden because Yahweh knew what he was talking about when he forbade it in the first place. But this is why the homosexual community is so inundated with diseases. Even though homosexuals only make up about two percent of the population, they make up the vast majority of those affected or infected with STDs and STIs. It’s because of their chosen lifestyle and the things they do, which the male body again, the anal cavity was not made for insertive actions like that. It was only made as an exit, not an entrance.

 

Looking at the CDC here, and this comes from their article, “Men Who Have Sex with Men,” and it states, quote:

 

“In the United States, the estimated lifetime risk for HIV infection among homosexuals is one in six, compared with heterosexual or natural men at one in five hundred twenty-four and heterosexual women at one in two hundred fifty-three. These disparities are further exacerbated by race and ethnicity with African-American or black and Hispanic Latino homosexuals having a one in two and a one in four lifetime risk for HIV infection respectively. For HIV transmission occurs much more readily through receptive anal sex compared with penile vaginal sex.”

 

End quote. So unnatural acts like anal sex transmits STDs a lot quicker and a lot more readily than natural vaginal sex. That’s exactly what they’re saying right here. That’s what all the evidence shows. And again, it’s just further evidence against homosexuality and why scripture refers to it as an abomination, as something that’s utterly disgusting and detestable because of things like this. Yahweh again knew what he was doing when he prohibited homosexuality.

 

Went on looking at the world data.com. This is their syphilis statistics in the US 2025. Quote:

 

“In 2024, homosexuals accounted for sixty-three percent of all primary and secondary syphilis cases among men with rates of three hundred thirty-six per one hundred thousand homosexuals, approximately twenty-seven times higher than rates among men who have sex with women only. The burden is particularly concentrated among homosexuals living with HIV with forty-seven percent of homosexual syphilis cases occurring in individuals with HIV co-infection. This high rate of co-occurrence reflects shared transmission routes, overlapping risk behaviors and the biological synergy between the two infections.”

 

End quote. And that just blows my mind. Sixty-three percent of all primary and secondary syphilis cases are in homosexuals, even though homosexuals only make up two percent of the population. Mind-blowing. But that is further evidence as to why homosexuality is so wrong from a religious perspective, from a biological perspective here. It’s wrong in all areas. And we need to get people to see this. It’s not a condemnation of the person. It’s a condemnation of what they are doing, the choices they make. We want to see them get right. Plain and simple. And there’s reasons why we want them to do that. Because we love them. We want to see them have a happy, fulfilling life. But they have got to turn away from the sin of homosexuality, from the destructiveness of this choice that they are making.

 

Blueprint For Battle

 

So I told you earlier there is a blueprint to wage battle against those who do not agree with homosexuality. And that’s a bold statement. That’s a big statement to make. So how do I back this up? Well, I can. And if you’ve never seen this before, this is going to blow your mind as well. It’s not the biggest thing I’m going to drop tonight. That’s coming up a little bit later. But this is huge as well.

 

Back in 1989, there was a book published called “After the Ball.” And here is a book description about this book. Quote:

 

“After the Ball is a highly influential and controversial book published in 1989 by Marshall Kirk, a neuropsychologist, and Hunter Madsen, a public relations and social marketing expert. The authors proposed a pragmatic, calculated, and professional public relations blueprint designed to shift mainstream American public opinion toward acceptance of homosexuality.”

 

And they proposed three different ways of doing this. Number one, desensitization. The public should be flooded with widespread continuous and highly normalized depictions of gay individuals in mainstream media. The initial shock value and emotional resistance would wear off over time. Number two, through jamming. Neutralizing opposition. Publicly pairing anti-gay rhetoric with socially unappealing extreme or archaic imagery. And number three, conversion. Rather than demanding that straight Americans understand or approve, the authors argued for portraying gay individuals as normal, non-threatening everyday citizens. A core pillar of this was portraying the community as a targeted, mistreated minority in need of fair treatment and protection.

 

The authors openly described their proposed methodology as a form of sophisticated upscale media propaganda. The media strategies outlined in “After the Ball” closely mirrored the actual trajectory of public relations, television programming, and messaging used successfully by mainstream advocacy groups throughout the nineteen nineties and two thousands. End quote.

 

And that is so true. Once you get into some of this stuff in the book, and I’ve actually put the quotes, direct quotes in our notes and the links so you can go read it for yourself, this actual book. Look at what’s being stated and see it for yourself. It’s mind-blowing. We’re going to read some of those quotes for you here in just a minute. But this propaganda that they are advising in this book written in nineteen eighty-nine, you can see it actually come to fruition, start happening in the nineties and two thousands.

 

I remember a day when homosexuality wasn’t something that was put forth. It was one of those dirty things as it should be, one of those dirty things that was done in the shadows behind everything else. And then slowly over time it got pushed into media. It got blasted out in front of everybody’s face to try to desensitize everybody as one of the tactics they put forth in this book. I also seen the method of jamming, which you see even up until today. Still, all these things you see up until today. But jamming, where they would neutralize opposition, where you don’t get a voice unless you are pro-homosexual. You don’t get to say anything unless you are advocating for homosexuality. You can see that even up until today.

 

So the blueprint here, this is the blueprint for battle. This is the quote unquote gay agenda that people keep talking about from time to time. This book, “After the Ball,” lays down the blueprint to brainwash, in effect, brainwash people into accepting this sin of homosexuality. And as you go through this book, “After the Ball,” as you go through it, you’ll notice various things that are somewhat familiar. If you’re familiar with various things in World War II, Nazi Germany, the propaganda within Nazi Germany is very, very close to what’s being put forth here.

 

Granted, those who are pro-homosexual don’t have concentration camps, at least not yet. But everything else, the way they repeatedly state these things, the way they try to desensitize people, et cetera, et cetera, it closely lines up with the propaganda method that the Nazis used back in World War II. You don’t believe me? Go examine the propaganda strategy from Nazi Germany and then read what’s in this book. Compare them. Oh my gosh. Yeah.

 

Let’s read a few excerpts from this particular book, just so you can get a better idea of what I’m talking about here. This comes from the book “After the Ball” and it says here, from page two hundred ninety to two hundred ninety-three, quote:

 

“The explicit root and branch rejection of morality by gays has been real pervasive and baleful in its effect on both the quality of life that we create for ourselves within the gay community and our PR or public relations with straights. There’s a simpler, darker reason why many gays choose to live without morality. As ideologies go, amorality is damned convenient. And the mortal enemy of that convenience is the value judgment. Without morality, there can be no compelling basis for responsibility to others.”

 

End quote. So here they’re openly admitting that homosexuality comes without morality. In fact, you leave morality at the door when you choose to be a homosexual. And that’s what they’re saying right here in this particular passage. That immorality, a life without morality, is just damn convenient. And they have no responsibility or no basis for responsibility to other people except themselves.

 

And really that’s what sin in general is. But homosexuality in specific is all about is about self. No one else. Just you. That’s it. Forget society. Forget your family. Forget your friends. Forget the Bible. Forget God. Forget Jesus. Forget everyone. As long as you do what you want to do. That’s what it’s all about. And this is just one excerpt from this book. Let’s go ahead and read a couple more here from another excerpt. Pages one hundred eighty-three through one hundred eighty-five. This section is talking about portraying gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers. And it says here, quote:

 

“Now two different messages about the gay victim are worth communicating. First, the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance. That they no more choose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay. Even though sexual orientation for most humans seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence. To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled moral choice and sin and give the religious intolerance a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.”

 

End quote. Here they’re admitting that homosexuality is not something you’re born with. Did you catch that? It’s that the straights have to be persuaded. They have to be brainwashed to think that they could have been born homosexual just because, you know, just as much as they were born heterosexual. Read it for yourself. Again, I got the link in the notes. Go click on the link. Read the book for yourself. Read it from the horse’s mouth. They are openly admitting that gays are not born gay. That everyone else has to be convinced that that’s the way, but that they’re not actually born gay. This wow. Yeah.

 

Another excerpt, again from “Portraying Gays as Victims of Circumstance and Oppression.” It says here, this comes from pages one hundred eighty-three through one hundred eighty-five. And it says, quote:

 

“Second, gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don’t fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays and must be shown graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation, et cetera. Bear in mind that these arguments are no more than an appeal to rationality, and as such would scarcely make a dent in an emotional condition like homo-hatred. What arguments can do, however, is suspend the straight viewers rush to judgment just long enough to slip in front of her visual images that either arouse shame over her homo-hatred or else build favorable emotions toward gays.”

 

End quote. So again, they’re trying to create this impression that gays are victims. It’s absolutely ridiculous. And then it says here they want to pause someone who is not gay. They want to have them pause just long enough to shove in front of them visual images to convince them or brainwash them into their way of thinking. It’s absolutely insanity. And even now in two thousand twenty-six with all the power and legislation and everything else, they’re still trying to portray themselves as victims. And it’s never been true. It really hasn’t. I don’t know how else to put it, but I’m showing you again. This is the whole section on the blueprint for battle that is being waged against those who would dare oppose homosexuality.

 

Another quote, this comes from pages one hundred fifty-three through one hundred fifty-four. It says here, quote:

 

“Please don’t confuse conversion with political subversion. The word subversion has a nasty ring of which the American people are inordinately afraid and on their guard against. Yet, ironically, by conversion, we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American way of life without which no truly sweeping social changes can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will through a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean subverting the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not. Put briefly, if desensitization lets the watch run down and jamming throws sand in the works, conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backward.”

 

End quote. And I think that sums it up very well. Completely backward. What this whole thing is about is being backwards. And it says here they want to convert, or yeah, conversion, whether people like it or not. They want to force this on you without your choice. And we see that playing out nowadays. Again, if you want to understand the history of where we’re at now as far as homosexuality and culture goes, go check out what I’m calling the blueprint for battle against people who are not pro-homosexual. And that is the book titled “After the Ball.”

 

I’ve got a link to it in my notes. If you look for a physical copy, it’s extremely hard to find a physical copy. And if you do, it’s extremely expensive, overpriced, actually. All I’ve been able to find is digital copies, but go check it out. If you can get a copy and download it legally, then do so, or you can read it for free without downloading it through one of the links I got. But yeah, this is literally the blueprint for waging war against people who don’t agree with them.

 

There’s many more quotes I’ve got in the notes. And go read it for yourself for even more disturbing quotes from that particular book. Yeah.

 

King James Secret Shadows

 

Anyways, let’s go ahead and move on into one of our most, probably the most jaw-dropping sections of information that I put out there for you today. And this is concerning King James Secret Shadows. And this is what I was referring to earlier when I said this subject that I’ve been researching and looking into for many years now. But every time I do a teaching, I always try to learn even more than I already knew. And during the leadup to this particular teaching, this is something I learned in this research this time. And this absolutely made my jaw drop. I was flabbergasted. And I will never again look at the King James translation the same way.

 

I really want, when we’re talking about King James in this section here. When we’re talking about King James, we mean the King James that commissioned the translation of the King James version. The King James of which the King James version is named after. This is King James the First of England or King James the Sixth of Scotland, whichever way you want to put it. It’s that King James of the King James version.

 

Let’s check out some information about King James coming from History Extra dot com. Quote:

 

“As a teenager, the young James wrote a poem about Esme Stewart, which is James’ male cousin, and explains Benjamin Woolley, an extraordinary poem talking about a phoenix resting between the thighs of this figure in a way that was highly suggestive.”

 

End quote. So a young King James writes a poem about his male cousin in a highly suggestive manner. And you get what we mean by highly suggestive. In fact, the history goes that at this point James was still in Scotland and he didn’t have any family there. I forget why he didn’t have any family, but he sent for his cousin Esme Stewart to come up there with him. And as far as we can tell, various things happened up there that shouldn’t have happened. You get my drift? And we can’t say for sure because there’s no direct evidence stating such that everything we do have is circumstantial and heavily points toward homosexuality with King James.

 

This comes from wikipedia.org. Quote:

 

“During renovations of Apethorpe Hall in the twenty-first century, workers discovered a passageway linking the bed chambers of James and Villiers. The discovery of this secret passage, according to Deirde, provides an intriguing clue to the nature of the affair between the king and Duke, the Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers.”

 

End quote. And in fact, during all this research, it seems as though George Villiers was one of James’ or probably James’ most favorite courtier. And it’s very interesting because George Villiers wasn’t a real man of noble birth. He was almost, his family is almost noble or in the nobility class. They were kind of on the edges. But when he got in the king’s good graces, the king knighted him. They made him Duke even though Duke is generally reserved for people who are related to royalty. But the king James made George Villiers Duke of Buckingham and lots of other things that went on.

 

But you can also tell here from Apethorpe Hall that from the king’s bed chambers, there was a secret passage that led to Villiers’ bed chambers so that no one would see them. The secret passage. Yeah, homosexuality back then was certainly frowned upon as it should be, but they didn’t want anybody knowing. And if it was on the up and up, I don’t see why they needed a secret passageway. But apparently they did. And you can kind of fill in the blanks from there.

 

Then going on, looking at History Extra dot com again and quote in this letter from George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, Buckingham mentions that he shall never forget at Farnham when they, meaning Villiers and King James, were on progress. Quote:

 

“When the bed’s head could not be found between the master and his dog.”

End quote. And there’s a lot more information very similar to these kinds of quotes about King James. And once again, there is nothing that is directly explicit of what they were doing, putting in specific terms like you know they were naked on top of each other or something like that. No, it’s all circumstantial. I’ll admit, but it seems to paint a pretty clear picture anyways to me. And again, this made my jaw drop. And I don’t think I will ever look at the King James version the same way again. And every time someone mentions the King James version, this is something that’s always going to pop in my head from here on out. It’s wow.

Anyways, that’s the reaction I had. I didn’t know if you would have the same reaction or not, but I wanted to give you this tidbit of information. And anyways, there’s a lot more information that goes into this whole situation with King James. Feel free to go look at some more of the notes that we have provided for you or again go forth and do your own additional research. And if you find anything out new, let us know so we can add it to the notes. But yeah, there’s a whole lot of history that we don’t know sometimes.

Summary

So now in summary, in summary, the scriptures unequivocally and undebatably forbid and prohibit homosexuality. There’s no debate about it. It says, “Do not lie with a man as you lie with a woman.” We see in the scriptures also the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that one of the many sins, and there were many sins with Sodom and Gomorrah, but one of the many sins was definitely homosexuality. And that’s where we get the word sodomite from and to describe, a lot of times or most of the time, homosexuality itself. So yes, one of the many sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality and that’s one of the many reasons that they were destroyed.

 

We look at marriage and marriage from the very beginning was between men and women, not men and men or women and women, because Yahweh created woman for man to be a helpmate. And it’s always been the man who’s been the headship in the marriage. And with the situation of a man and a man, you have two heads and no body. So then everything falls apart. In the situation of two women, you have no head. So then there’s no direction, no leadership, stuff like that. But yeah, scripture unequivocally and undebatably puts forth that marriage is between men and women. The man is the head of the family and the wife submits to the husband. And you can’t have that in homosexual relationships.

 

Scripture places a great magnitude of emphasis on this subject of homosexuality up to the point of even prescribing the death penalty for those who commit acts of homosexuality. We looked at various protests that are commonly brought up in today’s conversation. Looked at things like how people put forth the objection that gays are just born that way. And we saw why that wasn’t true. We, the objection was put forth that homosexuality wasn’t even in the Bible until nineteen forty-six. We saw how that wasn’t true as well as many other objections that are commonly brought up and we disproved all of them with sufficient evidence.

 

We then went on and looked at the blueprint for battle, the book titled “After the Ball,” and saw how the things in there were completely disgusting and completely reminiscent of Nazi Germany. But then we also saw how a lot of what was prescribed in that book, “After the Ball,” was actually put in place and went forth in the nineties and especially the two thousands, even up until our day. And then finally, we looked at some historical evidence about King James the First of England or King James the Sixth of Scotland and how all the evidence that we do have, even though it’s circumstantial, points to James, King James being a homosexual. And just reiterates, regardless of what history says, regardless of what historical figures have done, regardless of the objections that are put forth, we always go back to scripture.

That’s our basis for our beliefs, our foundation for our doctrine. Scripture is supposed to tell us what we are to believe, how we’re to behave, stuff like that. And scripture itself tells us that homosexuality is forbidden, that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God. And that’s just the God-honest truth.

Closing Remarks

So we thank you for joining us for this presentation on homosexuality and scripture. We hope that you got something out of it. We hope that you learned something new. Even if we did go over a bunch of stuff that you already knew, we hope that you picked up some new information. And if we did, go down below, let us know one thing that stuck out in your mind about this particular teaching.

After you get done with that, make sure you go up above, click that subscribe button, and ring the bell so that you’re notified every time that we go live or upload a new on-demand video. Make sure you hit that like button if you liked it. Hit that down button if you didn’t like it, but let us know down in the comments why you didn’t like it so that we can improve future videos. And finally, make sure you also hit that share button and share this video around with someone that you may know.

And once again, if you want even more information, even more notes, go check out the article post we have on our website at godhonesttruth.com. There you’ll be able to find the on-demand video. You’ll be able to find the draw slides that you can go through at your own pace. You also be able to find the AI research reports that we had done for this subject and the notes that we have provided for you that we took ourselves as well as the quotes from “After the Ball,” from the King James historical information, stuff like that. And you’ll also have the transcript there as well. It’s on our website at godhonesttruth.com and we’ve also provided a convenient link for you down below in the description.

Thank you for joining us for another production from God Honest Truth Ministries. We really do appreciate your time and hope that we have been of service to you. If you have any feedback, then please reach out to us by writing to team at godhonesttruth.com. And make sure to visit our website for more information on our social media links, audio bibles, teaching resources, and so much more.