The word “homosexual” did not appear in any English bible before 1946. The word “homosexual” was not used before 1892. In 1892, ”homosexual” was an English translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia sexualis (a reference work, in German, on “sexual perversions”), but then only in Charles Gilbert Chaddock’s translation (Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Co.; London, UK: F. J. Rebman, 1893.).
Before 1892, the term for people attracted to their same gender was “sexual inversion” and that (like the word “homosexual” appeared no where in any Bible. The word took the place of “effeminate” in the alleged writings of “Paul” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “v. 9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (taken out of context, the text reads: οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι … οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται … βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν ‘don’t you know that … no adulterers or homosexuals … will receive the kingdom of God’; with ἀρσενοκοίτης defined as the active partner or penetrator ) v. 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NASB, ESV, NIV)
It is interesting to note that the authors of the first letter to the people of Corinth condemned drunkards and gluttons when the Jesus of the New Testament was accused of both vices (Luke 7:33-34 and Matthew 11:18-19). The only other place the word is current coin is in 1 Timothy 1:10, the full text reads “v. 9: realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, (v. 10) for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, v. 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” (NASB, ESV) Interestingly, “homosexuals” are included with those who kill their parents, kidnappers, liars, perjurers and those who reject “sound teaching” (bad students).
In both passages homosexuality is not singled out. Instead, homosexuality is a part of a large list of those who appeared to “lawless and rebellious” and included “profane” (given to worldly pleasures, especially gluttony), murderers, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and so forth. The word is separated by conjunctions, in reference to a general list.
To claim that homosexuality was cursed in the bible as being a major sin is not only ludicrous but also stupid and uneducated. It is as inane and idiotic as claiming that the Bible and Jesus of the New Testament (who never mentioned the word homosexual nor referenced the act, did not condemn the act nor its practioners anywhere in any of the three synoptic Gospel, with Matthew and Luke copying Mark) state that marriage is between one man and one woman. As I have shown elsewhere, marriage throughout the Bible was seldom if ever between one man and more than one woman: Jacob marrying two sisters who were his first cousins, Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines, etc.
Marriage, in the Bible, was neither a sacrament nor important. Jesus never married, nor did this man of the New Testament have a girl friend but spent life with males: from the intimate 12 to the 70 that carried his message (Luke 10:1; Luke was not an apostle any more than was Paul (although legend has it that they were “close friends”) and the works attributed to his authorship are considered forgeries, as nothing is mentioned about Luke before the first quarter of the second century CE; neither Luke or Paul had seen, met, or talked with Jesus as is recorded in the letters and other writings later attributed to them.
The original list of the apostles is found in Matthew 10:1-12, Mark 3:1-12, Luke 6:1-12, John offers no list, and Acts 1:1-12. Neither Luke nor “Paul” appear anywhere as “apostles”—it was a title given to Saul of Tarsus by later writers, redactors and imperial Roman decree—without any historical foundation.
While ignorance has always been a hallmark of nearly all Christian pastors, priests and prelates, as well as preachers and congregations, today it is most common among celebrities and their families, self-styled and self-enriching Pentecostal pastors preaching perdition and pain, and by sychophants sucking money out of the pockets and purses of the very poor. This is most clearly seen in the recent exposure of arrogance and total lack of any substantial learning in the philippic rodomontade of Jane Pitt (mother of actor Brad Pitt).
Jane Pitt is a control oriented person who insists that her word is supreme and that the advice she offers is for the good of those whom she is advising. Nothing is further from the truth. Most of the vitriolic vociferation voiced has been aimed as a weapon to frequently attack Angelina Jolie’s parenting skills. This transmogrified into the torture preaching against the sitting president, with Jane Pitt hiding her Missouri-acculturated racism (where the KKK still holds sway over voters where racism has long held sway in Missouri politics) and lack of any serious education or study by damning Obama for supporting same-sex marriages (read here and here) exposing her birther credentials.
The target of Jane Pitt’s agonizing attack is on Obama’s race: he is Negro who endorsed the right of gay people to marry–the flame that lit the smoke bomb to cover Pitt’s patented attack ont he president (on the psychology of same-sex marriage, consult Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Rostosky, Sharon S.; Horne, Sharon G. (2010). “Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships.” Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 24(1), February, 82-86. doi: 10.1037/a0017942; cp. Goodman, Melinda B.; Moradi, Bonnie (2008). “Attitudes and behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons: Critical correlates and mediated relations.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 55(3), July, 371-384. doi: 10.1037/0022-0188.8.131.521).
Jane Pitt identifies herself as a “Christian”. Jane Pitt is not a Gospel Christian (one who follow the words of Jesus), but is a Pauline Christian, servant to the enslavement of Saul of Tarsus and his mangling message that rejects most of what the Gospels record. Whatt is assured is that Ms. Pitt is definitely not a follower of the New Testament Jesus who spoke against prejudgment (Matthew 7:1: Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· cp. Luke 6:37: Kαὶ μὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε· καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε. ἀπολύετε καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε·).
This was draconically dramatized when the menacing matriarch of the Pitt family, and wife of Bill Pitt, ranted in print: “Any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.” Jane Pitt’s manic malice counters Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11: 11οὐ γάρ ἐστιν προσωπολημψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, and the message of charity in James 2:1-13.
Jane Pitt continues the slander that Obama is not a Christian, but Obama has prayed at all Christian shrines, visited with bishops and cardinals, pastors and priests, and went to Israel to leave a prayer for his family and nation at the Western Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and participates actively in a prayer circle.
While her sons defend Jane Pitt as being comical, Jane’s lack of public awareness belies any education she may have slide thought. Her knowledge of her nation, of embryology and fetal development is as minimal as that of most of her peers; her sources are from the radical right and Tea Party activists, her hate unlimited and as pointed as any tail on any mythological dragon or devil. Her attacks on same-sex marriages and those who commit themselves to one another is a direct attack on her son’s closests friends–and indirectly, on Brad Pitt. There is nothing funny about slander.
Jane Pitt fanfaronade harangue proves that a little Biblical knowledge is far more dangerousthan having never read the Bible. (On the role of limited knowledge being used in social involvement and the dangers it enters, consult: Mae, Lynda; Carlston, Donal E.; Skowronski, John J. (1999), “Spontaneous trait transference to familiar communications: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77(2), August, 233-246. doi: 10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206)
Jane’s jactitation proves only her Thrasonic desire is to be in the limelight being eunuchized by her children’s successes, and is a Mephistophelean model of all things evil for her grandchildren. This Beelzebubian bantering can lead to hallucinations, trauma, rejection of self-acceptance and self-actualization, and cause catatonic seizures leading to dysfunctional denial of the self. (Sluzki, Carlos E. (2004). “House taken over by Ghosts: Culture, Migration and the Developmental Cycle of a Moroccan Family Invaded by Hallucinations”. Families, Systems, & Health. Vol. 22(3), 321-337. doi: 10.1037/1091-75220.127.116.111; cp. Gold, Sari D.; Feinstein, Brian A.; Skidmore, W. Christopher; Marx, Brian P. (2011). “Childhood physical abuse, internalized homophobia, and experiential avoidance among lesbians and gay men.” Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, Vol. 3(1), March, 50-60. doi: 10.1037/a0020487).
Jane Pitt’s homophobia is a mental disorder. Homophobia is the inability to accept people as they are and the self-righteous assertion that some people are not fit “for heaven” or “for earth” as is the claim of evangelical extremists (Poteat, V. Paul; Mereish, Ethan H.; DiGiovanni, Craig D.; Koenig, Brian W. (2011). “The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parent support.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 58(4), October, 597-609 doi: 10.1037/a0018237; ref. Rye, B. J.; Meaney, Glenn J. (2010). “Measuring homonegativity: A psychometric analysis.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. Vol. 42(3), July, 158-167. doi: 10.1037/a0025095).
Jane Pitt stops at nothing, including easily disproven lies that fall from her lips like mercury draining from the ear of the dead Danish king Hamlet the Elder in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet: Prince of Denmark (1.5.36; a scene plagiarized from the Italian record of The Murder of Gonzago where Luigi Gonzaga murdered Francesco Maria I della Rovere, the Duke of Urbino, in 1538). In her attack on President Obama, Jane Pitt claimed that he “did not hold a public ceremony” on the National Day of Prayer (which is not an official holiday or event). The truth is that every year, Barrack Hussein Obama has issued a proclamation requesting all Americans to observe the National Day of Prayer, which even Fox News recognized, but regretted that Obama did not make the splashy show of faith as did George W. Bush.
Obama is more in keeping with the teaching of the New Testament Jesus that Jane Pitt has never met. Jesus told believers to “pray in private” (Matthew 6:6: σὺ δὲ ὅταν προσεύχῃ εἴσελθε είς τὸ ταμεῖον σου καὶ κλείσας τὴν θύραν σου πρόσευξαι τῷ πατρὶ σου τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ο βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι.). Obama argues that prayer is a private matter–the reason that Jesus entered the Garden alone to pray, and was not escorted or followed by any apostle.
Even though Obama elects to pray in secret, he has attended several prayer breakfasts, and spoke at those of other minorities, a point that Jane Pitt conveniently overlooks about in the lie she issued.
Jane Pitt lied further when she claimed, like most zealous Christians who have never met the Jesus of the New Testament (Matthew 7:5, preferring the κάρφος that is the lesser of the two phases in the discussion), that the President of the USA “supports the killing of unborn babies” (cp. Deuteronomy 2:34: וַנִּלְכֹּד אֶת־כָּל־עָרָיו בָּעֵת הַהִוא וַנַּחֲרֵם אֶת־כָּל־עִיר מְתִם וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטָּף לֹא הִשְׁאַרְנוּ שָׂרִיד׃; a fetus becomes a human only after it “half-emerges” from the uterus canal). While Obama has repeatedly said that he regrets abortion, he supports a woman’s right of choice for the individual woman who is pregnant, alone has the right to make the final decision. Jesus of the New Testament said nothing about abortion, although many prophets had screamed that women would have been happier to have lost their “fruit” when the days of “tribulation” would come with invading armies.
As for Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama denounced Wright’s remarks in a speech entitled “A More Perfect Union” on March 18, 2008, that the Wall Street Journal printed in full. Obama. however, did not denounce Wright as a human being—that was what Jane Pitt did to Obama, denying Obama humanity and status as a person.
There is not one word of truth nor even a shred of “Christianity” in Jane Pitt’s despicable diatribe published in Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader (a Gannett Company). The New Testament Jesus welcomed everyone, and condemned no one (John 8:10).
Jane Pitt’s views, like those of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, chapter five in the novel Братья Карамазовы (or The Brothers Karamazov; was an open attack on those who would want separation of state and church) whose paled lips knew nothing of charity when he visited Jesus in his cell to tell him that the Church no longer needs the true Christ. The Grand Inquisitor noted that the Christian doctrine had been revised by the Pauline Church created by the Emperor Constantine I at his Council of Nicaea in 325 CE since the message of Jesus was too sympathetic to those who sought personal freedom).
It can be seen as a prophecy about Jane Pitt being a sister-in-arm when up against a force she refuses to understand.
If Jane Pitt thought that her letter would bring some (or all, which would be highly unlikely) of the LGBT community to accept and/or adopt her ideological perspective, psychological studies teach that her letter will have an adverse affect on the LGBT community and can polarize non-LGBT people so that they will vote against her candidate.
When religion, in any shape, format, or length, enters the discussion, the results are unpredictable, save that many who feel they are being estranged will question their own belief system and frequently adopt a different ontology more in keeping with their theosophy. (Sherry, Alissa; Adelman, Andrew; Whilde, Margaret R.; Quick, Daniel (2010). “Competing selves: Negotiating the intersection of spiritual and sexual identities.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 41(2), April, 112-119. doi: 10.1037/a0017471). Analyses reveal that participants in committed or legally recognized relationships reported less psychological distress (i.e., internalized homophobia, depressive symptoms, and stress) and more well-being (i.e., the presence of meaning in life) than single participants. Sampled homosexual participants (in one study interviewing and counseling over 3000 homosexuals) in a legally recognized relationship reported less internalized homophobia, fewer depressive symptoms, lower levels of stress, and more meaning in their lives than those in committed relationships, even after controlling for other factors. For the sake of sanity and to elevate tranquility in the lives of all people, marriage must be recognized and legalized as a basic human and civil right for all people regardless of gender and gender-attraction: in short, even though it may be personally offensive to some, those of quality will work to ensure equality in all areas, including the right to same-sex marriages. (Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Rostosky, Sharon S.; Horne, Sharon G. (2010). “Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition of same-sex couple relationships.” Journal of Family Psychology, Vol. 24(1), February, 82-86. doi: 10.1037/a0017942). To do otherwise invites future and further suicides, murder-suicides, and physical and mental abuse, as is the clarion call of Jane Pitt’s parched preachifications (cp. Rostosky, Sharon Scales; Riggle, Ellen D. B.; Horne, Sharon G.; Miller, Angela D. (2009). “Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 56(1), January, 56-66. doi: 10.1037/a0013609).
Jane Pitt’s antedeluvian anti-Bible views are not supported by her son who recently starred alongside George Clooney in “8,” Dustin Lance Black’s play about California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. Brad Pitt told People Magazine, in 2011: “No state should decide who can marry and who cannot. Thanks to the tireless work of so many, someday soon this discrimination will end and every American will be able to enjoy their equal right to marriage.”