Introduction
Siya Khumalo is a freelance journalist and opinion piece writer that frequently writes for the Daily Maverick, and have appeared a few times on the radio station 702 Talk Radio. According to The Times Siya Khumalo “grew up in a Durban township where one sermon could whip up a lynch mob against those considered different. Drawing on personal experience Khumalo explores being LGBTQI+ in South Africa today. He exposes the interrelatedness of religion, politics and sex as the expectations of African cultures mingle with greed and colonial religion.”
Notice the mention of “colonial religion” as it is important for later in the discussion.
According to the Daily Maverick Siya Khumalo “writes about religion, politics and sex. He is the author of “You Have To Be Gay To Know God” (Kwela Books, 2018), which won the Desmond Tutu-Gerrit Brand Literary Prize.”
I myself am a Christian. Those that know me will know that I take my faith very seriously, and despite the fact that I am not perfect, I am harsh on myself and attempt to, to the best of my abilities, live out the Faith, to walk in the Way of Christ, every day of my life. I do make mistakes, some of them serious, and some not, but that does not mean that I don’t at least try to live in the Way of Christ, which is the beliefs that shape the actions that one should live out in everyday life as a true Christian, and if I do make a mistake, I apologise to God, and I apologise where I can to those I have caused harm to (real harm of course). That is what makes one a Christian, believing Christ is God and living a life that He wants you to live with the rules and laws and moral precepts He has put in place. Keep this in mind as I am going to come back to this as well.
Now I am not as harsh on others as I am on myself, but that does not mean that I won’t call out anyone who is openly sinning or who calls themselves Christian but do not live like a Christian. Note that I don’t speak of the religion, because there is a vast difference between those that have faith and live according to the faith and those that have Christianity merely as a religion. Despite the fact that I do call out other Christians, I normally do this in private and without bashing them over the head with a Bible, but today, as you will see, is not a day that I am taking a Christian on, despite the pleas by the person to the contrary.
The person, or at least the beliefs of the person, I am combating today is not a Christian, and his beliefs are antithetical to that of Christianity.
Now, the topic of this video, which is the Heresies of Siya Khumalo, will not focus on the man himself because other than the fact that he is gay, which he seems to sometimes enjoy throwing around in the open, I don’t know anything else about him.
I have not met him personally, I do not frequent the areas he does, I know nothing of his past, I have not read his book, and I don’t even live in the same city that he does, but I do have serious problems with what he believes, what he espouses about his beliefs on radio, and what he is writing, specifically that which I have read on Daily Maverick. So the focus will be on what he does, and from that, should I feel the need to, I may make some assumptions, based on what he writes, as to what kind of a person he may be. These views will stem from his writing.
The Heresies
It disturbs me to no end that the man attempts to twist the Bible, both in the context of the verses, the context of history, and changing the actual text, through sleight of hand, of what is actually being said or written, to attempt to prove falsely that Jesus abolished the laws that spoke out directly against homosexuality, and to push the ideas that Homosexuality should be embraced by Christians everywhere and, perhaps, even participated in. In addition, there seems to be some attempt to inject the Far-Left African ideology of Decolonisation into Christianity, which, just as it is with every subject that is given at Universities and at schools bar the African studies, is ludicrous because Christianity is something that was introduced wholly by the colonisation of South Africa. To “decolonise” Christianity you would have to completely abolish Christianity as it does not contain a single theme or the belief that originated out of Africa. Any form of “Africanisation” of Christianity is merely cultish, is the establishment of a cult, and isn’t true Christianity.
To show you what I mean, and to prove the heresies that Siya Khumalo commits, I am going to criticise and take apart the ideas and so-called facts in his latest article: “The Beloftebos wedding venue, Heterosexism and colonial Christianity”, and show, within the context of the Bible, which is the Word of God and therefore Jesus himself, the falsehoods and lies that he perpetrates and perpetuates.
It is quite apt that I use this article considering that the SAHRC decided to prosecute the venue for barring the very same same-sex couple from having their wedding there. The venue is thus facing 2 court cases for the same action.
But first, let’s list the Heresies that he committed before we get into the article. I will be coming back to these during the video, and so I will mention them here in order to keep track of where he commits them.
- That the Bible inferred that Homosexuality occurred within or was at least implied to be part of the Jewish faith (notice: faith) and lifestyle.
- Wilfully twisting biblical truths to suit his own narrative, that of Homosexuality being normal and Biblical
- That, among the laws abolished by Christ, was the sexual deviance laws which include homosexuality and therefore to not allow homosexuals to be part of Christianity while they still live a homosexual lifestyle is to go against Jesus.
- That Christian principles should be subservient to the Constitution
- That Christianity at one time supported slavery and anti-Semitism
- That Christianity actually supports Islam and that it is false hermeneutics that leads to Islamophobia
- Attacks the sanctity of Heterosexual relationships and brings into question the normalcy of such relationships, which is counter to that of Biblical teaching, and which covers all of Judea-Christian faith
So let us get into the article so we can lay bare the ideas espoused by Siya and show you the heresies that he commits and the falsehoods he spreads.
Opening: The Beloftebos Saga
Let me give you quick context on what Siya is referring to here. A wedding venue, by the name of Beloftebos, which is a business that runs under Christian ethos, rejected a request by a homosexual couple, in this case a lesbian couple, from officiating and having their wedding there. The couple subsequently went to the courts to force the venue to allow them to have their wedding there. At the time of recording this video, the outcome of the court case still needs to be decided. As I mentioned, the SAHRC, in their own capacity, is also taking the venue to court on the same matter.
As can be seen, by the opening paragraph, Siya is attempting to conflate and exaggerate a decision by a Christian wedding venue, which holds to Christian beliefs, into something that is supposedly a threat to all of South Africa and its Constitution’s ability to heal and transform the nation. If a decision by a wedding venue is such a threat to South Africa’s and the Constitution’s transformation or healing agenda then the agenda and Constitution cannot be very strong, to begin with, and I would pose the question: is the agendas and the Constitution worth pursuing then, considering that there are far worse things that have happened in South Africa, with far bigger implications and effects, than simply the showing away of a lesbian couple at a wedding venue?
But I won’t get into that argument as there are many reasons to question the Constitution and agendas of supposed Healing and Transformation.
Let’s get back to the article and its subject so we can deal with it.
The Lesbian Ruth
So here we discover the first 2 heresies that Siya Khumalo commits. The book of Ruth is a short book in the Bible that deals with the love that a foreigner – Ruth- who is a Moabite, has with a Jewish woman Naomi, who is Ruth’s Mother-in-Law and how, because of Ruth’s love for her Mother-In-Law, the fact that she accepts Naomi’s Jewish faith, and helps her in a time when old widows would succumb to poverty, is rewarded with a rich Jewish husband that allows Ruth to look after her Mother-In-Law and have a fruitful relationship herself. The relationship between Ruth and Naomi is not that of a romantic or sexual love, as Siya Khumalo tries to paint, but a familial love. If you read the book of Ruth with the understanding of the cultural issues of that time, you will understand that what Ruth was doing was looking after her Mother-in-Law. Women of that time were very dependent upon their husbands and male offspring for support financially, so when Naomi lost both her sons and her husband in a foreign country, she was at risk of starving to death as she was already too old to remarry. Ruth was one of two daughters-in-law, each having married a son of Naomi, who decided to look after her Mother-In-Law until such time as she can remarry. Both women stood a better chance at survival if they lived together and since Ruth was younger she could find work until such time as she found a new husband. The story eventually has a good ending.
What Ruth’s relationship with her Mother-In-Law was, was not a homosexual one. This is a complete mischaracterisation of the entire story by Siya Khumalo in order to inject a fictitious homosexual slant in a story that doesn’t even deal with Homosexuality.
To make matters worse, the story deals with how Jewish custom is better than those of the other cultures that surrounded the Jews of that time, as it showed how Ruth, by accepting God Yahweh and Jewish custom and law, and by looking after her Mother-In-Law, something she was given an option not to do at the beginning of the story, was eventually blessed by Yahweh. Her future bloodline included King David, King Solomon, and around 600-700 years later, Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Christ.
Jewish law was very clear when it came to Homosexuality: anyone committing a homosexual act, however minor it may be, is to be dragged out of the city where they were found guilty and stoned to death. There are no chances for misinterpretations unless you wilfully ignore a lot scripture, so the fact that Ruth took on and abided by Jewish customs and law meant that she wouldn’t even be thinking of being in a homosexual relationship.
By inferring such a relationship, however, Siya commits two heresies at the same time: the first is to wilfully twist the bible to present a false narrative that Ruth and her Mother-In-Law was in a homosexual relationship, and secondly, and specifically because he uses the story of Ruth to do this, he infers that Homosexuality was part of Jewish customs and OK’d by Jewish law. Since there is no real distinction between Jewish customs, laws, and the Jewish Faith, Siya also infers that the Jewish faith is OK with homosexuality. A cursory read of the Old Testament of the Bible is enough to prove such an argument false.
We are only one paragraph into the article and Siya already commits 2 heresies. Let’s continue.
Homosexuality is a No in the Bible
The only people who selectively apply the Bible are non-believers, people who have a specific agenda such as Siya Khumalo, and the uninformed Christians. All other Christians know, because they bothered to investigate or read their bibles, that Christianity is highly opposed to any sexual relationship that is not a heterosexual relationship between two grown up, married, human beings. There is no debate there, and the only people in churches that even start a debate on this have other agendas that are not aligned with Christ or real Christianity.
Secondly, for those secular legalists and non-believers the Constitution is seen as being above Christianity. For Christianity and Christians the Constitution is subservient to Biblical Law. So I personally, and so do most Christians, don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about Homosexuality, and really don’t care if Christian Law undermines a law that allows for destructive relationships to flourish, and Homosexual relationships are extremely destructive, not only to society in general, but to people who come in contact with homosexual people, as the Beloftebos case proves, and to the very homosexuals themselves, who, as many scientific papers have already uncovered, have higher suicide rates even when there is no persecution or anti-homosexual behaviour present within or around the homosexual community. Just go look up the “Dutch Paradox” to see what I mean. Siya also commits the heresy of attempting to subvert Christian law with that of the Constitution
But, let’s entertain Siya and go see if there really is a “selectiveness with which some of us interpret and apply our holy texts” as he claims.
So, let’s begin with the Bible passage that Siya has used in this paragraph. It is quite telling of Siya to take one verse, which is literally one sentence in the Bible, and use it to substantiate a point. This is a tactic that is repeatedly used by cult leaders, and by pastors and preachers and other people that have sinister motives. Siya takes this single verse out if the Bible, from a letter written to the Galatians by Paul, who came to Faith when he was blinded on the road to Damascus by Jesus and healed by a Jesus follower, where Paul was addressing the Galatians regarding being saved by Faith and not by the Law. In order to fully understand the context and actually meaning of the verse a person must take into account the following:
- Who wrote the passage?
- To whom was it written?
- What is the theme and context of the book?
- What is the theme and context of the section in the book?
- What is the context of the paragraph in which the verse can be found?
- What is the verse actually saying?
- And how does the verse fit in with the rest of the Bible?
I may have left out some points that you should take into consideration when investigating a bible passage, but these should be sufficient in order to deal with Siya’s arguments.
As you can see you cannot simply take a verse and apply a meaning to it. You have to take into account the whole Bible. However, I don’t have time to take you through the whole Bible as this will take many hours, perhaps even days, but I can briefly show you that the context of the verse shows that there is no way that the verse is saying what Siya is saying.
Let me quickly show you. If you go to Galatians 3, the chapter in the book, and you start reading from verse 1, you will pick up that the theme of this section of the Book Galatians is whether someone is saved by faith or by how they live. When you get to the area in the section where the verse is located, Paul already dealt with the fact that all acts that a person can do cannot save them, they are saved by Faith alone, and has moved on to deal with whether a person is saved by the Jewish Covenant or by Faith in Christ. The Jewish Covenant, also known as the Abrahamic Covenant, is where Jews believe they are saved because they are Jews and they follow the Law of Moses, which are the 613 laws you can find in the 4 of the first 5 books of the Bible. So let’s go look at that section and read not only this verse, but the verses that precedes and follow from this verse 
So, clearly this verse does not mean what Siya is claiming. In fact, the verse affirms the view that God, or Jesus, see only two genders, and then say that it doesn’t matter who you are, Male or Female, Jew or non-Jew, which is what the catch-all-name Gentile means, if you believe in Christ you are saved. But to say that this verse completely takes away the fact that a person that is Homosexual, and that a person’s actions don’t have an impact on a person losing their salvation, which is very possible as I will show shortly, is not being commented on in this verse. This verse, and the theme of the book, is to reassure those in Galatia who fear losing their salvation because they sometimes sin, or because they aren’t a Jew, or feel like they need to do something to gain their salvation, that Faith is good enough to attain Salvation. They need to do nothing to gain Salvation but believe fully in Jesus as Saviour and repent of their sins.
So, what about Siya’s claim that this verse nullifies Homosexuality as a risk to Salvation in Christianity? So far the verse could possibly mean that, but as I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t really comment on that, and you need to look at the whole Bible to fully understand the context of single verses. Luckily I regularly read through the whole Bible and do my own studies on it, so I can give you the sections in the Bible that nullifies Siya’s argument for good.
Since Jesus is the centre of Christianity, as He is God, it would be best to hear directly from Him on homosexuality, and if we don’t or can’t hear directly from Him in the Bible, the closest we can then get is to hear from those that He personally taught and that were closest to Him.
Sadly, Jesus never speaks of Homosexuality in the Bible, but this may be for a few good reasons, 2 of which are quite important.
- The first is that the Gospels, which are about Jesus’ life and teachings on Earth, focused primarily on the most important aspects, teachings, and events in Jesus’ life. John, the disciple that knew Jesus the best and was the closest to him of all, said at the end of his gospel that “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”, which he said in John chapter 21 right at the end. Go look for yourself; don’t just take my word for it, like Siya Khumalo wants you to take his. Go read it and see for yourself. So the fact that the Gospels only focused on the most important, and the fact that Homosexuality is not part of any of the Gospels, leads us into the second reason which is:
- Homosexual acts were well-known by all Jews, whom Jesus approached the most in the Gospels, to be wrong. There was no need for Jesus to say anything about the subject, and if He did, none of the disciples felt the need to record it as it was well known, thus not as important as other subjects.
Since it was not recorded that Jesus said anything about Homosexuality, we can simply leave it at that, right?
Nope.
You see, Jesus was very much focused on teaching us the real way to live, but since He was also human He couldn’t teach everyone, and thus He selected disciples He knew would carry His message to all people correctly, to continue His teachings once He has left, which He was very certain of. There were 3 disciples that were the closest to Him: John, Peter, and John’s brother, James. All these disciples were selected by Him while still on Earth. There was a fourth disciple that Jesus selected after He left, and that was Paul. John, James, and Peter confirmed Paul into the church order after he converted from being a staunch enemy of Christ, and started preaching the gospel. 10 years later they called upon his aid after Paul started planting churches all over the Roman Empire, to assist in deliberating important matters for Christianity in Jerusalem. Through this we know that the first 3 disciples were in agreement over Paul’s writings and stood by him on his points. Hell, even Peter accepted a rebuking by Paul at one stage, which shows how high a regard the other disciples had for Paul.
If we wanted to know what Jesus said about Homosexuality, but couldn’t speak to Him directly or read anywhere what He said, there’s no better way than to ask those that knew Him best and were selected by Him to spread His teachings. And there isn’t anyone better than these 4 disciples. And because Peter, James and John approved of what Paul preached, whatever Paul wrote all 4 disciples were, for all intents and purposes, saying the same things in unison.
So, what did Paul say?
There are three passages in the New Testament that speak directly to homosexuality. Notice: passages, not verses. This isn’t some false narrative that will be pushed; this is an in-context, well-researched investigation of Christianity’s stance on Homosexuality.
The first mention of homosexuality is found in Romans 1. Paul starts by proclaiming the power of the Gospel, and how it reveals the wickedness of all men. He then moves on to mention and prove that those that do not live as God wants them to live do so out of choice, and so God left them to do what they want: impure and degrading acts with their bodies. The primary example given for these people committing impure acts, are women exchanging natural intercourse for the unnatural, thus sleeping with each other and in the same way for men, who also sleep with each other. Here is the full passage on this: 
So, clear negativity towards homosexuality and homosexual acts, mentioning not just the acts, but the lust that went with it.
There is no question on homosexuality: those that practise it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In other words, as per the other parts of the Bible, those that are saved are the ones inheriting the Kingdom of God, so those that practise homosexuality will not be saved. Yes, the piece only mentions men, but if read with Paul’s understanding of homosexuality in Romans, our previous piece, then the same will apply to women.
This settles it. There are no escape clauses, no maybes, or buts. Paul didn’t leave any meaning within his letters open, he didn’t leave any other interpretation for homosexuality, regardless of whether you study the different English translations or the ancient Greek language in which the original manuscripts and their subsequent copies were written in. “No” to homosexuality. “No” to supporting it. Done. And as I mentioned, if John, James, and Peter agreed with Paul, then they would have said it as well. And if they have said it, so would Jesus have.
Now that we have established that, let us get back to what Siya Khumalo wrote. If we applied what Paul and the apostles said to the Galatians verse, there is absolutely no way that the verse could be used or even vaguely mean what Siya Khumalo would like it to mean. It would not contradict what is said in 1 Corinthians 6, which is the loss of Salvation for those that practise Homosexuality, as Paul would not contradict himself, especially on something this important to the apostles, nor is there any kind of nullification of the sexes. Siya Khumalo has no leg to stand on. And he commits 3 heresies, numbers 1 to 3.
When You Do What You Claim Your Enemies Do
In many ways Siya is correct regarding what some Christians support, but only some. There were people in the past, and some currently, that used false hermeneutics to support Apartheid, Slavery and Anti-Semitism. There is a problem with mentioning Islamophobia, however. You see, History asks a different question: is it Christianity and Christians that are Islamophobes, or is it the followers of Islam that are the Christianophobes? History reveals, just through a cursory study, that Islam was, and still is, very much an ideology and religion of conquering. The very reason for the Crusades was the invasion of Islam into the West and the destruction of the Byzantine Empire. Through the Islamic conquests the Islamists murdered or taxed non-believers of Islam and forced conversions on people as far as they went. Even today Islamists murder thousands of Christians and other non-Muslims in Islamic countries on a yearly basis, and despite mainstream media portraying those that commit the deeds as extremists, that is not the whole truth. Many polls have been done where liberal Islamists within those countries approve of the killings, even when they themselves would not do such things.
In addition, Islam does not serve the same God, no matter how hard Islamists try to fool Christians and non-believers. I’m not going to go into the details on this, but you can go watch Acts17 Apologetics, a channel run by David Wood and friends of his who converted from Islam to Christianity, and you can find out exactly how big of a difference there is between Islam and Christianity. In this respect there is no “watering down”, “distortion”, or false hermeneutics applied. There is a massive difference, and Siya lies openly. He commits the heresy of Christianity supporting Islam here [6]. A question that comes up: Why does Siya protect or use Islam as a religion that is “othered” by Christianity to try and strengthen his own position, when Islam itself declares that homosexuals should be put to death and, to this day, executes homosexuals, of which there is a recent example where in Iran gay people were simply thrown off building rooftops by ISIS members?
Also, Siya does exactly what he blames Christians for: he decontextualizes, waters down, and distorts Galatians in this very article to serve his own nefarious purpose of trying to say that “real” Christianity supports homosexuality. It doesn’t. I proved this earlier, and any person that says otherwise lies.
Finally, if the net effect of Christian theology makes it safer to seek love in secular spaces instead of in sacred spaces, as Siya claims, why is it that so many homosexuals constantly want to come back to the church, or use Christian services and places, and try and force their ideology and beliefs on the Christian community? Doesn’t that contradict Siya’s claim? It is something to think about, but let’s continue with this riveting article.
I Want To Live Without Rules
Apparently, according to Siya, it is bad to put down guidelines and rules on how to live a good life, especially when the faith is so young. Why is that, Siya? Is it because those rules exclude your mad and mental disorder ideology and beliefs? Is it because people may rise above being simply animalistic in their behaviour and strive for something better, such as being a better human being that doesn’t sleep around for fun and catching diseases, living a better life that uphold high moral values, and that ultimately improves the world around them not just for themselves but for everyone around them, unlike homosexuality?
And is that list really “messy”, or, if you read it with proper comprehension, is there a set order to how the rules were put in place? Is it perhaps a good thing that you know how to live being a Christian, so that you are certain about how your behaviours may affect your life, your Salvation, your beliefs, and the lives of those around you? How can any of this be negative unless you disagree with them personally and want to live a different and, very likely, immoral life?
And if one lives a moral life with a community that agrees to those rules and live moral lives themselves, why would they want to include other people that do not agree with those rules? That would introduce anarchy and strife that is both unnecessary and destructive to the community as a whole. That is why the so-called “diversity is our strength” narrative pushed by the Far Left is such a lie, as proven by the protests and property destruction by Leftists in First world countries, Xenophobia and the ANCs destructive policies in our country, and even the coronavirus that is spreading all over the world. Diversity isn’t strong at all; Homogeny is far stronger. People that live together with the same moral values, life goals and ideas achieve far better things than countries with diverse and opposing beliefs and values. That is why America, although quite diverse in opinion, are so stable: the vast majority of the country’s citizens are Christian, are patriotic, and are behind the American goal of achieving and maintaining the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of America, and Capitalistic ideals. It also helps that the vast majority share the same moral values, which is why everywhere, but for places like San Francisco and California where there are diverse moral values, the local economies are doing well, and the people live in relative stability and peace.
Lefty Speak, But No Knowledge At All
Wow. Where do I begin? Is it a reading comprehension problem that Siya has, or is he simply too stupid to engage with the material he is criticizing? Siya literally takes an answer given by Jesus, that is about taxes, which is within a specific context, during a specific period in History, answering a specific question from a specific person regarding a specific subject, and everyone around Jesus fully understood the implications of his answers and all agreed to the same answer without biases, but Siya says Jesus’ answers apparently “would mean whatever his listener’s biases wanted it [to mean]”, and that Jesus “has no answers”. Now, as I mentioned before, if we of today want to understand certain verses, we need to read other verses in the Bible on the topic and apply the 7 questions to both the verse we want to understand and those other verses, and we would get a proper answer. This goes for anything that Jesus said or did. And for the lazy among us, there are libraries and websites filled with commentary and explanations on Jesus’ answers if we don’t want to do it ourselves. If Jesus’ answers were so incoherent that they weren’t answers at all, would there be any commentary at all? How about explanations? How about a religion that, for the most part, speaks with one voice on the crucial matters of the Faith for more than 2000 years?
There couldn’t be, and what Siya is trying to do is destroy the Faith here so that he can bring in his own idol-worship, which is sex with someone of the same gender. Heresy number 7 in full swing!
And the Crucifixion was everything but what Siya claims. It is the central point of the Faith: God so love the world that HE sent His only Begotten Son to die for our sins so that those that believe do not perish but attain Eternal Life. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. Without Jesus’ Death and resurrection there is no Christianity. To say what Siya says here is to attack Christianity at its core, and it’s a terribly bad attempt, but it belies what Siya is trying to do. Knowing full well that he is unable to properly engage with the laws and requirements to be a Christian and are unable to worm in his homosexual views into the Faith, he is trying to destroy it. That is the 7th Heresy, mentioned earlier, that he commits.
He has exposed himself as a bigot, because that is what bigots do: they are intolerant of other peoples’ beliefs, and aim to destroy those beliefs. Siya is intolerant to proper Christian beliefs and are now trying to destroy it.
Despite this fact, despite that this absolves me from continuing with the article because it proves that Siya Khumalo is a bad-faith actor with a false agenda, I will continue for completions’ sake.
The Wheels Come Off
What is he writing here? We jump from an attempt to destroy Christian belief to something about “colonial propaganda”, “heteropatriarchal assumptions” and Capitalism. You know that saying that some black people say of other black people: “Clever Black is trying to be clever”? It is the best description here of Siya Khumalo’s attempt at…something. He uses big words but doesn’t say anything at all. How did we get from talking about Jesus not having the answers to suddenly talking about Capitalism and something about made-up words and hijackings and Roman Empire?
Ok, let’s pretend he is actually saying something here and try to break it down: he says that what colonialists have done is take Jesus, tore away what He stood for, which included acceptance of homosexuality and the resistance that He had against becoming a tool for empires, and then misrepresented Him and added their own assumptions that protect heterosexual, patriarchal relationships, i.e. a man and a woman being the only true marital relationship where the man rules in the relationship, and made him a poster-boy for a Religion that is or approve of Empires. Then, by doing so, and doing it so successfully, they made all worldviews, metaphysics, statements of faith or lack thereof, or teachers, “or isms -absolutely no idea”, safe from being hijacked for financial gain. And that is supposedly what Capitalism is, and currently it is exploiting the atheist secular liberal worldview so that it is violent, most probably against homosexuals, but he doesn’t define the violence.
Firstly, the Roman Empire occurred long before there was an economic system even akin to Capitalism. At best it was an agrarian economy, with trade being primarily through the exchange of goods and service with other goods and services, and only later, when there were shortfalls, such as those caused by droughts, did the Empire turn to coin. But it was still very much to do with the trade of gold or silver for other commodities and it wasn’t complete fiat currency until much later, and even then, it wasn’t even close to the capitalistic system that we have.
Second, the first disciples of Jesus were not all Roman, nor did they hold any Roman beliefs. In fact, long before there was a church in Rome, never mind Catholicism, never mind even Roman Catholicism, there was Christianity, and as I proved previously, they already spoke out against Homosexuality, and they also proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman was the only legitimate marriage. As if that isn’t bad enough, long before there was an Israel, a Greece, A Roman Empire, or even Alexander the Great, there were laws against Homosexuality in Judaism, from which Christianity birthed. Jesus held the same views that his opponents held regarding marriage and proper relationships. For all intents and purposes Jesus was a Jew, and in fact He was the best Jew that ever lived. Everything the Pharisees and Sadducees did Jesus did better in spades. And unlike them, His heart was perfect. In saying that it was the condition of their hearts, their pride, and their hunger for domination over others that Jesus had serious issues with, along with all the other crazy by-laws that they came up with, which stemmed out of their pride and dominating will.
Thirdly: Colonialism, at least the colonialism Siya is supposedly fighting, barely has Roman Catholicism in it. Most Afrikaans-speaking white people are Reformed, and the largest English denomination is Anglican, which are all Protestant denominations which are VERY anti-Roman Catholic! It would be easier to find a Russian Orthodox Church than a Roman Catholic Church in South Africa!
Siya has shown the following in this paragraph:
·
- He has no inkling or understanding of basic History. A lot of other factors contributed to the Religious environment in South Africa, and most other religions are also against Homosexuality; it is not just Christianity.
- He doesn’t know what colonialism he is fighting. Which one is it Siya: British, French or Dutch Colonialism?
- He doesn’t know what Christianity is. Christianity has nothing to do with Capitalism even if some pastors have become capitalistic, and Roman Catholicism is just one denomination of Christianity which is one of the denominations with the least impact in South Africa. Also, Christianity was brought by colonialism. If you decolonise it, it’s not Christianity anymore.
- He doesn’t know what Capitalism is. Capitalism doesn’t care whether you are part of the alphabet people, a Christian, a Jew, or a pagan, it simply allows you to buy and sell and do so freely without consequence. The very reason why Siya can write and publish the crap he is writing is in part due to Capitalism.
Yet, he speaks of all these topics as if he knows what he is talking about, hence the incoherence of this paragraph. Oh yes, he also commits the heresy of attacking the sanctity of Heterosexual relationships and its normalcy [7]. Tsk tsk.
The "Jesus Didn't Say It" Defense
Except, Siya, you completely omit the fact that Jesus’ disciples wrote letters to the faithful in support of your so-called “heterosexism”. Sheesh, lefties love making up words. And they weren’t under duress, debating anyone or even talking to unbelievers. They were simply conveying the very stances that Jesus had regarding all the issues that Jesus’ followers will encounter. Again, the heresy of attacking heterosexual relationships [7].
Hitching the Homo Cart to the Racism Car
Firstly, Apartheid and Homophobia, or a better description than this made-up word “Homophobia”, “Anti-Homosexuality”, are two distinct ideologies. Since you can have the one ideology without the other, you cannot have the same Christianity targeting both. The one Christianity that includes Apartheid would have to include racism as part of its beliefs, which is contrary to anything said in the Bible and thus not really Christianity, while the other Christianity would not want racism and are thus opposed to Apartheid, but keeps true to the Bible scriptures and excludes Homosexuality. It is only if both Apartheid and anti-Homosexuality was not in the scriptures that it would be the same faith, but as I have proven regarding Homosexuality, that is not the case.
Secondly, the first non-Jewish convert was actually Cornelius the Centurion, as per Acts 10. So Siya’s claim that the Black eunuch from Ethiopia was the first gentile convert is false. It is a slight of hand attempt to try and inject racism where there isn’t racism and this is done deliberately by Siya to force the focus onto racism so that he can more easily try and convince you of his point of view. It is an old journalism tactic to make something that is superfluous or unimportant in a certain situation important, a sort of bait and switch tactic.
Thirdly, while White Supremacists who call themselves Christians do exist, and indeed vilify Black and Jewish people along with homosexuals, it is a cult because it does not recognise any scriptures and teachings of Jesus that say love your enemies. In addition real Christianity stretches its arms out to all people regardless of colour, age, creed, personality, moral convictions or history, and real Christianity has an inclusionary clause for non-believers where, if they have not rejected Christianity before or have had a change of heart, they can come into the Christian fold as they are, warts, sins and all. However, the true Christianity, the real Christianity, also demands that you do not stay the same. Those that call themselves Christians must allow the Holy Spirit to change them, and other Christians and non-Christians would be able to pick this up in their behaviour. It is not, thus, an abuse of power to demand those that dare to call themselves Christians to live Christian values. Those people that do not wish to live Christian values, can’t be called Christians or call themselves Christians, and have no say and do not belong in places where Christians congregate or practise their beliefs, just like heterosexual people are not welcome to force their so-called “heteronormativity” on homosexuals within places like a GLAAD gathering or a Pride Parade, or any other secular setting that does not negatively impact the Christians’ lives.
Fourthly, as I mentioned previously, racism is separate to Homosexuality, and Siya Khumalo is just basically talking hogwash when he says that you need to confront racism and queer phobia together, the bait and switch tactic. Is it perhaps that he knows he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on that he tries to hitch his trans-wagon onto the racism car so that he may sound more legitimate?
Finally, there is a far better version of potting soil than religion for hypocrisy: Homosexuality. What is worse, to kick out those that practise homosexuality using hateful means instead of out of love, or living an entire life pretending to be something you clearly are not, screaming tolerance at those that do not accept you, and then when you have been given the freedoms to practise your delusions force people with threats of violence or legal repercussions to accept what is clearly a delusion? If you don’t see the hypocrisy of what Siya and his ilk are doing then you either one of them or part of the problem.
The Damage Homosexuality Brings
Siya will need to provide an example of a heterosexual couple who destroys social cohesion more than a Homosexual couple because sadly, for Siya, science once again comes to the fore to produce the evidence that destroys his argument. While a heterosexual couple may destroy some social cohesion, it is only temporary, while a homosexual couple, no matter how selfless they may be or how much community service they may do, can never rectify the damage they do long-term to a community. Thanks to homosexuality there is an additional impact, along with infertility, political propaganda, and disease, to the growth-rate of a country’s population. A single homosexual couple can be up to 4 times more damaging to a population’s numbers than a heterosexual couple where one or both members are infertile, or twice as damaging as a heterosexual couple that do not wish to produce offspring. What’s even worse is the fact that both members of a homosexual couple are likely fertile, which places a moral question upon them for not producing offspring.
The long-term effect of a choice that is clearly self-serving and very selfish is the fact that younger people will need to carry a much larger ailing population’s pensions. This may force austerity cuts to pensioners in times of economic hardships or a decline in population growth that impacts economic output.
Now you may mention that homosexual couples adopt, but that has no impact on population growth. Infertile couples and other couples wishing to adopt can adopt as well, but adoption still doesn’t produce offspring; it is merely the transfer of offspring from one fertile couple or person to another couple (infertile or otherwise).
In addition, if homosexual couples were to adopt children, those children are more likely to have serious psychological issues later in their life. Around the age of 28, most children raised by same-sex couples experience depression 2.25 more times than children raised in traditional marriages. Higher obesity rates are also recorded, of which those raised by homosexual couples 71.9% were obese compared to 37% from heterosexual couples, a marker for serious psychological issues.
And we have yet to mention the spreading of STDs, the prevalence of sexual promiscuity in the Homosexual community, and the militant way in which homosexuals force their ideology on others, that have a negative impact on social cohesion.
To top it all off, it appears that Siya wants to say that heterosexual people are far more violent than homosexual couples, considering the so-called amplification argument he makes at the end of the paragraph. Statistics and studies, however, show that the inverse is true: homosexual people seem to commit far more violent crime as a proportion of the populace than heterosexual males do, as is given through by lawyers in America that defend Homosexual people. Homosexuals are far more likely to strike first in altercations, throw dangerous objects, or participate in acts of violence during protests. For Heterosexual males it is 1 in 9, but for homosexuals it is 1 in 6.
Also, far higher levels of domestic violence are found among same-sex couples.
Siya’s defence of Homosexuality here falls flat and proves to be devoid of fact or truth.
Then, his comment that the church would be powerless to stop violence that South Africa supposedly inherited after Apartheid again shows how little he understands of South African history. Black people in South Africa have been violent towards their fellow man long before there were Colonists, and Black people in South Africa have been violent, burning down schools, churches and other public and private buildings even before Apartheid. Here is a little fact that Siya flatly ignores: South Africans, specifically Black South Africans, were far less violent during the Apartheid era than they are now. I wonder why? Is it perhaps because there is a breakdown of the rule of Law after Apartheid? Or is it because we have such a neutered Law that gives far more Human Rights to criminals than law-abiding citizens? A collapse in the enforcement of laws? And, is the acceptance of Homosexuality not perhaps part of the problem, where homosexual activism pushed, and still pushes, sexual promiscuity into the public domain thereby degrading the moral conscience of the country?
Those that study the effects of homosexuality on a society’s conscience already know that the answer to whether homosexuality degrades moral values are of the affirmative, it is only the scale of the problem and damage that still needs to be measured. Since Homosexuality is a degradant of moral values, don’t you think that a Post-Apartheid church should, since it is there to help uphold the moral conscience of a society, not fight Homosexuality with even more vigour? Would fighting Homosexuality, thereby improving the moral conscience of a country, not perhaps do what Siya claims it wouldn’t: decrease the violence in Post-Apartheid South Africa? I think it would, and so do many professorial scholars that study the moral consciences of countries. While Siya doesn’t really commit any heresies in this paragraph, he does make unsubstantiated claims with no proof and that holds no water.
Blame It On The Left-Handed
Firstly, I already mentioned that Siya has a weak understanding, if any understanding at all, of Christianity, and has bigoted views towards it, so I will not revisit those arguments. What is funny to me, however, is how bad his argumentation is here. Being left-handed has little to no impact on social cohesion. Homosexuality has. There is no comparison that can be made, and Siya’s attempt is comical and can’t be taken seriously.
Secondly, what makes Homosexual beliefs and views anymore legitimate than Christian beliefs and views? If we want to speak to what the two ideologies bring to society, Homosexual ideology has yet to produce any benefit, any proof that it provides anything positive to society other than a bunch of crazy individuals who let their flights of fancy/mental disorders run wild out of pure selfishness, forcing their ideology down other people’s throats. The best things that was brought to this country is in huge part thanks to Christianity: Individual Freedom and liberty, the fall of Apartheid, which was driven mainly by pastors and other Christians, the large number of organisations that assist the poor, most of them run out of churches. Even atheists who are intellectually honest about history and the current environment agree that if it wasn’t for Christianity Africa would be fighting tribal battles using machetes and AK47s as their African faiths and feudal systems run amok.
Thirdly, is institutional Christianity intellectually sheltered? Really? There isn’t a day that goes by that a journalist, or a scientist, or a philosopher doesn’t post an article questioning some piece of Christian belief that is being taught by a random Christian denomination. There are dedicated forums visited daily that solely question and debate Christian beliefs within Religious institutions. There’re whole YouTube channels dedicated at either defending or debunking Christian religious practises and teachings. Exactly what Christian institution is not currently being questioned, Siya? Can you point out any denomination that is not under attack by some intellectual with a fart for an idea?
On the other hand if anyone dares question Homosexuality and any of its unknown number of genders, where no single LBGTQI++ Helicopter pilot Mushroom activist can name all the different supposed genders there are, they get de-platformed from social media, demonetised on YouTube, fired from their jobs, in some places in the world locked up and/or fined, their research funding cancelled, and some even pushed out of society as if they are mass-murderers. Yet Homosexuality has yet to prove to have any form of positive impact on society, or even be intellectually coherent.
If we were to take any of the above points and compare Homosexuality to Christianity, there is no question which ideology, which beliefs should rather be tolerated, and which beliefs should be struck down for the idiocy, incoherency, and social destructiveness that they are. And it is not Christianity that should be struck down.
The Close-Out
I’m taking the last paragraphs together because they are the close-out of this article.
Siya failed to make any kind of link between racism and homosexuality. Most Black people are against Homosexuality, and quite a few of them aren’t even Christian. Homosexuality is recognised to be a serious risk to social cohesion by most individuals with even a simple inkling to what normalcy and reality is, even if they don’t have the hard data to prove it in a court of law. It is also highly unlikely that venues like Beloftebos would turn away Black couples simply because they are Black. There is no proof of what Siya says here, and as I mentioned before and have to repeat here again, he is simply trying to hook his homosexual idea cart to that of the racism car because he knows he hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
Finally, if he calls himself a Christian, he has not only committed seven heresies which, on their own, is grounds enough to have him thrown out of church and excommunicated from Christianity, the mere fact that he openly lives a Homosexual life and has no remorse for it and actually flaunts it, is just the cherry on top of the excommunication cake. He doesn’t know what it means to be a Christian. He doesn’t know what Capitalism is. He doesn’t know what Colonialism is. All of these facts make his opinion on Christianity and Beloftebos nothing but hot air from someone with a mental disorder.
