Anti-homosexual Christianity
Of all the descriptions — positive and negative — respondents to a Barna survey could choose from to describe present-day Christianity in America, anti-homosexual garnered the highest agreement. After probing what respondents had in mind when listing this trait, the authors of UnChristian write:
“Outsiders say our hostility toward gays — not just opposition to homosexual politics and behaviors but disdain for gay individuals — has become virtually synonymous with the Christian faith.”
What’s more, they note from Barna’s other survey research that a considerably higher percentage of Christians believe homosexuality to be a sin than believe divorce for reasons other than adultery is a sin. When reading this I was curious how gossip and slander would fare, neither of which seems to receive the attention from pulpits that pornography and homosexuality receive. It’s no secret that many of us have created our own hierarchies of sin, with the ones we are prone to at the bottom, and the ones that hold no attraction for us at the top. The authors suggest that homosexuality’s top billing translates into hatred not just for the sin, but for the sinner.
Shayne Wheeler is one of the pastors and other prominent figures whose thoughts are featured in UnChristian. He notes, in the chapter on Christian anti-homosexuality, that:
“During the Alexandrian plague (third century), Christians risked their lives in caring for the sick, taking a posture of grace that said, ‘I am here for you. I may die, but you will not be alone.’ The church embodied the gospel and the message was not forgotten.”
When the AIDS epidemic struck the U.S. in the 1980’s, Wheeler notes, Christians became known for the opposite stance. Prominent Christians announced that it was God’s judgment on gays. While some kind-hearted Christians tried to serve this stricken community, many of us sat on our hands. “It has not been forgotten,” says Wheeler.
UnChristian’s authors make clear that they are not calling for an embrace of homosexuality. They are instead asking that Christians treat this like any other sin, and respond with the love that we would show someone caught up in a sin we find more acceptable.
I often err in the other direction, feeling harshness toward those whose sins mirror my own. What I hate in myself, I hate in others. It is hard, isn’t it, to separate the sin from the sinner, especially when we sinners clasp our sins so tightly to ourselves, like the lizard in C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce? Yet this is what Christ has done, cleaving us into New Man and Dead Man, and though we drag that dead man’s corpse about with us, it is the New Man our Lord sees. It is what we are supposed to see in each other as well, the brother or sister who is not yet free from sin, but who is shaking it off like a snake’s skin.
In The Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis wrote that every person we meet is either an “immortal horror or an everlasting splendor.” It seems we should pity the former, and embrace the latter. Mercy, in either event, should rule the day. That doesn’t mean we forsake speaking the truth, but it seems our speaking ought to have more the essence of a cancer doctor delivering bad (and perhaps good) news, than of a hangman pronouncing judgment. Too many people — homosexuals and straight alike — have been hearing the latter from Christian mouths, including my own.
Editor’s note: See Tony’s other two posts in this series, “Hypocritical Christianity” and “Target-shooting Christianity,” as well as his column in the current issue of WORLD, “Going negative.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top237 Comments to “Anti-homosexual Christianity”
“The authors suggest that homosexuality’s top billing translates into hatred not just for the sin, but for the sinner.”
The authors can suggest whatever they want, but it’s only their opinion, and they have an agenda of their own. I don’t feel a duty to be true to what they want; rather I feel a duty not to rewrite the Bible to accommodate its critics.
Report comment to moderator
“It is what we are supposed to see in each other as well, the brother or sister who is not yet free from sin, but who is shaking it off like a snake’s skin.”
This statement would make unrepentant and in-your-face homosexuals exactly the same as our brothers and sisters in Christ who struggle with a besetting sin, a sin that have confessed and want to put down.
I think there is a flaw in that logic.
Also, I think there is a problem on both sides of the homosexuality issue. Both sides have their baiters who elicit the knee-jerk reaction from one another that each side has come to expect and decry. And yet both sides rise to the bait.
There is little thoughtful discourse on the matter that can lead to the sinner to repentance. We on the Christian side of the debate often sin both in our message and in its delivery.
It has been my experience that when I have discussed it in a calm and rational manner, without a lot of vitriol and condemnation, there are some homosexuals who are willing to discuss it, and open to the ideal of “come let us reason together.” Often, it’s not so much what we say, it’s how we say it.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
I have listened well you you tout this book as a well-intentioned attempt to pull Christians and Christianity for its famous hateful and mean-spirited ways to become a kinder more gentler force in our culture.
I am all for kinder and gentler. And I see tons of it among the Christians I know, more than I see from the world, by far. From your summaries and from the Barna researchers, I see only stereotypical and shallow animosity for Christians and the church. But bashing the church is a favorite sport from the left today, AND those believers who buy into the templates set out by the secular left.
I now doubt that it is even well-intentioned. This is a typical anti-Christian talking point and they are without merit in my view. But you can traffic in myth and stereotypes against Christians if you want to.
Report comment to moderator
I remember when I was in grade school a bully was picking on a kid when the kid asked the bully, “Why can’t we get along”? The bully said, “We will never be friends”.
You see, this is the problem. The kid never wanted to be friends with the bully.
That’s the Christians and the gays. For some really strange reason, the Christians think the gays want their acceptance. Far from the truth. They want the bullying to stop. Gays just want to live in freedom and peace. Many love this country so much, they are willing to serve, undercover, in a military that hates them, just to protect the country that discriminates against them. It’s sad.
Report comment to moderator
Wow.
Didn’t take long for this thread to go negative!
Tony gives some really thoughtful analysis and response to the message in this book.
But the first three posts?
Rather than using this as an opportunity for introspection, self-critical awareness on an individual and organizational level, or as a chance, dare one say, to grow spiritually, in response to a message that may make us uncomfortable, let’s just call into question the motivations of the authors.
Sooooo much more fun!
Report comment to moderator
My grandmother of all people, who was as devout and proper a Southern lady as you’d ever meet, was always accepting of homosexuals.
I remember one time she got into an argument about it with a church friend. The friend insisted it was a sin, and my grandmother said, “That’s God’s business to decide. I’m just expected to love and care for all kinds of people.”
That has always summed up for me what Christianity should be, and is at its best. The way it’s usually perceived today — and Tony’s series of posts on this book has been accurate — alienates a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to consider the Christian message.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
I understand how you might interpret what I said about shaking off the snake skin, so I want to clarify that I am talking about those hidden brothers and sisters in Christ, the ones who have not yet repented, but who are foreordained (theology alert!) to do so. My point was that we ought to treat others with love both because we are commanded to do so, and because we have no way of knowing, with our sick and ill-perceiving hearts, who will be God’s and who will not.
I think you are right, however, that this doesn’t mean we ought to treat an unrepentant sinner just as we would a brother in communion with the church. I’m just not convinced that we ought to treat them that much differently. Love them, serve them when the opportunity arises, speak truth to them, seek them out when they are lost.
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t understand your post Christian Elitist.
I didn’t see the first two posts as negative, but as thoughtful. And I meant my post as a reaction to the negativism that Christianity faces constantly in our culture. You can take that as negative if you wish but I meant it when I wrote; “I am all for kinder and gentler. And I see tons of it among the Christians I know, more than I see from the world, by far.”
I am also for introspection and self-critical awareness too. But I don’t base it on subjective surveys with nearly nothing but negative stereotypes for Christians.
And, as a minister, I have devoted my life to helping people (in your words) “grow spiritually in response to a message that may make us uncomfortable.”
But the uncomfortable message that I work with is not so much rooted in stereotypical survey-driven negativism toward Christins in particular, but rooted in the biblical truth that we are all deeply flawed sinners in need of repentance (which is most uncomfortable) and in need of the Holy Spirit to keep us humble, kind, gentle, loving and joyful.
In today’s media driven culture, why can’t we use the same standards of fairness for evaluationg Christians as we do for other groups?
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
The difference is in expectation. One cannot expect the same thing from an unrepentant sinner that one can reasonably expect from a communing brother or sister.
I agree with you about treating others with love and respect, including unrepentant sinners. That’s what the last part of my post was about.
Unfortunalely, we often see the “frying pan over the head” method of dealing with others. On these very threads I see vitriol poured out upon homosexuals that would preclude any rational discussion, and plays into their pre-conceived stereotypes of all Christians.
Christianleftist – so sorry you pigeonholed me into the negative column. I don’t recall questioning the motives of the authors – just to put out there my own observations as to why Christians are perceived they way they are on the subject of homosexuality. Apparently, we find what we’re looking for and see what we want to see.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Christian Leftist. The first three posts prove Tony’s point. Some of you have a pathological hatred for gay people and feel its your job to condemn gay people even as you decline to speak out on many, many other things the Bible suggests are sins.
Regarding CS Lewis, however, I think Tony is wrong. In The Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis wrote that every person we meet is either an “immortal horror or an everlasting splendor.” Tony suggests we pity the former and embrace the latter. I suggest we recognize that that former and the latter are the same people and that we each contain both elements.
Taken this way, one sees that there is that of God in everyone. Thus, the desire not merely to oppose to sin but to condemn people becomes antithetical to the true Christian message.
It appears, as usual, that some here prefer to follow their own politics than the intent of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
“I agree with Christian Leftist. The first three posts prove Tony’s point. Some of you have a pathological hatred for gay people and feel its your job to condemn gay people even as you decline to speak out on many, many other things the Bible suggests are sins…”
“It appears, as usual, that some here prefer to follow their own politics than the intent of Christ.”
Wow DC Lawyer! I had no idea that my pathological hatred of gay people was showing! You have no idea what my politics are, but since you are a lawyer in DC, you must be obsessed with politics yourself.
I guess that anyone who weighs in on the topic can be construed as part of the problem and not part of the solution by a couple of the posters on this thread.
It was nothing but pathological hatred that I showed to a cousin and several close childhood friends of mine, all of whom were homosexuals as I watched them die of aids. No compassion whatsoever.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer,
All points made in the first three posts were respectful and thoughtful. There was no hostility toward anyone. Speaking for myself, I think most of the hostility in our culture, and often on this blog, is for Christians who actually believe and respect God’s Word and try to live it and share it with genuine love.
Tony,
DC Lawyer thinks that the first three posts prove your point. Please be clear. What is your point and do the first three posts really prove it?
Report comment to moderator
UnChristian’s authors make clear that they are not calling for an embrace of homosexuality. They are instead asking that Christians treat this like any other sin, and respond with the love that we would show someone caught up in a sin we find more acceptable.
The Christians who are likely to respond to requests like this will certainly not be the Christians who are responsible for enflaming the “anti-homosexual” perception of Christianity. Therefore, such a request is probably going to have zippo-nadda-zilch effect on the perception of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko, I hadn’t seen your second post when I wrote mine. So I was painting with perhaps too broad brush. But I do think it is fair to say that NJ Lawyer and Joel Mark, both of whom have a long history on this blog of making anti-gay statements, responded by largely dismissing the criticism and questioning the critics.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer and Joel Mark, both of whom have a long history on this blog of making anti-gay statements
Sort of how the Bible speaks of homosexuality as a sin?
Report comment to moderator
#7: that this doesn’t mean we ought to treat an unrepentant sinner just as we would a brother in communion with the church
Being born gay is no more a “sin” than being born a genius or with blue eyes. This is simply the prejudice of a primitive and ancient desert people that has been codified and has given the Christians someone to hate for the last two thousand years. Unfortunately as Alan Keyes and Phyllis Shafely and Dick Cheney has shown, many times, it’s the children of the oh so moral Christians that have reaped the “benefits” of “choosing” to be gay.
Report comment to moderator
#10 “I suggest we recognize that that former and the latter are the same people and that we each contain both elements.”
DCLawyer,
It’s been quite a while since I read The Weight of Glory, though that quote is the one that has most stuck in my mind ever since I first read it. Not too long ago I paged through the book quickly trying to find the quote but didn’t come across it. (When I do find it I need to mark the page so I can find it again.)
So I can’t remember the whole context, but as best as I do remember it, he was speaking not so much of how we are now – some mix of both elements as you say – but the state we are moving towards. Those who turn away from God, and do not turn away from sin, are becoming in some way less and less what they were made by God to be, so that in the end they will be nothing but “an immortal horror.” Those who turn from sin to God, on the other hand, are becoming more and more what they were made by God to be, so that in the end they will be “an everlasting splendor.”
We never know for sure which any particular person we meet will become, but Lewis is reminding us – as I understand him – that no one is simply just the person we see today, but is becoming something wonderful or horrible. And through the mystery of divine grace and human actions, in our interactions with those people we play some role in what they will become.
Report comment to moderator
#16 RDEAN – Being born gay is no more a “sin” than being born a genius or with blue eyes. it’s the children of the oh so moral Christians that have reaped the “benefits” of “choosing” to be gay.
Justus – aaahh, spoken like the epitome of behavioral expertise as we know and love. Dean, I’m not sure if you’ve been exposed to the lie of evolution too long, or if you’re just intellectually dishonest as Erasmus claims I am, but you are verily mistaken. Science has already proven that nobody is born a homosexual. There is no “gene” that dictates a person’s sexual preference. I deny anybody showing anything but a behavioral desire for another of the same gender!
Having blue eyes is a trait that the child’s DNA will dictate from his / her parents. One of this world’s most dispicable diseases is AIDS. I am sure we could agree on that. AIDS is a primarily behavioral disease. Almighty God has judged homosexual behavior to be UNnatural and deviant to His creation. Take a look at Scripture to see what God has done to the sin of homosexuality.
Remember….God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Report comment to moderator
The Catholic Church with the following two statements from its Catechism provides the most incisive and succinct statement of the Christian position regarding hompsexuality:
2357Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Peter for posting that.
And so I ask you all this: Are gay people “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” on World Blog? Do we strive to avoid “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard”?
I think not.
Report comment to moderator
DC – We can, however respectfully refuse to condone sinful behavior and respectfully refuse to revel right along with the sinner in said sinful behavior. To condone the sin and revel with them in it is the ultimate lack of compassion.
Acceptance of the person without condoning the sin is often seen as a lack of compassion and sensitivity and respect. The misperceptions run in both directions.
Report comment to moderator
DCL,
Lets not stop at demanding that World live up to the standards of Catholics!
I think what people have generally missed is that this research says something about how Christianity is perceived. It is obviously not a good perception. You can argue that this perception is inaccurate or even the result of a leftist cultural conspiracy, but what are you intending on doing to address it?
Report comment to moderator
I think that the prominence that this issue has attained is in only small part due to hostility/hatred (which is confined to a relatively small segment of Christians) and is more due to the fact that homosexual conduct is one of the few sins that has a large lobbying group pushing very hard for it be become deemed a good thing.
I don’t have a problem seeing homosexual conduct as being essentially the same as any other sin, but I am not faced with a big effort to promote other sins. The more push there, the more resistance one will see.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, Christians for milennia have been perceived poorly by the many “cultured” secular despisers of their religion. On the issue of homosexual behavior and marriage Christians, while needing to be sensitive, respectful, and compassionate, need to be honest about their view that homosexual behavior is sinful and that marriage is ideally a life-long union between a man and woman.
The view, often stated by secularists, including on this blog, that those opposed to homosexual behavior and marriage behavior are homophobic bigots is itself insensitive and disrespectful.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 1
NJL writes:……. “The authors can suggest whatever they want, but it’s only their opinion, and they have an agenda of their own. I don’t feel a duty to be true to what they want; rather I feel a duty not to rewrite the Bible to accommodate its critics.
The quote above by NJL is exactly the way I believe.
This is the third time this book has been brought up as a ‘TOPIC’- Bashing Christians has become a favorite pass-time among many, however we now have supposed Christians writing a book, making money by ‘BASHING’ Believers.
There is an AGENDA as NJL states as her opinion. I have that opinion as well, and have said so on another thread regarding this book.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how Constantine plays into all of this? What was his real contribution? Was it valid? Does anyone know?
Report comment to moderator
#18: been exposed to the lie of evolution
#18: Science has already proven that nobody is born a homosexual.
Lie of “evolution”? First, you show an astounding ignorance of science. Then, you point to something unproved by science saying it has been proven by, get this, “science”.
No wonder you believe that “mysticism” is, get this, “real”.
Report comment to moderator
Dean, you still have not adequately answered my charge in post 18. Do you actually have something intelligent to say, instead of looking for items you cannot possibly reconcile?
Yes, evolution is a lie.
Report comment to moderator
Evolution is a lie and homosexuality is a sin. RDean, according to a literal reading of the Bible.
We realize you don’t accept the Bible as God’s Word, but can you at least respect people for believing what they believe?
“Evolution” does not equal science, any more than “democracy” equals “government.”
Report comment to moderator
Tony
You are obviously ‘taken’ with this book.
Since this is the third time you have brought it up as a ‘TOPIC’ it might be wise for you to ask yourself why you are so impressed or ‘fixated’ by the book, perhaps it is you who needs to take the book as a serious concern, rather than making it a condemnation against other Believers.
Report comment to moderator
Evolution is a lie and homosexuality is a sin. RDean, according to a literal reading of the Bible.
True. Also, snakes used to walk upright and talk, and God approves of slavery.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer asks,
And so I ask you all this: Are gay people “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” on World Blog? Do we strive to avoid “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard”?
I think the answers to these questions are generally “yes.” Anlir is all but co-moderator on here. Coytote Blue has been treated with affection and respect. Yes, those who come on here primarily to spout their hatred for Christians are less welcome, naturally enough.
For the record, I have openly stated that I believe divorce to be a sin other than for adultery (with the possible exception of a “legal divorce” for protection from an abusive or addictive spouse, a divorce that doesn’t biblically free one for remarriage but that may keep the abused spouse from being responsible for gambling debts and the like). But really, I don’t think we can say, “You don’t talk about this sin, and thus you can’t talk about this one either.” The repentance needs to be about not talking about the other sins.
We are to call all sins–especially our own–sin. And we are to declare God’s willingness to forgive all sins and restore all sinners–yes, even homosexuals. That is a message of grace and not of hatred. When it is called a message of hatred (as it often is on this blog), then the complaining person needs to be disregarded or set straight, because he is redefining words.
I personally think there is more a perception of Christian “hatred” toward homosexuals than reality, since today anything short of full acceptance, up to and including acceptance of the right to marriage, is considered hatred.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus told us that we would be hated by the world for being His followers.
We can do our best, be as sweet & gentle as can be, speak the truth in love, & still be labelled as hateful or pushy.
I think there are some Christians that are not good witnesses of Christ’s love, but I also believe they are in the minority, &/or they will grow out of it as they mature in Christ.
But much of the stereotypes that are believed about us are just that – stereotypes.
Having said that, I still believe that each individual Christian should aim to show God’s love & grace through their words & actions.
Even so, be prepared to be misunderstood & misrepresented.
Report comment to moderator
Problem is that you are defined in large part by your leaders, and the public views the assertions of Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson (i.e. gays are to blame for 9/11) as representing the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity.
And while that may not be entire fair, it is as fair as assuming that all Democrats agree with Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx. I get that a lot here without much objection.
But let’s unmask the elephant, shall we? Fact is the real problem is not simply a question of kindness and tolerance versus hatred and persecution. Rather it is what all our debates here are about — a fight over whether the Bible is literally true (and if so, which parts?). I believe that gayness is genetically determined and there is an increasing amount of evidence to support that. I believe therefore that being gay is not in itself a sin. I would go further and argue that gay relationships are not sinful either in and of themselves, anymore than heterosexual relations are. I argue this based on what I know, what I experience, and what is demonstrated by science. And yes, I accept that evolution explains more about our origins than the Bible does. Are there still unanswered questions? Yes. But the allegory that is Genesis doesn’t even begin to answer them.
And so we are all here putting rhetorical lipstick on the pig. Some of you believe the impossible. Some of us don’t.
I don’t believe God creates people a certain way, only to then perniciously brand them sinful for fulfilling their God-created nature. I don’t believe that AIDS is some sign of the wrath of God, but that Cancer or ALS or Ebola are simply random. I think that’s ridiculous. Most Christians do.
I also don’t think there’s much biblical evidence for behaving the way some of you behave. If Jesus is your model, I don’t see him acting spitefully toward gay people at all.
Report comment to moderator
From what I gather from Tony’s excerpt and commentary, what he is saying is that folks should think about how they communicate the good news. In essence a bit of the golden rule in the midst of the attempt to witness.
I thank Cheryl for her observation, but would observe on my own behalf that the respect and affection is not uniform and there are some of the most strident among the WMB faithful who take special pains to communicate that — but that does not label everyone here.
A couple of days ago on the call a spade a spade thred re: Islam, there was commentary that moderate Muslims don’t speak. On this issue one might make a similar observation — often times when the vitriole is high, moderate Christans, or perhaps better put, temperate ones don’t speak. I’m not sure why that is. But I do know that while this topic is an “issue” for most of you that it is my life you are talking about. What you call sin and persistent sin at that, I look at and often am reduced to conclude that you all call my love for another person sin and to aide your (in general) ability to do that focus on the sex rather than the love. I could be wrong and I’m not in any of your head’s well enough to know that. So I can only tell folks how they seem to come across.
Outkast — Hey buddy, democracy is a form of government! You musta missed the polisci class.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D, indeed divorce other than for adultery is a grave sin, just as, truth to be told, is fornication. Homosexual folk have every right to chastise Christians who find ways of covering these sins.
The basic problem underlying all of this is the naturalistic and romantic view of personal autonomy, which view predominates in the modern West.
Report comment to moderator
Tony, Believers are getting weary of defending themselves regarding homosexuality. The old phrases of “you don’t show love” or “you don’t really love me” work just about as ineffectively, as a child who can’t get their way and yells “you don’t love me, if you did you would let me__________” fill in the blank, whatever it is the child wants to do. In this case it is teens or adult homosexuals who can’t get past their anger and resentment against those who believe the Bible, and what it says regarding the sin of homosexuality.
Homosexuals can live in their sin, they can live whatever type of lifestyle they choose . . . however, not in my home, not in front of our children. Homosexuals may not teach their so called alternative lifestyles to our children. The public school can teach what they sneak past the boards, but not to our children. Our children may not visit others homes who live a ’same sex lifestyle’ nor can they visit homes where the parents are living together without being married.
Children need to understand that homosexuality along with adultery, fornication, stealing, lying are all sins- We do not become unequally yoked with unbelievers, when they defy the Word of God, and make ’sport’ of our beliefs.
Homosexuals whom we know, have contact with – make it very plain and complain that we don’t accept their lifestyle, and THEY ARE RIGHT, we don’t- That does not mean we don’t love them, even though they make snide remarks in our presence and expect us to be thoughtful and kind. Love to most homosexuals is defined as accepting their homosexuality and them, accepting it as being ‘born that way’ debating the issue even though we steer clear from yet another discussion which never solves anything.
Report comment to moderator
36-Putting away your spouse for any reason other than fornication results in adultery. Read the original languages.
Report comment to moderator
#37: . Homosexuals may not teach their so called alternative lifestyles to our children.
Hate to burst your bubble. Where do you think gays come from? Don’t ask me. Ask Phyllis Shafley, Allen Keyes and Dick Cheney. Maybe it’s time you learned a few, “Family Values”.
Seriously, where do you think gays come from?
Report comment to moderator
At #34, DC Lawyer wrote; “And while that may not be entire fair, it is as fair as assuming that all Democrats agree with Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx. I get that a lot here without much objection.”
My problem with this whole “UnChristian” line of thought is that it is rashly stereotypical and unfair to Christians. For instance, when DC Lawyer wrote, “Most Christian do” (in #34), he was trafficing in nonsensical and unfair stereotyping of “most Christians.”
And I have not seen much on this blog assuming that “all Democrats agree with Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx.” Nor have I read much from leftists on this blog disclaiming or criticizing these two either.
Yet, you get a lot of criticism and active resistance of the Fred Phelps crowd from the right (on this blg and in real life active resistance).
Report comment to moderator
People make their own choices STEVEG, that doesn’t mean I have to become part of their choice.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer wrote; “I don’t believe God creates people a certain way, only to then perniciously brand them sinful for fulfilling their God-created nature.”
Me neither, nor does any Christian I have ever met or known. I believe God makes people in His own image and with an ability to seek or reject God’s revealed will. As human beings created with free will, we all choose how and whom to love, when and where.
It is dehumanizing to suggest that human beings have no choice in this realm of human love and are mere robotic products of our genetic make-up.
DC Lawyer, do you believe that God creates people at all?
Report comment to moderator
#40 “For instance, when DC Lawyer wrote, ‘Most Christian do’ (in #34), he was trafficing in nonsensical and unfair stereotyping of “most Christians.””
Joel Mark,
As far as I can tell, all DC Lawyer was saying that “most Christians do” is think it is ridiculous to “believe that AIDS is some sign of the wrath of God, but that Cancer or ALS or Ebola are simply random.” Back in the 1980’s when we first heard of AIDS, I think it was more common among evangelical Christians to think AIDS might be God’s judgment on homosexuals, but as we learned more about AIDS and found out where it came from and how it spreads, most Christians – that I know, at least – stopped thinking that way (if they ever did).
I can’t say whether DCL is correct that most Christians agree with him that the belief he mentioned regarding AIDS vs other diseases is ridiculous, but I don’t see any nonsensical and unfair stereotyping in it.
Report comment to moderator
You assume, Joel, that we have free will and that people can overcome their nature. If that is so, why would God so much more test the homosexual by creating them gay and then requiring them to be abstinent. Because he loves them?
No wonder so many entered the priesthood!
Report comment to moderator
God didn’t create man or woman to be homosexual, but it is a handy excuse</b. which is used by almost all homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
DC – I’m just going to come out here and say it – If we are honest with ourselves, each one of us has a besetting sin that we must deal with. Mine happens to be gluttony. Not a day goes by that I don’t struggle with this, just as I’m sure that those who are homosexuals and believe that acting upon their desires to be a sin struggle with their homosexuality.
Note!! For anyone who isn’t paying attention – I’m not talking about homosexuals who don’t think it’s a sin, have no desire to change and are therefore not struggling with it.
I believe that I have a freewill and can overcome my nature to overeat. I can’t tell you how much pain it causes me when people have things derogatory to say to and about people who are fat.
God made me who I am, and I’m equally sure that I’m a product of nurture. My sins are just as scarlet as anyone else’s.
But I know that God loves me.
Report comment to moderator
#45: God didn’t create man or woman to be homosexual
You are so right. God didn’t create anything. We created God.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, I do wonder what DCLawyer was saying in the fifth paragraqph of #34. He could clarify if he wants to.
But I have never heard any Christian claim that AIDS, or cancer, or ALS or Ebola are on different theological planes or that some of those were “random” and others were not.
If DC Lawyer agrees with me in defending the reasonableness of the majority of Christians, then fine. I still say the general thrust of the ‘UnChristian’ book is rooted in unfair stereotyping.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer,
I believe that humans do not have to remain slaves to sin. Jesus can set us free, on His terms and in His strength.
DCL, please read my response more carefully. I disagreed with your premise that God creates anyone gay. He created us all with a sex drive and we largely choose how to nourish it and employ it.
And I ask again: “DC Lawyer, do you believe that God creates people at all?”
Report comment to moderator
I think what the original article highlights is the false dichotomy that has sprung up as the homosexuality debate has evolved over the years. In varying ways, both Christians and homosexual activists express that acceptance is an all-or-nothing proposition.
There are Christians believe that any embrace of homosexuals as people who are sinners just as we are is a tacit endorsement of their behavior, and that to do so would contradict our emperative to share the truth. So homosexuals are addressed at arms length, depersonalized, and made into a huge conspiracy against Biblical morality.
Conversely, some homosexuals have seen the Falwells of the world on TV for decades and assume that Christians want nothing to do with them, and would like nothing better than to strip away their basic civil rights (even though the last anti-sodomy laws fell by the wayside long ago), and that every Christian who say that homosexuality is a sin is a latent Fred Phelps.
The adversarial nature of the battle makes it one of the ugliest in modern American politics, running a close second to pro and anti-Bush partisans. Ultimately, there’s no true middle ground unless homosexuals give up their lifestyle or Christians stop believing the Bible. So there’s something of an impasse.
What Christians CAN do better is express in tangible ways how we do love the sinner in spite of the sin. It’s all well and good to tack that cliche on to the end of an argument, but until you’ve volunteered at an AIDS hospice or done something similarly tangible, the homosexual community will view such statements with skepticism. I’m not really in any position of authority on this; I’m surely not doing as much as I can in this area, either. But surely we can do something more to distinguish ourselves from those who truly hate the sinners.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #41: People make their own choices STEVEG, that doesn’t mean I have to become part of their choice.
What? I’ve made one comment on this thread, and this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with it. What are you responding to?
Report comment to moderator
As usual, I thank Tony for his comments, which are kindhearted.
If one spends all (or most of) their time in conservative Christians circles (including this site), one gets a very distorted perspective on this issue. Conservative Christians are striving desperately to maintain a “scarlet letter” on gays. They’re failing miserably! For most people (including more and more Christians), having a gay family member or friend is of no import. It’s just a fact of life, and really in the big scheme of things, not all that important.
There will always be the Joel Mark’s and Peter Leavitt’s of this world who complain bitterly about gays, and will go to their graves railing against them. But they are increasingly being marginalized by goodhearted, fair-minded people, and civil (decent) society.
When one looks at the same tired, petty, mean spirited comments on here about gays, and then one goes out into the real world, one realizes what a small, insular world that too many conservative Christians inhabit.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
As you rail against the Believers because they won’t/don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle, in essence you yourself are the raller.
We don’t accept the lifestyle, there’s nothing you can do about it. You nor anyone else can enforce “GAYDOOM” think about your endless complaints before you rail and whine about Peter Leavitt and Joel Mark.
You don’t know what my Church does, or the thousands of others who go out of their way to welcome homosexuals. The problem becomes, when the homosexuals demand that we ACCEPT their lifestyle, while the Bible says its sin.
Yes there are many sins, but I know of no one who comes to our church and is living together and demands, that we accept it. That would go for the guy or gal who are having an affair, if thats what they do, they can’t expect the church to accept their lifestyle, because the Evangelical Church WILL NOT. Anyone can attend our church, we welcome them, but we won’t agree to what they are doing as UNSINFUL!
It isn’t a question of not loving them, its a question of SIN, and making the Evangelical Church accept sinful lifestyles no matter what the Bible says. IT ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN.
All the people from ages 16 to 28 can complain all they want, they can write books and TRASH the Believers, …… it isn’t going to change a thing!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Once again, it is irresponsible and unkind of you to mischaracterize my stnace and falsely speaking for me. Speak for your self. I am the one who does not accept the dehumanizing view of homosexuals that does not even acknowledge that they are capable of making free and full moral choices about whom and how to love. At least I don’t view homosexuals as chemical automotons who’s feelings and preferences are determined not by them but by sheer instinct and genes–like animals. Thus, I respect the humanity of homosexuals far more than those who think they are choiceless robots.
Report comment to moderator
Ultimately, there’s no true middle ground unless homosexuals give up their lifestyle or Christians stop believing the Bible. So there’s something of an impasse.
I agree (although I’d amend that you’d have to get the homosexuals to agree that their sexuality is a “lifestyle choice” before you get them to give it up). But is an “each to their own” option at all viable in this situation?
What Christians CAN do better is express in tangible ways how we do love the sinner in spite of the sin. It’s all well and good to tack that cliche on to the end of an argument, but until you’ve volunteered at an AIDS hospice or done something similarly tangible, the homosexual community will view such statements with skepticism.
What you’ve hit on here, Rob, is very important. I think the “love” from many Christians is often experienced as entirely conditional and saddled with expectations of repentence (this relates to the Target Shooting Christianity thread, too). Such seemingly needy and demanding “love” is not at all attractive.
For example, there seems to be this sentiment of; “You can’t expect me to be nice to you if you’re not going to change,” that comes from some Christians. And whenever I, for one, feel that attitude coming across I become very sceptical of Christian “love”.
Report comment to moderator
I really should slow down and check my grammar. Let me try again.
Anlir,
Once again, it is irresponsible and unkind of you to mischaracterize my stance and falsely speak for me…
Report comment to moderator
One of the things I appreciate about Tony is his willingness to look inward and consider his own life instead of being defensive about his own shortcomings and/or going after the sins of others. One hopes he will not let the criticism and attacks of his fellow believers to cause him to sour on that approach.
Report comment to moderator
#49: Jesus can set us free
I’m free now.
#50: even though the last anti-sodomy laws fell by the wayside long ago
2003? A long time ago in a place far away.
#50: there’s no true middle ground
Sure there is. The vast majority of Christians don’t know a single gay. Just ignore them. Go worry about your high divorce rate or your pregnant teens with their STD’s. Or join another “swinger’s club”. More hetros belong to swingers clubs than there are the total population of gays.
#50: I’m not really in any position of authority on this
I’m guessing it’s because you don’t know any gays. Knowing “OF” one is different than knowing one. Do them a favor, steer clear. You have nothing in common and I’m sure being around someone you consider a “sinner” would be less fun for him or her than for you. They don’t want your support, only the same rights you enjoy being an American Citizen who has committed no crime.
#52: most people (including more and more Christians), having a gay family member or friend is of no import
I have to disagree. Many Christians disown their own gay children a la Allen Keyes. Some want to and can’t, such as Phyllis Shafely. Some just accept them a la Dick Cheney. Many times, knowing they can’t bear the hate from their families, they just keep it a secret. Many Christians delude themselves saying they have a gay friend when it’s only an acquaintance that merely tolerates them.
#54: At least I don’t view homosexuals as chemical automotons who’s feelings and preferences are determined not by them but by sheer instinct and genes–like animals.
There is an insult there with a pretense of “special” understanding.
Here you have people that would obviously never “choose” to be gay. Common sense “SCREAMS” that fact.
Then you have the oh so loving and understanding Christians telling these people to either “lie” or go through life never knowing romantic love. Wow, that’s really compassionate. That way, when they die, they can go to an imaginary heaven that, from their bizarre description, sounds exactly like hell.
In the mean time, the law sends mothers and fathers off to Iraq to die when there are fully-grown men here that would willingly put their life on the line for this country. But they are not legally allowed.
There were young women once who cut off their noses to keep from being raped. They thought the men would find them unattractive and wouldn’t rape them. Hence the phrase, “Cut off your nose to spite your face”. I think the phrase applies much better to the 11,000 soldiers, including dozens of Arabic translators (numbers supplied by the DOD) that have been fired.
Let me explain to my nephew why his unit no longer has a translator to work with the people that he runs into every day but can no longer communicate with. I’m sure his wife feels much better knowing that he no longer has to sleep close to a gay.
Report comment to moderator
#57, All that the believers on this thread are asking of Tony and the authors of the book he is touting, “UnChristian,” is to be fair-minded.
KAREN O said it best at #33: “Jesus told us that we would be hated by the world for being His followers. We can do our best, be as sweet & gentle as can be, speak the truth in love, & still be labelled as hateful or pushy.”
I agree with Karen at #33 and thank her for her graceful way of expressing herself.
Report comment to moderator
If one spends all (or most of) their time in conservative Christians circles (including this site), one gets a very distorted perspective on this issue. Conservative Christians are striving desperately to maintain a “scarlet letter” on gays. They’re failing miserably! For most people (including more and more Christians), having a gay family member or friend is of no import. It’s just a fact of life, and really in the big scheme of things, not all that important.
Anlir is right. Every year more and more Americans, including Christians, couldn’t care less about about homosexuality and gay marriage. And the ones who still care are more and more seen as “hatemongers”. This is large part due to the media, but also in large part due to exactly what Anlir says – more and more homosexuals coming out of the closet, and more and more Americans and Christians having to make the difficult decision of whether to stick by their cultural/religious beliefs, or stick by their family and close friends. Most of them are choosing their friends/family.
It won’t be long before Christians and others who retain their opposition to gay marriage will be regarded with the same contempt most people today have for people who oppose interracial marriage. They will be increasingly marginalized and seen to have more in common with Fred Phelps than with Jesus. Eventually most will give up their opposition to gay marriage, and the ones who don’t will mostly have the sense to avoid stating their true feelings about it, for fear of being grouped in with the Fred Phelps’, Archie Bunkers, and Bull Connors of the world.
At some point the process will probably be hastened along rapidly when a federal court rules that non profits that oppose gay marriage violate public policy and therefore don’t qualify for tax exemption. That’s what happened to Bob Jones University back in 1984 because they didn’t allow interracial dating.
To retain their tax exemption, and to avoid being seen as bigots, most religious groups will “re-examine” their church teachings on sodomy, and conveniently come to the conclusion that the church has been wrong for 2000 years. Many people reading this think that such a scenario is far fetched, given that the Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. But nearly 100% of Christians today would swear on their Bible that the Bible forbids slavery, when that’s the exact opposite of the truth. The Bible’s quite clear – God approves of his people owning other human beings. He made that clear over and over, in both testaments. There’s no way around it except to take the Peter Leavitt approach and say that those parts of the Bible aren’t inspired, but are simply cultural relics that all decent people reject, even though they are the words of God spoken directly to Moses. The same approach will be taken with the passages on sodomy. Or it will be said that God knew that homophobia was rampant, and so he allowed it for the hardness of our hearts, but he hates it, and has put up with it as long as he’s going to. That’s another popular “solution” to the Bible’s slavery problem.
A lot of people think I harp on the Bible’s slavery problem just to be argumentative. I don’t. I do it because a person who really believes the Bible has to believe that slavery isn’t a sin, as God expressly approved of it over and over, nowhere forbids it, and even wrote the protection of slaves as property into the 10 commandments. Anyone who says the God of the Bible condemns slavery either doesn’t know the Bible, or doesn’t believe it’s all the word of God, or simply has no qualms about lying about it. Anyone who can deny the clear biblical teachings on slavery will also be able to say that the Bible doesn’t forbid sodomy with a perfectly straight face.
Report comment to moderator
#60: more and more homosexuals coming out of the closet
The truth is there just aren’t “that many”. They have always been a tiny minority and will always be a tiny minority. You can’t find a single gay who said they chose.
At least with evolution, they can pretend it’s a lie, but when it comes to being gay, pretending that it is a choice makes you look delusional.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right, Rdean. There are hardly any more open homosexual today than there were thirty years ago. What was I thinking?
Report comment to moderator
donato, don’t pretend to know anything about me, or my interaction with the homosexual community. As you so frequently trumpet, most everyone has someone who’s gay in their family. Surprise, surprise: I’m no exception. And I love my cousin dearly, no exceptions, no ifs ands or buts. So you take your intolerance, and point it someplace else. Perhaps where the sun don’t shine.
Report comment to moderator
Of course you can’t, that would blow their whole excuse off the map!
Report comment to moderator
I just watched an interview, on Youtube, with David Kinnaman, the author of UnChristian. It does not appear that the purpose of this book is “Christian bashing”, but rather, a genuine attempt to understand how Christianity is perceived. The purpose of this is to learn how to minister to a future generation that appears to be apathetic, at best, to the way the gospel message has been presented over the last 20-50 years.
I inferred from Kinnaman’s comments (I may be totally wrong) that his concern is that Christianity is going to lose more and more of each successive generation if such perceptions remain. And he’s doing something about it.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #61
By the way, Rdean, what in the world does coming out of the closet have to do with the debate over whether people are born gay or choose to be gay?
That makes no sense at all.
And for the record, I oppose gay marriage and think increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of societal decay. But by no means do I believe that people “choose” to be gay. I think that’s idiotic.
And, yes, I have gay friends and family.
Report comment to moderator
I watched the same VIDEO. He has an ‘agenda’ and most Evangelicals see right through it.
The guy doesn’t see anything right within the Evangelical Church, what he does see is…… all NEGATIVE, and yes, we know what the agenda is.
The young people today are consumed with themselves, everything they strive for is all about THEM. When you look at WHY they really don’t like Evangelicals, look at the reasons. It is just like the child who can’t have their way, and makes a list as why they are so ‘unhappy’-
There is a narrow way, and a broad way to Heaven. No one can claim they didn’t know the way, and blame it on the Evangelicals, as though they made the rules. Who made the rules? Good question……………
GOD!!!
Report comment to moderator
#59: All that the believers on this thread are asking of Tony and the authors of the book he is touting, “UnChristian,” is to be fair-minded.
Hardly…you’re accusing him of peddling meritless, anti-Christian myths and stereotypes. But if the overwhelming perception of Christianity is stereotypical, what is Tony meant to report? How about; “Yes, well, outsiders perceive Christians exactly as Christians believe themselves to be.”??
#67: I watched the same VIDEO. He has an ‘agenda’ and most Evangelicals see right through it.
Yes, he certainly does have an agenda. I believe it’s to get the strength of the gospel message out to an apathetic, sceptical generation and to get rid of the tired, cliche catch-phrases that do nothing but diminish the fullness of the gospel message.
Report comment to moderator
#66: By the way, Rdean, what in the world does coming out of the closet have to do with the debate over whether people are born gay or choose to be gay?
Well, let me explain it. The other person was saying that part of the reason people were becoming more accepting was because more and more were coming out of the closet. You know, as if there were a LOT of gays. There isn’t that many. There never have been. They have always been a tiny minority and always will be. It’s just the way it is.
#66: And, yes, I have gay friends
Considering your opinion of gays, why would you think you have gay friends? Do you know what a friend is? Either you are lying or delusional. I guess delusional.
#66: increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of societal decay.
As if such a tiny minority of artists and writers and entertainers and scientists could have that much impact. Considering 80% of Americans are Christians, perhaps the root cause is those that push mysticism. You sound like Falwell, the attack on the US and Katrina was the fault of the gays and feminists.
#67: Who made the rules?
The same people who made the God. You think your beliefs are so much better than mine? I don’t believe in the occult or the supernatural. We have equal proof. I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist because there never was evidence that it exists. You can’t prove it exists for the same reason. To me, not believing in mysticism makes more sense. Do you believe in astrology, if not, why not?
Report comment to moderator
Rdean, for all your blather about gays, it appears that you don’t understand the first thing about them.
So let me explain what “coming out of the closet” means. It doesn’t mean turning gay. It doesn’t mean deciding to be gay. It means openly acknowledging that you’re gay. That’s what more and more gays are doing these days. I had thought that everyone in the country knew what the phrase meant. It’s incredible that a person who goes on as much as you do about gay topics doesn’t know what the phrase means.
Report comment to moderator
#66: And for the record, I oppose gay marriage and think increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of societal decay.
I have yet to hear anyone offer a good reason for holding this view, and I ask those who hold it at every opportunity. Nobody yet has had a good reason that didn’t ultimately come down to their personal prejudice. Do you?
#64:
“You can’t find a single gay who said they chose.
Of course you can’t, that would blow their whole excuse off the map!
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Report comment to moderator
Steve, homosexuality is unnatural and anti-life. A living, expanding culture has fewer homosexuals. A dying/decaying one has more. I’m no expert on history, but from what I’ve read, societies/cultures that have embraced open homosexuality didn’t last much longer.
Report comment to moderator
If you can’t understand the difference between men and women, the ‘NATURAL’ response to a man from a woman, and a ‘NATURAL’ response to a woman from a man, I can’t explain it to you, you obviously wouldn’t ‘get it’-
People who choose to defy the ‘NATURAL’ response, but rather go in the opposite direction. GOD calls it a REPROBATE MIND in Romans 1:28
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Of course if a homosexual doesn’t believe in God’s Word the Scripture above wouldn’t bother them.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #73: If you can’t understand the difference between men and women, the ‘NATURAL’ response to a man from a woman, and a ‘NATURAL’ response to a woman from a man, I can’t explain it to you, you obviously wouldn’t ‘get it’-
Of course I understand it. It has nothing to do with the question I asked you.
Nobody who is heterosexual ever made a conscious choice to be that way. They just grow up and when they reach sexual maturity, they feel sexual attraction to the opposite sex.
But anti-gay heterosexuals often feel perfectly justified in assuming homosexuals DO choose. You are talking about a condition you’ve never experienced, and feeling free to proclaim that you know it’s chosen, to the point where you don’t even blink when you accuse homosexuals who say they never chose it of being liars, and heterosexuals who also don’t believe sexuality is chosen of being dupes.
Neither you nor I have any idea what it feels like to be homosexual. The difference is, I don’t feel entitled to pass judgment on those who are, or assume I know anything about the experiences they go through. If they say they never chose it, and I don’t have any direct experience myself — except being fully aware that I never had a point where I could have chosen one or the other and picked heterosexual — I see no reason to not believe them.
So I will rephrase my question: Did you ever have a time in your life when you could have chosen to be attracted to your same sex, and made a decision not to go that way? And if not, then how can you be so sure homosexuals don’t find their sexuality every bit as unchosen as you do?
Report comment to moderator
NT at #72: Steve, homosexuality is unnatural and anti-life.
How so?
It must be natural, because it occurs. It is rare — so is left-handedness and albinism — but it’s not brought about by some outside element.
How is it “anti-life?” Because homosexuals don’t reproduce? Neither do all heterosexuals. If the number of homosexuals were large enough that their lack of children posed a real threat to population stability, you might have a case, but that’s not so.
Or do you mean something else?
A living, expanding culture has fewer homosexuals. A dying/decaying one has more. I’m no expert on history, but from what I’ve read, societies/cultures that have embraced open homosexuality didn’t last much longer.
You should remember that correlation doesn’t mean causation. Just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Societies collapse for a whole host of complex and interrelated reasons. Bad leaders. Weak economies. The emergence of stronger enemies.
You’d be hard pressed, I think, to actually show that homosexuality had any direct influence of the survival of a society.
So we’re still at the level of, “I just don’t approve.”
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
You have asked this question so that it has become your ‘trade mark’- it isn’t working Steveg, it doesn’t make sense. You wouldn’t like any answer anyone made to you, unless they agreed with you.
Baiting everyone on the blog won’t or hasn’t worked, it’s a JOKE, and you don’t see it.
Have a nice evening, find something worthwhile to parade around the blog, this is very old!
Report comment to moderator
You wouldn’t like any answer anyone made to you, unless they agreed with you.
Well isn’t that usually the way people are? Do you like answers that don’t agree with you? You are clearly very annoyed in every reply you make to anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
I keep asking this question because nobody ever even tries to answer it. And that tells me that, whether they admit it or not, they know they really don’t have any justification for suggesting they know homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
It’s just a convenient claim they make so they can continue their condemnation.
Report comment to moderator
So we’re still at the level of, “I just don’t approve.”
No, we’re not. My reasons for opposing homosexuality may be wrong, but I don’t believe they are, and you certainly didn’t demolish my case. Nevertheless, they are the reasons I oppose it. Not because I just don’t approve.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a choice STEVEG, that’s why people don’t bother to answer you ….. you should know this, but you can’t come to terms with the TRUTH, so you keep asking the same question over and over again.
Just look at the differences between male and female, it’s obvious they aren’t made to go together as a ‘SAME SET’ do you need that explained to you.
Report comment to moderator
#75
If the number of homosexuals were large enough that their lack of children posed a real threat to population stability, you might have a case, but that’s not so.
~that’s a pretty pragmatic way of arguing.
in this case, either homosexuality is always anti-life (due to the fact that it simply doesn’t work… if you’re still confused, think of two puzzle pieces…), or it’s always NOT anti-life. Popluation size has nothing to do with it.
just a critique of your debate….
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
A biology lesson still doesn’t answer SteveG’s question. You can point at a man, and point at a woman and say “it’s obvious”, but that doesn’t address the issue of whether you consciously chose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex.
It’s a case of “walking a mile in someone else’s shoes,” and trying to understand someone else’s perspective before you judge them for it. If you never consciously chose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, then why presume that others consciously chose to be attracted to people of the same sex?
I’m sure this is one example of that impasse that RobHayes mentioned in #50. It may be that some Christians cannot accept a homosexual’s personal account of their own life if it contradicts what their religion tells them about homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN #31 – True. Also, snakes used to walk upright and talk, and God approves of slavery.
Justus – Where did the Bible say that? You have no proof. You usually seem like an intelligent person, but your continual unbelief in God and the Bible (your refusal to believe) makes you seem otherwise.
DC Lawyer #34 – I also don’t think there’s much biblical evidence for behaving the way some of you behave. If Jesus is your model, I don’t see him acting spitefully toward gay people at all.
Justus – You’re right! We christians don’t either. Please refer to my post at #18. As Jesus does, we love the sinner, in that, we’re pointing the way to a better way of living. Homosexuality is a grave, unnatural behavioral sin. THAT is what God hates, the sin, not the person doing it.
ooooooohhhh………can I get an AMEN!
This post was sponsored by: The case ladies on Deal or No Deal…….especially Aubrie Lemon (#23)
Report comment to moderator
I think a related issue here is a lack of self control and restraint. Fornication is fornication, whether is heterosexual or homosexual. Fornicators find celibacy to be a foreign concept because it’s all about their sexual self-gratification. Our society has become adept at throwing off moral restraint and we are reaping the whirlwind in our highly sexualized society. We celebrate our depravity.
It feels good so everyone’s doing it. As a society, we want to fornicate with whomever whenever we want and we want to make a big show of it too.
Here’s the mindset:
“It’s all about me and what I want and I don’t give a fig about the consequences. I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it. In fact, I don’t even believe that there are consequences. Especially not eternal consequences. I don’t believe in them so they don’t exist. Anyone who thinks differently is a self-righteous bigot and a forniphobe too. Any hardship I reap as a result of my fornication is someone else’s fault because they’re being mean to me and discriminating against me and telling me I’m wrong. It’s all about me, my and I.”
We spend so much time obsessing about something that in the practice of it takes up a fraction of our time. Something is seriously out of whack.
Report comment to moderator
#68,
Guess what Flaming Icarus, peddling meritless, anti-Christian myths and stereotypes is an example of not being fiar-minded.
Report comment to moderator
#71, SteveG,
Here are some good reasons that are not born of prejudice (three quotes and a comment):
* “If society is to flourish and perpetuate itself, it must uphold marriage as a social ideal — it must raise boys and girls in a culture that encourages them to eventually marry a partner of the opposite sex, make stable and loving homes together, and have children who will one day form successful marriages of their own.” Jeff Jacoby, Columnist. January 23, 2007.
* “If a word means everything, then it means nothing. Stretching words like ‘marriage‘ and ‘family’ to include all sorts of things that they never meant before is reducing these words — and the institutions they represent — to nothing.” Dr. Thomas Sowell, Op-ed piece, October 19, 2005.
* “Marriage is where the future comes from.” Charles Colson. Breakpoint, May 21, 2004
There is nothing more kind and healthy that we can do for children in our culture than to advocate for their upbringing in a home headed by their father and their mother who live together in a covenant of lifelong love called marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#74 SteveG wrote: “Nobody who is heterosexual ever made a conscious choice to be that way.”
That is nonsense. We are all the products of many thousands of choices over our lifetimes that helped to constitute our desires, values, virtues and preferences. Freedom of choice is part of what it means to be human and to be made in God’s image and thus, choice plays a huge part in our fabric as human beings–whether we call ourselves heterosexual, homosexual, trans-sexual, bi-sexual, tri-sexual, a-sexual, metro-sexual, mono-sexual, multi-sexual, auto-sexual or whatever sexual.
We are human beings, for heaven’s sake, not robots or chemistry bags. And as such, with our innate freedom of the will, we all desperately need guidance from God and His word.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “But anti-gay heterosexuals often feel perfectly justified in assuming homosexuals DO choose.”
It’s dehumanizing to claim otherwise. Of course they choose. After all, they are human beings, not mere animals.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG asked, “Did you ever have a time in your life when you could have chosen to be attracted to your same sex, and made a decision not to go that way?”
Sure, and such moments recur over and over from childhood (remember how as young boys, we didn’teven like girls) and as we grow up in a sane culture we have a choice each and every time to feed which inclination to make it grow. Any of us can potentially make choices that can eventually (over the years) forge new inclinations in us. That’s why it is so worth promoting the virtue of marriage between one man and one woman so that sexual chaos will not take root in our culture.
Report comment to moderator
As human beings, choices are necessarily part of who we come to be over time (especially with regard to who and how we love other human beings) and it’s time more human beings learned to honestly take responsibility for their choices.
If choice were not a huge factor, how we love (whatever label you choose for it) would not be a moral issue–and it is. Our moral fabric is part of what makes us human and morality involves choices. Take out the choice and yu take out the humanity and make us biology bags.
The choice to seek God’s will is the most important choice of all and anyone can make choices to move in that direction and over time, find themselves changing to conform to God’s greater will.
Report comment to moderator
#84
Well, if that’s what Tony’s doing then you have a point. But I don’t think he is. He’s just reporting on a surveyed perception of Christianity. If that perception contains stereotypes then so be it.
Report comment to moderator
Those “perceptions” do contain stereotyes that are unfair and that’s my point.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean didn’t write that. I wrote it. I’m not the one who refuses to believe the Bible in these cases; you are. Read Genesis 3. Because the serpent led Eve astray by talking her into eating from the forbidden tree, he was condemned to crawl on his belly:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
God made it clear he approves of slavery when he told his followers they could buy non-Israelites and own them for life, and pass them on to their children like other property. Ever read the 10 Commandments? The 10th one forbids us from coveting our neighbor’s male and female slaves.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s.
Leviticus 25 is where God gives his explicit approval of slavery:
You can say God forbids slavery, or you can believe the Bible. But you can’t do both.
Report comment to moderator
It’s unfair that people view Christianity stereotypically, or it’s unfair that Barna used stereotypical perceptions in its survey?
Report comment to moderator
#88: (remember how as young boys, we didn’t even like girls)
You maybe, I ALWAYS liked girls. I like women more. It wasn’t until I got older that I wanted to have sex with one. Actually, it wasn’t until I got older that I wanted to have sex at all. Oh wait, I guess that means a little boy doesn’t really have to choose anything. Why? Because he’s a “LITTLE BOY”. Glad we cleared that up.
For gays, being gay IS natural. Duh.
#85: it must raise boys and girls in a culture that encourages them to eventually marry a partner of the opposite sex
Unless they are gay. No straight person would ever want to marry a gay. Would you want your daughter or sister to marry a gay? You guys say really odd things.
When you endlessly repeat meaningless dogma, there is a decided lack of thought. No logic, just one finger in each ear while singing the “La la” song. “La la follow God’s word la la”. Well, I have news for you. A primitive desert people who merely codified prejudice made that “word”. They weren’t American and Jesus wasn’t born in Kansas.
Report comment to moderator
This seems a bit off topic but in response to the slavery comments:
Christians are no longer tied exclusively to the Levitical laws. Some of them continue in principle but we no longer offer sacrifices and we no longer practice slavery. God revealed His will among human beings in a progressive manner over time to guide us toward His will. God did not leave the old world void of his guidance, but that guidance was tailored to what they were prepared for and to prepare them for greater conformity to God’s will over time. And the story of God’s involvement with mankind is the story of liberation from oppressive institutions like slavery over time.
The racial divides of the old world were also broken down by Jesus and the new covenant. This was God’s unfolding plan in the real world, culminating in Jesus who set s all free from slavery to sin (the worst slavery of all) when they come to him in repentance.
So, the message of freedom in the Bible unfolded over time as it takes time for God’s will to re-shape human cultures. All truth was not revealed at once. Islams believes that but the Bible was written in the real world over many centuries of time. But the main emphasis was always on freedom of the human spirit. Those principles were then applied to principles of practical and political freedom. But the spiritual freedom has always been the main focus of God’s word. And I am glad.
It’s called progressive (and practical) revelation. And it worked. Were it not for Christians who carried the anti-slavery message in the early years of our country, emancipation would have come much later if at all.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN, as usual, you completely missed my points. Go back and re-read, but I won’t hold my breath.
RDEAN wrote; “I guess that means a little boy doesn’t really have to choose anything.”
Nonsense. They need guidance and for this, God intended for them to have a mom and a dad (something that homosexual marriage prevents), but how silly to deny that they too have their own choices to make as their lives unfold.
Report comment to moderator
I just viewed the video of the interview with David Kinaman, the author of <i.UnChristian that Flaming Icarus linked to. His basic premise that Jesus loved flawed,/i> people and that to teh the contrary Christians are perceived as harshly judgmental people against flawed people, especially gays.
It is indeed true that Jesus loved flawed people and to use Kinaman’s term he liked to “hang out” with them; however, it is, also, true that Jesus preached God’s moral law. While he forgave an adulterous woman, he ended with “Go and sin no more. He made it clear that he didn’t come to abrogate Jewish moral law but to fulfiil it.
The orthodox and evangelical Christian view is that
Report comment to moderator
As a lefthander, I find SteveG’s comparison of homosexual attraction to handedness helpful in understanding how homosexuals view themselves. I did not choose to be lefthanded, nor do I remember becoming aware of my preference for using my left hand. I remember difficulties in learning how to do things, because my righthanded parents and sister had trouble figuring out how to reverse their motions in demonstrating how to tie shoes, hold a baseball bat, etc.
If I had been born a generation earlier, I would have probably been pushed to use my right hand in spite of my natural inclination. My father always suspected he was a natural lefthander who had been forced to learn to write righthanded (his handwriting was atrocious). I have no idea what that would have been like, since I was never pushed to do anything righthanded except by the fact that lefthanded scissors and other implements were not available to me when I was young.
As a teenager, I chose to learn to write righthanded. Mostly I did it because I was bored in school, and taking notes righthanded gave me a slight challenge. (Once I learned to write fairly well righthanded, I took to writing backwards as well.) It has the added advantage of enabling me to continue writing even if I should ever break my left arm. (Surprisingly, my righthanded son managed to do pretty well writing with his left hand when he broke his arm a few years ago.)
Today we do not consider handedness to have a moral component, though in the past it was common to think so. (The words sinister and gauche both mean “left.”) To many people it seems quite plausible that sexual attraction is a similar type of preference, possibly formed in utero (as opposed to being strictly genetically determined).
Many Christians do not see the same-sex attraction as sinful, per se, but only the behavior that acts on that attraction. It is that behavior that is considered a choice.
I can understand not wanting to have to go against my natural inclination, especially if I see nothing wrong with it. While I can use my right hand fairly well, I cannot do things as quickly that way, and I would be unhappy at having to go through the rest of my life that way. I can see why people with same-sex attraction (which, FWIW, I think I have experienced) would be similarly (actually much more so, as sexual attraction is rather more powerful than hand-preference) unhappy at the prospect of going through life going against that inclination.
But as Christians we don’t feel free to go by our inclinations, which we recognize are often warped by selfish desires, as well as by psychological hurts we have suffered in the past. (In short, by sin, but I realize not everyone here shares the same understanding of what that word means.) While some people have attempted to interpret the Bible passages on this topic in a way that condemns only homosexual behavior that is promiscuous or coerced, I find their arguments less than fully convincing (I have been made to wonder, though).
Someone asked (I’m not sure if it was in this thread or another) why God would make people with same-sex attraction if He didn’t want them to act on it. I don’t have an answer for that. (And the question depends on the attraction in fact being formed in utero or at any rate at so young an age that conscious choice does not play a role – which seems to quite likely be the case, at least for many if not most people.) But clearly we don’t all start off life on an equal footing, in terms of what challenges we have to face, so I don’t find that particular question to alter my understanding of the issue.
Report comment to moderator
(continued) is that homosexual behavior is in fact a choice that is disordered by nature and sinful. By nature here I mean the same as the Declaration’s “Nature and Nature’s God. i.e. moral nature.
Kinaman is a liberal Christian who prefers to use the vague word “flaw” instead of the clear word “sin.” He in fact is quite uncharitable and insensitive to Christians who on the basis of both Scripture and reason view homosexuality as sinful.
One can charitably debate these issues, though it is unfair and demeaning on the part of the pro-gay side to regard the conservative Christians as homophobic bigots.
Report comment to moderator
Christians are no longer tied exclusively to the Levitical laws. Some of them continue in principle but we no longer offer sacrifices and we no longer practice slavery.
Well, Christians don’t practice slavery any more that I’m aware of, so that’s true. But it’s not because of any thing they read in the Bible, which nowhere forbids it in spirit or in practice. It’s not merely a matter of Levitical law. Slavery is sanctioned by the apostles, and according to Christian theology, the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament, too.
God revealed His will among human beings in a progressive manner over time to guide us toward His will.
Yes, and his revealed will says that his followers may enslave the heathen they come in contact with. And there’s nothing in the Bible that repeals that. Jesus never spoke a word against slavery, and the NT authors, supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, upheld the righteousness of slavery, telling slaves to obey their masters, and never rebuking slaveholders. So this “progressive revelation” is extrabibilical, and may be used to justify reading anything we want into the Bible. Most Christians do it with slavery, and more and more of them are doing it with regard to sodomy.
God did not leave the old world void of his guidance,
No, he certainly didn’t. He made it clear he approved of them owning other human beings. Nothing in the bible is more clear.
but that guidance was tailored to what they were prepared for and to prepare them for greater conformity to God’s will over time.
There’s a name for this. It’s called eisegesis. That means reading our own ideas into a text, as opposed to exegesis, which interprets the text by what it actually says. It’s true that Jesus told the Pharisees that God opposed divorce but allowed it for the hardness of their hearts. He made no such statement about slavery, and the apostles continued to sanction slavery. If we say that we can take Jesus’ statement about divorce and apply it to slavery, in contradiction to everything both testaments teach about slavery, then there’s no reason we can’t do the same with the biblical texts forbidding sodomy. In fact, using this principle of interpretation, one can make the Bible “teach” pretty much anything one wants.
And the story of God’s involvement with mankind is the story of liberation from oppressive institutions like slavery over time.
Well, Joel, why didn’t God tell the Apostle Paul this? He told slaves to obey their masters. When he wrote to slaveowners, he never condemned slavery, nor ordered the slaveowner to give the slave his freedom.
The racial divides of the old world were also broken down by Jesus and the new covenant. This was God’s unfolding plan in the real world, culminating in Jesus who set s all free from slavery to sin (the worst slavery of all) when they come to him in repentance.
That’s the freedom that the Bible talks so much about – freedom from sin. There’s nothing to indicate that God wants chattel slaves set free. If he did, he could have said so. He didn’t. Instead, he repeatedly permitted slavery in both testaments.
So, the message of freedom in the Bible unfolded over time as it takes time for God’s will to re-shape human cultures.
Again, the message of the Bible is freedom from sin, not that chattel slavery is wrong.
All truth was not revealed at once.
Who said it was? But if the Bible is Truth, then slavery is permissible. If slavery is not permissible, then the Bible isn’t Truth, at least not in its entirety.
Islams believes that but the Bible was written in the real world over many centuries of time.
Do you mean Christians?
But the main emphasis was always on freedom of the human spirit.
No it wasn’t. God didn’t tell the Israelites they could enslave the heathens around them to emphasize freedom of the human spirit. That’s ridiculous. Nor did he tell them to slaughter various nations, including infants, and take their land, to stress human freedom. That’s insane. And how was Paul emphasizing freedom of the human spirit when he told slaves to obey their masters, and ordered runaway slaves to return to their masters? That’s completely laughable. You might as well say the main emphasis of the Bible is Confucianism. They’re both equally rational and equally supported by the text
Those principles were then applied to principles of practical and political freedom. But the spiritual freedom has always been the main focus of God’s word. And I am glad.
Yes, spiritual freedom. From sin. Not physical freedom from chattel slavery. You’re just making that up.
It’s called progressive (and practical) revelation.
And that hermeneutic can be used to make the Bible “teach” practically anything.
And it worked. Were it not for Christians who carried the anti-slavery message in the early years of our country, emancipation would have come much later if at all.
Well, the Christians in the abolitionist/emancipation movement carried a message alright, but it’s not one they found in the bible. It’s one they invented. There’s not a single verse or passage in the Bible where God calls slavery a sin. Not one. Not in the OT, not in the NT. In both testaments slavery is explicitly sanctioned.
Report comment to moderator
In both testaments slavery is explicitly sanctioned.
Well yea. These are primitive people. When they made up their religion, they based it on what they grew up with.
#99: to regard the conservative Christians as homophobic bigots.
No more than calling them ignorant for refusing to learn science. Many pretend to, but when they start repeating propaganda against the “science” of evolution, it’s clear they have a “determined” ignorance. Since gayness is spread thoughout nature, it’s most definitely “natural”. Perhaps some individuals being born gay was natures way to insure that more adults are around to care for children. Since they are always born at a certain percentage, then it most definitely IS a part of nature. No population in history ever recorded more than a few percentage as gay. However, they were never discriminated against worldwide until the Christias spread their hatred for gays. As Christians spread, so did discrimination. It’s probably the single longest running pogam against an identifiable people in the history of the world.
Report comment to moderator
#96: Nonsense. They need guidance and for this
No they don’t. Considering what a gay does, actually physically does, you have to have that inclination. It’s not a “choice”. This is why many gays are repulsed by a woman’s body. Because they are GAY. How can you argue something So obvious?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Left or right handedness have nothing to do with sexuality or attraction issues, which are moral in nature.
Report comment to moderator
#100, Night Train wrote; “But it’s not because of any thing they read in the Bible/”
Wrong. The principles of human freedom and dignity are all over the Bible and they led people of faith to oppose slavery long before secularists or others had the guts to oppose slavery.
Paul wrote to Philemon about the slave Onesimus and advised him to accept him back “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…” (Philemon 16).
Of course there was no way that the fledgling Christians could buck the whole Roman institution of slaver and not be routed for it, so Paul took the personal and principled approach.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – 98
Your analogy of left handedness vs. right handedness doesn’t make sense, it isn’t a comparison with homosexuality. Whichever hand one uses to write with isn’t a sin, homosexuality is sin.
Report comment to moderator
#103
Joel Mark,
On what basis do you consider sexual attraction (as opposed to behavior) a moral issue?
I have at various times in my life, mostly in my youth, felt “infatuation” for someone. Experience taught me that the feelings would eventually subside as long as I did nothing to “fan the flames.” I did not seek to be attracted to those people, I often did not know why I was attracted to particular people. The only “choice” on my part was to do my best to simply let the feeling of attraction die a natural death.
I did not always make the right choice, at least not immediately. And allowing my feeling of infatuation to continue for some time simply made it more painful when I did finally take action to avoid contact with the person so as to cause the attraction to wither.
But I fail to see how the attraction itself – especially when I was younger and did not even recognize what the feeling was – was a moral issue, even in the cases where I promptly recognized it and set about not letting it develop further.
Report comment to moderator
The religious always want to make everything a dirty sin. No wonder they are always begging to be saved.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train wrote; “Slavery is sanctioned by the apostles, and according to Christian theology, the Holy Spirit, in the New Testament, too.”
No idea what you are talking about, Night Train. Slavery is mentioned in the New Testament but there is no specific sanction of it. The point of those passages focuses on how a Christian should behave in the role of slave or master (roles which abounded in the Hellenistic world at that time). There was really no hope for overturning that Roman institution in the first century and it would have caused havoc for early Christians to have made that their main mission in that context.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train, “It’s called eisegesis.”
You did not rationally refute or deal with what I wrote. You just called it eisegesis and moved on to your own agenda. You are just trying to hijack this thread.
Report comment to moderator
#106. Pauline asked; “On what basis do you consider sexual attraction (as opposed to behavior) a moral issue?”
On the basis that authentic morality does not separate the will from the action. We are responsible for both. It would be a hopelessly shallow morality to limit it to mere behavior. It would be a shallow understanding of sin, to limit it to mere behavior. Sin is a condition, a cancer that leads to death, not just a list of outward behavioral infractions. Sin is a broken relationship with God and a twistedness of the will itself. And we are responsible for that twisting over time.
Christian morality is rooted in the transformation of the will, not merely in behavior.
That is not to say that every “infatuation” is a sin. It is to say that what you cultivate in the seat of your will, will come out in your behavior.
Even Jesus was tempted and temptation does not constitute sin. But if we keep on feeding that temptation, we are tilling the soil for sin and we are responsible for that tilling of the soil, as well as for the behavior itself.
I think some of what you wrote shows that you already understand that (about not “fanning the flames”).
It sounds to me like you are saying the same thing as I am–that choice is involved in who we become and what we do as well as what we are inclined to do over time.
I think that any denial that our sexuality is highly influenced by human choices (among other factors) is simply a refusal to take responsibility for our choices.
Report comment to moderator
Joel – 109
It happens all the time. I have wondered many times when there have been long posts, just how long were they?
I measured the post (#100) its 30 plus inches long, don’t laugh, it really is…… all about another subject, YES it’s hijacking the thread-
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: But I fail to see how the attraction itself – especially when I was younger and did not even recognize what the feeling was – was a moral issue, even in the cases where I promptly recognized it and set about not letting it develop further.
It is human to have these polymorphic sexual attractions, though we are properly taught through the Judeo/Christian tradition from young age on that these attractions [instincts] when fully acted upon are sinful and lead to much human misery.
No one here is arguing that the attractions are a moral issue; acting them out, however, is, unless you take the the naturalistic view that we are mere animals.
C.S. Lewis in a chapter of Mere Christianity, “Sexual Morality” writes:
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Cristian rule is, “Either marriage,[between a man and a woman], with complete faithfulness to your partner or total abstinence. Now this is so contrary to our instincts, that either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong. Of course, being a Christian I think it is the instinct that has gone wrong.
Report comment to moderator
#112 “No one here is arguing that the attractions are a moral issue”
Peter Leavitt (and Joel Mark),
I was responding to Joel Mark’s statement in #103 that “Left or right handedness have nothing to do with sexuality or attraction issues, which are moral in nature.” As I read that, he seemed to be saying that attraction is a moral issue. Based on his response in #110, it appears that he and I – and you – agree that it is acting on them – by which I include “action” in the mind, not only outward physical action, that is the moral issue.
I mentioned handedness because it is an unchosen attraction to use a particular hand. I am not saying it is comparable to homosexuality as a moral issue, but it is comparable in that it causes a minority of us to want to do things in a way that is quite different from the majority, but which we do have conscious control over whether we actually do things that way (as people of earlier generations were more or less forced to do in many cases). As I said above, I find it useful to use the comparison to understand the perspective of people who see same-sex attraction in the same light. They do not see their attraction as a moral issue, and cannot understand why we do, and view it much as we view people such as my father having been needlessly forced to write with his right hand.
That’s the only argument I’m making. It helps me understand people who see things differently than I do.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, show me in the Bible where God forbids his followers to own other human beings. Not “principles” not “the sense of the Scripture”. He explicitly told them they could own slaves in the Old Testament. Show me where he says it’s now a sin.
Report comment to moderator
#113: it causes a minority of us to want to do things in a way that is quite different from the majority
Like fall in love? Have a partner? Even be in a family? These things are so different!!
#113: and cannot understand why we do
Oh it is understood completely. You have been indoctrinated into a primitive religion that was invented by a desert people two thousand years ago. These people wrote their prejudice into a collection of letters and fables. They took natural and normal human feelings and twisted them into what you call sin. The number of their followers grew until they felt comforatable forcing their occult and arcane practices on people whose only crime was to fall in love with members of their same sex. It’s all very clear. There is no misunderstanding here.
Rape is a crime. Murder is a crime. Wanting romantic adult love and returning that love is neither a crime nor a sin. Only in the minds of those indoctrinated into the supernatural and arcane.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, Joel clearly distinguished between left-handedness as a simply physical issue and polymorphous perversions as a moral issue.
Serious Christians, as C.S. Lewis remarked, are strictly required to be abstinent outside of marriage between men and women.
I know this is difficult truth to deal with, though when it’s followed the human and possibly transcendental results are rich. “Cultured” despisers of religion object to this sort of truth, which is fine, though Christians should pay scant attention to their view.
Report comment to moderator
The Declaration says this in the context of noting men have an unalienable natural right to liberty and pursue happiness. The plain meaning of that phrase seems to imply homosexuals have a right to live their lives the way they want, provided they don’t hurt anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, the Judeo/Christian tradition, based on both Scripture and natural law reason, claims that homosexuality is a serious or grave sin and a disorder of nature. That is why orthodox and evangelical Christians have great difficulty with homosexuality, while at the same time as, stated in the Catholic Catechism, we understand that homosexuality is a trial for those so inclined and that Christians need to be compassionate and sensitive toward these folk.
It is a stretch to regard the pursuit of happiness part of the Constitution as justification for homosexual behavior or marriage.
Report comment to moderator
I’d note that a meaningful distinction can be made between accepting homosexuals have a right to do what they want under the rubrics of liberty and pursuit of happiness and gay marriage. I certainly believes the DOP holds government has no right whatsoever to forbid homosexual sex. I’m not sure if the DOP demands gay marriage however. The Declaration’s natural law/natural rights principles chiefly concerned themselves with political liberty, not sexual behavior.
I have however, studied the natural law tradition as it relates to sex in detail and know that the same theory that holds homosexual acts to be “unnatural,” equally holds, among other things, married heterosexual contracepted sex, oral sex, and masturbation to be unnatural. If the Declaration of Independence holds what gay folks do to be “unnatural,” it likewise holds married Christian couples using contraception to be so.
Report comment to moderator
#118: the Judeo/Christian tradition, based on both Scripture and natural law reason
mys·ti·cism [ místə sìzzəm ]
noun
Definition:
1. belief in intuitive spiritual revelation: the belief that personal communication or union with the divine is achieved through intuition, faith, ecstasy, or sudden insight rather than through rational thought
Why do you people think that occult and arcane beliefs are based on “natural law” and “reason”?
nat·u·ral law (plural nat·u·ral laws)
noun
Definition:
1. law of morality: a law of morality believed to be derived from human beings’ inherent sense of right and wrong, rather than from revelation or the legislation produced by society
For a gay, being in love with a member of the same sex is “natural”.
rea·son [ rz'n ]
noun (plural rea·sons)
Definition:
1. power of orderly thought: the power of being able to think in a logical and rational manner
use reason rather than force
2. ability to think clearly: the ability to think clearly and coherently
3. philosophy intellect as basis for knowledge: the ability to think logically regarded as a basis for knowledge, as distinct from experience or emotions
Believing in the arcane is unnatural and less than rational. How can you guys have the nerve to judge others when your own religion says, “Judge not”? How can you still insist it’s a choice when none of you had to choose? How can you want to make a bunch of strangers suffer based on occult writings? I don’t get why you think you are in a position to judge the morals of others when your own are questionable. Yours come from a book. Maybe that’s why so many don’t know the difference between right and wrong. For all of those that say they have gay friends but believe those “friends” deserve less rights than them, you are not their friend. You don’t know what a friend is.
Report comment to moderator
RDean,
Natural in this sense certainly means discoverable by reason. The traditional natural law that holds homosexuality anathema looks at biological nature and concludes: men fit women, penis fits vagina, sperm fits egg, all like a lock and key. The theory is actually rather air tight except you have the accept the whole thing which few (I’d imagine few here) are willing to do. Accept contraception between married couples or a teenager masturbating as “natural” and you lose your basis for declaring homosexuality “unnatural.”
I can point you folks to a post by Ed Feser who is probably the most notable natural law scholar who regularly blogs on these matters.
There are also different ways for reason to approach human nature. If instead of a strict observance of biological nature, we rather look at human flourishing, all of the above (contraception, oral sex, masturbation, and homosexual acts) could be viewed as “natural” and “good,” because they promote human flourishing.
Report comment to moderator
As one of the few gay people on WorldMag, I have to say that it appears that nearly all of you are arguing from a theoretical point of view, not the reality of gay people’s lives.
I would particularly point out that Joel Mark, Victoria, and Peter Leavitt have the most uninformed, negative opinion of gays (to put it kindly). They don’t have a clue! I find it hopeless to even attempt to address their lack of knowledge on this issue because they’ve already made up their minds that gay = evil, and absolutely nothing will sway them from that. They’re too far gone to be reasoned with. That’s a shame.
I do want to praise one person though: Pauline. She exhibits more empathy and understanding in one post than the other 100+ comments. Thank you Pauline!
Report comment to moderator
Responding to Joel Mark from #85 through #89:
Here are some good reasons that are not born of prejudice (three quotes and a comment):
* “If society is to flourish and perpetuate itself, it must uphold marriage as a social ideal — it must raise boys and girls in a culture that encourages them to eventually marry a partner of the opposite sex, make stable and loving homes together, and have children who will one day form successful marriages of their own.” Jeff Jacoby, Columnist. January 23, 2007.
* “If a word means everything, then it means nothing. Stretching words like ‘marriage‘ and ‘family’ to include all sorts of things that they never meant before is reducing these words — and the institutions they represent — to nothing.” Dr. Thomas Sowell, Op-ed piece, October 19, 2005.
* “Marriage is where the future comes from.” Charles Colson. Breakpoint, May 21, 2004
There is nothing more kind and healthy that we can do for children in our culture than to advocate for their upbringing in a home headed by their father and their mother who live together in a covenant of lifelong love called marriage.
As it happens, I agree with your comment and the first and third quotes. (I only partly disagree with Sowell and I’ll explain why in a moment.)
I do agree that a lifelong male-female marriage is the ideal, and especially when there are children involved. However, people miss that ideal for all kinds of reasons.
Homosexual people are not going to marry heterosexually anyway — or if they do they’ll either be miserable or else they may live a secret gay life behind their spouse’s back — so what is gained by stigmatizing them?
I even mostly agree with what Sowell says, except I think that his assumption is that the meaning of the words would be stretched infinitely into meaninglessness. The truth is, we have always had a variety of different kinds of families. Even when divorce was more rare, death often created single-parent households, for example.
The question becomes, what is the purpose of family and marriage? If you say it’s child-rearing, then there’s no reason for older people to marry. Say you have two people in their 50s, a man and a woman, who are single through the deaths of their spouses and whose children are grown up and in their own marriages now. If rearing children is the prime reason for marriage, there’s no reason they can’t shack up unwed.
I think that while guiding the children is a very important reason for marriage, it’s not the only one. There’s also the value of publicly declaring your commitment (and thereby being accountable to the community), the value of having a partner who has shared that public commitment with you, and a variety of legal benefits.
The net result of insisting that the only “real” families are those with two married opposite-sex adults and ideally one or more children is to make a lot of people second-class for no reason other than that they don’t meet your standards. While that may help you feel more morally pure, it only harms those people.
SteveG wrote: “Nobody who is heterosexual ever made a conscious choice to be that way.”
That is nonsense. We are all the products of many thousands of choices over our lifetimes that helped to constitute our desires, values, virtues and preferences. Freedom of choice is part of what it means to be human and to be made in God’s image and thus, choice plays a huge part in our fabric as human beings–[...]
SteveG wrote; “But anti-gay heterosexuals often feel perfectly justified in assuming homosexuals DO choose.”
It’s dehumanizing to claim otherwise. Of course they choose. After all, they are human beings, not mere animals.
Hence, my question about when did you choose your path?
SteveG asked, “Did you ever have a time in your life when you could have chosen to be attracted to your same sex, and made a decision not to go that way?”
Sure, and such moments recur over and over from childhood (remember how as young boys, we didn’teven like girls)
Little boys are not sexual beings yet. You’re not forming a sexual inclination when you’re five years old and would rather play spaceman with your friend Joe than play with Susie’s dolls. You’re just being a normal child.
and as we grow up in a sane culture we have a choice each and every time to feed which inclination to make it grow. Any of us can potentially make choices that can eventually (over the years) forge new inclinations in us.
Perhaps, but not to the point of overriding our nature.
Let me put it this way: Are you attracted to men? Do you ever see a man somewhere and have sexual thoughts?
I think you could never choose to be homosexual. You could not decide tomorrow to go have sex with a man. And by the same token, your “choice” to be heterosexual is no more a choice than your choice to have whatever color hair you have.
Theoretically, I suppose, you could force yourself to act as if you had a same-sex orientation; but it would never really be real.
Given that, why do you think it’s any more of a choice for a homosexual? Sure, they can force themselves to try to sublimate their natural inclination and act as society expects heterosexual men to act, but it will never be who they really are. And the psychological stress of daily living a lie must be enormous.
That’s why it is so worth promoting the virtue of marriage between one man and one woman so that sexual chaos will not take root in our culture.
I don’t think allowing same-sex partnerings leads to sexual chaos. I think it allows people who were never going to be heterosexual anyway to not feel like outcasts.
I DO agree, however, that promoting long-term monogamous partnerships (marriage for the straights, whatever alternative term for the gays) is important. I don’t believe that acknowledging the existence of people with a same-sex orientation is harmful, but I do agree that promiscuity and shallow short-term relationships as a permanent lifestyle are.
If choice were not a huge factor, how we love (whatever label you choose for it) would not be a moral issue–and it is. Our moral fabric is part of what makes us human and morality involves choices. Take out the choice and yu take out the humanity and make us biology bags.
That’s where we differ. I don’t think homosexuality is a moral issue, because I don’t think it is a choice. I do think that choosing to avoid long-term commitments is, though.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that out of most of the traditional Christians here, Pauline comes off as the nicest. Natural law, btw, has in its method the potential to be pro-gay. That is, such theory is premised on an observance of nature as a whole. One can look at the male/female dichotomy and come to anti-gay conclusions based on this theory (see the followers of Thomas Aquinas). Or one can look at homosexuals and how they exist within human and animal nature and come to positive conclusions that, from an objective sense that is true in all times and places, homosexuality is “natural” and “normal.”
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (#98) did a very good job explaining the idea of handedness as an unchosen trait.
So I’m surprised that people refuse to comprehend the possibility that homosexuality is also an unchosen trait.
#110: I think some of what you wrote shows that you already understand that (about not “fanning the flames”).
It sounds to me like you are saying the same thing as I am–that choice is involved in who we become and what we do as well as what we are inclined to do over time.
But the distinction is that the flames were where the flames were, and not where Pauline chose to put them.
I’m not saying there are no choices in life, or that Pauline didn’t influence her life by choosing to not “fan the flames”, but it sounds like she felt that no conscious decision making went into where the flames started.
If choice is such a defining factor of our sexuality, then what does that say about the many young heterosexuals who never feel sexually attracted to members of the same sex? Are they just automatons because they never had to choose to reject homosexual feelings?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #95: God did not leave the old world void of his guidance, but that guidance was tailored to what they were prepared for and to prepare them for greater conformity to God’s will over time.
We had the slavery discussion exhaustively elsewhere so I won’t belabor it here, but I will tell you why I have a problem the idea you articulate here.
Back in the same general period of time when God was condoning slavery, he also issued the Ten Commandments and a lot of other laws. The people were not prepared to give up adultery, murder, theft or envy either, but that didn’t stop God from clearly and forcefully telling them “thou shalt not.”
The fact that they had commandments against these things didn’t stop them from happening, but they did make God’s will on those points absolutely clear. And had God objected to humans owning other humans as property, he could have said Thou shalt not that too.
Instead, he issued rules to control the practice, but never once suggested it should end. And as Night Train correctly notes, the approval of slavery survived at least until New Testament times. I do agree that Christians played a large role in the abolition of slavery (both in the U.S. in the 19th century and in other places at other times), but they did so in spite of what the Bible said, not because of it.
(It also is true, in America at least, that other Christians were just as likely to be slaveowners and defenders of the practice. And those who were had the Word of God on their side.)
Report comment to moderator
Anlir –
You consider anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle, “uninformed”- you believe you can say this because this is what you believe, we on the other hand……I will speak for myself, (Joel and Peter are more than capable for speaking for themselves) . . . I believe that I am very informed, I believe this because I believe the Bible to be TRUTH, I don’t believe you or anyone else was born that way, anymore than someone was born to commit adultery, or ‘cheat’ on their wife/husband, lie, etc., This is what I believe and it is INFORMED, and the source is the Word of GOD. That doesn’t set well with homosexuals, that’s what this whole thread is about, those who complain about Believers. Here is the quote below that is in the TOPIC.
No matter how much we as Believers care about, pray for homosexuals, the love we show will never be enough, the reason for this is, WE WON’T ACCEPT their lifestyle, its just that simple. The homosexuals are not going to accept the fact that we are standing our ground, just as we would if someone were in our church having an affair, and expecting us to accept it. We aren’t hostile to homosexuals at all, but then the homosexual will come right back with the same old complaints about UN-ACCEPTANCE-
Anlir, I am of the opinion that homosexuals haven’t a clue as to the Believers dedication to the Word of GOD, they don’t get it. We as Believers can’t accept the sin of homosexuality, and then embrace the Word of God, it just doesn’t work, and as long as you persist in this constant complaining, the more upset you are going to be.
You want something we can’t give you and that’s our blessing and support, GOD doesn’t bless it either.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not a bad analogy. Men in general certainly seemed programed for promiscuity, to spread their seed as far and wide as possible to as many different mates as possible. The homosexuality orientation, at least for many, probably is genetic and determined at birth. But, as I understand orthodox Christianity, and the doctrine of original sin, everyone is programmed at birth to sin.
As far as not accepting homosexuality, I am dumbfounded why both parties don’t accept the classical liberal solution. Gays will never accept your interpretation of sacred text as TRUTH. So just accept you have your differences, tolerate one another, and move on. But no, one side demands to force its worldview on the other.
Report comment to moderator
One must also thank SteveG for the sane, well thought out points and questions.
If one has a minimal understanding of human sexuality, one understands that no individual chooses their sexual orientation. To hear some on here talk, one would think people pick their sexuality like they pick out what shirt they’re going to wear. It shows a profound ignorance and failure to contemplate the reality of people’s lives (straight or gay).
If one looks at the pathology of dysfunctional families, being gay is way, way down the list. It’s not gay people who are divorcing and re-marrying like jack-rabbits. It’s not gay people who are fathering children and then not supporting them. It’s not gay people who are having 48-hour “quickie” marriages in Las Vegas. It’s not gay people who are getting pregnant before they’re mature enough to raise a child.
If one is involved in the life of a gay person, one understands that they are as capable of love, commitment, and caring as any straight person. One wishes them a lifetime of happiness, not the hellish misery that some conservative Christians wish to impose on them, either socially or through the law.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe at #128:
Victoria: I believe this because I believe the Bible to be TRUTH, I don’t believe you or anyone else was born that way, anymore than someone was born to commit adultery, or ‘cheat’ on their wife/husband, lie, etc.
Jon Rowe:That’s not a bad analogy.
Yes it is.
Men in general certainly seemed programed for promiscuity, to spread their seed as far and wide as possible to as many different mates as possible. The homosexuality orientation, at least for many, probably is genetic and determined at birth. But, as I understand orthodox Christianity, and the doctrine of original sin, everyone is programmed at birth to sin.
It’s a bad analogy because people who cheat with an opposite-sex lover are not fighting every fiber of their self-identity to do it. In that case, they can choose to be faithful and not succumb to the temptation.
The homosexual doesn’t have that option, in the eyes of someone like Victoria. There is no relationship a homosexual person can have that will meet her approval. It isn’t a matter of having a good relationship and being tempted to violate the vows, it’s a matter of having have no relationship at all in order to be seen as acceptable.
Report comment to moderator
I just want to get this straight in my own understanding -
Pauline is saying that attraction to the same sex is not sin, because it is merely attraction, a temptation. I believe that she also believes that acting on that attraction, in thought or action, would then be sin.
Joel Mark & Peter Leavitt agree that temptation in itself is not sin, but the acting upon it (again, in thought or action) is where the sin comes in.
ISTM that you all essentially agree, if JM & PL also agree that attraction w/o action = temptation = not a sin.
So why does it seem that JM & PL disagree with Pauline?
Perhaps her analogy to left-handedness is not to your liking, but, that aside, don’t you think you’re all on the same page?
Report comment to moderator
What about people who are only attracted to the left handed?
Report comment to moderator
#127: You want something we can’t give you and that’s our blessing and support, GOD doesn’t bless it either.
No one wants anything from you except to be left alone. Duh. The arrogance. So over the top. Oh, and YOU SPEAK FOR GOD. Why not? A magical and supernatural fantasy invented by primitive humans? Good for you. You elected yourself by a committee of one.
You can’t discuss anything of substance with the three mentioned above. Notice how everything is reduced to “tab a fits in slot b” so “tab a is the only choice for slot b”. They reduce everything to biological function. Makes you wonder what their own private lives are like. Must be bleak.
When a person is attracted to another, the body is only part of it. When a straight man wants to embrace the life of a straight woman, sure, biological sex is part of it, but also her voice, her smell, her, get this, opinion. The way she thinks differently. Attraction is way more than “tab a and slot b”. When a man is attracted to another man, it’s the maleness, the thought processes, the male outlook, and all those things. If you see people as only tab a and slot b the way the three listed above do, then, of course, all you see is tabs and slots.
They don’t feel human feelings. You can tell by what they write. They quote because that’s all they have. That’s all they know. They’re pod people.
Report comment to moderator
130:
I agree that telling a gay person not to practice is like telling a bird to choose not to fly. The closest analogy would be to the Roman Catholic demand for clerical celibacy. Is it any wonder that the Preisthood attracts homosexually oriented men?
Report comment to moderator
Whenever I’m tempted to despair over the likes of Joel Mark, et al, I remember that out in the real world they represent a small and shrinking segment of America. Even among a significant number of Christians their extreme views are becoming less acceptable.
Out in the real America, moms and dads love their gay son or daughter and want them to have all of the rights and happiness that they have known. Out in the real America, families and friends show up for the marriages and commitment ceremonies of gay people and celebrate their love and joy. Out in the real America, the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies extend benefits to their gay employees and value their contributions. Out in the real America, gay people sit in church and worship God next to straight people. Out in the real America, a gay young person knows he will be able to have as good and satisfying life as his straight friends. Out in the real America, people from all walks of life have come to know gay people and cherish and love them for who they are.
We will someday look back on people with views like Joel Mark’s and Victoria’s and wonder how they could have held such animus toward gays.
What conservative Christians fail to recognize is that they’ve already lost on this issue. People are not going to turn back the clock to ostracizing and demonizing gays, either socially or legally. As gays become more visible, people become more understanding and tolerant.
To be sure, there will always be a minority of people who will always hold gays in low status, much like there are people who still hold blacks, women, and Hispanics in low status. But they will increasingly be marginalized. One of the great things gay people have going for them is the inherent decency and good will of the American people. Holding contemptuous views of someone for who they are is contrary to the American spirit.
So to the Joel’s and Victoria’s of this site, I say enjoy it because this is a good as it’s going to get for you.
Report comment to moderator
What is frightening is the number of children they contaminate. It’s bad enough to cripple children by teaching them that Noah’s Ark and the Garden of Eden are true history. But teaching hate is even more crippling.
Report comment to moderator
Even the Catholic clergy, the sincere ones, believe they are sacrificing human intimacy in exchange for a divine calling, and entering into the covenant by choice. That’s maybe a better analogy than the adultery one, but it’s still not very good.
But RDean makes a good point in #133: Most homosexuals don’t want or need the approval of those who believe their very self-identity is inherently evil. They just want to be left in peace. Which should not be too much to ask.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
This is the problem, when you and your friends can’t get the Believers to go along with your lifestyle, you become angry, as if we don’t have a choice…..after all you do, you can live this lifestyle, and we have the choice not to embrace it.
You have a choice to embrace a homosexual lifestyle.
Believers have a choice to reject the homosexual lifestyle, but care about them.
You don’t want to understand OUR CHOICE, its not ALL ABOUT YOUR CHOICE.
Your next complaint can be “you don’t show love with this attitude” my answer to that would be, “love doesn’t mean accepting sin as a lifestyle.”
Report comment to moderator
#131
Karen O,
It’s because the left-handed analogy suggests that homosexuality is a kind of biological trait, perhaps determined in utero or, at least, in the very early stages of childhood development.
Which would mean that one’s attractions are not self-determined conscious choices, even if one’s actions are.
So even if everyone basically agrees that “attraction w/o action = temptation = not a sin”, it actually misses the point that some people have specific, non-chosen attractions that they can then choose to act or not act on.
Joel Mark, I believe, thinks that the choices we make, to act or not act on attractions, are pivotal in determining sexuality. But this ignores the fact that a choice to act on an attraction is still a consequence of a non-chosen attraction.
I think that’s where the disagreement lies. And it also touches on the other issue of “sexual orientation”, which some people say doesn’t exist. The handedness analogy relates to orientation: A right-hander doesn’t pick up a paint brush and have to consciously reject the impulse to paint with their left hand, because the impulse to paint with their left hand simply wasn’t there to begin with. Hence, they are right-hand oriented.
We make choices, but those choices are consequential to an orientation that we didn’t choose.
Report comment to moderator
I think everyone should accept that for most self-identified gays their homosexuality is about as much of a choice as is left-handedness. However, the proof texts in the Bible will still stand in the way of most fundamentalists accepting homosexuals who choose to accept their orientation and pursue meaningful relationships. Let conservative Christians have their religion; accept their beliefs just as we would accept a Jewish person who has a religious obligation to keep Kosher. But likewise we should demand such religious convictions be consigned to the realm of private conviction, not be made into public policy.
Report comment to moderator
One must also point out the attempts by many conservative Christians to focus certain sex acts, and their use of that to define gay people. It’s an attempt to create a revulsion toward gay people and reduce their humanity down to what they might do in bed. It’s inherently dehumanizing toward gay people and downright unfair. It seems to be born out of a deep-seated animus toward gay people.
One would not stand for straight people being defined solely by what they do in bed. And one should not stand for gay people being defined in that way.
If one truly knows and cares for the gay people in their life, one understands that their sexuality is but one part of their humanity.
The inordinate focus by some conservative Christians on what other folk do in bed is curious, ridiculous, sad, and at times, humorous.
Report comment to moderator
Ste4veG wrote; “I do agree that a lifelong male-female marriage is the ideal, and especially when there are children involved.”
It’s not just the ideal. It’s simply what marriage is–a covenant bond between one man and one woman. That rules out five men or four women (even if they are all consenting adults). It rules out three men and two women (all consenting adults). It rules out two men. It rules out two or three women. It rules out a lot of combinations that simply do not qualify as marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#123, SteveG wrote; “Perhaps, but not to the point of overriding our nature.”
Who said anything about over-ridihng our nature? I don’t believe homosexuality defines anyone’s “nature” nor does one’s “nature” define anyone as homosexual. Our nature is that we have a sex drive. Our nature also includes free will as to what we choose to do with that sex drive and what sort of inclinations we feed and identify with over time.
We all have a sin nature, and to choose homosexuality does NOT over-ride that sin nature. It feeds it. It takes God’s Holy Spirit to over-ride that sin nature and that will not lead to homosexuality, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not so concerned about whether it’s called marriage or not. If Christians want marriage to be an inherently religious institution governed by church laws, that’s fine with me.
Of course, that leaves a lot of heterosexual couples out too. So I’d advocate for some sort of purely civil institution that allows those people who want a legally-defined partnership that doesn’t meet the church’s standards to have it.
I don’t really care if conservative Christians never approve of homosexuals (or other non-traditional families), but the government should not be in the discrimination business.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir
It’s that “one part” Anlir, that we are talking about, however miniscule that might be in your mind.
You can’t accept the fact that Believers believe in GOD, we believe it with all our hearts.
You expect us to CHOOSE between homosexuality as a lifestyle and the LORD. Who do you think we will choose? You already know the answer. But you continue to argue your case, as if you have one, which you don’t, …. certainly not with anyone who has spent years in study of the Bible.
If sin isn’t a choice, then why should anyone prosecute those who murder, or steal. The Ten Commandments aren’t dead. Why not look at Romans 1. You can respond with “I don’t believe the Bible” or “I don’t think that’s what it means” . . . . . all of these answers wouldn’t stand up to a Born Again Believer, because we know what the Bible says.
You aren’t going to convince us that homosexuality is SINLESS, it isn’t going to happen. This is the crux of the matter, no matter how you look at it!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “Back in the same general period of time when God was condoning slavery…”
Slavery was universal in the ancient world. God intervened into that world to save sinners of all sorts and turn them toward Him. In the process, He has condoned an awful lot–that is why we call Him a God of great mercy and grace. He even “condoned” King David’s adultery (actually, he did not condone it but he loved David and used him in spite of the adultery) after he repented. God knows what He is working with in us. He knew what it would take to turn us in His direction and toward His will, which is that we live in freedom and faith. We are still learning, and God is still loving us even amid our flaws and sins.
Face it, the Bible is not primarily about social revolution, but spiritual revolution. But with spiritual revolution placed first, positive social revolution can come along in good time. But God has His priorities right in working with humans from the inside out.
The Godlen Rule from the lips of Jesus could not be ignored forever. It’s application makes slavery untenible.
unfortunately, now that slavery is abolished in the West, we humans are propgating something even worse–abortion and infaticide. How long will it take us to get past that sin?
In any case, God sure is patient with us.
Report comment to moderator
I’m troubled by the notion, reflected in some comments here, that a homosexual is, by definition, not a Christian. I’ll make the charitable assumption that folks who believe this are referring to practicing homosexuals, rather than those who are attracted to the same sex but don’t act on it.
But I’m curious — would the same people say that gossipers can’t be Christians? The Bible teaches that both practices are sins. The instinct of some Christians, however, is to automatically rule the first group “non-believers,” while most of us would agree that it would be preposterous to do the same to the latter.
I’m sure when pressed, most folks here will say that insofar as practicing homosexuals are unrepentant, they are outside communion with God, or some such phraseology. But when we start playing fast and loose with our words (I encourage you to look through some of the comments above to see what I mean), our true attitude comes out — a homosexual can’t really believe in Christ.
I believe there are many people who are Christians, yet who are caught up in sins they don’t yet recognize as sins, or refuse to recognize as sins. I believe many of us, in our walks, have at times been unrepentant about sin. Do we look back on ourselves in those times, and say: I wasn’t really a Christian then? I think most Christians would afford some grace to someone whose sin is gossip, or drunkenness, or some less condemnable forms of promiscuity. We would allow that, in spite of his sin, it’s certainly possible for him to genuinely desire communion with Christ. We would grieve for him, that his own behavior keeps him from what he desires. But fewer of us are willing to afford such grace to homosexuals. We simply assume that they can’t really desire communion the way the drunkard or the gossip or the bigot can.
This is not an argument for compromising the Bible’s view of homosexuality, though some will portray it as such. It’s a plea to look at ourselves, at the language we use, at the biases we harbor. The Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin, yes, but those of us who have never struggled with it often elevate it to some higher sin status, and automatically assume that anyone who practices it is somehow a more depraved or sinful creature than other sinners, than us in our own sins.
And then in the next breath, we boast of our love for them. And we profess shock that they don’t believe us, and in a move of pure chutzpah, accuse them of bigotry toward Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Flaming — The handedness analogy relates to orientation: A right-hander doesn’t pick up a paint brush and have to consciously reject the impulse to paint with their left hand, because the impulse to paint with their left hand simply wasn’t there to begin with. Hence, they are right-hand oriented.
We make choices, but those choices are consequential to an orientation that we didn’t choose.
Roger — There are those who say they “love the sinner but hate the sin.” And for these folks who truly want to love others, some of them would use a slightly different analogy. For those Christians that accept the genetic origins of “left-handed” sexual orientation, the better analogy is alcoholism.
While some acknowledge that certain people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, no one will argue that we ought to leave alcoholics alone to live in the gutter or behind a trash bin. Just because some folks have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism doesn’t mean we shouldn’t educate them about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. And when we do, it doesn’t mean we hate alcoholics. If we truly hated alcoholics we would leave them in the gutter.
I’m not saying that I agree with the idea that some folks have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. But even if I did, I still believe it to be harmful, both physically and psychologically (not to mention spiritually) and since I believe this to be true, I affirm that charity demands that I encourage the sexually left-handed to avoid harm and injury to themselves. A desire to mitigate harmful effects is not based on hate for the other person.
Report comment to moderator
Tony — This is not an argument for compromising the Bible’s view of homosexuality, though some will portray it as such. It’s a plea to look at ourselves, at the language we use, at the biases we harbor. The Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin, yes, but those of us who have never struggled with it often elevate it to some higher sin status, and automatically assume that anyone who practices it is somehow a more depraved or sinful creature than other sinners, than us in our own sins.
Roger — Good point.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #146:
Slavery was universal in the ancient world. God intervened into that world to save sinners of all sorts and turn them toward Him. In the process, He has condoned an awful lot–that is why we call Him a God of great mercy and grace. He even “condoned” King David’s adultery (actually, he did not condone it but he loved David and used him in spite of the adultery) after he repented.
Difference: David’s adultery was recognized as sin and David knew it was something he needed to repent of. Slavery was not recognized as sin; God allowed it, established rules for it and even made clear that the Hebrew slaves were to be treated as servants and freed after a time, while the foreign slaves were purely property.
And somehow you managed to not actually address the point I was making. I’ll reiterate it: God had no problem completely forbidding some sins, while not forbidding slavery when he could have just as easily.
And let’s be clear. I’m not talking about the Romans that the early church came up against. I’m talking about the slavery that the Hebrews themselves practiced back in the time of Moses.
If God opposed slavery, why not say so?
Report comment to moderator
Tony at #147: I gave you a bit of razzing when I first started posting here, but you’ve become one of my favorites, in large part because of things such as what you say here. Not sure if that means much coming from a non-Christian, but I thought I should say.
Report comment to moderator
Tony’s heartfelt and well written post and comment demonstrate the tension at the heart of this debate. 150 years ago the debate was about slavery, today it’s about homosexuality, but it’s the same issue at the heart of both debates. When the clear teachings of the Bible become grossly offensive to modern sensibilities, which one will Christians reject, and which one will they yield to?
In the 1860s, they rejected the clear teaching of the Bible on slavery, and yielded to the modern sensibilities that slavery was a grave assault on human dignity, and no decent person could approve of it. So they invented ways of justifying their rejection of the Biblical view of slavery. Progressive revelation, the sense of the scripture, biblical principles, etc.
The same trend is well underway with respect to the biblical teachings on homosexuality. Public opinions and attitudes toward homosexuality and gays and lesbians have radically shifted in the past few decades. More and more people have no problem at all with homosexuality, and increasingly those who oppose it who are seen as having the morality problem. So we hear and read pieces like Tony’s, (and I don’t mean this as a personal attack at all), which seek to downplay how the Bible treats homosexuality. It was a capital crime in the OT. God destroyed two entire cities over it. In the NT, Paul says gays are so far gone that God has given them over to “reprobate minds.” But Tony is shocked that people who believe this book, the book he believes, think homosexuality is in any way worse than most sins. It should be treated as no different than gossip, or cursing when your team loses, or eating too much. Sin is sin. And many Christians say the same thing.
But Christians of prior generations would be astounded and outraged at this view of homosexuality as just another sin. Because it’s impossible to square that view with the Bible.
And what this view is, is simply the first step toward completely rejecting the biblical view of homosexuality. Tony vehemently denies this of course, and he’s being quite honest. He really means it when he says he’s not seeking to compromise on what the Bible says about sodomy. But that’s what he’s doing. And eventually, as I said last night, people who disapprove of gay relationships will be held in the same contempt that those who disapprove of interracial ones are held in today.
Christians love to talk about the gospel being all inclusive, and how Jesus broke down barriers, and tore down walls. Joel Mark says that the Bible’s main emphasis is on human freedom. These are two more tendencies that are in tension with holding to the Bible’s passages on sodomy.
Eventually something will have to give, just like it did 150 years ago. And it will be the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality that give. The same arguments will be used that were used to justify the rejection of the clear Biblical teachings on slavery – progressive revelation, God hates homophobia but tolerated it for a season because a primitive culture wasn’t ready to accept it, those parts of the Bible aren’t inspired but are simply cultural relics, etc.
Watch and see.
Check back in 20 years and tell me I was wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
You compare homosexuality with gossip.
Homosexuality is a LASTING lifestyle, unless one repents and turns from this sin. There are other sins, but you brought up two, homosexuality and gossip. Gossip isn’t mentioned the way homosexuality is, perhaps that’s because it is a sin which is not a ‘lifestyle’ it is something one might say, but not repeat again, and again, and again, year after year, after year. Homosexuality is an abomination, it’s a sin which when one continues is given over to a REPROBATE MIND. No other sin in the Bible is mentioned which is given over to a REPROBATE MIND. This in itself is significant.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1
Now if one doesn’t believe the Bible, this doesn’t mean much to them, they can take or leave it, BUT…. if it does have meaning and TRUTH, it’s a serious admonition that homosexuality is something which if continued is given over to a REPROBATE MIND which is a mind without conscience.
Liberals who want to be ADMIRED………. are often the first to step up to the plate, in order to smooth the way for a ‘kinder gentler approach’ to homosexuality, but it doesn’t line up to the Word of God, ONLY WITH THEIR SUPPOSED POPULARITY amongst those who oppose the LORD and the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
REPROBATE
Definition:
1. somebody immoral: a disreputable or immoral person
2. religion somebody damned: somebody whose soul is believed to be damned
Report comment to moderator
NT — So we hear and read pieces like Tony’s, (and I don’t mean this as a personal attack at all), which seek to downplay how the Bible treats homosexuality.
Roger — I understood Tony’s remarks to mean the opposite of what you suggest. Tony isn’t downplaying the Biblical view of homosexuality as if to soften it. Rather, he is elevating the other sins up to the same level as homosexuality, which in my opinion, is the Biblical view. The “unchristian” view is to suggest that homosexuality is worse than gluttony, gossip, slander, resentment, etc. But when he says this, he is not suggesting that gossip isn’t so bad so homosexuality isn’t either. He still maintains the extreme immorality of homosexuality, while pointing out that gossip ranks on the same level.
NT — It was a capital crime in the OT. God destroyed two entire cities over it.
Roger — The actual reason why God destroyed Sodom was inhospitality, not sodomy as our cultural lore supposes. While it is true that the men of Sodom wanted to have intercourse with the Angels, the motivation for the sex act was not a burning desire for an intimate same-sex relationship, but the objectification of another human being. What the towns people wanted to do to the Angels was closer to murder than gay sex.
NT — In the NT, Paul says gays are so far gone that God has given them over to “reprobate minds.”
Roger — While this is true, Paul uses homosexuality, not as an extreme case of sin, but as an obvious case of a darkened mind that will not accept the obvious. His point about homosexuality is intended to graphically illustrate the same repression of the truth we find in those who deny God’s existence.
Paul asserts that those who unrighteously deny God’s existence are suppressing (or repressing) that truth and are without excuse since evidence of God is all around us. In his view, a mind that has not been darkened, a mind that does not suppressed the truth, will be able to deduce the existence of God from nature. A foolish darkened mind that suppresses the truth will not be able to learn the existence of God from nature.
Homosexuals are another case in point of one who will not accept the fact of their own existence. A homosexual man wears on his own body the evidence against him. It’s obvious that a man’s equipment is a suitable and fitting match for a woman’s. To deny this is to deny the obvious and represents a reprobate mind. And while Paul would be the first to condemn the practice of homosexuality, his point here in Romans is to condemn all sin as a denial of the obvious and all sin is on the same level as homosexuality as it pertains to being under God’s wrath. We are ALL perverted in some way.
Tony has not rejected the Biblical view of homosexuality. He is calling Christians to affirm the Biblical view of the human condition, which applies to everyone — even Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
We need to read down just a little further in Romans to see where Tony agrees with Paul.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; [they are] gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
In this we see how Paul has expanded the category of what “those-with-a-depraved-mind” will do to include all the things on the above list. Homosexuality is merely the most obvious case, but not necessarily the most extreme case. Paul even goes so far as to say that those who gossip already know that what they do is worthy of death, but do it anyway to seek the approval of others.
I don’t think Tony is suggesting that homosexuality isn’t bad. It’s just that Christians seem to skip over the part that says gossipers deserve death.
But Paul’s point isn’t to rag on sinners. He is defining the problem so that we might understand the solution. In a nutshell, he argues that God will take gossipers, worthy of death, and give them the gift of becoming a glorious creature full of love, wisdom, and inner beauty — which they don’t deserve but he grants it to them anyway. Homosexuals can have the same gift too, if they want it.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone dealt with ‘DIVORCE’? I’m sure many on this blog have, or they have friends who have. There is only one way one may obtain a divorce and that is adultery. They then have a Biblical divorce, which entitles the one who has been the victim to marry again.
Let’s look at this closer. Why can’t people get a divorce for gossip, lying? Why is it only sexual sin? Perhaps this sheds a new light on sin, and why sexual sin is a reason for Biblical divorce.
This is from the Bible, so we can’t play with the truth as far as divorce is concerned. From this point we have to ask ourselves, because sexual sin is such a horrible sin, it is held above all others for the reason of divorce, and another chance to remarry, then what? Is this just another sin like gossip? Of course not, there is nothing to suggest in the Word of God that one can divorce for gossip or lying, stealing or other sins.
Report comment to moderator
I do agree that Christians played a large role in the abolition of slavery (both in the U.S. in the 19th century and in other places at other times), but they did so in spite of what the Bible said, not because of it.
Sure, Steve. That’s why those abolitionists were quoting the Bible as they fought against slavery.
There is a telling scene in the film Amazing Grace where William Wilberforce insists, “God has laid before me two great objectives: the abolition of the slave trade, and the reformation of manners.” He realized that in order to abolish the great evil of slavery, people actually had to begin to change the way they lived their lives, and how they thought about the real purposes and meaning of life. That means living out the Creator’s purposes for our lives, according to His will.
Even as we consider the issue of homosexuality [among many other sins], what’s going to change the course of America and of history — as Wilberforce showed us — is overall moral reformation and re-commitment to the common good as God intended it.
Report comment to moderator
Why do some Christians believe that sexual sin is more horrible than other sin? Murder is also not a cause for divorce, but it seems that the act of murdering someone is a pretty awful thing. I thought sin was sin.
Report comment to moderator
Roger #148,
Which is why the whole “choice” debate is ultimately, in a broad sense, irrelevant. There is no reason to discriminate against something just because it’s a choice, and something isn’t necessarily right just because it wasn’t chosen.
With that in mind I’d echo Jon Rowe’s post #140 and add; there is an impasse. It won’t be overcome. Each to their own on this one.
Report comment to moderator
Sin is sin, CB.
Report comment to moderator
Tony wrote; “”But fewer of us are willing to afford such grace to homosexuals.”
Speak for yourself Tony. I have read nothing that indicts a withholding of grace to repentant human beings.
The greatest lack of grace I have seen in this discussion is from the “Un Christian” book who has little of it for Christians.
And, Tony, anone who is truly repentant with regard to their sins has turned their face toward God and if they have embraced Jesus Christ, and follow Him on God’s terms, they are a Christian.
It is the non-repentant who are not Christians and only God gets to make that final decision.
In 1 Cor. 6, Paul spoke of homosexuals who were homosexuals no longer, because they were washed and justified and sactified throught Christ.
If a gossip was not repentant, they would not be Christian, by definition.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, “If God opposed slavery, why not say so?”
I think He has. See the Golden Rule. That is clear enough for followers of Jesus.
You see, Christianity is not just a list of what is wrong or what not to do. Instead of just listing dos and don’t and sins and non-sins, God wants us to walk with Him to the point where we can see His will on principle and understand sin at a deeper level than mere behavior or lists.
Report comment to moderator
152,
It was the clear teaching of the Bible that finally led to the sensibilities in the 1860s that slavery was a grave assault on human dignity, and no decent person could approve of it.
The opposition to slavery long before the Civil War began and was sustained by Bible-believing Christians.
Today, the teachings of the Bible also make it clear to ethical people that abortion is a much more grave assault on human dignity and life itself than even slavery is. This runs against modern sensibilities that it is just a mere “choice” to kill our progeny.
There is no literal verse in the Bible about the specific evil of abortion. But Bible believers have no trouble seeing it as sin.
And now that modern sensibilities are approving of homosexuality, genuine Christians are again running against the general trend for the culture to approve sin and are retaining our convictions–willing to speak the truth in love.
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #148: While some acknowledge that certain people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, no one will argue that we ought to leave alcoholics alone to live in the gutter or behind a trash bin. Just because some folks have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism doesn’t mean we shouldn’t educate them about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. And when we do, it doesn’t mean we hate alcoholics. If we truly hated alcoholics we would leave them in the gutter.
The problem with this analogy is that alcholosm is demonstrably inherently harmful. It’s impossible to be an alcoholic without doing great harm to yourself for sure and usually anyone close to you.
Homosexuality is not the same way. Homosexuals are usually good citizens, often among our most creative artists, quite capable of living full and rich lives.
Many homosexuals live in lifelong monogamous relationships (and even the specter of AIDS doesn’t apply there because if both are uninfected and honor the monogamy, there’s no risk) and give back a great deal to society.
There’s a stereotype that homosexuals are rampantly promiscuous and indeed, some are. So are some straights. That’s also nothing to do with the orientation, but the chosen practices, and can apply to either.
Whether or not homosexuals are harming their souls is a religious belief, not a self-evident truth. For that reason, I believe the religious people are free to believe about it what they will, but they have no right to insist the larger world adhere to their religious convictions.
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #155:
NT — So we hear and read pieces like Tony’s, (and I don’t mean this as a personal attack at all), which seek to downplay how the Bible treats homosexuality.
Roger — I understood Tony’s remarks to mean the opposite of what you suggest. Tony isn’t downplaying the Biblical view of homosexuality as if to soften it. Rather, he is elevating the other sins up to the same level as homosexuality, which in my opinion, is the Biblical view. The “unchristian” view is to suggest that homosexuality is worse than gluttony, gossip, slander, resentment, etc. But when he says this, he is not suggesting that gossip isn’t so bad so homosexuality isn’t either. He still maintains the extreme immorality of homosexuality, while pointing out that gossip ranks on the same level.
But then, what does that imply for how those involved in these other sins should be received by the church?
A number of commenters here have repeatedly insisted that the problem with homosexuals is that Christians can never accept their “lifestyle” and the only way the homosexual can be acceptable to Christians is to repent and change.
Will we now see the same attitude toward unrepentant gossips? Somehow I doubt it.
NT — It was a capital crime in the OT. God destroyed two entire cities over it.
Roger — The actual reason why God destroyed Sodom was inhospitality, not sodomy as our cultural lore supposes. While it is true that the men of Sodom wanted to have intercourse with the Angels, the motivation for the sex act was not a burning desire for an intimate same-sex relationship, but the objectification of another human being.
The most striking feature of that story is how the town’s one righteous man, Lot, offered to give the mob his virgin daughters to do with as they pleased, if they would just leave the men alone.
What the towns people wanted to do to the Angels was closer to murder than gay sex.
Perhaps, but anti-gay Christians who miss this nuance often hold up that story as an example of just how badly God hates homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #163:
SteveG, “If God opposed slavery, why not say so?”
I think He has. See the Golden Rule. That is clear enough for followers of Jesus.
You see, Christianity is not just a list of what is wrong or what not to do. Instead of just listing dos and don’t and sins and non-sins, God wants us to walk with Him to the point where we can see His will on principle and understand sin at a deeper level than mere behavior or lists.
I understand, but the same could be said of murder, theft, adultery and envy, and God said “thou shalt not” to those.
But when it came to slaves, he said, buy them from the foreigners, not your own people.
I’m well aware that Christians (and Unitarians) were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement in the US, but they were working from what they saw as underlying principles in the Bible and not its clear language. They disregarded the permission to buy slave from the foreigners and said no, you can’t own other human beings.
And Anlir is right: Once you start to do that, the Levitical proscription against same-sex relations also becomes something that can be reconsidered. Christians very early on found a reason to no longer feel bound by the laws on clean and unclean foods, or laws against the wearing of mixed fibers and other Levitical laws they could say no longer applied.
Report comment to moderator
For the people that don’t believe in mysticism and the occult, is it ok to leave them alone and not push the supernatural as something real?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “the same could be said of murder, theft, adultery and envy, and God said “thou shalt not” to those.”
I have no idea how you could say that. It makes no sense to me.
SteveG wrote; “the Levitical proscription against same-sex relations also becomes something that can be reconsidered.”
Steve, don’t you have the slightest idea what the New Testament teaches on that topic? Also, you still have no idea what I was talking about regarding progressive revelation. I really don’t think you listen to me at all, which is your right.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
When someone becomes a Christian, they do so with the whole person, not just in their behaviors.
As Christians, we are called to do more than just avoid aduultery. Jesus said, “…anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus is referring to a heart condition. Martin Luther commented well in saying that a man cannot help the birds from flying over his head but he can keep them from making a nest in his hair.
The point is that our Christianity must go far beyond just avoiding certain behaviors. It goes to our transformation inside and out–a re-ordering of our will and a renewing of the mind (Romans 12:2).
We are also called not just to avoid murder, but to check our hatred and name-calling. Just controling external behavior is great but not all that God wants from us.
Tony,
What would you say to a gossip who was also claiming that their gossip is not even a choice? That God made them to be a gossip? Or that their bigotry was purely in their genes?
Tony wrote: “And then in the next breath, we boast of our love for them. And we profess shock that they don’t believe us, and in a move of pure chutzpah, accuse them of bigotry toward Christians.”
Who again is “we?” Are you calling your fellow Christians dishonest when we claim to act in love? Speaking of “chutzpah.” Where are you getting this sense of ease in questioning the motives of your fellow Christians?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG Christians very early on found a reason to no longer feel bound by the laws on clean and unclean foods, or laws against the wearing of mixed fibers and other Levitical laws they could say no longer applied.
Over time both Jews and Christians have winnowed out practices including slavery, stoning, and food restrictions through a process of changed Biblical interpretation and careful reasoning.
On the subject of homosexuality, orthodox and evangelical Christians, along with Orthodox Jews, after careful reflection have opted to continue regarding homosexual behavior as sinful. Though this is not in our secular time a popular or politically correct stance, it a sincerely and honestly held one, and highly unlikely to change.
Christians, while knowledgeable of Leviticus, base their views, more on Genesis’ and Christ’s view of a marriage being a sacred “one flesh” coming together of a man and a woman, aloong with Paul’s compelling views in Romans I; 22-27.
Report comment to moderator
Christ’s view of a marriage being a sacred “one flesh” coming together of a man and a woman,
You can understand that based on the number of times the Bible condems the practice of having “concubines”. Go ahead, check out how many times it’s condemed.
Report comment to moderator
So a concubine and a wife are not the same thing?
Neither are divorce and putting away the same thing.
The practice of having concubines, would that be like living together? Pretending to be married? Living together is to legal marriage as putting away is to divorce.
Marriage and divorce are legal.
Living together and living apart (but not legally divorced ) are illegal.
God hates putting away. Mal. 2:16
Report comment to moderator
REG – 173
YOU WRITE:…… “Living together and living apart (but not legally divorced ) are illegal.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that living apart, without being divorced is illegal? If you are, this isn’t true.
Report comment to moderator
Not giving your spouse a legal divorce, but not living with your spouse as a spouse is illegal to God. It is called putting away and God hates it.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Not getting a divorce whether one lives together or not is not illegal.
Anyone can get a divorce, they don’t need approval from the other party.
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue – As a general matter, sin is indeed sin and, as such no one is substantially different than another. However, sexual sins tend to nest closer to the self’s core than others, so as to tend to have greater impact ont he soul (see (1 Corinthians 6:18 et seq.)
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue: Why do some Christians believe that sexual sin is more horrible than other sin?
As you imply, most Christians don’t so believe. In fact homosexuality was a minor and ordinary sexual issue until the gay militants succeeded in making homosexual behavior and marriage a major political issues.
While there is some discussion on the left about promoting fornication, adultery, and divorce, none of these sins have been promoted in a major way as a virtuous activity.
Report comment to moderator
gay militants
Yea, those awful gay militants. Look at what they want. They want to not be fired for being “discovered”. They want to join the military and protect a country that calls them, “gay militants”. They want to be able write wills. They want to be assured they can visit each other in the hospital if one gets sick. They want to not be “evicted” if one gets “discovered”.
And don’t get be started on the number of straight marriages they have destroyed with their selfishness.
I’m not exactly sure how they do it, but if Christians say they do, they do. Christians wouldn’t lie about gays. Look at all the times Jesus talked about gays.
Report comment to moderator
Some of you have a profound misunderstanding of the Bible, as if you expect it to cover every particular sin, ancient or otherwise, with a prooftext. That is not its intent nor is it how it works. It tells the accurate story of God intervening in a very flawed world, without pulling punches when necessary and accurate, to bring salvation to sinners who are humble enough to repent and believe in this intervening God of love. It’s purpose was never to list all the possible and historical good and bad things people do and check off which is good and bad. It goes so much deeper than that. It tells the story of God’s outreaching love for sinners.
He often chooses to work with the material we give Him. And look what He can do with it. WOW!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #169:
SteveG wrote; “the same could be said of murder, theft, adultery and envy, and God said “thou shalt not” to those.”
I have no idea how you could say that. It makes no sense to me.
I’m not sure what’s not clear, but let me try to put it a different way.
So we have the ancient Hebrews, recently freed from Egypt, not yet in the Promised Land. They have their shepherd in Moses, but they do not yet have the direct commands of God to set out the way they are to live.
So God speaks to Moses and dictates many laws. Ten of them we still call the Ten Commandments. There are several hundred more that are not as famous, and that laid out a great many detailed rules to regulate their day to day activities. They includes rules about sex, about clean and unclean foods, about ritual practices, offerings, justice for crimes and related things.
For the most part, God is not unclear about his intentions. He does not want the Hebrews to steal from one another, so he says, unequivocally, do not steal. He does not want them to murder each other, so he says, unequivocally, do not murder.
IF he wanted them to not own other people as property, that would have been a perfectly logical time for him to say, do not own other people as property.
Slavery was an entrenched practice in the ancient world, you’re right (although the Hebrews were not yet a nation, so it might not have been entrenched within their culture yet. They had just been freed from being slaves, so they weren’t in the habit of being slave owners.) These other practices were also widespread. People committed murder, and theft, and adultery.
So what I am interested in understanding your thought on is, if God was taking the opportunity to lay out many clear laws, and if God did not want people to own other people, why did he lay out rules to regulate, but not end, that practice while at the same time laying out clear rules to end other practices?
People might have continued to do it, just as they continued to murder and steal and commit adultery, but the will of God in the matter would have been clearly stated in that case.
SteveG wrote; “the Levitical proscription against same-sex relations also becomes something that can be reconsidered.”
Steve, don’t you have the slightest idea what the New Testament teaches on that topic? Also, you still have no idea what I was talking about regarding progressive revelation. I really don’t think you listen to me at all, which is your right.
I understand the idea of progressive revelation. I am asking you to share your opinion on why God made certain sins subject to firm and clear rules, but not this one.
And yes, I know Paul describes homosexual passions as “unnatural.” But Paul also said that wives should be submissive to their husbands, and women shouldn’t hold positions of authority over men, which few people would agree are necessary limitations today. If revelation is progressive, then what he wrote to the Christians of Rome may no longer apply.
Report comment to moderator
Clarification to #181: The phrase “this one” in the next-to-last paragraph refers to slavery, not homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg 181
You make mention of the Ten Commandments, and what is not stated in them.
Did God state in the Ten Commandments that pedophilia is a sin? Is it a sin?
It doesn’t say that pedophilia is a sin directly in Exodus 20 which names the Commandments, WHY IS THAT? Because it isn’t mentioned, does that make it a lesser sin, or no sin at all?
Report comment to moderator
Good point Victoria.
I am proud of the longstanding record and influence of Christians on the matter of opposition to slavery and racism, from Wilberforce to M. L. King Jr. What remains as morally reprehensible is that to this day, abortion is protected as a mere “choice.” I see abortion as even more egregious and deadly than slavery was. And once again, we can be proud of Christians (especially on the right) for being the main voice against abortion in our time.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #42 It is dehumanizing to suggest that human beings have no choice in this realm of human love and are mere robotic products of our genetic make-up.
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #184
Good point Victoria.
I have to say, it is a good point.
I am proud of the longstanding record and influence of Christians on the matter of opposition to slavery and racism, from Wilberforce to M. L. King Jr.
And justifiably so. I’ve never argued against the sincerity or the rightness of those Christians who led the abolition battle.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Same sex relations are prohibited throughout the Bible, Old & New Testaments (it falls under the general category or “porneia” which is repeatedly forbidden in the NT).
Why didn’t God put everything in the 10 Commandments? Why should He? There is no reason to think that this would be necessary. Further, if God were to spell out every item in such excruciating detail and specificity as you seem to desire, it would have had to be the 561,478,342 Commandments (give or take). It would have made the original tablets too heavy to carry and made the later scrolls rather unwieldy as well.
Report comment to moderator
#183: Because it isn’t mentioned, does that make it a lesser sin, or no sin at all?
Don’t you know? Obviously, if it’s not listed in your book, as long as it’s between a man and a little girl, and she’s willing, it must not be a sin.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN
Rdean, do you believe that a little girl would agree willingly to have sex with a man or a woman, or a little boy with a man or a woman? If you do, then you have fallen right off the ledge! Its RAPE to say the very least.
This the SICKEST comment I have ever read on this blog, or any other blog.
Report comment to moderator
JUST FOR THE RECORD!
183. by Victoria 01.30.08 at 7:34 pm
Steveg 181
You make mention of the Ten Commandments, and what is not stated in them.
Did God state in the Ten Commandments that pedophilia is a sin? Is it a sin?
It doesn’t say that pedophilia is a sin directly in Exodus 20 which names the Commandments, WHY IS THAT? Because it isn’t mentioned, does that make it a lesser sin, or no sin at all?
188. by rdean 01.30.08 at 8:53 pm
#183: Because it isn’t mentioned, does that make it a lesser sin, or no sin at all?
Don’t you know? Obviously, if it’s not listed in your book, as long as it’s between a man and a little girl, and she’s willing, it must not be a sin.
189. by Victoria 01.30.08 at 9:03 pm
RDEAN
VICTORIA QUOTE- “#183: Because it isn’t mentioned, does that make it a lesser sin, or no sin at all?”
“Don’t you know? Obviously, if it’s not listed in your book, as long as it’s between a man and a little girl, and she’s willing, it must not be a sin.”
Rdean, do you believe that a little girl would agree willingly to have sex with a man or a woman, or a little boy with a man or a woman? If you do, then you have fallen right off the ledge! Its RAPE to say the very least.
This the SICKEST comment I have ever read on this blog, or any other blog.
Report comment to moderator
KRM: Why didn’t God put everything in the 10 Commandments? Why should He? There is no reason to think that this would be necessary. Further, if God were to spell out every item in such excruciating detail and specificity as you seem to desire, it would have had to be the 561,478,342 Commandments (give or take). It would have made the original tablets too heavy to carry and made the later scrolls rather unwieldy as well.
You (and Victoria) missed part of what I said in #181. God didn’t just give the Ten Commandments, he issued more than 600 specific laws, most of which are recorded in Leviticus. What I asked was why he didn’t forbid slavery outright rather than make rules for it without eliminating it?
Report comment to moderator
The point I was making was that you can’t take your morals out of a book of fables written by a primitive desert people from thousands of years ago. When it’s pointed out that Jesus never mentioned gays, Christians say, “Well he didn’t have to mention rape and murder”. They are putting gays on the same level as murderers and rapists. Of course, a thinking person knows adult-child sex is sick. A thinking person also knows that gay isn’t a choice.
Report comment to moderator
It’s doubtful that pedophilia, at least as this society understands it, is sinful at all according to the Bible. The Bible certainly does not forbid sex between men over 18 and teenage girls (ala the stuff for which the folks get in trouble on Dateline NBC), as long as it takes place within the context of a marriage. And yes, girls (and some boys too probably) much younger than 18 got married in biblical times.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 193
Pedophilia has nothing to do with 18 year olds, or those who are married.
Pedophilia
Definition:
:sexual desire for children: sexual desire felt by an adult for children, or the crime of sex with a child
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
I respectfully await your reply.
Report comment to moderator
Tony’s in bed.
Report comment to moderator
REG – 196
How would you know?
Report comment to moderator
I have a crystal ball.
Report comment to moderator
Does it hurt?
Report comment to moderator
“Every Christian is obligated unconditionally by God to love his neighbor just as he would love himself. He is obligated to honor all other persons by listening care-fully to their side of the story.
But the compassion with which our culture is pre-occupied is often a front behind which operates a betrayal of truth-seeking at the deepest and most profound level – the level of life and death. The primary obligation behind all other obligations, even behind the two great commandments to love God and neighbor, is the obligation to be truth-seekers and truth-speakers. All other obligations necessarily presuppose that one. Love and compassion cannot happen in chaos.
Love and compassion have the structure of truth, and are meaningless without it. When the arena of public debate is undermined by a betrayal of truth-seeking (when any of us want more to “be right” than to tell the truth), one can be sure that close behind is the father of lies and hidden obsessions with pride, power, and pleasure.
The following is offered, knowing that it will cause pain, but knowing also that those most deeply hurt by wrong behavior are those caught in it, and that only in full commitment to truth are we set free. Compassion and freedom have the structure and backbone of truth. If we care about those with AIDS, as with any other problem, we will tell them the truth, and call them likewise to seek the truth.”
(The link below will offer the entire site and article, with much information.)
ROAD to EMMAUS Website: http://theroadtoemmaus.org
Report comment to moderator
http://lightwork.typepad.com/lightwork/2008/01/despised-for-al.html
Report comment to moderator
REG, I don’t know any Believers with ‘crystal balls’ you are certainly a first!
Report comment to moderator
Love and compassion
I truly believe there are many Christians who do not know the meaning of these words. They have lost the meaning fauning over an imaginary God codified by a primitive desert people who filled their occult scriptures with their own prejudice.
They point to these writings when common sense says something completely different. They call determined ignorance “faith”. The hatred of the gays underlines and demonstrates these human failings.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
thanks, I got the idea from you! When you said you didn’t have one I could only imagine how disappointing that must be!
Report comment to moderator
Reg, as a Christian I don’t have a ‘crystal ball’- can’t see into the future, or what people are thinking etc.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Funnily enough, the article you linked to in #200 is full of stereotypical misinformation. The average homosexual that I know certainly doesn’t fit the definition of the “average” homosexual in that article.
Joel Mark opposes UnChristian because it paints a stereotypical picture of Christianity, but the “Road to Emmaus” goes further than just a stereotypical perception because it is, in part, based on the works of discredited “professionals” like Paul Cameron.
You can get your information from a clearly agenda-driven source, or you could actually seek the truth. And if you don’t want people to use UnChristian as a basis for their perceptions of you, then don’t use articles like this as the basis of your perceptions of others. Otherwise you’re just verifying the results in UnChristian.
Report comment to moderator
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
There are many facts long known to the medical profession about homosexual behavior. Two are presented below, along with some more recent evidence on the average lifespan of homosexual persons.
1. Anal intercourse is a primary activities in which homosexual persons engage (over 90% of homosexual men). It almost always tears the rectal tissue, allowing the introduction of fecal matter from the person’s intestinal tract into his or her body. This is inherently disease producing.
2. The sperm introduced into the colon penetrates the colon walls, and then attacks the person’s immune system, thus rendering him or her increasingly less able to fend off those very diseases which were introduced by the fecal matter.
These two facts have been known by the medical profession for decades. Any competent medical doctor will be able (and with moral integrity, willing) publicly to verify these statements concerning the so-called “gay bowels syndrome” and other conditions.
3. The result of these and other activities in which homosexual persons typically engage have resulted in an average lifespan for the male homosexual person of approximately 42 years. That means an appalling average loss of about 40% of the male homosexual’s lifespan. Female homosexuals, according to the same researcher, live only a few years longer.
4. When AIDS is included, the average lifespan drops another 7% into the 30’s.
If these statements are facts, it is not possible to call homosexual behavior “mainstream America”, or just my neighbor living his life like I live mine. or that it is a God-given condition. That is a pathological condition of the most serious order.
ROAD to EMMAUS
Report comment to moderator
3. The result of these and other activities in which homosexual persons typically engage have resulted in an average lifespan for the male homosexual person of approximately 42 years. That means an appalling average loss of about 40% of the male homosexual’s lifespan. Female homosexuals, according to the same researcher, live only a few years longer.
4. When AIDS is included, the average lifespan drops another 7% into the 30’s.
This claim is handily debunked here and here.
To summarize: The researchers (I use that term loosely considering the shoddy methodology) arrived at these numbers by surveying obituaries published in gay newspapers.
Obits are self-selected — they only appear for people whose relatives pay to place them (the free death notices that appear in mainstream newspapers don’t differentiate by sexual orientation, so newspapers published for the homosexual readership are the only place to get them.)
So the sample includes only those obits that families paid to place. It does not count closeted homosexuals, homosexuals who were not actively involved in the “gay community,” or indeed, any other homosexuals whose friends or families chose not to have a notice published.
The methodology gives no way to compare the number of homosexuals who died young against the whole homosexual community, which is the only way to ever determine whether they are representative or unusual.
Report comment to moderator
Sexual Suicide
The Rebellion of Homosexuality
Causes Untold Suffering
Caution: This article contains graphic descriptions that some may find offensive.
Feature by Ed Vitagliano
September 29, 2003
“(AgapePress) – Almost 750,000 people attended the “Gay Pride Day” celebration and parade in San Francisco in June, just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all remaining sodomy laws in the country in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.
The festivities included what might be expected under the circumstances: the giddy revelry of those who had just won — without a doubt — the most significant legal victory for sexual libertinism in U.S. history.
According to pro-family witnesses, however, the celebration also contained much more than most ordinary Americans would expect to see at a parade. Displays of public nudity, men clad only with a sex toy and, peppered throughout the vast throngs of homosexuals in attendance, signs declaring such lurid sentiments as, “We had sodomy for breakfast,” and “Sodomize me — It’s legal.”
Sexual Rebellion
The well-guarded secret of the homosexual movement is that, regardless of how one understands the causes of homosexuality, the nature of it is, at its core, sexual rebellion. “Gays” and lesbians are driven to challenge and destroy every conception of what is considered to be sexual normalcy.”
(below another part of the article)
“The prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among “gays” has become a painful reality. According to the Institute of Medicine, “Men who have sex with men are at greater risk for many life-threatening STDs, including HIV infection, hepatitis B virus infection, and anal cancer compared to heterosexual men. Other STDs of concern among men who have sex with men include anal syphilis, urethritis, and a range of oral and gastrointestinal infections.”
“The susceptibility of the gay community to these diseases lies in the fact that homosexual practices are unique in their rebellion against nature and, quite frankly, their debauchery. Even some “gay” leaders have admitted this truth.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “What I asked was why he didn’t forbid slavery outright rather than make rules for it without eliminating it?”
Perhaps God fully uderstood that slavery was not going to be eliminated (it is a feature of every culture in recorded history – and only the West has eliminated it, acting out of the dictates of a Christian worldview).
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, are you aware that lesbians have the lowest incidence of STDs of any group? The CDC has recorded zero confirmed cases of female-to-female HIV transmission, and has only a few suspected ones.
Women who don’t have sex with men and don’t use intravenous drugs don’t get HIV, and also don’t get other diseases that depend on blood or semen to be their transmission vectors. And they don’t have unwanted pregnancies.
To the extent that your argument against homosexuals depends on portraying them as filthy and disease-ridden, you have to concede that lesbianism is superior even to heterosexuality.
You likely won’t acknowledge it, but post #208 explains why your study on homosexual males’ lifespans is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue,
I scrolled past a lot of posts to answer a post of yours I just happened to see (I opened this thread by mistake). You asked why Christians are so hung up on sexual sin, and pointed out that murder isn’t cause for divorce. I don’t know if you’ll see this, but here it is…
I personally think murder IS grounds for divorce, and I think I can support that biblically. Murder is cause for the murderer to be put to death. I think it’s legitimate, if the murderer is not given justice by the state, for the spouse’s church to say that the murderer is “dead,” as far as justice is concerned, and thus the spouse is free to divorce him and remarry. I don’t know if any theologian has made this point, but it seems to me a valid one.
Furthermore, though sin is sin, it seems to me that the Bible makes three sins a bit more “serious” than others: (1) murder, because it destroys one who is made in the image of God; (2) pride, because it puts oneself in the place of God (and is the sin that made the devil fall); and (3) “worst sins” would include sexual sin, because all other sins, in Paul’s words, are outside the body and this uses the body for sin. (He was specifically speaking to believers, whose bodies are the temple of God.) Is homosexuality worse than other sexual sins? Probably not. But sexual sin is taking the body that belongs to God and to one’s spouse and giving it to another, and thus it breaks the marriage covenant.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
You have made some interesting points. The one regarding “murder” as a reason for divorce . . I will need think about, because the Bible clearly points to adultery/fornication as the only reasons for divorce.
Have you considered King David who took Bath-sheba in adultery, and she became pregnant with his child. David then sent her husband (Uriah) to the front lines knowing he would be killed, David then married her. David committed both adultery and murder.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — The problem with this analogy is that alcholosm is demonstrably inherently harmful. It’s impossible to be an alcoholic without doing great harm to yourself for sure and usually anyone close to you.
Roger — Sorry for not answering you sooner. I don’t see this analogy having the flaw you suggest. To be clear, the subject of this thread is the charge that Christianity is “anti-homosexual”. And in this context, I drew an analogy between the loving concern one might have for an alcoholic and the loving concern one might have with a homosexual.
Whether homosexuality is actually harmful or not is beside the point when it comes to issues of motive. If a Christian BELIEVES that homosexuality is harmful, it is conceivable that his or her motivation is pure, even if misguided.
I am one of those who happen to believe homosexuality to be damaging to the psyche just as it would be damaging for anyone else to deny reality. However, I’m not arguing that point. My analogy was given to demonstrate the fallacy behind the idea that speaking out against the practice of homosexuality necessarily and logically implies hatred.
I’m speaking to the issue of motive and those who bring a charge against Christians for lovingly attempting to dissuade homosexuals from engaging in the practice. If a person uses persuasion to help someone out of the bondage of alcoholism, and this can be a loving act, then using persuasion to help someone out of the bondage of homosexuality can also be a loving act.
Report comment to moderator
The word translated “putting away” in Malachi 2:16 is not keriythuwth, the Hebrew word for divorce, but is shalach. See Malachi 2:14-16 in the American Standard Version, 1901, (google for this ). The practice of putting away was cruel and adulterous, but it was not a legal divorce. It was much worse for it ignored the wife’s welfare. She was cast aside and not lived with as a true spouse. (It can apply to both genders).
Scholars today say you can make no distinction between the two words because they were used synonymously. Yes, they were by hard-hearted men. That is what Deut. 24:1-2 and Matt. 19:7-8 were all about. They are not synonymous words; they are actually antonymous. They are the difference between slavery and freedon for one-half of humanity, women, (or as happens in our society, either gender)
Many of us have heard numerous sermons on “God Hates Divorce” based on this passage in Malachi on “putting away.” My thought is that God wants the situation legal. If you are living together, you should be legally married. If you are not living with each other as true spouses, then make it legal by getting divorced so that real marriage can occur with someone else.
In Leviticus 21:14, 22:13, and Numbers 30:9, some isolated references to divorced women. The word translated divorce in all these cases is another word, the Hebrew word garash, meaning “to drive out from a possession,” and was divorce only in the sense that the women had been driven out. The word used is the very same word used repeatedly in Exodus 6:1, 23:28, 29, 30, 31, 33:2, 34:11, when the Bible spoke of driving out the Canaanites and Hivites from the land. It also, like shalach, is a harsh word, “to thrust out,” containing none of the protection for women of Deut. 24:1-3, and the word for written divorce, keriythuwth, in her hand.
Luke 16:18, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery. The New Testament word translated “put away” is a form of the Greek word, apoluo. It is the Greek word apostasion which is the technical term for a bill or writing of divorce as far back as 258 BC. Again, many, who are hard-hearted, and don’t believe in the rights of both spouses, use these two terms as synonyms. The distinction between “put away” and “divorce” between these Greek words is critical. Apoluo dismissed the woman, but left her married, put away, with no rights, no recourse, and deprived of the basic right to monogamous marriage. Apostasion ended marriage and permitted a legal subsequent marriage.
In 1611, the KJV inconsistently translated apoluo in Matt. 5:31-32,”…and marrieth her that is divorced committeth adultery. In the New Testament, forms of apoluo appear 69 times but only in this one instance, (in KJV) is it translated divorce. If it had been traslated in harmony with the rest of the KJV, it would say, “And whosoever shall marry her who has been put away (or abandoned or dismissed, etc.) committeth adultery.”
The Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, Matt. 5:32b reads, “And whosoever marries a woman who is separated, but not divorced, commits adultery.” Luke 16:18b reads, “He who marries the one who is illegally separated commits adultery.” This translation highlights the misunderstanding made possible by that inconsistent KJV translation of Matt. 5:32.
The translation error was corrected in the American Standard Version of the Bible, 1901. Imagine overcoming 270 years of reading “divorced”. That 1611 KJV mistranslation in this one instance has so dominated our thinking that virtually all modern translations say “divorced,” not just in that one place, but in ALL 11 places. They completely ignore the correction provided by the 1901 American Standard Version, and ignore the distinction between the two words.
With “divorced” in our minds instead of “separated, but not divorced” or “put away” we have assumed that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. We have assumed “divorced” was said in these passages when in every instance the Greek text actually says “put away.” Would our theology be different today if that word had been translated “put away?”
In Young’s Analytical Concordance, the following verses use “putting away.” or apoluo
Mtt.1:19, 5:31,32, (but not at the end of the verse), 19:3, 7,8,9,9, Mark 10:2,4,11,12, Luke 16:18, 18(compare this to Matt. 5:32)
In the Old Testament, shalach, “to send forth” is found in
Deut. 22:19, Isaiah 50:1, Jer. 3:1, 8
Report comment to moderator
The above post is a partially a paraphrase from a book entitled: Divorce: A Gift of God’s Love, by Callison.
Report comment to moderator
Reg, I’m not sure that post has anything at all to do with this thread. But nowhere in Scripture does God take divorce lightly; I’m fairly sure you’ve been reading some poor scholarship, and I’m sorry about that. A husband and wife are one flesh, a symbol of Christ and the church, and that’s why God hates divorce. Sometimes one spouse commits adultery and God permits divorce, but He’s not casual toward it. He hates it. To say that this hatred doesn’t apply to divorce itself (but just to a half-divorce) misreads the very meaning of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – 217
Cheryl my friend, and I do consider you a sister in Christ.
The sin of adultery is most certainly a reason for divorce. There are those on this blog who have suffered with a spouse who has committed such a sin over and over again. Be kind hearted, this is one instance which I would beg you to comfort rather than chastise.
God bless you as you pray and consider those who need our prayers.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know, Cheryl. Reading those passages with the information Reg has provided makes them make sense to me for the first time.
People get divorced, and while I understand God hates it, it never made sense to me to make the woman who is the unwilling participant in a divorce no longer able to marry. It seems cruel.
But if I can understand that as a woman is in fact still married, but sent away, that makes a lot more sense. And if the man is determined to be rid of her, the sin is on his head, but he should divorce her so she is not further victimized by being unable to marry again.
That makes a lot more sense.
Report comment to moderator
Hi REG,
God bless you my friend.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I don’t mean to be harsh. I agree that God allows divorce for adultery–and one of my dearest friends is now in that situation.
On other threads, however, Reg has seemed to indicate that any legal divorce is OK; if it’s OK with the state, it’s OK with God. That is patently unbiblical. I think that in the case of a woman who divorces her husband (or vice versa) for adultery, the one who’s divorcing is all the more aware that God hates divorce–not that God hates her action in divorcing the adulterous spouse, but that God hates the action of the adulterous spouse that severed the marriage covenant.
I never “hated” divorce so much as when I found out about a friend who has to go through it–but trust me that it’s not the actions of my friend (who’s filing the divorce) that I hate–it’s the actions that made it necessary.
But when we start accepting divorce as acceptable for lesser reasons (as Reg seems to do), we have seriously downgraded the sanctity of marriage for all. Even for me personally–the reason I felt true horror at my friend’s divorce is partly that I’d never been that close to divorce before, and saw the whole weight of its ugliness. Most Americans have been close to many divorces, and take them a little more lightly. (I had seen other divorces before, but none to one so dear to me that involved young children–the only other one I’d seen with people very close to me was a very young marriage that had no children, a very young couple who had married on the spur of the moment and hadn’t established good foundations for marriage.)
So I do sympathize with her own pain, but I do not think that supporting more divorce is the answer (as I’m sure you don’t either). The putting away/divorce question is really kind of “irrelevant” to our culture, for one thing–a wife can initiate divorce for any and all reasons. What we need to know is under what circumstances God allows divorce, and it isn’t any time a couple doesn’t want to live together anymore.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Would this author say that a man who divorces his wife (without cause) and marries another does not commit adultery, as long as the divorce was complete? That goes against other Scripture, such as the husband and wife being one flesh.
I do believe strongly that the spouse who has been betrayed may divorce without its being adultery for the betrayed spouse. But I don’t believe a party can be innocent of adultery by simply divorcing first.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
The verse actually says the a man who puts away (separates from) his wife except for fornication…commits adultery.
When you say “without cause” think about this:
I stayed for 20 years because I could not prove the adultery. I didn’t see him “do it.” I only lived with the VERY real consequences of his actions. (a long list and Not for this blog?? or the faint in heart) I clung to this legalistic thinking that if I didn’t see it happen I couldn’t prove it and if he didn’t admit it, then I wasn’t free to go. Now I understand the nature of lying. The Lord revealed what I already knew to be true to me through other people that we know later in time.
Cheryl, if you have not been married, then you don’t know what it is like to have a spouse and have very definite impressions as to whether the person is trustworthy, whether or not you feel relieved when that person comes home, or whether you feel tense because you know that something or most of what you have done will be criticized, the dinner wasn’t cook right, the onion wasn’t cut properly, and this is not criticism in the context of a normal or loving relationship. There is the difference. When a relationship is characterized by coldness, anger, impatience, manipulation and control, the person in not transparent and there IS more going on than you know. When you are always wondering what you have done wrong…If your friends don’t tell you, your doctor will. When you find that you have no friends because he criticizes everyone you meet, you need to re-evaluate your life.
The reason it took so many years is because he moved me 7 different times, and every time I relocated I had to find myself all over again.. I was so disoriented, I forgot what kind of food I used to buy, what brands, etc., I was home schooling and had to find friends, and a church. When we left my home state with a six-day-old baby, a 14-month-old and a three-year-old (who could read) my colon stopped working for two months. Do you think I had time to think about that? I had to do colonics and two-hour-long enemas every day for weeks.
I hope that this helps,
Reg
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I agree that there is only one reason for a Biblical divorce, and that is ‘adultery’- If in the future the person who has been the ‘victim’ meets someone they desire to marry, it is within their right to re-marry.
There are times when great abuse has been rendered to a spouse, such as physical, drugs, drinking, child abuse . . for those reasons, it is for safety that the person, be it a husband or wife leave and seek help. Sometimes there is no other course but divorce in these situations, but unless there has been adultery, this person cannot remarry.
I mentioned ‘child abuse’ above. If any sort of sex was involved, I believe that would constitute a divorce ASAP, not to mention the police and authorities.
Report comment to moderator
How can you say that the person has committed adultery? Do you have to witness it? Have it on video? Does the guilty person have to admit to it? What if the person won’t admit it?
Report comment to moderator
A little late to the game…
Introspection is good, but the impetus for it should come from local churches. Whether the data in this book are accurate or not, healthy churches will already have been addressing whatever problems the book raises, and unhealty ones either won’t care, or will exacerbate them in their attempted solutions. Either way, as an earlier poster pointed out (Joel Mark, I think), Christianity isn’t a popularity contest, else Jesus, most of the disciples, and scores of early Christians wouldn’t have been martyred. Scripture determines the appropriate posture toward sinners, not polls (and I understand that’s not exactly Tony’s argument).
I’d be interested in seeing more of an analysis of how Scripture bears on all this, as some have done already in these threads. Mostly, I’d be curious how people see such stark facts as capital punishment for homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), or commended acts of zeal against open sinners (Phineas killing the beast with two backs in Num. 25). I’m not suggesting these passages be taken as commandments meant to abide over time, but that they reflect something about God. Has that ’something’ changed such that we shouldn’t express abhorrence for certain unrepented sins and for the sinner himself?
In my highly-disregarded opinion, we *should* express great distaste for the sin *and sinner*, with the caveat-derided by Tony-that repentant sinners ought always to receive mercy, just as we, ourselves, receive mercy from God and others when we repent. It’s true that Christian hypocrisy severely undermines that approach, but so far as I can tell, it is Biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (and Reg),
I agree completely with 224. I’ve said the same thing on other threads–that sometimes a wife who is being abused, whose children are being abused, or whose husband is draining the household finances by addictions (gambling, drinking, you name it), will need to divorce for her own protection and/or that of the children, though I don’t think she’s free to remarry unless there are biblical grounds for divorce, and most theologians would limit that to adultery.
Reg, no, I haven’t been married, but I’m not a fan of the worldview that says one has to have been in exactly a certain circumstance to comment on it. (Most married women haven’t been abused.) Without going into detail, can I say I’ve been around anger enough to have some sense of what it’s like? And that I think we have objective standards in Scripture so that we don’t have to “feel” our way through stuff? (Paul wasn’t married at the time he wrote the epistles–many Bible scholars believe he was a widower–and he spoke about marriage. So did Jesus.)
Reg, I think “evidence” of adultery would vary case by case. From what I’ve heard, most women hide the evidence from themselves until there’s no denying it. At that point, there’s grounds for divorce. Earlier than that, when there are “gut feelings” that something isn’t right, there’s grounds for separation, and likely for church discipline of the offending spouse. (And yes, I’ve attended churches that did discipline in cases of adultery, and where the spouse who had been sinned against continued to attend comfortably after the divorce. That is what the church is supposed to do.)
Reg, I am sorry you didn’t feel the support of your church. Again, I’ve seen churches love women well in this situation, and know it can be done–and should be done. I’ve also seen churches unsure what to do, because both parties have conflicting stories, and the church has no idea who’s telling the truth. I think the biblical answer is to “try” such a case before the elders, almost as a trial, but few churches are set up to do that. Churches do make mistakes–the number of churches that have hired adulterous pastors proves that one. Only our Chief Shepherd is perfect, but praise God, He is.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve said the same thing on other threads–that sometimes a wife who is being abused, whose children are being abused, or whose husband is draining the household finances by addictions (gambling, drinking, you name it), will need to divorce for her own protection and/or that of the children, though I don’t think she’s free to remarry unless there are biblical grounds for divorce, and most theologians would limit that to adultery.
It’s this kind of legalistic, incompassionate hardline stuff that makes the fundamentalist/evangelical position unattractive to many people who are otherwise Christian.
So a young woman who marries unwisely, gets beaten, sees her children beaten, is going to have to either suck it up and deal or else get out of it and remain without human romantic and sexual intimacy for the rest of her life?
You can have it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Are you from PA?
Report comment to moderator
Reg … No, I’m not. Why?
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: In #221, you said: But when we start accepting divorce as acceptable for lesser reasons (as Reg seems to do), we have seriously downgraded the sanctity of marriage for all.
In 227, you said: I’ve said the same thing on other threads–that sometimes a wife who is being abused, whose children are being abused, or whose husband is draining the household finances by addictions (gambling, drinking, you name it), will need to divorce for her own protection and/or that of the children, though I don’t think she’s free to remarry unless there are biblical grounds for divorce, and most theologians would limit that to adultery.
Now I know you’ve never been married, but let me ask you to imagine that you are. You’re married and you have a young child. Your husband, at some point after you married him, develops a drinking problem. When he gets drunk, as he does a couple of times a week, his temper flares and he gets violent. You and your child are more often hiding bruises than not. You’ve both had to go to the emergency room more than once.
You’ve had him arrested, you’ve pleaded with him to seek treatment for his addiction, and nothing has worked. So finally, as a move of last resort, you leave. You flee to another state, file for divorce and try to begin to heal.
Two years later, you meet a gentle, generous loving man who loves both you and your child and wants to marry you. You have to say no.
This makes any sense at all to you, that God would not approve your marriage to this gentle man?
Constant physical abuse of both you and your child is a “lesser” reason than his having had a one-night adulterous liaison would have been?
Report comment to moderator
I thought you might be the Steve G that I knew!!
Report comment to moderator
thank you, Steve! (Gregg Harris used this passage powerfully in 1993 at The Seasons of Life Seminar)
Here is what Job said:
Job 29
And Job again took up his parable and said,
Oh that I were as in the months of old
As in the days when God watched over me;
When his lamp shined upon my head,
And by his light I walked through darkness;
As I was in the ripeness of my days,
When the friendship of God was upon my tent;
When the almighty was yet within me,
And my children were about me;
When my steps were washed with butter,
And the rock poured me out streams of oil!
When I went forth to the gate unto the city,
When I prepared my seat in the street,
The young men saw me and hid themselves,
And the aged rose up and stood;
The princes refrained from talking,
And laid their hand on their mouth;
The voice of the nobles was hushed
And thier tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth.
for when the ear heard me, then it blessed me;
And when the eye saw me, it gave witness unto me:
Because I delieverd the poor that cried,
The fatherless also, that had none to help him.
the blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me;
And I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.
I put on righteousness, and it clothed me:
My justice was as a robe and a diadem.
I was eyes to the blind,
And feet to the lame.
I was a father to the needy:
And the cause of him that I knew not I searched out.
And i brake the jaws of the unrighteous,
And plucked the prey out of his teeth.
Then I said, I shall die in my nest,
And I shall multiply my days as the sand:
My root is spread out to the waters,
And the dew lieth all night upon my branch:
My glory is fresh in me,
And my bow is renewed in my hand.
Into me men give ear, and waited,
And kept silence for my counsel.
After my words they spake not again;
And my speech distilled upon them.
And they waited for me as for the rain.
I smiled on them, when they had no confidence;
And the light of my countenance they cast not down.
I chose out their way, and sat chief,
And dwelt as a king in the army,
As one that comforteth morners.
Report comment to moderator
Mt. 19:9
Whosoever shall put away (separate from) his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away (separated) committeth adultery.
This verse says nothing about WHY one can get divorced. It simply says not to marry someone who is (separated) not legally divorced.
It told the men that they had to obey rules, just like the court does with my ex-husband today.
You have to read it with the use of the phrase putting away, which is in the original and which you will NOT find in most modern translations.
Part of our problem here is that we can’t allow for the possiblily that our beloved theologians could be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Part of our problem here is that we can’t allow for the POSSIBILITY that our beloved theologians could be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Granted, I’m not bound by the Bible as I’m not a Christian per se, though I do believe in God. But it’s always seemed to me that two principles should be true of any God who is both real and worthy of our worship:
1. Grace abounds. Whatever sins we may commit can never be bigger than God’s love. Divorce is not a good thing, and I don’t believe in taking marriage lightly. But in many cases divorce is the least bad option available. With apologies to Cheryl (whom I like and find to be intelligent and thoughtful even when we disagree), I think to adhere specifically to the allowance of divorce only for adultery is a legalism that inhibits love.
(That is even if the word actually means “divorce” as it is usually translated, and not “putting away,” as Reg argues.)
Secondly, ideas about sin and justice should make sense. To forbid easy divorce for trivial reasons makes sense. To argue that woman who flees an abuser is forbidden to find love and intimacy with another man after divorce does not make sesne.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops … I meant to say, to adhere to the allowance of remarriage after divorce …
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!