Friends in odd places: A wide spectrum of groups file support for Christian Legal Society case 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Rick Warren on gay marriage vs. divorce
Beliefnet recently interviewed Rick Warren and asked, among other things, if gay marriage or divorce was a bigger threat to the family. Warren, who supported Proposition 8, said it was a no-brainer: “Divorce. There’s no doubt about it.”
When Stephen Waldman asked him why evangelicals emphasize gay marriage more than divorce, Warren said, “We always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than being overweight? Why do we hear more about anything else besides wasting time or gossip? … ‘My sins are perfectly acceptable. Yours are hideous and evil.’”
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top158 Comments to “Rick Warren on gay marriage vs. divorce”
Warren’s a pain.
Report comment to moderator
He has a good point.
I think I would have poined out that many Christians actually deal with divorce–on a personal level–more than with same-sex marriage. It’s just that our liberal friends have made same-sex marriage a huge public issue, and so we deal with it at that level.
Report comment to moderator
TO EXPAND:
There is no pro-divorce movement in America. There are no DIVORCE PRIDE parades. There is no concerted effort to redefine marriage as divorce.
In my church divorce is a very serious matter, and most liberals would not like how we deal with it.
Report comment to moderator
Rick Warren speaks only for Rick Warren, just as James Dobson speaks only for himself – neither speak for me.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe we should outlaw divorce?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you Ivan –
Rick Warren wants to have the platform as his OWN, making remarks regarding divorce, etc., as though he speaks for everyone, which he doesn’t – now if Warren is rounding up all the liberal churches in America, then he certainly can make the comments about divorce, and would most likely be correct – HOWEVER, Rick Warren cannot speak for conservative Evangelical Believers, or their churches –
As far as his assumption that he gives more to AIDS/HIV is another pre-supposed ‘pat on the back’ – he in fact doesn’t know that to be true -
Report comment to moderator
Lots of people have heterosexual sexual relationships without getting married. That’s more equivalent. That is, “living in sin” would be or should be (for sin-obsessed people) as much of a source of distress as the /g/a/y homosexual obsession constantly on display at wmb.
I don’t have time, but it would be interesting to have a statistical comparison of the number of posts/comments of horrified at homosexuality vs. horrified at sex without marriage vs. horrified at divorce at wmb.
Evangelical breast-beating about sexuality is evangelical pornography.
Victoria, get away from that screen!
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuality is a much bigger threat to the individual because they will not enter the kindgom of God of they continue it. It’s a heaven breaker according to the Word. The consequences are the same as complete unbelief. Nothing like that is said about obesity, or divorce. Not all sins have the same consequences or eternal results. Warren’s comparing sins as if there is no difference is shallow. This is typical of a lot of “leaders” who want to sell a lot of books and get a lot of people to walk in their door and put $ in the plate. Shallow pays better here and now.
Report comment to moderator
Hang on a sec while I run to the fridge. I want to watch this thread unfold with a cold one in hand, and from my comfortable chair.
I’ll grab a bag of Doritos too. Anyone want anything while I’m up?
Report comment to moderator
First of all, I agree with Rick. Very well said. (and I’m no Rick Warren fan).
Second, in this particular interview, Warren did NOT say he was speaking on behalf of all Christians. He was asked what HE thought about something, and he answered it. We all have our opinions of matters having to do with religion and culture, and stating our opinion does not mean we are trying to speak on behalf of anyone.
Third, I disagree with Kyle A’s argument in #3. You are correct that there are no Divorce Pride parades, but that’s because divorce is legal and widely accepted throughout society, even in the church. There’s no reason to have a pro-divorce movement, because 95% of people would be part of it. If you try to take divorce away, I guarantee you the divorce movement will take off. And I’d also point out that marriage has already been redefined concerning divorce. We (as a society) have allowed and celebrated the definition that allows people to “marry” time and time again when according to Scripture they are still married to their first spouse.
Report comment to moderator
Neither a divorced person, nor a person married to a divorcée, nor an unmarried person living with a member of the opposite sex nor an unrepentant gay person could be a deacon or on the staff of my church. All would be welcome to come and worship.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a heaven breaker according to the Word.
What?!!!!
I’m sure you are going to follow that up with Scripture, right?
Report comment to moderator
Graceland
Warren made an out and out pronouncement as to his giving more to AIDS/HIV than others. He does consider himself the authority, – not to mention speaking for the church – he should limit himself to his church and the liberal churches which follow him in the “Emergent Church” movement – As far as conservative Evangelical Churches, he is off base -
Report comment to moderator
He does consider himself the authority
Oh, I’m sorry. I missed that in the interview. I’ll go back and watch it again.
…this thread is about the interview, right?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
How about rather than attacking Warren and everything you think he has said, done, or represented in the past, you address his point in this specific interview.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland
YOU WRITE: “I’m sure you are going to follow that up with Scripture, right?”
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities,serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
Eternal fire doesn’t mean Eternal Heaven
Report comment to moderator
“Anyone want anything while I’m up? ”
Travis- some popcorn with butter and parmesan cheese would hit the spot. Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
TIMA — I’ll echo Graceland’s call for a Scripture reference. Even a generally applicable principle. I’m not aware of any “heaven breakers.” Or, is it your opinion that homosexuality is what Christ meant by Blaspheming the Holy Spirit?
I’m no fan of Rick Warren. Everything I’ve seen about Purpose Driven this and that has been theologically weak psychobabble. However, the only thing potentially objectionable about this video is its wide distribution. This is a conversation for a Sunday School, not the World Wide Web. What he says is exactly right, IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria in #18.
Yes, Sodom and Gomorrah were punished. That doesn’t mean that homosexuality is the unforgivable sin. How, based on Scripture, is homosexuality any worse than fornication, adultery, pride, greed, false teaching, idolatry, or gluttony?
Or in short, how is homosexuality any worse than not loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind?
It seems to me that the point of Warren’s comments is to say that the Christian church has plenty of its own problems. Yet, for some reason, we are quicker to point out the sins of others than to point out the ones within our body that might ruffle some feathers.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland – 17
Did you watch the ENTIRE Video? If you did you would understand that Rick Warren mentioned the fact very boastfully, that he and his wife Kay gave more money to HIV/AIDS than others –
One can’t comment on Rick Warren without mentioning his being at the forefront of “Emergent Church” -
Report comment to moderator
Graceland – 21
So does that mean you throw out Jude 1:7? – Jude is one of the books of the Bible, you knew that right?
Report comment to moderator
Please note there are other sins mentioned
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You are really stretching things here. Yes, sexual sins are sins. The punishment for sin is death.
You could pull out 2,000 verses that say that someone was a sexual deviant and that person is now in hell. OK. But that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is on a different level from other sins. Did you somehow miss passages dealing with people being punished for non-homosexual sins?
Report comment to moderator
OK, coming right up, Victoria. I confess that I am a sucker for your charm. I would be happy to cut the cheese for you.
RPN, no popcorn/cheese for you until you change your gravatar. I had another bad dream about ‘the Gimp’ last night.
Clarification: my bad dream was about “The Gimp”, not “The GIPP” (your old avatar). I stopped having bad dreams about “The GIPPer” after James Watt was removed.
Report comment to moderator
LOL! That is a funky cheese you made there for Vicky!
I did change my gravatar. Are you still seeing the gimp?
Report comment to moderator
lol … so gay marriage, which harms no heterosexual marriages, is a bigger threat than divorce, which destroys millions of heterosexual marriages?
Well then.
Report comment to moderator
I’m almost speechless.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think either one is the bigger threat to marriage. Both of them are RESULTS of other sins, but not the CAUSE.
We need to go back and deal with heart issues that lead to these awful results, like pride, self-centeredness, lack of love, disobedience, and such like.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe we should outlaw divorce?
“No-fault” divorce, anyway. Absolutely!
Report comment to moderator
Graceland
Here’s the deal – if people repent of their sins, turn from their sins and believe in Jesus Christ for Salvation they will be saved – but there is this to deal with: If a person goes right back into their old lifestyle, thinking they are getting away with fornication, adultery, stealing, homosexuality, etc., they are making a huge mistake. Paul makes it clear in Ephesians –
Paul is speaking in Ephesians 5 to Believers, when you get to verse 5 you can clearly see that there is no inheritance when someone continues to sin willfully “hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” One of the important points to remember here is that these were BELIEVERS Paul was speaking to, they were not unbelievers.
The idea that any Believer can continue in sin and inherit the Kingdom of Christ is ANSWERED in verse five (5)
This is the WARNING which should be heeded. There is NO inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God for those who sin. Yes they are mentioned in verse 3 as “saints” but Paul goes on talk about sin and its outcome. We can see clearly that “saints” can fall back in sin, and there is NO inheritance.
Report comment to moderator
The historical period when extra-marital sex and divorce became the cultural norm, has past, and the church was relatively silent (as far as I remember, anyway. Admittedly, I was still a kid, and not a Christian then, so I may just not have been paying attention.)
Along with the cultural shift, though, was a shift in the church, itself, and we’ve been implicated in these sins for a long time now. Now we’re reaping what we’ve sown with the advent of “gay marriage.”
Perhaps we’ve learned from our mistakes, though, and that’s why we’re not rolling over and playing dead this time. Or perhaps we’re just trying to fight the culture without first repenting of our own sins–in which case we all lose–the church and the culture at large.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland & Stubob
Victoria gave you references. You could have looked it up yourself at biblegateway.com or blueletterbible.org. You can search for any word in almost any translation.
As Victoria quotes it, the verses include heterosexual adulterers and sexually immoral people alongside the homosexual. All of these are equally heaven breakers. This doesn’t keep them from ignoring these scriptures, going to church, forming their own metropolitan brand of church, being frocked in some church brands as “priests” or “pastors”, etc, and claiming they are believers just like any other. God isn’t fooled. Whatever they sow, they will reap. It’s guaranteed. A true believers job is to be a messenger of the truth to them, and watch our own lives carefully to make sure we are not duped ourselves. The deceiver works on everyone.
Report comment to moderator
“when according to Scripture they are still married to their first spouse.”
In what sense are they still married to the spouse whom they divorced?
Report comment to moderator
Putting away your spouse is a big threat to marriage; it kills it.
Spouses who live together in the same home who do not practice the “act” of marriage, in other words, are put away, live in the disgust and pain that poisons all who come into contact with them.
Putting away is the thing that God hates, Malachi 2:16, American Standard Version, 1901. In the Strong’s Concordance look up the term putting away and compare it to divorce
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone here question Warren’s actual statement? Isn’t it obvious that divorce actually hurts more actual marriages between two living, breathing people (especially Christians) and actual families than gay marriage ever could? What’s so scary about admitting that? You can still maintain political opposition to gay marriage if you admit that divorce hurts more families, can’t you?
I agree with #30 more than anything, though. Pride & selfishness are the roots destroying more families than anything, but good luck trying to ban those.
Sodom was also destroyed because “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49) I guess we have to balance this verse with Jude 1:7.
Report comment to moderator
You can argue theoretically all you want, but the fact is there are far more divorces than there ever will be gay marriages. Remember, only 1-2% of the population is gay, and of those, I’m not sure a ton want to be bound to one partner the rest of their life.
Divorce, on the other hand, is ubiquitous, and always will be. And when you add children to the equation, it’s easy to see why divorce is far more corrosive to society than gay marriage would be.
Report comment to moderator
Tima –
Well stated. The Bible comes down on queers with implacable fury. Contemporary evangelicals are scared to acknowledge the level of hostility to effeminacy, gender disorder, and homosex.
Homosexuals are the only category of sinner whom God has given up. “Queer” would be the Bible’s epithet of choice. According to Paul, homosexuals and God feed off each other’s antipathy. It starts when people who know better disrespect God and worship humans instead. In retaliation, God expels these idolators from the precincts of normalcy, so that nature no longer teaches them proper forms of desire. Ordinary sin is an infection of the soul, but unnatural sexual practice stamps the physical appearance of the pervert. God gives them up to homosexuality, which commences a raging spiral of wickedness. God punishes them by denying them a way back — a normal connection to the natural order.
As Stu-Bob inquires, homosexuality appears to be functionally equivalent to the unique sin of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” When God gives homosexuals up to their abomination, He withdraws His Spirit.
Very few Christians would be comfortable with these brutal terms.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, Graceland (11).
Report comment to moderator
Divorce hurts children, there is no argument as far as I’m concerned – however homosexuality has become an issue in that its being forced in our public schools – when you add to that s-SEX-m it becomes a different issue –
Let me explain it this way; As it stands now, those who are homosexuals, living with another person of the same sex, or having many different relationships is one thing – but when s-SEX-m becomes legal, that gives the homosexuals a rightful opportunity to DEMAND that these marriages are not only legal, but they should be acknowledged in the pubic classroom – if you don’t believe this, check out all the news stories just within California regarding the teaching techniques which are used in the classroom.
School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartners
Teacher forces teens to question being ’straight’
Legislators tell school kids to celebrate homosexuality
This year’s GLSEN Conference: Getting homosexuality into kids’ heads.
Children are then taught that gender identification is the right and good thing to consider. A child can then be taught about sexual practices within the homosexual union, be that male or female – that folks is something I wouldn’t want my children to be taught –
When an act such as s-SEX-m is legal, it takes away, (as far as the homosexuals are concerned) the stigma of homosexual sin, then opening the door within the public square to demand not only acceptance and approval, but a celebration as well –
Now lets take divorce – divorce is allowed, there is Biblical divorce in the case of fornication/adultery – therefore divorce in many cases is not sinful – Evangelical churches are aware of these situations, understanding the heartbroken conditions of the family concerned.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, you wrote:
“It starts when people who know better disrespect God and worship humans instead. In retaliation, God expels these idolators from the precincts of normalcy, so that nature no longer teaches them proper forms of desire.”
I have many gay friends, and in speaking on a personal; not political level with them, they remember having these thoughts and desires since the time they were teency-tiny. Is a 7 or 8 year old who realizes he likes other boys choosing to disrespect God? And remember, there’s a fundamental difference between being gay and living gay. Just because someone was born gay doesn’t mean they’re allowed by God to indulge, just like someone who was born with a hot temper isn’t allowed by God to indulge.
So let me ask you this — when witnessing of our loving Christ to these gay friends, do we tell them they’re perverted and that their desire is simply a reflection of their animosity toward God, or do we tell them that God loves them, despite their desires, and that with God’s help, they can learn to resist the temptations they feel?
Report comment to moderator
Divorce hurts children, there is no argument as far as I’m concerned – however homosexuality has become an issue in that its being forced in our public schools – when you add to that s-SEX-m it becomes a different issue –
Let me explain it this way; As it stands now, those who are homosexuals, living with another person of the same sex, or having many different relationships is one thing – but when s-SEX-m becomes legal, that gives the homosexuals a rightful opportunity to DEMAND that these marriages are not only legal, but they should be acknowledged in the pubic classroom – if you don’t believe this, check out all the news stories just within California regarding the teaching techniques which are used in the classroom.
Children are then taught that gender identification is the right and good thing to consider. A child can then be taught about sexual practices within the homosexual union, be that male or female – that folks is something I wouldn’t want my children to be taught –
When an act such as s-SEX-m is legal, it takes away, (as far as the homosexuals are concerned) the stigma of homosexual sin, then opening the door within the public square to demand not only acceptance and approval, but a celebration as well –
School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartners
Report comment to moderator
how is the question helpful?
Report comment to moderator
From one of Vicky’s funny WMD links
Hanson told WND, “I think they’re trying to shove [homosexuality] down our throats.”
Report comment to moderator
GOP12
Scroop Moth is being sarcastic
Victoria
Do you have a list of links you save in case there is a gay thread and you can bombard us with the same old?
Report comment to moderator
GOP12 – St. Paul tells homosexuals they are perverted and abominable. He says they’ve already been judged by God, receiving in their own bodies the marks of their abnormality. In other words, homosexuality is not just a sin, but is also — uniquely — a down payment on their future punishment.
Paul seems to be wrestling with the question, “Why can’t homosexuals desire permissible sex?” Heterosexuals don’t have this problem; for them, gratification is permissible and encouraged. A classical thinker might be sympathetic, but Paul can’t escape his religion’s hostility. His answer is simple and brilliant: Disordered sexual attraction is itself a well-deserved punishment for a specific type of idolatry — the worship of the human form and other pretty things. God punishes these idolators by depriving them of natural influences and giving them up to abnormality, and making them so gay. Don’t feel sorry, they get what they deserve, and they get it early.
St. Paul doesn’t explain childhood sexual desire, but he inform us that God wouldn’t “give up” a young sexual deviant until post-puberty.
I disagree with Paul, to say the least, but respect his realism and intelligence. He doesn’t diminish the problem by making homosexuality analogous to any other sin It’s different. It’s unexplainable. Avoiding Platonic mythology, Paul thinks of homosexuality as an arbitrary feud between God and homosexuals which one can only stare at in horror.
Report comment to moderator
HRW — Actually, I was being straight about what I think the Bible really says.
Report comment to moderator
It is refreshing to have a gay thread to punctuate the endless abortion threads.
Report comment to moderator
“There is NO inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God for those who sin.”
Well then. I’d guess that we’re all going to hell then…
Especially since John says this in 1 John 1:8:
Tell ya what, let’s just go back to LAW logic (as opposed to GRACE logic) and see how far it gets us. Unbelievable.
Amazing… no, astounding… no, shockingly embarrassing that so many evangelicals seem to be ignoring the awful sin of divorce (which not only destroys marriage, but destroys people) which God hates while vilifying ad nauseum the sin of homosexuality. You’d think God had written volumes on the subject.
Why, I’d bet if you actually took a look in the Bible, you’d find more references to God’s hate of divorce, than you’d ever find about homosexuality – not that less mention is any justification mind you. The discussion of homosexuality is all out of proportion to the ratios between the sin homosexuality and the sin of divorce- both in mention biblically, and in practice currently. For shame. Shame on you. You should be decrying the wanton destruction of marriages and the family through divorce. Yet I see folks on this blog hammering and bludgeoning the topic of homosexuality as if there is no sin of divorce.
Take the LOG out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of your neighbors eye.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Gotcha. But like you say, it doesn’t explain homosexuality from birth, which evangelicals are going to have to acknowledge at some point or the other.
As an evangelical myself, I cringe whenever I hear that Romans verse, because it runs so afoul of the gay people I know. And all those flamboyant rebels we see on the news, who have Sodom in their eyes and rebellion in their voices? Probably grew up in an evangelical home and were unable to reconcile their sexual impulses with the Bible’s words, so they just decided to give up and completely embrace their sexuality.
I know I don’t sound very evangelical on this, but Paul’s Romans bit seems a bit naive, which presents a problem, because they’re ostensibly God’s words. At least I believe they are. I don’t mean to start a homosexuality argument, but at the very least, I wish evangelicals could concede, like Peter, that our brother Paul writes things that are difficult to understand. And in this instance, such a teaching on the origin of homosexual behavior and desires is difficult to reconcile with many individuals’ experience.
Report comment to moderator
Paul seems to be wrestling with the question, “Why can’t homosexuals desire permissible sex?” Heterosexuals don’t have this problem; for them, gratification is permissible and encouraged. A classical thinker might be sympathetic, but Paul can’t escape his religion’s hostility. His answer is simple and brilliant: Disordered sexual attraction is itself a well-deserved punishment for a specific type of idolatry — the worship of the human form and other pretty things. God punishes these idolators by depriving them of natural influences and giving them up to abnormality, and making them so gay. Don’t feel sorry, they get what they deserve, and they get it early. [Bold mine.]
St. Paul doesn’t explain childhood sexual desire, but he inform us that God wouldn’t “give up” a young sexual deviant until post-puberty.
[Homosexuality] is different. It’s unexplainable. Avoiding Platonic mythology, Paul thinks of homosexuality as an arbitrary feud between God and homosexuals which one can only stare at in horror.
If Hell is what they deserve, then, it seems to me, poetic justice that Hell for homosexuals is, literally, eternity at a cosmic gay bar getting to have as much sodomy as they desire ad infinitum!
Report comment to moderator
I know I don’t sound very evangelical on this, but Paul’s Romans bit seems a bit naive, which presents a problem, because they’re ostensibly God’s words.
This is somewhat of a hunch; but I’m convinced Paul was a latent homosexual.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuality is a much bigger threat to the individual because they will not enter the kindgom of God of they continue it. It’s a heaven breaker according to the Word. The consequences are the same as complete unbelief. Nothing like that is said about obesity, or divorce. [Bold mine.]
Divorce is nearly that bad given that almost all divorces that take place are illegitimate by biblical standards and subsequent remarriage makes one an unrepentant adulterer. John McCain is, for instance, according to the Bible, an unrepentant adulterer and still married to his first wife.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. The first paragraph in 56 was supposed to be italicized showing that I was quoting someone else. I obviously don’t believe that homosexuals cannot enter the Kingdom of God. To the contrary, homosexuals are children of God, regardless of what prooftexts in the Bible you cite.
Report comment to moderator
When divorced people organize and claim to the public that they are discriminated against and need legislation to protect them, then it becomes a bigger political issue. But it is the homosexual community that has made this a bigger issue than it really should be.
Clearly divorce has done more to destroy families than homosexual marriages ever could. Of course homosexual divorces would be just as traumatic and destructive as heterosexual marriages.
I still believe chronic overweight people and those that are homely are discriminated against in our culture far more than homosexuals. If any group of people should organize and seek legislation to add them to the protected list of victims of discrimination, it is those folks. If you oppose my suggestion however, remember you will be labeled a biggoted hate monger for not supporting the equal rights of fat ugly people around the country.
Report comment to moderator
What I think shocks me the most is the discussion about what defines marriage historically throughout history and culture. If we were to follow the Biblical theology, polygamous marriages are not condemned anywhere in the Bible. Multiple men of God had multiple wives and the kings had concubines. Nowhere is this practice condemned. Yet today we view polygamous marriage as being abhorrent. Personally, I find polygamous marriages wrong because they defy the concept of equality in a relationship where both partners are equal. On that same note, it is also a reason I support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I’m not speechless any more.
This is something like Newton’s laws. Perhaps it’s the fig newton’s law, or the fig leaf law.
When a group is oppressed, or persecuted, or picked on, or teased a lot, they eventually become as bad (or worse) than their persecutors.
Black people were enslaved and lynched and segregated and so on.
They then became criminals and rapists and gang members. Now white teenagers can be seen carrying boom boxes and playing rap music and hip hop and so on.
Indians had their land stolen and were genocide victims and put on reservations and had their children stolen to government schools.
Now they sell tobacco and fireworks and claim fishing rights.
And so on. Finally the homosexual worms are turning. They corrupted the language (turning perfectly good words such as fag–which meant cigarette, queer–which meant odd, and gay–which meant happy–into sick, perverted words)dressing well, decorating houses, turning all your children gay when they are in kindergarten and getting married.
They even have an AGENDA. Now when Christians say prayers at public meetings, and put “under God” into a civic verbal salute, and put the Ten Commandments on a public building and so on, that’s only an agenda. But the homosexuals have an AGENDA.
Fortunately, Victoria is on the watch in her batmobile, scanning the Internet day and night, spotting the AGENDA wherever it pokes up its pointy little head (it looks a lot like the rat in Charlotte’s Web (a very gay book if there ever was one) and she trots it out like a cat that caught a rat and drops it at our feet and waits to be patted on the head. We should say, “Good Victoria! You caught another rat! You saved civilization once again against the AGENDA.
Report comment to moderator
One thing to add to this dialogue is that people need to differentiate between homosexual promiscuity and loving, long-term relationships between people of the same gender. Promiscuity is a problem/sin regardless of your religious beliefs. People that engage in promiscuous behavior generally have low self-esteem and are looking for something more in their life. The idea of a long-term same gender relationship was not something that would have been common practice or understood throughout the period of Biblical history. When Paul discussed homosexuality it was in the context of two men who were engaged in promiscuous sex acts. The idea of two women together or two men together in a loving long-term relationship was not something that was practiced or understood. Same gender attraction is not something that can be changed. The best that ex-gay groups have ever been able to achieve is for people to suppress their attractions and redirect those desires to people of the opposite gender or do not engage in any type of relationship at all. We need to be a little more advanced in our viewpoint people. This is the 21st century. We know more about science and psychology than Paul ever could have imagined.
Report comment to moderator
I am a very difficult person. A common argument from the “gay agenda” (lower case) is that homosexuals are “born that way,” and it’s genetic, and can’t be helped, and so we should tolerate homosexuals.
I think the truth of the matter is quite a bit more complicated.
As a radical agnostic (who is also a radical skeptic), I think human sexuality is very complicated and we understand it not nearly as well as think we do. Having only “slept with” one woman and no men I don’t claim to be an expert.
I think all the people (including Victoria) who post here and who got their sex education in the Bible or in Paul and so on are not as expert as they think. Not to mention all the secular people–and who knows what dirty books and movies they learned about sex from? And even the homosexuals are not experts, either, even though they were all carefully groomed and taught by adult perverts.
For whatever odd reason, I have known quite a few homosexuals (besides my daughter and her partner, who are probably more properly “tagged” as two bisexual women who fell in love with each other). By and large I don’t talk about sex with them all the time. Do you talk about sex all the time? You do? Even in church? Well, remember what I said about evangelical pornography.
So I think the story about homosexuality is much more complicated and ambiguous than anyone wants to admit, because everyone has an agenda. Once our agenda is set then we stop accepting new ideas or facts.
However, my agenda is in part that homosexuality is not like murder or torture or rape or theft and it’s time for evangelical Christians to tone down the hysteria, and if they don’t like gay marriage, they should seriously consider allowing civil unions.
Christians have been out of the catacombs for quite a while, and probably will never go back in. Gay people are out of the closet and you won’t be able to shove them back in their either.
I am not a big fan of Vice President Cheney. I think it’s very odd that his daughter is such a rock-ribbed Republican. The only thing she doesn’t like about the far right is that they won’t allow her to get married to her sweetie.
As I said, every persecuted group eventually eventually persecutes as much as the groups that persecuted them.
Mary Cheney is the equivalent of the white guy playing hip hob on his boomb box.
You lost. Deal with it.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you wrote:
“I’m sure there are numerous homosexuals who would like to believe that Paul was a so called latent homosexual – that would give credibility to the sin of homosexuality – but alas, there is no such proof, only a sinful wish, which would give ‘COMPANY’ to sinful practices.”
You’re right — there’s no evidence whatsoever that Paul was gay. But he could have been. And what would be wrong if he was, even according to the most fundamentalist position? As long as he wasn’t pursuing homosexual behavior, then he’s okay, right?
Report comment to moderator
“It is refreshing to have a gay thread to punctuate the endless abortion threads.” -RPN
But have we gone a full day without a thread on media bias against evangelicals? It seems to be so. The good folks out in Asheville must be sleeping on the job.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria said:
“One can’t comment on Rick Warren without mentioning his being at the forefront of “Emergent Church” -”
And one can’t make that kind of statement without knowing just what “emergent” is and having heard Rick Warren speak against the post modern emergent church movement. I know. I was a member there for 21 years and a staff member for three.
Rather, these kind of statements seem to come predominantly from people who have biases based on things such as more formal church-type services with “traditional music” and does not like change for themselves or others. They read posts by like-minded internet “discernment ministries” who sadly twist and literally lie about others to “prove” their agenda.
Warren mentioned the amount of money he gave to AIDS in order to establish that he was not a homophobe. Not that hard to understand.
In reading the Bible you will find homosexuality most certainly condemned……in the same light as “gossip”, “arrogance”, “strife”, and “slanderers”. Should give us all pause Victoria.
Yes, it is much easier to point at other’s sins to look at our own. Homosexuality will not destroy the world nor our country. The sins of all men will…..as already foretold in the scripture.
Report comment to moderator
I have sincere compassion for those who struggle with homosexuality. I went to Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell. I found that there were more than a couple of gay guys in my dorm. After several years a friend of mine from there “came out”. I believe him when he says “I did not choose it, why would I?”.
He, and I would hazard a guess these other guys, came to such a university where homosexuality was rightly called wrong as according the Bible IMO because they were hoping such strictures against homosexuality would keep them from acting out in a way they really believed was wrong but yet they were still tempted.
But we can NEVER forget the sinner when we condemn the sin. To think that homosexuality is the unpardonable sin is just plain wrong. As a single man I struggle with being sexually pure. In what area do YOU struggle? I would no more condemn them to hell than I would you for any sin you struggle with. That is what grace is all about. We were never able to keep the law. (Now it is different if we know it is wrong yet continually do wrong and laugh at our sins and are unrepentant.)
It saddens me to see some “Christians” be so hateful and judgmental of others like the publican who beats his chest in the market square and proclaims “Thank you God that I am not like them”.
Report comment to moderator
OU812…
Tremendous post.
Report comment to moderator
ou812jb11 12.16.08 AT 12:37 AM
Interesting, I have attended several of Warren’s services, the vast amount of Evangelical Christians DO KNOW what the “Emergent Church” movement is all about – one of the mistakes the movement makes is that we aren’t aware – I am very aware of the “Emergent/Emerging Church” movement –
Wrong, it has nothing to do with music, it has everything to do with substance. You see ou812jb11 you’re playing the ‘crystal ball’ game, doesn’t work –
You mention a great many sins above – strange how NONE of these sins are reason for DIVORCE – you can’t get a divorce over “gossip” – you can’t get a divorce over “slander” and you can’t get a divorce over “arrogance” ————– OH, but you can get a divorce, but it won’t be a Biblical divorce unless it is either fornication/adultery – that’s hard for many to remember – I’m surprised you didn’t bring up obesity -
Report comment to moderator
Random Name 61-
That was a remarkably funny and convincing post. Such imagery: Vicky, wearing her black cape and mask over heterosexual Christmas pajamas, blond windswept hair flying back in the wind, pilots her rubber burning Batmobile around Gotham (or the strip malls of Southern CA, you decide) intent on SAVING mankind from the abomination of homosexuality, armed with nothing but a list of Bible quotes, and the ability to make UPPER-CASE words and bold font at will.
Report comment to moderator
ou812jb11-
You better not be playing “the crystal ball game.”
Report comment to moderator
gop12 – 65
You make abusive, and offensive comments, and then expect those who have studied the Scriptures to take you seriously – certainly you know better, but maybe not -
Report comment to moderator
Nice sidestep in #72, Vicky. Gotta love ya.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – 72
What are you TALKING about? I assume it can’t be the comment you quoted, since that wasn’t abusive or offensive at all. Neither were any of his/her other comments on this thread. To hear you — of all people, you, the bold and unabashed VICTORIA — call other people out for being abusive and offensive… and then you promote YOURSELF as a student of the Scriptures! Methinks you ought to study the Scriptures a bit more.
Back on topic…
I agree with Rick Warren’s quote. Though someone else was right when they posted that divorce is a consequence, not a cause. And please don’t lump me in with Rick Warren. I really have no idea what he stands for. All I know is I read the Purpose-Driven Life, didn’t gain much from it, and that some people in my church either flat-out condemn him for wearing flip-flops in the pulpit or seem to be nervous about some sort of theological or methodological issue. But no one’s ever told me what that issue is.
In regards to the Scripture being tossed around where homosexuality is a “heaven-breaker”… I can only repeat what others said about it not being Sodom’s only sin (though it was certainly their signature one), and emphasize as others did that it’s placed in the same list as drunks and thieves. Well, I know two former drunks who will be going to heaven, and I must note that the repentant thief on the cross was promised by Jesus Himself that he would go there. All these sins separate us from God, but Christ has crossed the gap!
Report comment to moderator
Post 73 was in response to post 65 from gop12 -
Cuthalion – 75 you are responding to my post 73 not 72 – further more as gop12 posted:
It is offensive, as there is no evidence that Paul was a homosexual – but it does give those who are in this particular sin, believing they can justify their sin through Paul – the whole gimmick is a charade which the homosexual commnunity has tried and failed before – I honestly can’t believe it came up again tonight, its unlearned to say the least.
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion – 75
YOU WRITE:
“I really have no idea what he stands for. All I know is I read the Purpose-Driven Life, didn’t gain much from it, and that some people in my church either flat-out condemn him for wearing flip-flops in the pulpit or seem to be nervous about some sort of theological or methodological issue. But no one’s ever told me what that issue is.”
Maybe its time you found out what Warren stands for.
Flip-flops have nothing to do with doctrine.
Instead of waiting for others to TELL you what his doctrine is, find out for yourself – you can hardly comment on something you don’t understand – you can learn if you study -
Report comment to moderator
Evan – 74
It was post 73 not 72 –
No “side step” just the facts, as difficult as they might be for you or others to swallow – Paul was no homosexual –
It’s pathetic when the liberals come up with such tripe and pass it off as a “what if” or a “maybe” -
Report comment to moderator
Quote from Bart (#30):I don’t think either one is the bigger threat to marriage. Both of them are RESULTS of other sins, but not the CAUSE.
We need to go back and deal with heart issues that lead to these awful results, like pride, self-centeredness, lack of love, disobedience, and such like.
This is getting a little closer to the truth. For example, even if divorce was made illegal, the law couldn’t change a person’s heart. Legislating behaviour changes may be necessary at times, but we can’t ever assume that a band aid will be a cure.
Report comment to moderator
#59 Chalzz
So far in 2008, 5 Americans have been killed for no more than being gay, or being perceived as being gay. The most recent being last week in New York.The gentleman had his skull crushed by an aluminum baseball bat. So far in 2008 there have been over 380 reported incidents of assault or vandalism against gay people or their property. The statistics are only reflective of those states whose law enforcement agencies actually report them to the FBI. Many do not.
I’ve yet to see reports of a person being killed or assaulted for being obese or less than attractive.
Report comment to moderator
it has beensaid that divorce hurts children, but so do the sins that lead to divorce. In each situation, the parent has to decide which is worse?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I based my speculation on Bishop Spong’s case. Like Spong, I plan on asking Paul when I get into Heaven and meet him there. Bishop Spong, Paul and I will talk. Maybe you will be there too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=563jJbf9DKY
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Graceland #11 who said,
“First of all, I agree with Rick. Very well said. (and I’m no Rick Warren fan).”
What Rick said was not only correct, but insightful for those Christians who are outraged only by sins they do not commit.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
You can speculate all you like, it doesn’t change what the Word of God says.
Report comment to moderator
Well, BOTH are a terrible threat. God tells us to avoid both, for good reason. Underlying both divorce and homosexuality; fornication and adultery have wrecked havoc on individual souls, families, children and societies.
Why all this need to compare diferent sins, as if we should only deal with the top one, and celebrate the rest? All sin separates us from God, and it should all be dealt with.
Report comment to moderator
Jon #82,
Ha! That’s priceless. (Your comment, I mean.) Thanks for the laugh.
Report comment to moderator
Jon says,
I based my speculation on Bishop Spong’s case. Like Spong, I plan on asking Paul when I get into Heaven and meet him there. Bishop Spong, Paul and I will talk. Maybe you will be there too.
I just watched your YouTube. Talk about making Scripture say what you want it to! And didn’t you just say on another thread that you want to “read the Bible for what it says?”
James White exposed the absurd acontextuality of Bishop Spong’s interpretation of Paul’s words, but you’re still convinced by them. Oh brother!
Every Christian who’s ever read Romans 7 can relate perfectly to that passage from their own experience because it’s universally applicable to every kind of sin. There’s absolutely no warrant whatsoever to presume that he’s referring specifically to homosexual desires. But even if, by some far-fetched stretch of the imagination, one did conclude from Romans 7 that Paul may have struggled against homosexual desires, if a person takes away from it that Paul is granting license to sin (whatever one’s sinful inclinations may be), then he’s totally missed the point.
Also, Spong latches onto Paul’s use of the word “member,” to make the case that he’s talking about sexual organs and, therefore, he’s referring to homosexual desires, but Paul also uses the same word a few verses earlier to apply to unregenerate sinners in general when he writes,
“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.”
Apparently Bishop Spong would have to presume that not only was Paul a homosexual, but that Paul presupposes in his argument that everyone is.
As John Stossel would say, “Give me a break!”
Report comment to moderator
Bronxguy #63
Even in the allegedly monogamous gay marriages the men will eagerly “get some on the side” when the opp presents itself, often-times with the full blessing of the other man to whom he is “married”.
The “forsaking all others” part of normal marriage is really alien to male homos though lesbians do seem to have a better track record. In fact, long-term committed lesbian relationships are more the norm than not.
Sexuality is malleable for many folks otherwise written off as gay. One thinks of Ellen DeGeneris’ first gal pal who later married and had a child.
And why no surge of research to identify a “bisexuality” gene?
Report comment to moderator
Ree, et al.
I tried to make clear that my feelings about Paul *yes, feelings not “thought”) were entirely speculative and not based on what the Bible clearly says.
But even if, by some far-fetched stretch of the imagination, one did conclude from Romans 7 that Paul may have struggled against homosexual desires, if a person takes away from it that Paul is granting license to sin (whatever one’s sinful inclinations may be), then he’s totally missed the point.
I agree here and tried to make clear — as I think Spong did too — that even if Paul were speaking of struggling with homosexual desires he’s STILL CLEARLY against it.
I’m not someone who argues that taking the Bible at face value says anything in favor of homosexuality like Newsweek currently does. Though I don’t see the story of S&G as dealing with homosexuality but gang rape and brutality towards strangers. Leviticus and Paul’s works in Romans are quite clear as proof texts on the Bible’s position against homosexual behavior.
Report comment to moderator
“Sexuality is malleable for many folks otherwise written off as gay.”
I think I could agree with this — though I would note as you do this kind of “wavering” sexuality is far likelier to be found in women not men — but would also note the converse.
Many, probably the overwhelming majority of folks who identify as “gay” have a sexual orientation that is entirely immutable, the antithesis of “malleable.” It’s a “false dichotomy” to say it’s got to be one or the other.
Anne Heche indeed seemed to have a “wavering” sexual orientation; but Ellen DeGeneris does not. Ellen can ONLY flourish in homosexual relationships.
A proper social policy and understanding of the phenomenon deals with BOTH of them.
Report comment to moderator
Here is my understanding of the homosexual phenomenon.
A small % of men — probably no more than 4% identify as “gay.” They’ll all tell you, honestly in their own minds, that they are fully attracted to men in a way they can’t be to women. And a great deal of them have never had sex with a women (or if they did, was a horrible experience) and have absolutely 0 attraction to women.
A minutely small (virtually nonexistent, a fraction of 1%) percentage of men are fully and evenly attracted to both sexes.
A small % of women (1-2%) identify as “lesbian” and are fully attracted to women in a way they probably couldn’t be attracted to men.
A larger % of women than men have a “wavering” orientation — that is they can flourish in long term relationships with EITHER genders. I’m not sure what % we are speaking of here. But I do know there are far more female Anne Heches than males.
A HUGE % of BOTH self identified GAY and STRAIGHTS have incidental bisexual feelings and behaviors, far MORE than most people are willing to admit because if you are fully attracted to one gender and less than fully to the other you don’t want to give a false impression that you really have a choice to “go both ways” as it were. We’ve all heard stories of gay men like Ray Boltz who have multiple children and come out late in life. If a man is perfectly homosexual he probably couldn’t bring himself to have sex with women enough times to have multiple children. STILL the reason why these folks DON’T identify as bisexual is that they DON’T have the full passion for the opposite sex.
Conversely, a HUGE % of self identified straight men and women, certainly in the double digits, certainly more than the 3-4% of “real” homosexuals, have incidental bisexual feelings and behaviors.
In pornographic movies, virtually all of the women have lesbian behavior (most of whom are NOT able to flourish equally in LTRs with both genders). And in places where women are sequestered (all boys schools, prisons, navy boats, etc.) HUGE %s of the men find they can enjoy homosexual sex for “release” purposes. But once women become available, they go back to living normal heterosexual lifestyles.
Thus if one is looking for “heterosexual purity” you WON’T find it in more than 90% of the population. You probably won’t find it in more than 80% of the population.
Anyone disagree with my analysis of human nature?
Report comment to moderator
I tried to make clear that my feelings about Paul *yes, feelings not “thought”) were entirely speculative and not based on what the Bible clearly says.
Yes, but I’m showing you that they’re not even based on what the Bible remotely implies. You said that your “feelings” are based on an argument, but I showed you that the argument has no basis. Therefore, your feelings (and Bishop Spong’s) are nothing more than what you want to believe for whatever reason.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Victoria,
I never meant to be offensive by saying Paul could have had homosexual desires. There’s no proof for or against that. My point was that Paul could have been both homosexual and the man of God he was, if he mustered the strength to flee sexual temptation. In fact, knowing the motley band of disciples Jesus surrounded himself with, I don’t think it’s a leap to suggest he might use a homosexual to further his kingdom. It doesn’t matter what we’ve been redeemed from, it matters what we’re redeemed toward — and if we’ve developed the discipline to flee our natural lust by conforming our actions to God’s precepts, then who cares?
Report comment to moderator
gop12 – 93
YOU WRITE: “I never meant to be offensive by saying Paul could have had homosexual desires. There’s no proof for or against that. My point was that Paul could have been both homosexual and the man of God he was, if he mustered the strength to flee sexual temptation.”
Here’s another point, you could attach that faulty reasoning throughout Scripture, and make a homosexual malt of the Word of God -
There are many people who claim to be real Believers who slip all sorts of so called ‘ideas’ and ‘maybe’s’ into the Bible, their reasons for doing so become apparent as time goes by.
Report comment to moderator
Therefore, your feelings (and Bishop Spong’s) are nothing more than what you want to believe for whatever reason.
NO. Bishop Spong gives good reason for an intuitive “hunch” that Paul had a homosexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.”
I think it’s pretty obvious from the context that Paul was talking about sexual sin — in particular male sexual sin — in general. In short, this text is about getting an erection based on sinful thoughts and then doing whatever about it.
Report comment to moderator
We’re so close, but time may be passing us by.
96 messages. People are just not doing their job unless they post over a hundred messages at worldmagblog decrying homosexuality as a sin above all other sins.
Report comment to moderator
#96
Jon Rowe,
I looked at the context, and I’m not sure where you see anything about male sexual sin. If you’re looking at the word translated “members” – that simply means parts of the body, not any particular part. The same Greek word is used in Matthew 5:29-30 where Jesus talks about plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand, because it’s better to “enter into life” without one of the “members” of your body than your whole body to be thrown into hell.
The same Greek word is also used in 1 Corinthians 12, talking about how “members” of the body (of Christ) should care for one another. You could simply substitute “body parts” and say the same thing.
Any part of the body can be used for righteousness, or for sinning. Anything we do, we do with our bodies, because we are physical beings. So if we sin, we sin with our bodies. I don’t see anything in 1 Cor. 7 to indicate what sin or sins Paul was particularly tempted by.
Report comment to moderator
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7
Being “in the flesh” simply means being unrenewed – This passage has nothing to do with homosexuality – NOTE the last verse, and the sin of coveting, that most certainly isn’t homosexuality.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
Jesus was the Word, HE was made flesh when HE was born to live among us, and die for our sins on the Cross.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – 98
Great post. You explalined it well.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria posted #s 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 32, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 60, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 94.
I may have missed or added one or two. (My obsessive-compulsive disorder is hit or miss.) The total runs around 21 comments or so.
From #73 I quote:
You make abusive, and offensive comments
It’s odd. I find Victoria’s comments about homosexuals abusive and offensive, and I am quite heterosexual. The problem may be that I consider the word “sin” to mean Something I disapprove of, but it sounds more impressive and attracts a lot more people to my side if I say it comes from God.
The second highest number of comments in this thread come from Jon Rowe. Somebody else can do a total on him.
Is it fair to let two people so dominate such a thread? Is there really a need for this thread? Does anyone know why they post their messages on worldmagblog? Do you think you are convincing homosexuals to stop being homosexual? Do you think you are convincing evangelical Christians to stop being obsessed with condemning homosexuality while they love the homosexuals? (With lovers like this …)
Now here’s an odd question. I have been reading worldmagblog for about four years. Over that time I have read comments from about six people or so who struck me as having very peculiar psychology and obsessions about homosexuality, especially male homosexuality.
Most were men (or at least used male screen names). I wondered (as did a few other people who were more blatant about their suppositions if these people were struggling with impulses of their own as far as warring sexual urges in terms of swinging to boys or to girls. I didn’t save screen names or posts.
On the other hand, there were at least two female screen names who seem obsessed with this topic. One was BB/Beatrix (and perhaps other names). The other is Victoria.
I have a feeling of suspicion as well, but I honestly don’t know what to be suspicious about. Just as well. I am probably very close to getting kicked out of here, which I suspect will happen before the end of the year.
We’re real close to 100 messages. You can do it.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I still haven’t heard your thoughts on whether someone can be a Christian AND have a gay sexual orientation — but one they don’t indulge in because they believe it’s sinful.
I’ve had a bad temper ever since I was born, but I (sometimes) make the daily choice to count to ten first.
It seems that if we just accepted that basic truth — that inclination does not necessarily lead to lifestyle — then we wouldn’t demonize gay people as much as we do, or even the concept of homosexuality. I’ve heard so many people, including pastors, say “gee whiz! I shouldn’t have eaten that extra donut!” And everyone laughs, as though gluttony’s just a little nuisance (pun intended:).
But whenever the topic turns to gay issues, it’s “Homos with an agenda are bent on destroying your family and mine!” No wonder they feel threatened, and no wonder we feel threatened!
I’m particularly passionate about this issue, because I worked for a few years at an art gallery on Market Street (the heart of the Castro)in SF, and had so many gay friends. When they found out I was a Christian, they were shocked, because they didn’t see me working to ban them from doing this or that, they just saw me unashamed of going to lunch with them, or talking sports (well, we really didn’t talk sports), or treating them like a normal human being.
I don’t say this to laud myself; I just wish that more Christians had gay friends — not because it would disabuse evangelicals of our notion of what is and isn’t sin — but so it would disabuse us of our attitudes. Where you and I see wanton sinners, God sees lost sheep. Where you and I see Sodom, God sees a wayward Jerusalem he would wrap his arms around. Our anger toward sin should never exceed God’s, and our love towards sinners should never assume a limit on God’s.
I have a close Indian friend who recently came out to me. I was the first American he’d come out to, and my heart broke when he asked “Is it okay if we still go to the movies?” He was genuinely worried I could no longer be his friend b/c he was gay and I was Christian. And I thought of how harsh I might have sounded around him in the past on gay issues — so much so that he thought I’d be embarrassed to sit next to him in a movie theater. And you know what — whatever caustic word of mine had come out to give him that notion was as wicked a sin as any of his sexual behaviors.
When we get to heaven, I don’t think God will say “Okay, how well did you reflect my anger?” I think he’s much more likely to say “How well did you reflect my love?” Vengeance is his; love should be ours.
Report comment to moderator
gop12
There are those who have LEFT their homosexual lifestyle, repented and trusted the LORD as their Savior – the key word is REPENT and LEFT – that would be the same for anyone who repented of whatever their sin was, repented and believed in Christ for Salvation – However it certainly doesn’t mean someone goes back to their sinful behavior, which could mean stealing, fornication, abortion, homosexual behavior –
YOU WRITE: “I’m particularly passionate about this issue, because I worked for a few years at an art gallery on Market Street (the heart of the Castro)in SF, and had so many gay friends. When they found out I was a Christian, they were shocked…..”
Interesting that your daily life didn’t come across as your being a Christian, —— and you say they were “shocked”
Why couldn’t they see your walk, in that you were around these homosexuals all the time? That might be something for you to ponder.
Report comment to moderator
“a homosexual malt of the Word of God”
I, Travis Birkenstock, come here for the poetry. And *that* was worth the price of admission!
Report comment to moderator
Excellent post, GOP12. Yes, homosexuality is a sin–but it’s also a sin to look at other people’s sins as worse than one’s own without some pretty strong biblical evidence. The only sinless Man to walk this earth was known as a “friend of sinners.” Are we?
Report comment to moderator
Lets look at these verses:
This passage of Scripture is often referred to, however the next verse 20, is overlooked. Jesus upbraided those who did not repent, they stayed in their sins -
Jesus didn’t hang around with prostitutes and tax collectors, —- what Jesus did, was talk with them, as He did with the ‘woman at the well’ — she believed Jesus. The tax collector being Zacchaes, believed Jesus right away, see Luke 19. Many FORGET that it was AFTER they believed that Jesus spent a great deal of time with them. We can see this with Nichodemus, he was a great disciple of Jesus. It was this man and Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus in the tomb.
Report comment to moderator
Duncan, any attack on any person for any reason is a tragedy and I trust that the laws we have in place will convict the murderers of those 5 souls who were killed. If the law does not prosecute killers of gay people, then I am with you on the need for gay rights.
On a side note, who are the 5 people who were killed for being gay or perceived to be gay. This is not a challenging question, I really want to know. You only elaborated on one of them. I agree with you that it is horrible and I hope that those who commited these crimes are placed behind bars for life so that they can never harm any person again!
Report comment to moderator
Nice to see nothing has changed on Worldmag. Gays are still the scourge of the earth and damned to hell by those “loving” Christians. (And then they wonder why gays won’t listen to their message about Christ). Victoria is the epitome of the Christian faith and a perfect example of why gay people want nothing to do with such a hate-filled religion.
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz
1. Lawrence King, shot by a school mate
2. Moses Cannon, shot by a .22 rifle fired by Dwight R DeLee
3. Ryan Skipper, stabbed 20 times and left on the side of the road.
4. Tony Randolph Hunter
5. José Sucuzhañay – beaten last week, died Dec 14.(perceived as gay.. he was actually walking down the street arm in arm with his brother)
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s obvious that gays are now and have always been subject to far far more animus than unattractive and morbidly obese folks. The latter two things, though, are qualities that no one can hide. Some folks can hide their gayness, some can’t (think Richard Simmons and Clay Aiken). The last person killed wasn’t gay but drunk and holding on to his brother while walking down the street I think, giving the appearance of being in an intimate same sex relationship.
Lots of analogies to different “things” are offered, but ultimately as Ayn Rand would put it, A is A. Analogies are just that — comparing apples to oranges. If we compared apples to apples we’d be comparing A to A or duplicates. That said, apples to oranges is probably one of the best analogies there are. Both are round baseball sized fruit. Certainly apples and oranges are better than apples and poison ivy or apples and typewriters. Though, oranges to lemons would be even closer.
The closest “social group” analogy to gays isn’t to blacks, but to Jews. There’s an element of non-choice in being Jewish, but also elements of behavior and choice (the choice to stick with the Jewish religion and practice its behavioral tenets). Ditto for gays. Some people can hide their Jewishness; some can’t. Ditto for gays. And Jews seem to be, despite much animus, successful in the face of it. Ditto for gays.
This is one factor that makes me doubt the whole narrative of collective animus = collective disenfranchisement in an economic sense.
But don’t fool yourselves. If animus is the criteria, gays STILL suffer from the worst of it, far more than most groups protected under federal civil rights disabilities statutes.
Report comment to moderator
First to Victoria; then to Anlir:
Victoria, you wrote:
“Interesting that your daily life didn’t come across as your being a Christian, —— and you say they were “shocked”
Why couldn’t they see your walk, in that you were around these homosexuals all the time? That might be something for you to ponder. ”
Yes, I have thought about it, and it’s always been a difficult line to balance for me, in terms of apologetics. Do you immediately tell people “Hi, my name is _ and my savior is Christ.” Or do you look for little openings? I don’t think there’s necessarily a biblical answer; probably more psychological. For example, Paul witnessed differently to different people and cultures. Not everyone responds the same way to one uniform method, just like has been proven in the study of learning. And I think we all know that Paul was no Jeremiah. He certainly had a less abrasive tone.
But regardless, it is something for me to think about, whether my walk should be instantly obvious to the point of intrusion or subtle so to the point of ineffectual ambiguity. Tough, fine line!
Anlir,
I’m brand new to this board, so I can’t comment on what you’ve read in the past, but most Christians (sometimes, not their leaders, unfortunately) would recoil at any message claiming gays are any sort of scourge on society. In fact, the homosexual community has contributed enormously to arts, literature, and nearly every other profession and industry imaginable. So from a macro-perspective, they’ve blessed me and on a micro perspective they’ve convicted me, when I see, for example, a superior spirit of forgiveness or compassion.
So no. I don’t fear gays, at all. I fear God.
It’s my prayer that others might come to the same belief, but it’s not my decision, it’s not the government’s decision, it’s only your own and God’s.
Report comment to moderator
gop12 – 111
YOU WRITE: —– “Yes, I have thought about it, and it’s always been a difficult line to balance for me, in terms of apologetics. Do you immediately tell people “Hi, my name is _ and my savior is Christ.” Or do you look for little openings? I don’t think there’s necessarily a biblical answer; probably more psychological.”
No, I don’t say my name and then spout my Christian beliefs – but I most certainly don’t leave those who I either lunch with, or spend time with, being “shocked” at my being a strong Christian. There is nothing psychological about walking the walk of a Believer, that is unless you find it uncomfortable to establish your character and beliefs, which are at the core of any Born Again Believer in Jesus Christ.
YOU WRITE: —– “For example, Paul witnessed differently to different people and cultures. Not everyone responds the same way to one uniform method, just like has been proven in the study of learning. And I think we all know that Paul was no Jeremiah. He certainly had a less abrasive tone.”
Yes, the point is Paul witnessed, he didn’t live with those around him and then after some time made a statement as to his being a Christian — certainly you see this? Paul preached, taught and rebuked those who spread false doctrine, he was never a SILENT man - there are many who are reticent about sharing their belief in Christ, no one would ever know unless they were told - again, that is something to ponder.
YOU WRITE: —– “But regardless, it is something for me to think about, whether my walk should be instantly obvious to the point of intrusion or subtle so to the point of ineffectual ambiguity. Tough, fine line!”
You need to think about this, and then decide what your priorities are.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Duncan for the list! I appreciate it.
How often are people favored because of how good they look or how good a shape they are in? Of course there is tolerated discrimination in our society against those whose physical appearance is lacking.
And what kids get beat on growing up? The funny looking ones, the fat ones, the ones who look poor.
Marketing practices and hiring practices sometimes open and notoriously will select beauty over ugliness or obesity. It is our very culture and nature to celebrate outward beauty over those not so good in appearance. Ask anyone who grew up ugly or fat if they were not the subject of at the least ridicule and at the worst downright discrimination. It happens and there is no recourse through legislation for the discriminatee.
Another unmentioned group is divorced people. They too face discrimination. What about single parents? They too are looked down upon by some.
I realize no one is killing single moms because they are single moms and no one is killing fat people cause their fat and no one is killing ugly people because they are ugly. But if this were happening, there are laws on the books to protect all people from physical harm. Murder is murder regardless of who is killed and regardless of the reason.
When it comes to issues of housing, employment, etc., that is where legislation needs to be considered. When gays are told to sit in the back of the bus, or drink from their own fountains, or not allowed to eat in restaurants, or not allowed to vote, or not allowed to own property, or only be considered 3/5 of a human being, or hung from a tree while the law looks the other way, then I will be the first to support legislation to protect their rights!!!
But unless these things are part of our society, I don’t see what legislation does except to further divide our nation and fuel the fire that feeds these warped people who thought they had to kill someone just because of their sexual orientation. Legislation is not the answer, judicial activism is not the answer, not even an executive order is the answer. Love is the answer, plain and simple. Those that hate, will only hate more when laws are crammed down their throat. No one sees the love in forcing legislation down the throats of the rest of the nation. It infact is read as an act of hate by those who disagree with it.
Report comment to moderator
So what you’re saying Chalzz is that if a gay person is (for example) fired from their job or denied a place to rent solely because they’re gay, they should just accept it because it’s really no big deal if they can’t work or find a place to live – right? And it’s really no big deal for gays to accept second-class citizenship in America even though the Constitution is supposed to uphold the legal equality and protection of all Americans – right? I mean the nerve of gays – wanting to be treated decently and fairly and asking for jobs and a place to live! I mean, you give them that, and what else will they ask for? Food? Health care? No, no – it’s better to follow God’s way and treat them as legal and social outcasts. That’s what Jesus would do – right?
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz
I wish I didn’t have the names to list, but perhaps, as one poster earlier on this thread said, they were “written off as gays”.
Read through the posts. Can you honestly say that we are not seen as 3/5’s of a human being? Do you think that Mr Warren, when he’s visiting his “gay friends” tells them that he equates their relationships with pedophilia and incest? That’s certainly loving. And I bet they very much value his friendship. I’m sure they can hardly wait to invite him back to their “Gay homes”.
Or perhaps the killers of the people on the list were simply following Pastor Ake Green’s (celebrated on this site) admonition to anihilate that cancer on society that is homosexuality. Maybe they would be more comfortable in Iran, where two 18 year old boys were hung in the public square for the suspicion of being gay.
I think the reality is, Chalzz, that an awful lot of people who claim to be loving Christians are in fact only loving of their own self-righteousness. They only thrive when they have an enemy. We just happen to be convenient.
Report comment to moderator
Just to add one more thing… I am a gay man, and legally married (at least for now) in the state of California. My husband and I adopted two girls a little over 2 years ago. How many posters on this site think that my marriage and my family are the equivalent of theirs?
Report comment to moderator
Duncan
I don’t believe you are married in the sight of God no matter what laws are passed in California, the USA or the world, it makes no difference.
Marriage as GOD ordained it is between one man and one woman, no one can discredit GOD for what he has ordained — not you, not the state, not the country or the world, only GOD calls marriage by its true components and that is a man and a woman.
Report comment to moderator
Duncan,
I’m not married, but I believe that in the eyes of the state, your marriage and a heterosexual couple’s ought to be absolutely equivalent. I believe that they’re not equivalent in the eyes of God, but that’s a religious distinction, and frankly, as long as I’m not discriminating against you or you against me, I’d welcome you as my next door neighbor, and thank God I live in a country where we won’t shoot at each other because you’re BLANK and I’m BLANK
Report comment to moderator
Chalzz
YOU WRITE: “…….. an awful lot of people who claim to be loving Christians are in fact only loving of their own self-righteousness. They only thrive when they have an enemy. We just happen to be convenient.”
Sin is convenient, it always will be, it offers those who taste its morsels something which is forbidden, something which will end in destruction. There is no righteousness in disobeying GOD, only the depths of despair –
Who is the enemy, is it GOD who ordains marriage between a man and woman –
Who is the enemy, is it the Word of God which says that homosexuality is a sin?
Who is the enemy? have you ever questioned that to be Satan, who lies, who lied to Eve in the Garden, who lies to all on this earth who believe their sin isn’t really sinful, and what is the penalty for sin?
Report comment to moderator
gop12 – 120
YOU WRITE: “I’m not married, but I believe that in the eyes of the state, your marriage and a heterosexual couple’s ought to be absolutely equivalent. I believe that they’re not equivalent in the eyes of God, …”
The eyes of the state can’t save anyone nor can they disqualify the eyes of GOD who made marriage between a man and woman HIS creation.
Who’s eyes are more important, the eyes of the state of that of GOD Almighty?
Report comment to moderator
Post 119 should have been addressed to post 115 which was Duncan not Chalzz
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe you are married in the sight of God no matter what laws are passed in California, the USA or the world, it makes no difference.
Marriage as GOD ordained it is between one man and one woman, no one can discredit GOD for what he has ordained — not you, not the state, not the country or the world, only GOD calls marriage by its true components and that is a man and a woman.
Victoria, if you care so much to make God ordained marriage the standard for civil marriage, you’d be calling for massive divorce reform. The overwhelming majority of divorced & remarried folks like John McCain are according to the Bible still married to their first wives and not in a legal marriage with their new wives, but, to the contrary, an adulterous relationship. McCain’s marriage, according to the Bible is adultery given civil stamp of “marriage” approval. It is according to the Bible, counterfeit.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – Thank you so much for illustrating my point so effectively.
Chalzz – How do you propose that we shove that love down the throats of those who don’t see? (and why are things being shoved down the throats of others such a popular image on WMB?)
GOP12 – Thank you for the post… people like you actually give me hope.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I think it’s pretty obvious from the context that Paul was talking about sexual sin — in particular male sexual sin — in general. In short, this text is about getting an erection based on sinful thoughts and then doing whatever about it.
Apparently you didn’t read my response to you where I addressed that argument, I said,
“Also, Spong latches onto Paul’s use of the word ‘member,’ to make the case that he’s talking about sexual organs and, therefore, he’s referring to homosexual desires, but Paul also uses the same word a few verses earlier to apply to unregenerate sinners in general when he writes,
‘For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.’
Apparently Bishop Spong would have to presume that not only was Paul a homosexual, but that Paul presupposes in his argument that everyone is.”
And to add to that, the portion Bishop Spong refers to, when Paul is speaking directly about himself, he says, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
Unless Paul was some kind of freak of nature, if he’s talking about sexual organs, he had more than one of them.
Bishop Spong says that he doesn’t know of any other “members” or appendages on the body that don’t act in accordance with our minds. He assumes that Paul is talking about an erection which is involuntary. This would seem to indicate to me that Bishop Spong has not gone to war against sin in his own flesh, so he’s not familiar with the concept of desiring to obey God, but failing. Our “members” refers to our physical bodies and sins of the flesh in general, as opposed to sins of the mind. Every time we physically act on a desire that’s opposed to our desire to obey God, our “members” are involved. This is what Paul is talking about in context.
But Bishop Spong’s desire to make this into a case for Paul being a latent homosexual is very revealing about Bishop Spong’s agenda. First of all, even if Paul were talking about the sexual organ, there would be no reason to presume he was talking about homosexual desires as opposed to heterosexual ones. If he wanted to remain sexually pure, but he was being aroused by women, then he could say the same thing. But Spong wants to make it about Paul “learning to accept who he is,” or something to that effect, because he wants to make the case to Christians that homosexuality is an innate identity trait as opposed to just another sinful inclination like all the rest that we struggle with.
Report comment to moderator
Edit: The sentence starting with “Unless Paul…” should read, “Unless Paul was some kind of freak of nature who had more than one of them, he couldn’t have been talking about the sexual organ.”
Report comment to moderator
It is strange and desperate that people care so much whether Paul was or was not a over or latent homosexual. It is strange and desperate that many of the Christians on this web site care so much about homosexuality and what the Bible says about it, whether it is Sodom or Paul. It is odd that Jesus, who knew everything, didn’t dictate more clearly about how wrong it is to put members or lack of members in the wrong sex.
I know almost everybody here think that the Bible is the perfect “users manual” for human beings. It has a lot of good points and ideas, but it wasn’t dictated by a divinity. We’re still figuring out a lot of things about our world and our selves, and more and more of it is going to come as a surprise, and the old users manual is going to have less and less relevance.
The Book of Mormon isn’t really a good update either. It’s the DeLorean of religions. And Dianetics is the Yugo of religions.
As far as saving civilization from homosexuality goes, you lost. I think half the people at this web site realize it (though they don’t want to admit it where everybody can hear them). In fact half the people who read worldmagblog no longer read the “gay” threads. I bet wmb management, who can track these records, realize that no only do a relatively small number of people post, a relatively small number read it. It’s so yesterday.
Some day, the only person posting on a gay thread will be Victoria. Imagine 100 messages by Victoria. She will have to create a sock puppet so she can have somebody to argue with.
Victoria, what will you name your imaginary gay man sock puppet?
Report comment to moderator
I can’t speak for others, but I don’t care so much whether or not the apostle Paul had homosexual inclinations. What I care so much about is people abusing Scripture to forward an agenda. And I also care about responding to people (especially people who seemingly pride themselves on their logic and critical thinking abilities) when they fall for such sophist arguments.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, Ree. What is disturbing to me that so many people are so focused on the Apostle Paul’s sexuality. There’s so much to admire about him and so much meat in the scriptures he wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit that it worries me that people want to focus on those kinds of things. Why people are even thinking this way shows a dangerous heart situation, IMO.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been following this blog posting for a few days.
@GOP12 – Thank you for your comment #102, and thank you for being a true Christ-follower. Sounds to me like your walk is absolutely reflecting Jesus Christ. Your friends were “shocked” because hate-filled believers, who are often the most vocal with “apologetics” have trained the world to associate Christians with judgment, condemnation and rejection. It breaks my heart that some on this thread criticize as a poor witness your quiet, consistent expression of a Jesus-love that is no respecter of persons. Thank you for participating in this discussion with level-headed and kindly expressed truth.
Report comment to moderator
Random (#126),
Your speculation that the Bible is becoming increasingly irrelevant is not born out by the evidence. It has a history as old as mankind and will be around for as long as men inhabit this planet. Despite your assertion that “…it wasn’t dictated by a divinity,” its phenomenal endurance for thousands of years speaks of an authorship that cannot be any other than divine. There is no book that can match it in this regard. All humanly authored books have relatively short life spans as far readership and general acceptance is concerned. A few survive as historical reference material or museum oddities, but none can match the Bible, which has survived, prospered, and positively influenced mankind more than any other book ever written.
It is the message of the one true God to all of mankind and it will survive, as it has survived, for as long as men inhabit this earth—it has the track record to prove it, and to bet your life on.
So Victoria is correct and offers far more proof of her position than your dismissive speculation. For centuries, countless others have made similar predictions of the demise of the Bible and of the Bible’s God. They are gone and forgotten, but the Bible and God still remain.
Aggressive homosexuals do everything in their power to dismiss, distort, misrepresent, and slander the Bible and its human “authors” because they can’t stand what it says about their behavior. Their efforts are out of desperation because almost every other segment of our culture has been malleable to their wishes—except the Bible and its supporters.
On this thread and others, the deceptive claim is made that Christians are somehow obsessed with homosexuality, as if we were closet homosexuals ourselves (e.g., the arguments about Paul on this thread). But the perversion of homosexuality is not our obsession, it is the validity of God’s word and the validity of what it says that is our passion. Currently the Bible is under attack and slander by homosexuals obsessed with their desire for societal approval. The Bible is the biggest obstacle to widespread acceptance of their behavior and so they attack it with as much force as they can muster. We would be poor stewards of God’s word if we did not respond with energy. We have done that against the attacks of atheistic communism and against the attacks of militant Islam, not because we are obsessed with either of these other perversions, but because we are dedicated to God’s word and its truth about mankind.
But Christianity is not just defensive, we are positive in our message to mankind and its multitude of sinners of all types. We all start out as sinners and separated from God, but He wants us back, so to speak. The only way for that to occur is for people to first recognize and acknowledge their shortcomings, such as murder, theft, covetousness, adultery, homosexuality, lying, etc. If the shortcomings are said not to be shortcomings, then they will never be recognized and acknowledged and men can never become reconciled with God.
Of course it is painful to recognize and acknowledge one’s shortcomings, especially if they are really egregious. But there is not a genuine Christian alive who has not had to go through that process. I sympathize with a homosexual who does not want to acknowledge his sin, just as with any other sinner who resists doing the same. Pain, shame and tears come to us all when we sincerely acknowledge our sins, whatever they may be, before Almighty God. It is part of what we call repentance and it is absolutely essential to healing the rift between ourselves and God. For the life of me I do not understand why people cannot see the necessity of that in our relationship with God, when the same type of repentance is so clearly seen as a necessity in our broken relationships with other people.
It does no good to deny the offense, to minimize it, or to attack the messenger because you don’t like being told you are wrong. If that is the tack taken by the wrongdoer, then the rift will never be healed. The key to ultimate success in life is to be reconciled with God; the benefits and advantages are literally beyond comprehension. On the other hand, the downside of remaining unreconciled with God are, and will be, terrible beyond comprehension.
I know that many on this blog site can’t stand the words of people like myself, Victoria and others. And it is true that we are not perfect messengers and are sometimes tactless (as are our opponents) in the way we say things. But I don’t think any of us deliberately try to make enemies. Who in their right mind would try to do that? However, some things cannot be said, no matter how hard and tactfully you try, without giving offense. In fact the Bible tells us to expect that, if we are true to the message we are commanded to deliver.
But, you know, Random, contrary to your prediction that Victoria will one day be the only speaker on these threads, I think experience proves just the opposite. I think your prediction is mostly a strategy of telling her and the rest of us to “shut up.” But it’s not going to work anymore than your prediction that the Bible is destined for ultimate irrelevance. Anlir, Duncan, Spinoza, et al, will still be here trying to denigrate the Bible and justify themselves because they cannot stand the message and to attack it is the only thing they know how to do. Likewise, the rest of us will still be here with both the defensive and positive messages of Christianity for as long as free speech remains in this land.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – 130
Two quotes from your post:
“It is the message of the one true God to all of mankind and it will survive, as it has survived, for as long as men inhabit this earth—it has the track record to prove it, and to bet your life on.”
“Likewise, the rest of us will still be here with both the defensive and positive messages of Christianity for as long as free speech remains in this land.”
The Gospel will survive, and those of us who know our LORD and Savior will never stop telling others about HIS saving grace, and our need for repentance for sin. There is nothing like Salvation through Jesus Christ, nothing can take its place, NOTHING!
Report comment to moderator
Michael and Victoria,
Thank you for your messages. I won’t argue with you today. I do not believe you are correct, and I do not believe you are doing more good than harm in regard to this difficult matter. I hope you and your families are having a wonderful Christmas.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Random. Best wishes to you and your family too!
Mike
Report comment to moderator
its phenomenal endurance for thousands of years speaks of an authorship that cannot be any other than divine. There is no book that can match it in this regard. All humanly authored books have relatively short life spans as far readership and general acceptance is concerned.
The Bible is not a book, it’s a collection of books written over a long pan of time. The later books are not that much older than the Koran. The Hindu Mahabharata was written about 500 B.C., and the Hindu Rig Veda was composed before 1,000 B.C. These texts are still in use and inspiring millions.
Arguing that the Bible must be divinely inspired because people still use it is about as spurious as it’s possible to be.
Report comment to moderator
DUNCAN (116): I am a gay man, and legally married (at least for now) in the state of California. My husband and I adopted two girls a little over 2 years ago. How many posters on this site think that my marriage and my family are the equivalent of theirs?
Frank: That the state of CA considers your “marriage” equivalent to heterosexual marriages in no way changes the fundamental fact: Homosexual activity affirms death, whereas heterosexual activity affirms life. “God made them male and female” (Gen. 1:27), and new life is only generated when male and female join in sexual union.
Exhibit A: The only possible way homosexual couples can have a family is by adopting children who have been born of heterosexual union.
To put it a little more bluntly, you and your “husband” may sow your seed in any orifice you please, but you will never take part in one of the most fundamental aspects of human existence — the God-ordained honor and privilege of conceiving and giving birth.
Abraham Lincoln once asked, “How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?” “Five,” came the answer. “No, four,” he replied. “Calling its tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Likewise, calling a homosexual relationship a “marriage” doesn’t make it one.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: So by your logic (such as it is), childless heterosexual couples, marrying someone infertile or remaining celibate all “affirm death” because none of those people can produce a natural child.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 135
You certainly made the point!
Hope you had a great Christmas
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (136) So by your logic (such as it is), childless heterosexual couples, marrying someone infertile or remaining celibate all “affirm death” because none of those people can produce a natural child.
Frank: Those are your conclusions, not mine.
The Scriptures — the Word of God — address these situations either directly or indirectly. But since these truths are spiritually discerned, you likely will not be able to discern them.
Childless heterosexual couple: God is sovereign over conception — He opens or closes the womb as He sees fit. The fact that God does causes a heterosexual couple not to conceive in no way indicates that they are affirming death.
Marrying someone infertile: It is not good for man to be alone — God created woman to me his help-meet in exercising dominion over His creation and raising a godly seed. A man who loves and marries a woman he knows to be infertile (or a woman who similarly loves and marries an infertile man) are still able to adopt and raise children as their own and as a godly seed to perpetuate God’s covenant and fulfill Christ’s Great Commission.
But you will say, “Homosexual couples can also adopt.” They must adopt, if they wish to have children and maintain the façade of normalcy. But again, by abandoning the normal means of childbearing (and thus the creation order), they affirm death and sin against God. Thus they certainly are not raising a godly seed — they demonstrably don’t care about God or His ways.
Remaining celibate: While this is not the normal way, it certainly is an acceptable way for a believer to live before God, so that he may dedicate himself more fully to the things of God.
===========
I think you have it backward. Christians don’t begin with logic and rationality in order to determine what is godly. Rather we read and understand what God’s Word tells us, in concert with what is observable and determinable, to determine a godly course for living.
Just for the sake of argument, as evidenced merely by the design of the human reproductive system alone, homosexual activity is inherently death-affirming. On its face, conception cannot and will not ever arise out of homosexual activity. If the whole world were homosexual, human life would die off in a generation. The apparatus which God created for both reproduction and pleasure is being used solely for perverse pleasure, while the reproductive element is not merely being delayed (as with heterosexual couples who choose to postpone conception) — it is being utterly disdained.
But when we use God’s Word in concert with what we may observe in His creation, it is beyond any doubt that homosexual activity is both death-affirming and God-hating behavior.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#134),
Of the several points that I made in #130, one was to counter Random’s contention that the Bible was becoming increasingly irrelevant in the light of our modern cultural advancements. The natural implication being that it, and supposedly Christianity too, is headed for the dust bin—along with its moral imperatives against homosexuality.
My answer was to cite its well documented longevity—it is not going to go away, ever. Neither will its pronouncements against homosexuality go away or become irrelevant. As a sub-point I attributed the Bible’s longevity to its divine authorship. This was not meant to prove divine authorship, but to explain longevity.
However, you have misunderstood and misstated my argument. I did not to seek to prove the Bible’s divine authorship by its longevity, rather that its well established longevity would continue, Random’s contrary speculation notwithstanding.
There are many other better arguments for divine authorship of the Bible. If that had been my main point I would have used them. What is spurious here is not my arguments as you contend, but your twisting and misstatement of them.
Report comment to moderator
Michael – 139
Very well stated -
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#138),
Extremely well said!
Report comment to moderator
Frank: If the whole world were homosexual, human life would die off in a generation.
Obviously. But that isn’t the case, and so it isn’t an issue.
The short version of your post is that your religious belief requires you to condemn homosexuality, whether that makes any logical sense or not.
You can talk all you want about what God says, but the truth is that it’s what you believe God says, based on words some human being wrote down thousands of years ago.
God also commands that if a man dies without a male heir, his brother is required to marry the widow and keep trying. Somehow, Christians don’t seem to see those men who don’t marry their late brothers’ widows as sinners.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: My answer was to cite its well documented longevity—it is not going to go away, ever. Neither will its pronouncements against homosexuality go away or become irrelevant.
Oh, but it’s already happening. Nobody follows the Bible’s rules for slavery, for example, nor do they practice Levirate marriage. We don’t pronounce women “unclean” for menstruating, or demand capital punishment for disrespectful children.
Many such “commands from God” are routinely ignored by even the most devout. A larger number cling to the prohibition of homosexuality, but it is far from unanimous.
Give it one more generation and old-school homophobes who justify it with some Bible thumping will be rarities.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
You still misunderstand the difference between LAW and GRACE – the death of Christ Jesus on the Cross? This has been explained to you often, yet you continue to muddle through as though you can’t understand – I’m of the opinion you cannot understand.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 143
There is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Both the New and Old Testament are inspired, but we are no longer under the LAW (Old Testament) but GRACE (New Testament) –
Christ came to earth to die for our sins, the Law (Old Testament) was replaced by GRACE, when Christ died on the Cross – It’s by GRACE we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the Cross, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior –
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
There are groups who say that “we are not under law for our salvation but we are under the law for sanctification” …this isn’t true and it misuses passages from the Bible, and side-steps context.
Old Testament LAW was replaced, when Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary – No longer were animal sacrifices of blood required to cover sin … Jesus blood on the Cross was the price paid for our sin IF we BELIEVED on Him for our Salvation.
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (142): God also commands that if a man dies without a male heir, his brother is required to marry the widow and keep trying. Somehow, Christians don’t seem to see those men who don’t marry their late brothers’ widows as sinners.
Frank: Correction: God commanded levirate marriage in OT Israel, because of the importance of the allocation of the land by tribes. IOW, a man needed to have at least one heir to whom he was to leave his land, in order to keep his land in the family and thus in his tribe.
As I said earlier, the things of the Spirit — including the Spirit-inspired Word of God — are spiritually discerned. And you lack this discernment.
You aren’t aware, for example, that God’s Law is comprised partly of moral or ethical elements which continue to be true and enforceable to this very day. “You shall not murder,” is one example.
But it is also comprised of some ceremonial elements, the purpose of which was to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness among the nations. Since Christ the Messiah has come and fulfilled all, there is no longer any need to keep the ceremonial law (examples: levirate marriage, animal sacrifices, dietary laws).
I really don’t blame you for misapplying levirate marriage to the Christian era. You don’t believe God in the first place, so you clumsily fall flat when you try to wield His Word.
You can’t help it. It’s what you do.
Report comment to moderator
Ah I see, Frank .. it’s different.
Right. The problem you have is that Levirate marriage is not just ceremonial. It has to do with the fundamental definition of marriage which Christians insist is decreed by God. It requires polygamy if the brother already has one wife, and it removes any element of volition from marriage. It is, in fact, making marriage merely the means to the end of producing a male heir.
You look to the same text to oppose homosexual unions because somehow, you reason, that rule was not “to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness among the nations” (when in fact that may well have been its purpose), but do not argue for Levirate marriage because that one was merely “ceremonial” … even though it gets right at the heart of those issues you insist are so important to God.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: There is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Both the New and Old Testament are inspired, but we are no longer under the LAW (Old Testament) but GRACE (New Testament) –
I understand that very well. What I don’t understand is why some Christians reach back to those Old Testament laws and pick and choose a few that you insist still do apply, but say that most of them do not.
Why, for example, do you argue that the prohibition against male homosexuality in Leviticus still applies, but the system of Levirate marriage does not? Some say, “Well Paul in Romans reaffirms the evil of homosexuality.” OK, but Jesus reaffirms the rightness of Levirate marriage.
And in any case, if we are now under grace, that doesn’t mean what used to be wrong is now right. Christians argue that sin is still sin, just forgiven through Christ. Except it seems that many sins are NOT still sins in the minds of many Christians — many things outlined in the Old Testament law are now ignored and not seen as anything to repent of — but homosexuality is.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: I really don’t blame you for misapplying levirate marriage to the Christian era. You don’t believe God in the first place, so you clumsily fall flat when you try to wield His Word.
You can’t help it. It’s what you do.
What I do is point out the fundamental incoherencies in much Christian theology and thought. Christians who are not able to counter the arguments typically fall back on saying “Well you just can’t understand the Bible like I do.”
It’s a cop out, but I guess it’s the best you can do.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG:
Levirate marriage has nothing to do with “the fundamental definition of marriage decreed by God.” It is what God commanded Israel in a certain situation.
Note that, contrary to your assertion, it never requires a brother who is already married to take his brother’s widow as his wife.
Note also that, while homosexual behavior his directly condemned as wicked in the NT — and that using unashamedly descriptive terms for the participants (”effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” is the linguistic equivalent of “cathcers” and “pitchers”) — levirate marriage is never described as a requirement by any NT writer.
Indeed, it’s only mention in the NT is when Sadduccees (who didn’t believe in bodily resurrection) describe a hypothetical situation in order to try to entangle Jesus in a debate on resurrection. Even if we assume that Jesus had no problem with Jews of his day practicing levirate marriage, that hardly mandates the practice for Christians after Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law.
How diligently you search the Scriptures, because you think that in so doing, you lay to rest any opposition to homosexuality …
Report comment to moderator
BTW, it is in 1 Corinthians 6 that Paul describes “catching” and “pitching” as wicked.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg 148
Homosexuality has never changed from being sin – it was sin in the OT and in the new it is still sin – many times the portion of Scripture has been quoted on this blog Romans 1
A REPROBATE MIND is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.
Steveg, you argue with GOD Almighty when you make these statements. Murder, adultery, stealing, are still sins and so is homosexuality – We aren’t under grace to steal our neighbors car or plunder through his home taking whatever we like, anymore than we are under grace to go out and commit adultery -
Report comment to moderator
OK Victoria, so is cursing your parents still worthy of the death penalty?
This is my point: There’s a long list of laws in the Old Testament, many of them in Leviticus, others found elsewhere. The New Testament writers speak of keeping all of the law or none of it, not some halfway definition. But modern Christians seem to prefer to pick and choose.
I agree that murder, theft, adultery and other things are still morally wrong, but this is one of many examples of Christian theology being incoherent.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 153
You have problems understanding because you cannot bring homosexuality into a rightful, un-sinful practice regarding the Bible – It’s because of this sin, that you and many others are unable to make it right according to the Bible which has hindered you from understanding anything regarding LAW and GRACE -
You wander off into cursing parents which is a sin but is not punishable by death in the NT – this won’t make homosexuality sinless no matter how hard you work on it.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (153): The New Testament writers speak of keeping all of the law or none of it, not some halfway definition.
Frank: Would you mind elaborating on that a bit?
Report comment to moderator
Frank:
James 2:10-11: For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws. For the same God who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.” So if you murder someone but do not commit adultery, you have still broken the law.
Galatians: 2:17-21: But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
Obviously, neither James nor Paul is saying sin is ok. But they seem to be clearly saying that if you look to the old law for instruction on what is or isn’t sin — rather than looking inward, to the light of Christ in the heart — you obligate yourself to keep every jot and tittle of it.
Modern Christians, however, do this on many topics. You demand that people keep some of the law, but dismiss other parts as outmoded or superseded. That’s precisely what James and Paul said not to do.
Report comment to moderator
The risen Christ commanded Peter to “arise, kill and eat” what the law prohibited.
This is the very law of which Christ upheld every jot and tittle.
While most of the dietary law is no longer in effect, the moral law — e.g., do no murder, do no adultery, have no false gods, honor your father and mother — still is in effect.
So it seems that some manner of distinction is to be made among the laws of God by those who seek to acknowledge and obey Him.
And finally: Yes, the prohibition against homosexual acts falls within the category of God’s moral law. One reason is that it is taught clearly by His prophets and apostles in both the Old and New Testaments.
Report comment to moderator
And BTW STEVEG, I readily acknowledge that my brothers and sisters of the “we’re-under-grace-not-law!” stripe may make it difficult for others to discern what the standard of personal holiness is.
That standard is God’s Law. Christ fulfilled it all — every jot and tittle — in order to be the spotless Lamb of God and pay for the sins of His people.
IMO, believers who glibly repeat “we’re-under-grace-not-law!” seem not to understand the proper relationship between God’s Law and His Grace.
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!