Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church, Maiden, North Carolina, called for a round-up of all lesbians and “queers and homosexuals.” Like a deranged Old Testament prophet, he demanded that gays and lesbians be dropped into genocide-like concentration camp complete with an electric fence. Immediately afterwards, Worley sent out an invitation to “sodomites [sic] and lesbians” to join him in a reading of “Leviticus” [sic: 18:22].
While Worley rants about Baal (a word that actually means “husband” or “father” and Baal-worship prevailed in Israel (Judges viii. 33), and particularly in Shechem (Judges ix. 4), its is the equivalent “El-berith” (Judges ix. 46, R. V.) to mean “the God of the Covenant”. B’nai B’rithmeans “Sons of the Covenant), and any ancient “child sacrifice” was replaced with animal sacrifice that the ancient Hebrews did more than any of the people of Cana, and later was done with bread declared to represent
the body of god, equating homosexuality to the murder of unborn children (he believes sperm and ova are babies), he wins the adoring praises of his congregation–a church and a people publicly protested by thousands of North Carolina citizens.
The Providence Road Baptist Church congregation, where a majority are members of the USA branch of the Nazi party or the Khristian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, wholeheartedly endorsed Worley’s plan of genocide (a definite sign of catastrophic mental illness that is shared by Worley and his congregation in Maiden, North Carolina; read: Harris, Lasana T.; Fiske, Susan T. (2011). “Dehumanized perception: A psychological means to facilitate atrocities, torture, and genocide?” Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, Vol. 219(3), 2011, 175-181. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000065) and murder, standing and applauding him as he entered the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina.
The Providence Road Baptist Church building was transmogrified into a tabernacle of truculent theological terrorism with people speaking out like Germans of the Third Reich demanding death for those who did not agree with them or their Leader (cp. Mayer, Milton (1955). The Thought They Were Free: the Germans 1933-1945. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press paperback) or venerate Hitler’s plans for a Greater Germany.
Some of the more outspoken greeted the pastor with praise as “God’s own Hitler who will cleanse the earth.” Others promised to build ovens to burn the bones of homosexuals. (Video of congregation defending Worley is here.)
Worley is uniquely unqualified to teach any verse in Leviticus, as he is unquestionably unqualified to preach or teach anything in the Judeo-Christian King James Version of the Bible. It is beautiful literature but bad scripture, and literary quality of the King James Version (KJV) has made it especially popular among the uneducated.
Unfortunately, Worley does not use a copy of the 1611 (first) edition, but a recent redaction that is filled with errors. Worley claims illustrate that the KJV is his source for sanctified hate.
The word homosexual does not appear in any English bible before 1946. The Greek word that is translated as homosexual is ἀρσενοκοίτης. It is a verb for any one taking the active role in a sexual ritual: οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι … οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται … βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν. The passive partner was known in the Greek world as μαλακόςb and was frequently excused or defined as “a woman.”
In the garbled translations and retranslations of the numerous hands that created the Letters of Paul, the word ἀρσενοκοίτης is equated and used as equal to “adulterers, fornicators…liars” as read in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It has nothing to do with homosexuality but rather is a condemnation of those who do not accept Yahweh and his rules: the Decalogue found in the Book of Exodus who only references to sex are adultery (Exodus 20:14) and lust (Exodus 20:17, which is very broad: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor: לֹא תַחְמֹד בֵּית רֵעֶךָ לֹא־תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדֹּו וַאֲמָתֹו וְשֹׁורֹו וַחֲמֹרֹו וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ׃ , which most clergy are guilty of committing, from Jimmy Swaggart to Bishop Eddie Long, etc.). Leviticus is a far later edition–and addition to the Torah.
The actual reference in Leviticus 18:22-23 is an obligation of the quedesh/Qadesh who were even a part of the ancient Israelite religion (then known as Kohanim or “priests”): אֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה הִוא׃ וּבְכָל־בְּהֵמָה לֹא־תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְטָמְאָה־בָהּ וְאִשָּׁה לֹא־תַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי בְהֵמָה לְרִבְעָהּ תֶּבֶל הוּא׃ (the word for “confusion” means “distracting” and was a ritual that excited worshippers). Despite the precision of the ancient language that Worley shows no knowledge of knowing, reading, comprehending, interpreting or translating, the North Carolina Baptist preacher uses it against all male and female homosexuals (the original bibles do not mention lesbians; in other sermons Worley stretches Romans 1:26-27 to include lesbians, but this is not justified and has no foundation in the Old Testament—the Hebrew Tanakh).
The word homosexual does not enter the English lexicon until 1892. It first appears in C.G. Chaddock’s translation of Richard Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis, with especial reference to contrary sexual instinct; a medico-legal study… (7th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: F. A. Davis, 1895; the original that inspired the word “homosexual” is Krafft-Ebing, Richard von 1892 edition: Psychopathia sexualis: mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der contraren sexualempfindung. Eine Klinisch-forensische studie. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke) and comes as a hybrid of from homo- (form the Greek ίδιος [homos] “same”) and Latin sexualis.
If Worley, or any of those numbered as being a part of his flock, had any intellectual gift of languages or was able to read the original text (of which no one has displayed even rudimentary skills), the closest translation of Leviticus 18:22 would be “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman” (as found in the New International Version). Even in the NIV there is no word “homosexual” nor “homosexuality.” A truthful and actual reading is a rejection of using sex to worship the pagan goddess Asherah (Astarte: Venus) who, by common Canaanite myth married the Apiru (distant ancestors to those who would become Hebrews) nomads agricultural god Yahweh. Yahweh, in the ancient world, and as found on potsherds and Egyptian
writings (hieroglyphics) is always styled as a young calf (a bull, that would become a key symbol in Mithras theology). This gave rise to the mythology of the golden calf that the ancient “Hebrews” worshipped in the desert leading to the gods of Moses prohibiting them invading the lands of Cana and stealing the land, cattle, women and wealth of its original Palestinian occupants (Phoenicians, and other tribes; cf. Jacobson, David M. (February 1999). Weinstein, James M.. ed. “Palestine and Israel”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (The American Schools of Oriental Research) (313): 65–74, and Herodotus, History, ). Furthermore, the text reads that what is prohibited is having “sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.”
Leviticus 18:22 is not a prohibition against anal course between men nor even against a man and a woman as men, historically, have engaged in sodomy with women since the beginning of pictorial and recorded (hieroglyphic and cuneiform) history–going back to the 25th century BCE for male sodomy (read: Thomas A. Dowson, “Archaeologists, Feminists, and Queers: sexual politics in the construction of the past,” in Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), pp. 96–98, where some argue that the two were brothers, some define the two males as twins, a few as gods) and 7000 BCE for male-female sodomy (cf. Lauren E. Talalay, “The Gendered Sea: Iconography, Gender, and Mediterranean Prehistory,” in The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory (Blackwell, 2005), pp. 130–148, especially p. 136).
In Leviticus 18:22-23, the charge or injunction is a reference to the pretense or “mental confusion” of the quedesh (temple prostitutes) who were obligated by religious laws to have sex—basically women attempting to enter a man with a clitoris, or a male prostitute simulating coital intercourse. Woefully ignorant of the past and ancient records, Worley exposes his lack of academic training and knowledge of both the Old Testament and the New Testament and the message of the Jesus of the New Testament as found in the Gospels.
The New Testament clearly states that those who follow the message of Jesus of the Gospels are no longer under the harsh rule of Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). This negates and eliminates the validity of Leviticus 18:22.
Worley’s and his congregation’s collective intellectual prowess, like that of the despicable and pathetic Christian terrorist Angie (Angela Mauney) Widener (age 46) a church member, is at the abysmal level of insipid ignorance of intolerance of Pat Robertson, Billy and Franklin Graham, William Owens and others who spew hatred, in the name of a Jesus none would recognize nor obey. Widener, like Martin Sasse, bishop of the Thuringian Evangelical Church and leading member of the German Christians movement, published a compendium of Martin Luther’s writings shortly after the Kristallnacht; Sasse “applauded the burning of the synagogues” and the coincidence of the day, writing in the introduction, “On 10 November 1938, on Luther’s birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.” The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words “of the greatest anti-Semite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews” (read: Bernd Nellessen, “Die schweigende Kirche: Katholiken und Judenverfolgung,” in Büttner, Ursula (ed.; 1992), Die Deutschen und die Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich. Hamburg : Christians, p. 265). All one has to do is substitute the word “homosexual” for “Jew” and they have the message of Worley and Widener and their supporters.
Congregant Widener is supported by the psychopathic Geneva Sims, another supporter of Worley. Geneva Sims declared as did most German people in 1942-1943: “So he had every right to say what he said, about putting them in a pen, feeding them. The Bible says they’re worthy of death. He only preaches the word.” Worley and Sims acted as did Hitler who declared himself to be a loyal son of the Christian faith and a stalwart Roman Catholic (read: John Toland, Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507). Hitler was a violently anti-atheist, as we read in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933 by Adolf Hitler (Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 378; cf. p. 371).
Following the Nazi propaganda line and the call of North Carolina KKK and Nazis, Stacey Pritchard a supporting member of Worley’s wrath told reporters, “Sometimes you gotta [sic] be scared straight.” Pritchard’s paranoid psychosis of Pritchard is aptly discussed by Gailliot, Matthew T.; Schmeichel, Brandon J.; Baumeister, Roy F. (2006). “Self-regulatory processes defend against the threat of death; Effects of self-control depletion and trait self-control on thoughts and fears of dying.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91(1), Jul 2006, 49-62. doi: 10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206) Worley has completed one of the most diabolic attacks on the sanity of an entire congregation, his own mental malaise festering into the minds of those who listen to his rants. Worley’s self-loathing has existed for decades. As he noted in one sermon in 1978: “40 years ago [gay people] would’ve hung, bless God, from a white oak tree!” The last time anyone was hung from a white oak tree was in Mississippi, when Jermaine Carter found hanging from an Oak tree on December 03,2010. Worley’s congregation celebrated on hearing the news.
Worley’s knowledge of his seventeenth-century (1611 CE) King James Version of the Christian Bible first notes the oak tree in Ezekiel 6:13 ( וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי־אֲנִי יְהוָה בִּהְיֹות חַלְלֵיהֶם בְּתֹוךְ גִּלּוּלֵיהֶם סְבִיבֹות מִזְבְּחֹותֵיהֶם אֶל כָּל־גִּבְעָה רָמָה בְּכֹל רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים וְתַחַת כָּל־עֵץ רַעֲןָן וְתַחַת כָּל־אֵלָה עֲבֻתָּה מְקֹום אֲשֶׁר נָתְנוּ־שָׁם רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לְכֹל גִּלּוּלֵיהֶם׃). It was used to hang numerous self-proclaimed messiahs and those teachers who claimed they were interpreting the word of the gods of the Hebrews. The white oak tree has always been sacred to those who were not latter-day Jews, and was considered a haven from which the pagan soul could rise to heaven and join the gods of the people’s nation. The modern story that Jesus was hung on dogwood is myth, but one that further illustrates group insanity. The statement is not only pathological or psychotic but a precursor to genocide
(Green, Donald P.; Glaser, Jack; Rich, Andrew (1998). “From lynching to gay bashing: The elusive connection between economic conditions and hate crime,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75(1), Jul 1998, 82-92. doi: 10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.11). It was a fate that awaited Blacks who “got too near white people of God” and now was reserved for “sodomites and lesbians.” Hear the sermon here.
There can be little doubt that Charles Worley, like most of his brainwashed congregation, is mentally ill (Meier, N. C.; Mennenga, G. H.; Stoltz, H. J. (1941). “An experimental approach to the study of mob behavior,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 36(4), Oct 1941, 506-524. doi: 10.1037/h0054254). The problem is that this illness is being fostered onto the young.
What Worley and others forget is the chapter in Leviticus (18) is primarily concerned with incest, with the single exception being verse (line) 22. The quaint exception is that there is no prohibition of a man having sex with his daughter—in part because that is what Lot did when his daughters made him drunk in the caves outside of Zoar “to perpetuate his seed” since they believed they were the last of his tribe (Genesis 19:30-38).
The fact that Leviticus 18 is an inserted chapter is clear from the rest of what is considered the Torah. While Leviticus prohibits incest (except when a man is having sex either with his daughter, or with another woman and her daughter), incest was quite common. Incest rules are ignored in favor of marriage to a close relative in several cases. For example, the Genesis myth includes a vivid description of Jacob having married his first wife’s sister (Genesis 29:16, 23, 28), and Abram (who is later styled as Abraham) as having a father in common with Sarah (read Genesis 20:12; rather than having a mother in common, which would have been permitted by the list). These are not considered prohibited (or illegal) marriages as the incest laws were not given until the days of the Biblical Moses, and were not greeted with disfavor by any pre-Muhammad Arab (Muhammad would incorporate them into his bible: the Koran).
Worley deliberately ignores in his grand staging of a reading of Leviticus 18:22. Leviticus precise delineation between the sins of sexual immorality and child “sacrifices” that frequently accompanied quedesh worship.
The sacrifice was not the bloody sacrifice as vilified in Old Testament accounts and in fact was associated with the worship of Yahweh (Ezekiel 23:39). It was more of a rite of passage where a pre-teen would walk between “walls of fire” of Moloch and pledge his loyalty to the local god in a way identical to the confirmation ceremonies (without fire) as found in Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian and numerous new Pentecostal movements. Ancient texts state that the phrase employed in speaking of these sacrifices is that of dedication: “to make one’s son or daughter pass through (or by means of) fire to (the) Molech” (2 Kings xxiii. 10; but elsewhere without the words “through fire” Lev. xviii. 21). It was a form of consecration to Molech (a word that the ancient Hebrews frequently used to mean “king” as it is a form of Baal that means “lord” or “sovereign”) by passing through or between fires, as in the Roman Palilia and similar rites elsewhere (on which see Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd ed., ii. 40 sqq., iii. 237 sqq).
Human sacrifice was common in Semitic religions, and at least the idea of such sacrifices was 1 In 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 (parallel to 2 Kings xvi. 3) a single letter is transposed in the phrase, changing the sense from “caused to pass through the fire” to “caused to burn with fire.” Geiger, Abraham (1857). Urschrift und uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer abhängigkeit von der innern entwickelung des Judenthums. Breslau, Germany: J. Hainauer, p. 305) very unnecessarily supposed that this was everywhere the original reading, These rites of initiation was what the Old Testament gods rejected, replacing them with the barbaric custom of circumcision (it is not found in either the New Testament nor the Koran) and “rendered judgment against” the native inhabitants of the land (Leviticus 18:27–28). The fact that these were proscribed ceremonial ordinances, such as dietary laws that were codified to distinguish the “children of Israel” (a term that came with the Hittite mercenaries entering Cana as followers of the Egyptian Trinity (IS[is]-RA-EL) is spelled out in the condemnation of neighbor nations (Leviticus 20:22–26; see also Deuteronomy 14:21).