From the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Sympathy for the Devil






Scholars in queer political theory, and queer theory more generally, are playing with fire.


Rosaria Butterfield agrees with Sam Allberry, Albert Mohler and Russell Moore that homosexuals and lesbians cannot be converted to heterosexuals by Reparative Therapy. They even assert that such counseling is damaging. This is curious because Rosaria’s specialty in the field of Critical Theory at Syracuse University was “Queer Theory” which maintains that “gender and sexuality are social constructs” and therefore “sexuality is fluid.”


“My historical field in English studies was 19th century literature and culture. My historical interests in 19th century literature were grounded in the philosophical and political worldviews of Freud, Marx, and Darwin. My primary field was Critical Theory—also known as postmodernism. My specialty was Queer Theory (a postmodern form of gay and lesbian studies).” (Secret Thoughts, Kindle 146-148)


“…I was thirty-six years old, happily partnered in a lesbian relationship, and recently tenured in the English department of Syracuse University, poised and ready to work in the field of Queer Theory. (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 244-245)


“Coming out as a lesbian was my way of staking my claim at identity. Somewhere between college and graduate school, in my mind, things shifted from ‘Why do I feel this way?’ to ‘This is who I am: take it or leave it.’ But never did I use the concept of sexual orientation to describe my sexual identity. I was a nineteenth-century scholar and I held some scholarly suspicions about this category. Also, ‘sexual orientation’ was not part of my lesbian, poststructural, queer culture….


“Terms like ‘same-sex attraction’ were also not in my vocabulary. I had never heard of Exodus International, and I likely would have described an ‘ex-gay’ as an unhappy camper. And no one in the LGBT community from which I emerged would have ever claimed to have been ‘born this way.’ We believed that sexuality was fluid. The ‘born this way’ idea was potentially pathologizing to lesbians of my generation.


“Because we were leaders in poststructural feminism and Queer Theory, disciplines that understood sexuality as a social construct, we situated ourselves—for good or bad, right or wrong—in the world of free choice. We claimed psychological proof that gender and sexuality were social constructs, and as such, matters of personal expression that can be changed, resisted, or shaped as our own individual sense of personal integrity and desire allowed. (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 1915-1924).


Rosaria still maintains that the worldly categories of “sexual orientation” are unstable and unbiblical:


“Sometimes, these worldly identities enter into the church intending to be a helpful category, meant to smooth the bridge of understanding among God’s people. One such worldly category is the concept of sexual orientation, the idea that people are born with a fixed sexual orientation—gay, straight, or bisexual. But this category is unstable and will not stop changing. We are told that sexual orientation is a true and abiding category of humanity. In the next two chapters, I show how this concept has been harmful to all people, but especially, I believe, to believers who struggle with unwanted homosexual desires.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 1636-1641) 


“Thus, ‘sexual orientation’ is what we call a neologism, and it creates fictional identities that rob people of their true one: male and female image bearers. Sexual orientation is a word that extends the definition of sexuality beyond its biblical confines.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 1696-1698)


“I…acknowledge that sexuality rests on a continuum, ranging between fixedness and fluidity.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 2441-2442)


If homosexuality is not a fixed identity, but “fluid” as Rosaria avers, why then should homosexuals be denied Reparative Therapy to make the transition to heterosexuality?”  Does she have a hidden agenda?


“Because we were leaders in poststructural feminism and Queer Theory, disciplines that understood sexuality as a social construct, we situated ourselves—for good or bad, right or wrong—in the world of free choice. We claimed psychological proof that gender and sexuality were social constructs, and as such, matters of personal expression that can be changed, resisted, or shaped as our own individual sense of personal integrity and desire allowed. Because we believed that ‘gay is good,’ we embraced a missionary’s zeal about political and social activism. We believed that all good things flowed from our sexual desires and the egalitarianism of our households.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 1924-1929)


“In the 1990s, many people in the gay community (myself included) ditched the term gay or lesbian for the term queer. Why? In the sixteenth century, queer was an adjective and meant perverse, strange, bad, worthless, and counterfeit. By the eighteenth century, queer became dominantly used as a verb, and it meant to interfere with or spoil (‘queer a pitch’), to swindle or to cheat. By the late nineteenth century, queer was a pejorative term used again as a noun to refer to a new kind of person, a homosexual.


“In an effort to take back the word, queer activists embraced it in order to remake it on our own terms. We believed that signs (words) and signifiers (meanings) could be reshaped by sheer force of use, that they were inherently unstable and only found meaning in our usage of them. We believed in the social construction of gender and sexuality through language. We wanted to claim this term on our turf, because once it became our term, it lost its pejorative power.”


“So, if radical queer activists can play with language to redeem it, why can’t evangelical Christians? If language has an inherent fluidity, why not use this on our own terms?” (Openness Unhindered, (Kindle 2019-2022)


Rosaria Butterfield’s specialty at Syracuse University was Queer Theory.  As “a radical queer activist” and “leader in poststructural feminism and Queer Theory,” she was “poised and ready to work in the field of Queer Theory” having “a missionary’s zeal” to take back the word “queer” and “remake it on their own terms.”  According to Rosaria, her career in Queer Theory political and social activism was interrupted by her conversion to Jesus Christ.  However, that is not truly the case, for Rosaria now has a career in the Church — to “socially reconstruct gender and sexuality though language” and to “queer”–“interfere with or spoil, to swindle or to cheatChristians of sound doctrine concerning the sin of homosexuality.


We saw in Part 5: “Gay Christians?” Rosaria Butterfield’s “queering” of Christian doctrine and language to affirm as “Gay Christians” those who profess to “love Jesus” yet experience homosexual attraction or activity. We have observed her “queering” of Scripture to eviscerate passages—such as Genesis 13:13 and 19:4 and multiple Biblical references to “sodomites”—of the vital truth that God has declared to mankind regarding the abomination of homosexuality.


What the Christian Church accepts as true and teaches about homosexuality is not a mere matter of opinion. It is a serious matter of eternal life in heaven or eternity in hell for multitudes of deceived homosexuals.


Lesbian Camille Paglia, author of Vamps & Tramps: New Essays, is at least honest about the abnormality and destructive nature of homosexuality. And she has an opinion about “word-obsessed” “Queer theorists” who deal in lies and deny the obvious:


“Homosexuality is NOT ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the idea of the norm.  Queer theorists – that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders – have tried to take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction… no fancy linguistic game playing can change that basic fact.


“In the Eighties and early Nineties, displaced anxiety over the horror of AIDS turned gay activists into rampaging nihilists and monomaniacs, who dishonestly blamed the disease on the government ... AIDS did NOT appear out of nowhere. It was a direct result of the sexual revolution, which my generation unleashed with the best of intentions, but whose worst effects were to be suffered primarily by gay men. In the West, despite much propaganda to the contrary, AIDS is a gay disease and will remain one for the foreseeable future.”


A lesbian Russian-American journalist, Masha Gessen, revealed that the whole point of gay marriage is to destroy heterosexual marriage:


“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.


“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.


“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”


Masha Gessen left Russia when Vladimir Putin banned homosexual propaganda and American adoptions of Russian children.

“In March 2013, politician Vitaly Milonov, who promoted the Russian law against foreign adoption of Russian children, championed the law by saying: The Americans want to adopt Russian children and bring them up in perverted families like Masha Gessen’s.’…


“In December 2013, she moved to New York because Russian authorities had begun to talk about taking children away from gay parents. In March, ‘the St Petersburg legislator [Milonov] who had become a spokesman for the law [against ‘homosexual propaganda' towards children] started mentioning me and my ‘perverted family’ in his interviews,’...


“Gessen argued in a February 2014 article for Slate that the international, and especially American, LGBT movement had failed gay Russians at the Sochi Olympics. ‘The Sochi Games were the U.S. gay rights movement’s first real attempt to venture into international work,’ she wrote. ‘It was an embarrassment. If U.S. groups continue to do nothing but stage fundraisers and strategy sessions, it will be a disgrace.’”


It appears that Rosaria Butterfield was trained “to work in the field of Queer Theory” to covertly advance the Cultural Marxist Revolution that Masha Gessen promotes overtly. “Because we believed that ‘gay is good,’ we embraced a missionary’s zeal about political and social activism. We believed that all good things flowed from our sexual desires and the egalitarianism of our households.” (Openness Unhindered)  Rosaria Butterfield and Masha Gessen were lesbians committed to the advancement of Cultural Marxism.  The difference is that Rosaria had an “unlikely conversion” which she describes as an “alien abduction” or a “train wreck,” after which her “mission” has been to queer (to interfere with, spoil, swindle or cheat) Christians into welcoming “gay Christians” into their church membership.




Queer Theory—a branch of gay and lesbian studies developed in 1990; emphasizes the social construction of gender and sexuality.” (Openness Unhindered, Kindle 364)


“Queer Theory” is not a “postmodern” concept “developed in 1990.”  Its source is ancient Gnosticism, which was based on the homoerotic culture of ancient Greece whose pagan religion was derived from the pre-flood culture which God judged. The following excerpts from an article in the Biblical Theology Bulletin (2012) titled, “Gnostically Queer: Gender Trouble in Gnosticism” recount the history.  The author, Jonathan Cahana of the Hebrew University, writing of the ancient Gnostic texts, noted the theme “so many of these texts have in common: a subversive attitude to gender and ancient heteronormativity.”  In other words, Gnostics wanted to subvert male-female heterosexuality as the social norm.


Cahana also states that the agenda of the ancient Gnostics was to “distort and dismantle the process of gendering and queer their ‘Bible.’” That is to say, the Gnostic agenda was “to interfere with or spoil, to swindle or to cheat” their Bible in order to distort and dismantle the process of gendering.


As evidence of this Gnostic agenda, Cahana references Hippolytus’ Refutation of all Heresies, specifically a fragment describing a 2nd century Gnostic sect, the Naassenes, who subversively interpreted or “queered” Romans 1 to mean the direct opposite of what the apostle Paul wrote:


“Yet the correlation between same-sex acts and the radical subversion of gender is not something we have to suggest to the gnostics; there is at least some evidence that they expounded this idea themselves in detail. Hippolytus of Rome, writing approximately 150 years before Epiphanius, describes for us the tenets of another gnostic sect, the Naassenes. The Naassenes, taking their name from the Hebrew word for serpent, nahash, were a Christian gnostic sect that existed during the 3rd century ce. They ‘called themselves Gnostics alleging that they alone knew the depths’ (Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, 5.6.4) and claimed that their tradition was handed down by James through Mariamne (5.7.1).  Hippolytus is our only source for their existence, but he appears to have had access to a full-length sermon of theirs which he sometimes quotes verbatim, albeit interspersing it with his own comments. Part of this sermon addressed the sacrament of baptism and underlined the Naassenes’ special—or, shall we say, subversive?—reading of Paul’s writings. In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul claims that same-sex acts (both male and female) are no less than God’s punishment of the gentiles who refused to worship him (1:20–27). These Naassenes, however, preferred to read him differently, owing to their belief that the pure or original human being was not gendered.


‘For, says he [the Naassene], the human is masculo-feminine. According to this argument of theirs, then, the so-called intercourse of woman with man is by [the teaching of] their school shown to be an utterly wicked and defiling thing. For Attis is castrated, he says, that is, he has changed over from the earthly parts of the lower creation to the eternal substance on high, where, he says, there is neither male nor female, but a new creature, a new Human, who is masculo-feminine... And this they say is made quite clear by the saying:


‘For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made by Him, in truth, His eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse. Since when they knew Him as God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but foolishness deceived their hearts. For thinking themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likenesses of an image of corruptible man and of birds and of four footed and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to passions of dishonor. For even their females changed their natural use to that which is against nature. Likewise, also the males leaving the natural use of the female burned in their lust one toward another, males among males working unseemliness.’


“And what ‘the natural use’ is according to them, we shall see later… But ‘unseemliness’ is according to them the first and blessed and unformed substance which is the cause of all the forms of things which are formed. ‘And receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which is meet.’ For in these words, which Paul has spoken, they say is comprised their whole secret and the ineffable mystery of the blessed pleasure. For the promise of baptism is not anything else according to them than the leading to unfading pleasure him who is baptized according to them in living water and anointed with another ointment  [Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.14–19; Legge: 124–25, with alterations].

“These Naassenes, then, argued that one should strive to reach the ungendered state of the heavenly human, or anthrōpos, colorfully depicted in the myth of Attis—a male—being castrated. Therefore, they reasoned, intercourse between females and males, being the quintessential occasion and expression of the deplorable gendered state, is something every sensible Naassene should avoid.

The Naassenes regarded the gendered state as “deplorable.” Are heterosexuals the “basket of deplorables” to which Hillary Clinton referred? 


The author Cahana then explains the Gnostic swindle or queering of Romans 1, that is, turning the passage on its head by their subversive citation of it (since the early Christians often cited it to good effect) to mean the opposite of what Paul wrote. Thus, the Gnostics countered that the natural use of the woman meant earthly and therefore evil, but that which is against nature, lesbianism, is not earthly but spiritual and therefore good.

“But that is not the end of the story, for one should be actively subverting the process of gendering in order to overcome it, and by reading Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, they claimed to have found exactly how that could be done.  Paul claimed that sexual acts between females were ‘unnatural’ (para physin); the Naassenes rejoined that since gender is ‘natural,’ it is a blessing to act ‘unnaturally.’ Indeed, in another place Hippolytus remarks regarding the Naassenes that ‘the things which are not according to nature are with them natural’ (5.8.12). Paul went on to claim that sexual acts between males are ‘unseemly’ (aschēmosynē); the Naassenes countered that aschēmosynē literally means ‘something devoid of form (schēma)’ and therefore something pure and spiritual. Paul ended by warning that those who do such things receive ‘in themselves the recompense of their error which is meet,’ to which Naassenes replied that this ‘recompense’ is no less than a secret ‘blessed pleasure,’ followed by baptism and unction with ‘another oil.’ It may not be beside the point to remark here that baptism in the early church was almost always performed in full nudity (Ferguson: 855), and that the only other place in the whole Refutation where Hippolytus employs the root of the word ‘unseemly’ is at the beginning of the work, where he vows to reveal all the heretics to be ‘naked and unseemly’ (Proem.5.7: gumnous kai aschēmonas).”

Cahana then explains that the Naassenes’ “queered” interpretation of Romans 1 was based on the institutionalized homosexuality and pederasty of Greco-Roman culture.  The homosexual culture of ancient Greece and Rome directly influenced the homosexual Gnostic heretics of the early Church period and the present-day Feminist and LGBTQ movement.


“To fully apprehend the performative subversion of gendering at work in this apparently very ‘gay’ baptism ritual performed by the Naassenes, it is important to note Bernadette Brooten’s apt remarks regarding this text in her essential book, Love Between Women, that in the Greco-Roman world a man who engaged in a passive same-sex act was considered effeminate in much the same way as an ‘active’ homoerotic woman was considered masculine (1996: 342–43). Note also lesbian feminist thinker Monique Wittig’s famous dictum that ‘Lesbians are not women’ (30) but ‘something else, a not-woman, a not-man’ (12–13) But this subversive citation of Paul seems to go still further; although not an iota is taken out of the text that was read in the proto-orthodox Church, the way it was read against itself is mesmerizing, especially when compared to Butler’s description of the resignification process undergone by the word ‘queer.’


‘Within queer politics, indeed, within the very signification that is ‘queer,’ we read a resignifying practice in which the de-sanctioning power of the name ‘queer’ is reversed to sanction a contestation of the terms of sexual legitimacy. Paradoxically, but also with great promise, the subject who is ’queered’ into public discourse through homophobic interpellations of various kinds takes up or cites that very term as a discursive for an opposition. This kind of citation will emerge as theatrical to the extent that it mimes and renders hyperbolic the discursive convention it also reverses. The hyperbolic gesture is crucial to the exposure of the homophobic ‘law’ which can no longer control the terms of its own abjecting strategies [Butler 1993:23, italics in the original].’


“There is very little doubt that ‘unnatural’ (para physin) can and should be considered a ’homophobic interpellation’ in the Greco-Roman world, at least as far as sexual acts are concerned, for it was the prototypical term for denoting any sexual acts which were not considered gender sustaining, that is, acts in which women were active (=masculine) or adult freemen were passive (=effeminate, Brooten: 1–2 and passim). There is also a possibility that ‘unseemly’ (aschēmosynē) was such an interpellation, at least for a Judeo-Christian audience, for this word frequently translates the Hebrew ‘ervah in the Septuagint (especially in Leviticus, Brooten 1996: 257), often referring to women’s genitals.


“At any rate, Paul’s use of these terms was sure to imbue them with even more power, for early Christians read and interpreted his words (see, for instance, John Chrysostom’s fourth homily on Romans discussed in Brooten 1996: 344–48; see also Brooten 1989), and even used them as a stock quotation whenever a hint of homoeroticism was in the background, as can be seen even in the quote from Epiphanius provided above (p. 27).


“The only way to interfere with this iterative process, which gave the appearance of an ’original’ or ’natural’ heteronormativity, was by subversive citation, which appears to be exactly what the Naassenes were doing. Within their performative baptismal ritual, the ‘homophobic’ or, to use a less anachronistic term that would have probably made much more sense to the Naassenes, the ‘natural’ law was seen to be unable to ‘control the terms of its abjecting strategies,’ as Butler aptly puts it. While Wayne A. Meeks (181–83;202–03) had already postulated that ‘there is neither male nor female’ (Gal 3:28) was originally a performative utterance in baptismal ritual during Paul’s own time, one with which the Corinthians were rather carried away (at least according to Paul’s own judgment), the Naassenes baptismal ritual left little room for doubt: the ‘blessed pleasure,’ the ‘living water,’ and the ’other ointment,’ sent one to the ‘unfading pleasure’ and freedom of the queered gender.”

Historical accounts of Gnosticism reveal obvious connections with modern-day Gnostics who are queering the verses and passages in Gods Word that are homophobic. Like the ancient Gnostics, they are “queering the Bible” to be heterophobic”!




There is an explanation for the Gnostics’ perverted view of gender roles, which does not excuse their sin, but rather magnifies its abominable character — their blasphemous portrayal of the God of the Bible as an “evil demiurge.” Motivated by hatred of God who instituted heterosexual marriage, condemned sodomy, judged the pre-flood world and later Sodom and Gomorrah, the ancient Gnostics renounced heterosexuality and embraced “androgyny” as a way to subvert the “evil demiurge”:     


The Queer God, the Human, and the Evil Creator


“At this point we may indeed stop and ask: Why should one feel himself or herself to be so constrained to fight gendering in every possible way? Or, if this question is too broad to be dealt with in this present discussion, how would one explain the rationale behind such an endeavor? A hint is already provided in Hippolytus’ account, where it is noted that the pure human according to these gnostics was ‘neither male nor female, but a new creature, a new Human.’ Indeed this is a recurrent motif in most, if not all, gnostic writings: the original perfect human, or anthrōpos, is neither gendered nor sexed, and gender is the creation of an evil, inferior, and overly masculine god whose purpose is to delude humankind lest they recognize their heavenly origin.” (Gnostically Queer”)


The Naassenes were a sect of the Ophites, who worshipped “that old Serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” who first misrepresented God in order to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Naassenes’ misinterpretation of God’s Word is, therefore, an extension of the Serpent’s original lie and has been the Gnostic delusion of all ages to the present day and will be the “strong delusion” during the Tribulation period:


“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-5


“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:11-12


Cahana concludes with some insight as to the ultimate objective of the Queer movement and the Gnostics who preceded it – the destruction of the world after which they anticipate the resurrection of the lost civilization of Atlantis, the pre-Flood culture which God destroyed:


“My opinion is that those parallels between Gnosticism and the queer movement are at once promising and troubling. Promising, because a deeper study may be able to throw additional light on both phenomena. Troubling, because of the implications this may have for the queer movement. I am not only referring to the disappearance of Gnosticism after a relatively short period of time without leaving any real mark on Western culture. Much more troubling is these gnostics’ conviction that sex and gender are so intertwined with the structure of this world that any attempt to dismantle one would lead to the destruction of the other. From their point of view, that is nothing to lament: the sooner this world came to an end, the better. Now one may indeed object to this formulation of the problem, ...And, after all, it is certainly not my intention to propose that we should accept as such the arguments of those alienated and redemption-oriented Christians who lived almost 2,000 years ago. But they are worthy of our reflection.”


Gnosticism was a Christianized version of Greek Platonist philosophy which was derived from the ancient pagan mystery religions and passed on through the Alexandrian Gnostics, the Essenes, Jewish Kabbalists, the Hermetica, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, Theosophy, Hinduism and all pagan cults throughout history to the present day New Age movement.


Gnosticism began with a perverted view of Creation. According to this heresy, Adam was originally a “divine spark”—Adam Kadmon—not male, but male-female, or androgynous. In time, this “first Adam” became attracted to materiality and incarnated into matter. As Adam-Kadmon descended into matter, the “divine androgyne” was divided into two sexes which took on material bodies, becoming Adam and Eve. As a result of Adam-Kadmon’s “fall” into the material realm, humanity is now trapped in matter.


After the first Adam’s descent into matter, Lucifer, who was co-creator of the world with God, offered the fallen Adam and Eve a means of release from their bondage in matter. They needed only to eat of the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil” which God had forbidden them to do. The forbidden fruit represented “spiritual enlightenment” with the power to become “gods,” having the ability to transcend matter and to be reabsorbed into the “divine principle” from which they originated.  However, the other creator-God, rudely intervened in Lucifer’s plan in order to keep man trapped in matter and subject to Himself. To prevent Adam from taking of the tree of life, that he might achieve immortality, “The Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” (Gen. 3:24)


In Gnostic belief, this God is an “evil Demiurge” and “Satan,” whereas Lucifer is the true God who is in a continuing battle with the evil Demiurge for possession of planet Earth. And so, Lucifer’s offer still stands for those who will receive “spiritual enlightenment”— the delusion that they can become “gods” and escape the control of the “evil Demiurge.”


The homosexual agenda is a revival of ancient Gnosticism, which is classical paganism with Christian veneer. Just as the LGBTQs deny their obvious male and female biological sex, and demand affirmation of “how they feel inside” as their true gender, so “Gnosticism does not accept the evidence of material reality and goes within for personal truth”:



“Robert Reilly recently re-formulated his critique of the homosexual agenda by describing it as a contemporary form of Gnosticism, which reinvents reality, as ancient Gnosticism did. Gnosticism does not accept the evidence of material reality and goes within for personal truth. In my own study of this ancient heresy, Stolen Identity: The Conspiracy To Re-Invent Jesus (2006), I document how Gnosticism rejected the objectivity of the flesh, including normal marriage and childbirth (‘flee maternity’ and ‘destroy the works of femaleness,’ Dialogue of the Savior, 144:9-10), held androgyny as the ideal (Gospel of Thomas, 22), consistently denied God the Creator, and in a final rejection of Twoism, the Gnostic ‘goddess’ Zoe ‘breathed [fire] upon his (Jahweh) face and threw him down into Hell’ (Hypostasis of the Archons, 94:8).
This is what is now happening in Western culture with the spread of this neo-Gnostic spirituality and sexuality.


“This is what people will more and more do with the biblical self-revelation. In order to make a case for God, we must realize that we do it in this deeply hostile context. And why?  Because beneath the surface of rites and acceptance lurks a deeply pagan view of existence.



“Finally, Gnosticism is a variant of classic paganism, expressed in the ancient mystery cults and then taking on a veneer of Christianity, and it is worthy of note that historically, over time and across space in classic pagan cults, the shaman is invariably a homosexual—see my article ‘
Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal.’ The great expert in world religions, Mircea Eliade, in his study of pagan religions speaks of ‘ritualized androgyny’ as a classic form of the pagan cultus from two thousand BC to today. Walter L. Williams in his study The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture, shows that before the invasion of the Spanish conquistadores, homosexual shamans dominated the animistic, earth-worshiping spirituality of the Mayans and Aztecs. In North American Indian culture the homosexual Berdache was the spiritual leader in the tribal religions of pagan animism. The reason is that the goal of paganism is to destroy the binary and ‘join the opposites,/ to produce a unified world, a pagan cosmology of which the homosexual is an embodied expression, denying the creational heterosexual norm.”




Based on the perverse delusion of postmodern Gnostics, “gender fluidity” is now taught to children and adolescents from pre-kindergarten through high school. This abomination Rosaria Butterfield never exposes or opposes but, in fact, she facilitates through her books.  Rosaria blazes abroad that the Christian community is “homophobic” but utters not a word about the global abuse of children by Planned Parenthood’s pornographic Comprehensive Sexuality Education Curriculum which is disseminated by the United Nations.  In the meantime, parents remain uninformed and unaware that their children as young as 4 years old are learning Queer Theory in their schools, which teaches them the perverted notion that they can be anywhere on the gender spectrum, depending not on their DNA but “how they feel inside.”  A recent article reports that California schools are deliberately keeping parents uninformed:


“ROCKLIN, California, August 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A number of angry parents are considering legal action after a charter school kindergarten teacher staged what one critic calls a transgender ‘transition ceremony’ in class for a five-year-old boy without informing parents beforehand.


“But Rocklin Academy Schools has countered that it didn’t have to tell parents about the transgenderism lesson that has left a number of five-year-olds shaken and disturbed. Because gender identity isn’t sex education, the administration said, it’s not subject to California’s parental consent and opt-out laws, reported Fox40News.”


Teaching children that their gender is changeable, that they can become whatever gender they choose, is CHILD ABUSE.  And those who teach “queer theory” are facilitating child abuse.


The suicide rate in the transgender community is staggering. Additionally, studies have shown higher than average rates of mental illnesses, such as depression, in transgender individuals.” (“Summer Camp For Transgender Children”)


God Himself has issued a stern warning to those who abuse children.


“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt. 18:6








Gender Unicorn Popping Up on College Campuses

“A cutesy little Gender Unicorn’ in the vein of Barney the Purple Dinosaur’ has been popping up on college campuses across the country, offering students a snowflake-friendly way to learn about the gender spectrum.

“Created by the organization Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER), the happy little graphic featuring a purple unicorn with its thoughts fixated on a colorful rainbow offer students quick little lessons in gender identity, gender expression, sex assigned at birth, physically attracted to, and emotionally attracted to, while providing them a scale on the gender spectrum.”

Orwellian Newspeak: biological sex vs. sex assigned at birth.”  Biological sex is not assigned at birth but determined by God before conception.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.” Jeremiah 1:5


I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned,

when as yet there was none of them. Psalm 139:14-16