Monday, October 21, 2019
Gullible Gays in a Scriptural Maze
By Dr. Firpo W. Carr (Columnist)
Published January 8, 2009

In an effort to justify their homosexual behavior prominent members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community—as well as others—have sought support from the Holy Bible itself. This strategy provokes immeasurable irony. Why? Well, the Holy Writ itself is the very book that condemns their behavior. So when the LGBT community tries to use it to cool down the heat of an angry public, well, it’s like trying to put fire out with gasoline. Still, New York-based Dr. Caillean McMahon, a “male-to-female” transgendered forensic psychiatrist and medical administrator par excellence, has stepped to me with Bible in hand. Having engaged in running gun battles of this sort outside the U.S., Dr. McMahon is the LGBT community’s world champion. As noted in last week’s article, “Are Blacks Afraid of Powerful Gays” (January 1, 2009), Dr. McMahon evoked Paul’s words at Romans 1:26-28 during our on-line exchange, stating that the apostle’s criticisms were restricted to apostate Roman Christians, and that said condemnation did not apply to other first-century Christian churches no more so than it applies to contemporary Christians. My retort? Hogwash.

DR. CARR: “When writing the Christians at Corinth (located some 500 miles as the crow flies from Rome), Paul again condemned homosexuality. He said that ‘men kept for unnatural purposes’ and ‘men who lie with men’ will not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) The ancient Greek word for ‘men kept for unnatural purposes’ is malakos, which means ‘soft man,’ and is in the passive mood in Greek, indicating that he is the receptive partner in the homosexual relationship. The ancient Greek word for ‘men who lie with men’ is arsenoikoites. It’s in the active mood in Greek, representing the ‘man’ in the homosexual activity. Both are condemned. But was this condemnation meant for the Corinthian Christians only? Not at all. In the very next chapter of First Corinthians (chapter 7), he writes: ‘And thus I ordain IN ALL THE CONGREGATIONS.’ (1 Corinthians 7:17; see also 1 Corinthians 11:16; 14:33, 34; 16:1, 19; Acts 15:4, 5) Again, the condemnation was anything but local.

“In writing to the traveling overseer Timothy Paul gave instructions to teach against the practice of same-sex unions not only among Christians in ancient Ephesus, but everywhere he traveled. (1 Timothy 1:3, 10) And let’s not forget Jude, the brother of Jesus Christ himself. Under divine inspiration, he said that in Sodom and Gomorrah there was ‘immorality and every kind of sexual perversion’ (Jude 7; New Living Translation) …And just who was Jude writing to? Was it to some local congregation? Absolutely not. As one scholarly work puts it, ‘Jude writes “to the called ones,” specifying no particular congregation or individual, so his epistle is a general letter to be circulated widely to all Christians.’

 “So, your assertion that Paul’s condemnation of same-sex relationships at Romans 1:26-28 was restricted to local apostate Christians in Rome ignores the fact that, (1) what he wrote applied to all the congregations, (2) he told the Christians at Corinth the same thing, (3) he instructed Timothy to teach the condemnation in Ephesus and other congregations, and (4) Jude, Jesus’ half-brother, also condemned same-sex relationships in a letter he wrote to all Christian congregations everyone in the first century and beyond. As I wrote to another contributor previously [on-line], your ‘exegesis, epexegesis, and hermeneutics are frightening.’ I invite your response. But keep in mind, Um justa po lil’ ol’ black boy with a fake decree (not ‘degree’)…I’m just messing with you doc. I invite your response.” 

DR. MCMAHON: “I do object to your use of the male pronoun in referring to me as you undoubtedly knew that I would. I am not going to engage you further as it is impossible to debate someone who bends information to the point where the facts that he presents are dubious allies of the truth. I did not question your possession of a degree; I challenged your use of it in presenting largely fictitious epidemiological data pruned down to meaninglessness and used to conduct a taurine scatologic attack upon Lesbians. By the way, Dr Koop is NOT a mental health professional; he is a pediatrician.”

DR. CARR: “Sorry about the male pronoun usage. Didn’t mean to offend. I’m not surprised that you’re bowing out. For a certainty, devastating ‘Davidic’ logic is difficult to deal with, is it not? I still credit you, however, with having the courtesy to write back and state that you’re throwing in the towel, although I might add that I think some of the Philistines here [on-line] are a little disappointed that their Goliath took one to the forehead. (I envisioned popcorn being hurled at various computer screens all over the country.) In dismissing yourself you still managed to take some parting shots. Decorum dictates that I at least address a couple of these. I think any disinterested third party would easily recognize that the others don’t warrant a dignified response.  

“You wrote: ‘I did not question your possession of a degree.’ Well, actually I have several degrees, you used quotes around ‘Dr’ when you referred to me as ‘Dr’ Carr. I think we all know what this implies Dr. McMahon. You’re being a tad bit disingenuous. You also wrote: ‘By the way, Dr Koop is NOT a mental health professional; he is a pediatrician.’…The last time I checked, pediatricians practice ‘medicine,’ Lil’ Miss Smarty Pants. Nevertheless, I like the way you write! I’ve read and studied the entire dictionary (and even wrote a book on my findings) and still, you almost have me scurrying around looking for it with all the big words you use. But, I gathered myself. For, in the final analysis, what you wrote amounts to little more than glib, grandiose, grandiloquent gobbledygook. It’s been fun, but I gotta run. Tootles.” And so ended the exchange between Dr. Caillean McMahon and me. But other gays rallied to “her” aid.

Inhospitality or Homosexuality?: The mantra of the LGBT community is that the sin of the Sodomites et al was INHOSPITALITY—not HOMOSEXUALITY. (Gen. 19:1-26) But Lot, as an inhabitant of Sodom, was very hospitable. (Gen. 19:1-3; see also Heb. 13:1) In virtually the exact same situation in Jesus’ day involving inhospitality and a Samaritan village, nuking the natives was not a consideration—insofar as the Lord was concerned. The account reads: “They came to a Samaritan village to make arrangements for [Jesus’] hospitality. But when the Samaritans learned that his destination was Jerusalem, they refused hospitality. When the disciples James and John learned of it, they said, ‘Master, do you want us to call a bolt of lightning down out of the sky and incinerate them?’ Jesus turned on them: ‘Of course not!’ And they traveled on to another village.” (Luke 9:52-56; Message) Instead of the Samaritans being nuked, the disciples were rebuked.

 No, God did not punished inhospitality with divine fire from heaven in one instance but elected not to do so in another. Inconsistency is neither a signature of the Almighty God Jehovah, nor of his Son Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that Jehovah does not change (Mal. 3:6), and that ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.’ (Heb. 13:8) Next week, the final installment in my seven-part series on same-sex sinners. Amen.


Word for the Week (or is it “Weak”?): epexegesis: “Additional explanation or explanatory material.”—The American Heritage Dictionary.


Categories: Dr. Firpo W. Carr

Get the Los Angeles Sentinel App!

Since 1933 The Voice of Our Community Speaking for Itself.
86 Years of LA Sentinel.
Black News.

Photo of the Day


LA Sentinel
in your pocket:

Taste of Soul Sponsors


LA Watts Times

© 2019 Los Angeles Sentinel All Rights Reserved • A Bakewell Media Publication

AboutArchivesContact UsCorrections & MisprintsMedia Kit

Terms of ServicePrivacy Policy

LA Watts TimesTaste of Soul

Close / I'm already on the list

Subscribe Today!

Don't be limited anymore! Subscribe Now »

** Existing subscribers, please Login / Register for Digital »

Subscribe to The Los Angeles Sentinel for only $5.99 $3.99 per month, with 1 month free!

Relax in comfort each week as you read the printed newspaper on your own time, delivered weekly to your home or office. This subscription also includes UNLIMITED DIGITAL ACCESS for all of your devices. Includes FREE shipping! One easy payment of $3.99/month gets you:

Subscribe Now »