Anglican Prayer Beads  Prayer Beads  Anglican Rosary Rosaries  Natural Soap  Handmade Soap

Thank you for writing this.

this is one of the better summaries on this issue. thank you so much. i know this is an old post but it will stay around for a while. i have some homosexual friends, and this further helps the discussion. couple of things...
-i like how you delineate between homosexual people and homosexual acts. this is a big deal to me. i don't really understand why people brand either themselves or others as "homosexuals"...especially if one is a jesus follower. can't they just be a person? isn't our identity supposed to be jesus?
-let's throw out the bible arguments. it's proven in this post that there is a weak case for condemning homosexual people. but at the risk of sounding much harsher than i actually intend...where does logic fit into this discussion? Males were given male organs. Females were given female organs. Together they produce babies. and those babies go and do the same. unless those babies grow up and don't like the opposite gender. then no babies are produced. and we cease existing. obviously that will never happen. but doesnt it follow that path? even though i tried, it still sounded meaner than i intended it to.
-what is a christ followers obligation once someone realizes something is wrong? something i think we are really wrestling with. is it to stop it or is it to admit it? after one admits it does that free them from responsibility? this is a much greater issue than homosexual acts.

thanks again for this

Thanks for the post. This has been a growing issue in the church, which demonstrates how out-of-touch the church is with the rest of culture. While I struggle to formulate an advanced position on the issue of homosexuality, I also struggle to want to develop any such position. I'm straight. Jesus tells me to love other people because He loves them and He didn't suggest anything about sexual orientation changing someone's eternal value. I'm to love everyone and that's it. The Spirit gets ignored and can't do His work because we insist on following the Mosaic law, as you noted, in regard to this issue. Bollocks, I say.
At my church, the teaching pastor went so far as to suggest that homosexual orientation could be biological. What, you say? Yeah, it caught me off-guard too. However, it makes sense. He tied it to the fall and sin. It seems entirely plausible to me. You can listen to the sermon on the website at www.themeetinghouse.ca - go to the sermon archive and check out the series 'Not Ashamed' in which he tackles the whole book of Romans. It's pretty great and super-insightful. Dig in!

Ok I've only just discovered this site and again homosexuality comes up.
If I am "gay" and a Christian as well and ask and pray for God to change me to hetrosexual why doesnt God do it if to be gay is wrong.
Is being Christain and gay compatable ?
I find the subject to be very depressing when if being gay and Christian is not acceptable,and thinking that my salvation is in jeopody. What am I supposed to do? I have no interest in a woman as a sexual partner and neve have ,not that I dont like women.
I am reading a book about sexual problems etc and if what is said I cant be a Christian etc and expect God's blessings.I need to repent. Sure, but what do I do about my sexual feelings to be fulfilled. No wonder so many people suicide over the dilemma.
The Church needs to get its act together and take the proper Jesus response to people who are different .
I did not choose to be "gay" or was it anyhing to do with my upbringing or enviroment,what with two brothers and the same parents and all. No I was born to be this way,Why I dont know but this I do know Jesus loves me and the love of God is unconditional.

I disagree with your logic regarding Romans 1. I don't think there is ambiguity in whether homosexuality is acceptable. I do think that the important topic for this issue is the fact that we are to have love for each other. The attitude towards homosexuals is one of hate and not one of love. My sins are no less sins than those of anyone else, so I am in no position to condemn another.

I cannot agree with your logic at all.

-----True: We do pick and choose parts of the Bible and burn the rest, we are all guilty of doing it. Regardless, none of us can claim perfection on our own merit. Even so, that doesn't mean that we are to accept sin no matter what the social implications of it. Homosexuals are still people yes, but still sinners, yes; like I am a sinner as well. God has accepted me just the way I am, yes; But yet, God doesn't turn a blind eye to my continuance in sins. Refer to I Cor 6: 9 - 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-----True: Jesus did not speak about homosexuality, but niether did he speak about murder, lies, idol-worship. Does it mean that because he didn't address these subjects, they weren't relevant to His culture either? Do not forget that Jesus is the same that stated "before Abraham was, I Am." So, why would the relvance of culture play any part in His ministry? That is the same as saying none of the statements He made are threfore relevant to our present-day culture... then why bother worhsipping Him as a relevant and Living God at all??

-------------------------------------------------------------------

-----True: Exegeisis defines Paul's choice of words as male prostitutes and just people who partook in homosexual activities. But realise that at the time, there was no other word to state the homosexual relationships, even between two loving mates. And why is it that if loving homosexual relationships are acceptable in God's sight, did Paul not write about the suitable code of conduct between 2 members of a homosexual marriage and only limited his writing to a straight couple? Realise that sripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit... Paul did write his letters under the inspiration of God.

------------------------------------------------------------

-----True: Romans 1: 18- 29 does appear ambiguous, but it only appears ambiguous. It isn't truly ambiguous at all. It strongly compares homosexuality (regardless of whether or not the two people love each other or not) to idol-woorship. Any worship that isn't God worship is idol-worship.

----------------------------------------------------------------

----
I John 1: 8, 10
--8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
--10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

----
Let not your friends fall into the trap of thinking that they are not sinning. We all need to confess that we are sinners daily. And saying that homosexuality is not a sin reveals much about our true relationshp with Jesus. The subject of sexual orientation is irrelevant. Talking about The subject of sexual orientation is exploring the intent of homosexual relationships. Intent plays no role in judging the action of sin; reagrdless of intent, the sin still has been comitted. According to your logic then, if my intent was to kill someone because they murdered my family, then my murderous act is justified. But we all know that intent plays no role in Judgement of sin. All have sinned; all have fallen short of the glory of God.

------

My freind, follow and Love God more than you love your friends. Let Him direct your paths, not social norms or the love for your friends.

i think u got something messed up here...
it seem to me that u believe it is okay.. for someone to do something wrong and keep doing it and abusing the mercy that God has given to people. ure saying.. since i know God will forgive me.. then i can go make the same mistake over and over? If u are a christian or even read the Bible u would understand that we should be transformed day by day and and each day a part of ourselves die.. to be a more christ-like person....

U talked about Romans.. claiming that your firends " They are quietly committed to their partners in love".... soo if u do something wrong in quiet.. that makes it right? i can kill someone in the dark.. but it doesnt make me innocient of the crime right?

IN addition... the part about Jesus not addressing anything...
well i think u contradict ureself there... like u said Jesus was a jew and abied by Jewish law... soo basically he doesnt need to repeat it.. since the Old testament directly says its wrong.. maybe that tells u its not up for debate?

And to the fairness issue of a person having (natural?or biological) desire for the same sex:

since there is no scientific prove.. u cant make the claim that God allow this to happen.. and i believe it's not a good excuse to justify ureself for that action. if u look right down into the very bottom.. isn't the root of the problem to be LUST? Some ppl might think it's unfair,well.. but aren't everyone suppressing their sexual desires as well? instead of letting the Holy spirit convict you, instead of asking God for help... arent u just finding loop holes to escape that suppression? To me it seem like just a politian looking for ways to redeem himself from a scandal.
-I might sound harsh.. and narrow-minded.. but if God really make someone Homosexual, well isnt it a Good thing? Since our Purpose on Earth is not about out physical desire... and wut is physical desire compare to the joy of being with our Lord and Eternal life... since Roman 8:4 we do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit. MAybe one needs to have deeper conviction with the help of the spirit, focus on Christ alone,and let not homosexuality distract you and abandon it. Then i believe...one would make more impact in the work of God.. since he/she would have a purere motive while witnessing to the opposite sex? isnt that true?
As christians we are to condamn the sin itself.. not to tolerate it.. but love the ppl... thats wut i believe....
If anyone happen to read this..and still struggling.. dont give in.. or make loop holes for yourself.. i'll be praying for u.. even i dont know who you are.. but God knows.. Find Help and seek for God with all ure heart... then God will do amazing things in your life.
From your Brother in Christ

hum...i cannot agree with ur logic either! below are some great links that directly discusses many of the verses that you mentioned above. this will help us dig more deeper at the issue!

http://www.probe.org/content/view/700/72/

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php

Thank you for doing this.

I think you are trying to twist Scripture around to accept homosexuality. It is obvious that God will condemn homosexuals, because he condemned those in Sodom and Gomorrah. None of God's word is ambigious and should be taken literally. God gives a warning in Rev. 22:18-19. Yes, some of it we may not understand, but just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean we don't have to obey.

orientation....hmmm, nice pc word, but each of us humans have an orientation towards sin. its called "the flesh" my particular orientation happens to be toward 3 distinct sins. i orientate to them as a fish to water, natural as can be. doesnt mean its ok. doesnt mean god will honor anything else i do. doesnt mean i can indulge my orientations w/o thought of scripture or causing my brother to stumble.never never never does christ overlook sins of the flesh. rom 6:12, I cor. 6:18 sins of the flesh, sins against ones own body...if i am orientated to other men around me, while married to my mate, does that mean i can foster such ideas just because i am orientated toward them? the notion is foolishness and just proves we can justify anything in order to live as we please. shame on us. shame on the writer of the article. shame on christians who agree. at this rate, the great deception ought to be real easy.

"Should we then sin so that grace abounds?"
Whether homosexuality is a sin and can a believer be homosexual are two different questions
Some of the most mentioned sins in the bible are the most rampant ones in Christendom, but does the fact that a believer can sin justify the sin?

No doubt, sin by itself should not be used to condemn a person for whom Christ died but should the sin be condoned?

If you know a gossipmonger or a glutton or a fornicator who is other wise a "very loving and dedicated" Christian does he stand justified?

I agree I have not proven that the bible teaches the present understanding of "orientation" as sin but I think Paul had a lot more knowledge about it than us, bec as far as I know homosexuality, though predominantly liked with temples was rampant in the higher social strata too.

----------------------------------------------

I'm Pro-choice; I Chose To Do What I Do.

I think what needs to be said is that the Bible shouldn't be used to condemn homosexuals nor should it be used to exonerate them. Jesus did not come to this world to condemn anyone. Nor did He come to let us off the hook. I believe Jesus came to save us and to show us the way to properly love ourselves and each other.

It is not my place to judge what God may or may not be upset about. It is my job to love. Love is not pointing your finger at someone and telling them God despises them. WE ALL FALL SHORT. Let us take the plank from our own eye first. We can strive for this our whole lives and still not be perfect. Thats Jesus's job. Move on.

Let's hang the murderer's, rapists, and Enron execs, they deserve it. Let God have mercy on homosexuals just like he has mercy on everyone else. I don't think He needs my input.

An excellent series of posts entitled 'Jesus & homosexuality' which consider all these texts and more have appeared on Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog - www.jesuscreed.org - during January/February this year. They're well worth a read - you'll find them in the dated archives, or in the 'Generous Orthodoxy' section.

A lot of people are missing the entire point of this article, and that makes me so sad.

Twisting the wording of the bible to accept or deny that homosexuality is sinful is not the point.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

We are ALL hypocrits because we pick and choose. We do not have the right to judge, only God does - he will judge me, he will judge you, and he will judge the homosexuals. He doesn't need our help separating the good from the bad. We are ALL bad. If you spent all of that energy reading the bible and mending your own sins, EVERYONE would be better off. Worry about your own salvation before you start pointing that finger.

Jesus did not keep himself from the sinners, because those are the people who need his guidance the most. He was not cruel and hateful. He brought the word of God with kindness, gentleness, and love... and that method brought Christianity a long way.

Isn't it curious that as we Christians become more full of hate and so judgemental of others, we find more people pulling away from our religion?

Halla, flama, numby!

Whoa. These people not only missed the point, they totally overshot it and wound up across the state line. WTG, idiots.

Hate to be abusive like that but that's exactly what we're seeing here: idiocy. Every single commenter here who disagreed with the original poster has failed to address the fact that none of them see anything wrong with eating shellfish or wearing mixed-fiber clothing--both of which are condemned in far more detail in the Old Testament than is being homosexual.

I could make a fortune running a lumber mill to process all these beams in people's eyes. Sad, sad, sad.

Assumptions.....

Before I add my 2 cents worth I want to state that I would never state that you cannot be a homosexual and be saved at the same time. That is God's perogative alone. It's precisely because I wrestle with greed, malice, slander, lustful thoughts and an odd homosexual inclination now and then that I am so grateful salvation is by grace alone. Though my hope is that everyday I am being transformed into the image of Christ by the renewing of my mind through the work of the Holy Spirit.

That said.....
Although tithing was commanded in the OT, we are not specifically told to tithe in the NT. Yet this is practiced by just about every congregation every week. Why? I believe because it's simply assumed in the NT. Why? Because much of what is dealt with has to do with how we are to handle the other 90% of our finances. Sure tithing doesn't save us, as if works can, we are saved by grace alone. But because we are saved, aren't we called to a higher standard, a life of obedience?(Including not being characterized by greed, malice, slander etc. And I would agree that we need to address these far more rigorously.) So the question I have is, "How much is assumed by the NT writers as givens, as common knowldege, requiring no further ellaboration?"

You may disagree with my argument. I'll admit that I am no debater, however, before you do, please review the assumptions that are made in the exegesis and hermeneutical analysis above, namely that the biblical authors had no idea as to what a sexual orientation is since it's a recent phenomenon. Do you know for sure? Can you prove it? Or do you hold that it's proved based on their silence on the topic? That would be an assumption.(And before you go there, yes I have read up extensively on the analysis of a number of ancient documents by pre-homosex and anti-homosex writers. It's not conclusive. Just because the label appeared recently doesn't mean the concept hasn't been around for centuries)

I know that it's generally held that the homosexuality prohibited by the OT (in particular) and NT, dealt primarily with pagan cults, however, in the OT these were mainly fertility cults and as such the only temple prostitutes were woman, not men. Could the same be true of the NT cults. This is my assumption. Do you have proof that the cults around in the 1st century involved male temple prostitutes as well as female temple prostitutes. Admittedly I don't have proof that it didn't. If you have some source documents I'd be interested in doing some additional research.

Pederasty of course is an entirely different thing. I've never read any conclusive proof that all pederastic arrangement were abusive. It's likely many of those turned into lifelong, loving, committed relationships. So was Paul really arguing against all pederastic relationships or just the abusive ones, or just the ones that remained abusive or, or? A few more assumptions perhaps.

I think we tend to forget that Jesus made a very definitive statement about marriage (echoing one of the first biblical statements concerning a lifelong, monogamous,committed relationship. )Matthew 19:4-5 "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].'?" Here is where it gets tricky. Do we believe that Jesus was omniscient or was he confined to his socio-cultural context? Was he unaware of sexual orientations? After all Jesus did say that only the Father knows the hour of his return so as a man did he have limited knowledge but being God, at the same time, does he know everything? Some wrestling required...

One of the major issues that has to be addressed by above view of Romans is the word 'function', found in 1:26-27. Gregory Koukl addresses this in his article on Romans 1 at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5301.

QUOTE...

None of these previous arguments are even needed because Paul was not unclear about what he meant by "natural." Romans 1: 26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..."

a) "Function" (#5540) v 26&27 kreesis, is used only these two times in NT but is frequently used in other literature of the time.

b) According to Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (BAG), A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (University of Chicago Press), the definitive Greek language standard reference work, the word means "use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse."

2) Paul is not talking about natural desires here in this instance, but natural functions.

a) "Natural" is not determined by what you want sexually, but by how you function sexually.

1. The body was built to function a specific way.

2. Men were not built to function sexually with men.

b) Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex for the unnatural function is what Paul calls a degrading passion.

c) Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship:

1. Matthew 19:4-5 "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].'?"

2. The desire is unnatural because it abandons the natural function.

a. Extramarital heterosexual sex is wrong because it exploits a natural function in an immoral way.

b. Homosexuality is worse because it's an immoral act based on the perversion of a natural function.

END QUOTE

Finally, what scares me the most is the end result, if you take many of the pro-homosex arguments (Winks in particular)to their logical conclusions. To name a few:
1. All diverse expressions of sexual orientation should be celebrated (HLGT, paedophilia etc.) as long as they are not abusive and are life long, loving, committed. Did I say paedophilio? Yes. Not all adult-child sexual relationships can be proved harmful or abusive. Many of those involved are asymptomatic. Then there is a difference opinion as to the age of consent depending in which country you are. In Spain it's 12. So as long as the above criteria are met we are all happy that a 50 year old and a 15 year same sex couple get together? (At least in Spain)
2. The bible doesn't really have a problem with pre-marital sex. In pro-homosex arguments I have read that fornication is really only between a non-married person and a married person. So when can two unmarried people start? Oh yea, as long as it ends up being a life long, loving committed relationship its a-okay.
In my discussions with pro-homosex supporters I am often told that only God draws the line and that I have no right to, but when pressed on the last two statements, which at times forms part of their arguments, they somehow end up drawing a line themselves. "Two adult same sex individuals in a life-long, committed, loving relationship." Except the definition of an adult is someone who is post-pubescent, able to reproduce (which still includes quite a few 11 and 12 year olds.)

(Okay so the last paragraph was noy my final point.) I want to make a point about inclusivity. I do believe that God is far more inclusivist than I am. Why? Not because these are really non-issues with him. But because he is omniscient and sees an individual in the entirety (?) of their lives. He saves by grace and He knows exactly how he will work in their lives to transform them into the likeness of Christ. For some issues (as discussed in the Corinthians passage above) it may take a few months, for some the battle with certain issues will last their entire lives. I really do try look at everyone in this way. Me in particular as I am so prone to greed, slander and a host of other vices. Even though I pray for these temptations and my proclivity towards them to be taken away I still wrestle with these. But I am ever hopeful because it is Christ who dwells in me. And please don't accuse me of being homophobic. I have many homosexual family and friends whom I love dearly.

For a far more scholarly response to the exegesis and hermeneutical approach taken with the NT texts above, the following articles are a worthwhile read as well....

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/GagnonHomosexuality.php
http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html

Thank you for letting me ramble.
Warren

Note to self: Stop using words like "finally', "My final point", etc.

I would like to address Anonymous who said...

"Whoa. These people not only missed the point, they totally overshot it and wound up across the state line. WTG, idiots.

Hate to be abusive like that but that's exactly what we're seeing here: idiocy. Every single commenter here who disagreed with the original poster has failed to address the fact that none of them see anything wrong with eating shellfish or wearing mixed-fiber clothing--both of which are condemned in far more detail in the Old Testament than is being homosexual."

I'd like to put a proposition to you. It will take some time but I think it's a worthwhile exercise. Open an excel spreadsheet and as you read Leviticus Chapters 11 through 20, list all the sins and prohibitions in one column. Next list all the directly mentioned associated punishments in another. The intresting thing is that there are no specific punishments prescribed for many of the prohibitions/sins. God speaking in Leviticus simply says don't do it. Certainly nothing specific for wearing a garment made of two fabrics. For eating shell fish you are simply declared unclean for a period of time. But for sexual sin, idolatry, divination and a few others, that is a different ball game. Anything from a prescribed sacrifice, to banishment or execution. A few questions: (1) Coincidence? (2) Were some of these prohibitions decreed in order to protect the health and welfare of the Israelites. i.e. to stop deseases spreading rapidly through 2m people wandering through the desert? (3) Were many of these prohibitions rescinded in the NT? One thinks of Peter's vision of the sheet with all the animals declared clean. (4) Were some prohibitions instituted so that the Israelites could be easily identified in relation to the pagan cultures around them? (5) Finally does the severity of the punishment described allude to the severity of the sin in God's sight. Are there degrees of sin? I believe maybe.(Before we go down that road, I believe that sin is sin and regardless of if it's murder or a small white lie we stand guilty as charged and condemned before a just God).

It also appears that sins are grouped in Levitius. Notice where the sin of homosexuality is mentioned. Smack bang between child sacrifice and bestiality (Ch 18) and within a list of sexual practices which few christians (except the most liberal) would condone today (Ch20). Coincidence or intentional? I know that for a fact we still allign ourselves with Leviticus in relation to child sacrifice and bestiality. (Though all this pc talk about partnering with and adopting animals, oops, dumb friends, as opposed to simply owning a pet is making me a little nervous)

Even though I do fall down on one side of the fence I cannot deny that there is tension in the scriptures when it comes to a whole range of topics including homosexuality. Some of the pro-homsex (loving committed relationships etc.) arguments are indeed persuasive and thought provoking. I don't mind this because of my own proclivity to establish a set of rules and then try live by those, assuming that if I do I'll merit God's favor. No I am a sinner through and through, saved by His unmerited grace. And that categorically applies to everyone who falls on His grace alone, regardless of their proclivities. We are then transformed by the renewing of our minds, by the power of the Holy Spirit into his likeness. A lifelong process.

One final thought. (I did it again.) In the bible I read of murderers, false prophets, idolaters, adulterers and many other 'sinners' being punished and even executed for their sin. I have never read of a wearer of two-fabric garments or shell fish eaters being punished/put to death. Come to think of it I do not read of any homosexual actually being put to death. Neither sinners who commit those sins I am most guilty of. Makes me stand back in awe and marvel at God's love and graciousness towards us all.

Journeying on
Warren

More than saying "Everybody chooses to ignore one part of the bible" I would say "We /need/ to ignore parts of the Bible.
I may get flamed for saying this, but the Bible was written by men, not by God. These were men that had divine inspiration, yes; but God didn't take their hand and write for them. They interpreted God's will and mixes it (intentionally or not) with their own beleifs and views of the world. Sometimes they needed to explain things they didn't understand and control them, and they did it through the Bible.
The Hebrew people was heavily corrupted by all their years of slavery and wandering on the desert. They did all sorts fof things like worshiping idols, paterphilia, incest and, yes, homosexuality. Looking it through the eye of science, some of those things must've resulted in them having "defective" offspring. Physical or mental defects, since they were breeding between relatives. To avoid this sort of things the law had to be clear that nothing of the sort was to happen. They knew that a traditional family didn't have these problems (for the most part), and so through the law of God they had to impose the traditional family as the only right one; because they didn't know if homosexuality was more to blame than incest for their problems.

So, because men wrote the Bible, not God, I think it has to be taken with a grain of salt. And I'm not talking necesarily about homosexuality, there are other examples.
Everybody complains by how women are treated in the middle east, yet the Bible shows examples time and again of this kind of treatment for women and it makes it seem natural and correct. It clearly tells women they have to serve their man, live for their man, etc... giving them no rights but only obligations.
Should we take the Bible literally and start demeaning women just because men back then did that?

I don't think so, but that alone should prove the Bible is subject to interpretation. So I have the right to beleive that the Homosexual parts are outdated, ambiguous and written my men's rather than divine inspiration; not to mention mistranslated. Others have the right to beleive otherwise, I respect them as long as they respect me.

Of course, as noted in other comments, this shouldn't be used as an excuse to do whatever we want. The rules raren't adaptable to our needs. I won't go out killing people claiming I thought the Bible wasn't clear on that.

But one of the most important revelations of the New Will is that God is a God of love, not of hatred or vengance. So as long as there is love between two people, be them homosexuals or heterosexuals, I can't see this loveful God hating them.

Anonymous, I wonder, to what extent do we take what Jesus said with a grain of salt? After all those words "was written by men, not by God". If that's the case then could you explain just how much confidence I should place in the 'recorded' words of Jesus, namely "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me". Perhaps John only got that partially right. Maybe he missed the point totally. Or perhaps in my interpretation it actually means Jesus simply points to the only way, truth and life, not that he actually is the way, the truth and the life.

Also to what degree do we assume Paul's writings on Salvation, Justification, Sanctification, Obedience, Holy living and Glorification are divinely inspired or does he "mixes it (intentionally or not) with (his) own beliefs and views of the world." Could you confirm exactly where divine inspiration ends and his human views begin?

I also suppose we should gloss over all portions dealing with God's loathing of sin (as He defines sin), his righteousness, his wrath, his justice. Perhaps the very reason Christ died on the cross has been miscontrued, misinterpreted all this time.

Such a low view of scripture will only result in a shipwrecked faith, or lead to a faith in a false god (idol) of our own making. I suggest that you devote yourself to the whole counsel of scripture instead of treating it with the disregard and glibness you have shown. If you did you would surely discover that as to the question of the role of a woman, and particularly woman in a marriage relationship, by far the strongest directive is to husbands: "Love your wife as Christ loved the church." In other words, lay your life down for your wife. Then wives submit to your husbands. It's God who defines our gender roles, not us. The interesting thing is after 14 years of marriage I have discovered that if my wife is believes that what I am doing is out of sacrificially love for her, she doesn't seem to have the slightest problem submitting to that. I don't know about you but that raises the status of a wife quite considerably. And this was written during a time when the culture had a particularly low view of woman and in particular wives.

No Anonymous, God HATES sin and he will deal harshly with those who knowingly, stubbornly, defiantly, rebelliuosly continue in their sin. That is why he sacrificed Jesus on a cross. But praise be to God that he is full of grace and mercy and if we confess/admit that we are sinners and fall on his grace, we will be saved. And He who started a good work in us will complete it - all proclivities included.

Warren

God hates sin, true. Not necesarily sinners though.
I don't treat the scripture with disregard, and I've studied it for years, in an academic setting as well as a religious one.
The Bible says a lot of things that we do not or can not follow.
On Leviticus 12 it says that a male boy must be circumsized on the 8th day after his birthday. Christians just don't do that, does that makes us all sinners? I have only a half circumsition. Does that make me (or my dad) a half sinner?
It also says a woman in unclean after child birth, and restricts carnal relations with her because of that, for one week if the child is a boy or two if it's a girl. Few parents wait more than just after the woman is released from the hospital; and why should they?
Right after that it talks about leprosy. Not many Christian go to a priest instead of a doctor for diagnose. Does that make them sinners? The Doctors? I have met many leprous in my life, none wear torn clothes, loose hair (well, sometimes the hair) and cover their upper lip. Is that a sin too? They don't live alone, and they use medicine to heal or control their disease, what's wrong with that?
Adultery is fine as long as it's with a slave woman. So slavery is all right?
And right there in Leviticus is where it says when a male lies with another male like they do with a women it is an abomination. At least lesbians are safe.

The bible is full of those. Things that simply have no relevance today
Even Jesus knew this when he did not let them stone that woman for adultery. Wether or not they were without sin, she was with sin, and the Bible was very clear about the stoning.

Not everything that the Bible says is a sin though. A sin means to break the 10 commandments, and neither of those is Thou shalt not lie with a male as with a woman.

If we were to use the whole Bible as an example of how to live, we'd all be lying murdering traitors, for many of the people in it, even the good ones, did just that.

The Bible is a great reference on how to live a good life and make the Lord happy, but not every single word of it is meant to be taken literally, no matter how you take it. There is more than a single example of things that can not apply anymore, and just a single one is enough proof.

The gospels really are a documentary on the life of Jesus. Mostly written on fact rather than divine inspiration; even though they do contain the writer's point of view to an extent, and you can see that by how some gospels emphazise more one part of a chapter than others. They basically say the same though, so they are self corroborating.

Aorry for not signing my previous comment, I'm used to my signature being added automatically whenever I post in a forum.

Aristide

I haven't studied scripture in an acedemic setting, but I have a suspicion that there are many 'theologians' who are not saved and have done more harm to the gospel than some atheists. Studying God's word doesn't make you a Christian.
I am also not a literalist. Yes many portions are figurative, metaphorical and allegorical, but do you agree that scripture should be approached and studied in a systematic way, not the haphazard way your post would imply. Since you argued stating "So I have the right to believe that the (Homosexual) parts are outdated, ambiguous and written my men rather than divine inspiration", I was questioning what gives you that right to make that determination and what your criteria or guidelines were. Can I apply the same criteria and guidelines to say bestiality. Also can I then elliminate the entire list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6, or just homosexuality because we feel we have the right to. So I can still be greedy etc. and as long as I don't murder God loves me and all is okay. And what are your guidelines for rejecting/accepting other parts of scripture, the parts that deal with the doctrine of grace, salvation, justification etc.

Warren

Aristide,

I wanted to provide a more thorough response than the one I provided above. In all my responses I have made it clear that:
1. I believe that homosexuality, from a biblical perspective, is a complex issue that I don’t believe has been conclusively dealt with no matter position you take. I am open for discussion.
2. But where I stand today is that I believe that the bible defines homosexuality as a sin, no lesser or greater than lying, stealing, coveting, slandering, etc.
3. I also DO believe that you can be homosexual and be saved. I would never presume to judge someone's salvation based on the sins they wrestle with; because (a) that is God's prerogative, (b) I know that I myself am a sinner saved by grace and I continue to wrestle with a lot.

In fact (seeing as though you always bring this up) I'll even say you can be a murderer and be saved (example Paul). BUT once saved Christ calls us to a life of obedience and holiness which is only achieved (1) through repentance (2) the sustaining and transformational power of the Holy Spirit (3) as we devote ourselves to the study of his word. I'll readily admit that I don't have all the answers, but we have been given the directive to wrestle with and discuss doctrine. What I’m trying to do here is not to lay down the law so much as wrestle with the issue.

I tried (to the best of my ability) to engage what has been said not only in the original post (by referring to Greg Koukl’s response to Romans 1) but to your responses as well. (One of the accusations leveled was that the ‘idiots’ hadn’t done that). I feel that you have not engaged with what I have said; you have simply rephrased your original responses using different examples.

In addressing your first paragraph I will redirect you to one of my previous responses where I challenged you to a little exercise. In relation to Leviticus I believe that the pro-homosex argument is a good argument, but it often falls under its own weight. I’ll restate my arguments and questions.

1. Leviticus contains a list of directions (e.g. the handling of skin diseases and normal bodily functions), prohibitions (e.g. what to eat and what not to eat), distinctions (e.g. what distinguishes the Israelites as the people of God) and sins/abominations (sexual sins, idolatry, divination, etc.).
2. These directions, prohibitions, distinctions and abominations/sins are grouped in an intentional and logical way.
3. Many of the directions, prohibitions and abominations DO NOT have any directly associated prescribed punishments, unlike ALL the sexual sins…..

So
1. To directly compare these is to compare oranges to apples.
2. Even the language used is different. General vs. specific. Tonal by including words like detestable, abomination etc. for specific sins.
3. Specific sacrifices and punishments are only prescribed in specific instances.

In many instances Leviticus has really good advice. Although you don’t see the relevance there is still merit in following the advice to eat ‘clean’ animals, to prepare our food in a certain way, to wear garments made of a single fabric and to ensure that crops are planted separately. If we don’t, does this constitute a sin? No. Does our eternal security depend on it? No. But it is not irrelevant! For example I have got food poisoning from eating shell fish more often than from eating anything else. Perhaps God prohibited this in order to protect His people.

In relation to sleeping with a slave girl, Leviticus does not make a value judgment on slavery but on committing a sexual sin with a slave girl. And no it’s not alright to have sex with a slave girl. Read the passage “…there must be due punishment.” So let’s deal with the sexual sin and not the slavery part because that is what the passage deals with.

In relation to sleeping with your wife during her period, wouldn’t it be worthwhile for Christians to push for a higher standard and to decide to not have sex with our wives during their periods. I mean are we that uncontrolled that we cannot wait a few days.

Regards your comments about Leviticus only addressing homosexuality and not lesbianism, the entire passage appears to be addressed primarily to men, with men being the active party and women being the passive party. Does that mean women cannot be guilty of all the sins involved? Both are guilty. If it is directed equally at women then there is far more limitation on lesbian sexual relationships than homosexual relationships. And I would argue for the whole counsel of scripture – Romans 1.

In relation to your comment, “If we were to use the whole Bible as an example of how to live, we'd all be lying murdering traitors, for many of the people in it, even the good ones, did just that.” Firstly the bible tells it like it is. It details how people lived and what they did, good and bad. BUT it never condones sinful actions. (David & Bathsheba). It also goes to great lengths to describe how people were punished and how they suffered because of their sin. So we are often presented with example of how not to live and act.

In fact Jesus takes this all one step further by stating it is more than actions that condemn us, what we think condemns us too. Why? The whole point is to get us to the place where we admit that we can only be saved by grace. The second part is that we are saved unto obedience. What exactly does that mean? That is what we wrestle with?

You stated that “A sin means to break the 10 commandments, and neither of those is Thou shalt not lie with a male as with a woman.” But the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind (Jesus’ affirmation). What does that mean? Perhaps we love him by obeying him. I was wondering if you apply the same argument to bestiality. After all it is not specifically mentioned in the 10 commandments.

In summary my point is that you don’t appear to have a visible standard, guideline or systematic approach on what you accept or reject, what you consider relevant and irrelevant other than it’s “My right”. It appears that your approach is flexible depending on your right to determine when and where.

Warren

For one to obey the lord one must obey his laws. If the law states that we are not to lie down with men as we would a women then so be it. The fact of the matter is that the bible clearly states that the act is a abomination. Noah son Ham was killed for thinking of his father in the way of "homosexuality". For any man or woman to say that they were created this way needs to have there head examined. In the begining there was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. People need to open there eyes and realize that god would not create people to have these thoughts these are the thoughts of mans perversion. The people who have accepted christ in there life must also accept his laws. I am not saying that I am the perfect christian but I do know right from wrong. We are all sinners in the eyes of the lord., but he gave us his only begotten son to die for our sins. You must also remember that it was the Jews who killed Jesus.

None So Blind...

It's astonishing to me the number of replies that don't address what you've said so much as reiterating the knee-jerk, well-conditioned homophobic responses that you were addressing in the first place.

Yes, there are some folks in this thread who are attempting to write well thought-out, well written replies who don't necessarily agree with you. But for every one of them, there's several like the one just above this who spout rhetoric and hatred and will ALWAYS miss the point.

You can't reason away sanctimony. You can't reason away irrational hatred. You can't reason away fear.

There will be likely 3 types of people who ever read this:
1) those who read it and say -- ooh, okay, that's good to know. I wasn't setting out to persecute homosexuals based on the bible -- but now I have some interesting facts to argue against it with
2) those who read it and find it in conflict with their own interpretation, but consider it, and try to decide whether or not they accept your interpretations or if they don't, why not
3) those who start skimming somewhere in "part one" because the notion that maybe their blind hatred isn't supported by the Bible is distasteful, and they can't wait to get to the bottom of the page where it says Post Comment to spew the same mindless, unexamined hatred that they always have.

Sad.

Hell yeah! Preach it brother!

Excellent article, will be linking to it.

A question about Romans 1.
By close reading of the text, it seems there is a logical fallacy taking place here.
The text says that, and I paraphrase:
"Because these people were naughty, god punished them by making them lustful, including homosexual lust, and they were then punished for it.'

So, making people overcome with lust, including homosexual lust, is a punishment.
It does not follow that homosexual lust is necessarily an offense.
The logic seems to be 'Being inspired with homosexual lust is a punishment, therefore having this lust without being punished is also wrong.'
There is, however, no logical link between the two.

The first problem with this will be that this is a translation, presumably from Aramaic?
So, the logic of the statement could be clear in the original but have lost it's meaning in the translation.
But, by extrapolation, the entire bible is a translation, therefore to believe in its translated version literally is nonsensical.

If you accept that the translation is also inspired by God, which can give it its faith acceptance, then so is the logic of that statement and the fallacy remains.

Of course, to me, it also seems a little unfair to impose a lust on someone and then let them be punished for it, but that brings in all the lovely free will arguemtns and it all gets very complicated :*)

The more of the comments I read from "Christians" that try to justify their hatred, the happier I am to be a heathen.

It's amazing to me how a bunch of hairless monkeys can make up gods and fight, condemn, hate, judge and kill each other over what they believe their made-up god supposedly said thousands of years ago.

The commandments of big, invisible people in the sky are just excuses for peoples own ideas and fears of what is unknown and misunderstood by them.

It's baffling that any of these things are still an issue in the modern world.

I'm happily married, a mother of teens, and the thought of homosexual relationships made me cringe with the "yuk!" factor. I had an awesome "best friend" and we were both deeply in love with our husbands and with God. But somehow we ended up "lusting" after each other. It was NOT planned, in fact we did not even see it coming! We just found ourselves in a "situation" one day that we had just slipped into. Wow, it was no longer "yuk" to me, it was totally beautiful! At that moment I would have willingly, and knowingly given up my whole life and family to continue what we had together. We gave into that "lust" for a whole weekend. But, after the event, and we were back in 'reality', we KNEW that no matter how much we wanted each other in that way ... we totally believed it was wrong!

So we both CHOSE to separate from each other. Totally! Cos if we didn't our marriages would have crumbled. It was the hardest thing we had both ever had to do! But we WANTED our marriages and didn't WANT to want each other in that way, even though we loved each other! Satan had us wanting something we didn't even want - now THAT is a scary thought, but it is also the wiles of satan. So, we ran from Him. Sunk ourselves into our marriages and slowly "healing" from where satan had taken us. It was a very rocky journey, cos I was making choices that i KNEW were inline with what I believed and yet my heart was screaming out for what i had left behind. i knew i could NOT trust my heart at that time. And i hoped that by "making the right choice", even though I WANTED to make the obvious wrong choice - that one day my heart would fall back into line.

Now 12months later - it definitely has! My friend and I have re-established our friendship again. But we are very cautious. We are fully aware of our "weakness" and will never even 'risk' putting ourselves in that position again. We will not even be alone together. We only go to each other's home if our husband's are home too. And if we want to meet while they are at work etc, then we will go out for lunch etc in a place where there are always other people around. We have experienced first hand the results of lusting after sin, and how painful it was to give up something that feels so good. But i'm sure satan thrives on feeding us that lie. He MAKES sin "feel good". Just like gambling "feels good" when you win. Just like drugs "feel good" when you first start to take them. Just like pornography "feels good" while you are aroused by it. etc etc etc.

I have learnt the hard way that I CANNOT make my choices by what I feel! Every fibre of my being was telling me to follow my heart ... but if I had continued to, then it would have caused sooo much damage. I now choose to keep my sexual experiences the way God intended. He stated "His design for us" ... leaving your family to become united as "one" (man and woman).

So, what do i think of homosexuality now??? Wow! I have a new respect for those who practice it. We are human, we will naturally love to go where our emotional needs are being me. Go to where we feel the safest. Go to where we are free to be "real". And if that happens to be a person of the same sex, then it is totally understandable that it happens. Unfortunate, but understandable. I now make NO judgement on individuals who practice homosexuality - but i still believe it is wrong. Just as gambling, drugs, pornography etc etc etc are wrong. I don't believe our "Salvation" depends on it though, and nor do I believe that "once saved always saved". ONLY God knows what led them to that place, and only God can judge them.

My job on this earth is to love everyone I meet, and if some of them happen to be homosexual, then i now seem to love them MORE than i love everybody else. Why??? Because they too are victims of a very sick, sinful world. We all are. It's just that some of our "sins" are more obvious than others. Some will scoff at the known lesbian sitting in church and want to throw her out. But will sing the praises of their pastor, who may very well be struggling immensely with internet pornography addiction. Yes, pastors like that are out there too, I know some of them!

We only think we know ... but God knows all. So best leave the judging in His hands. I also have no doubt that God loves me - faults and all, no matter how big and obvious, or how small and hidden. He knows my heart, and He knows how much I love Him and WANT to do the right thing, even if I stuff up sometimes. That is the depth of his grace - and that is also the depth of grace I need to be able to show to anybody I meet. THAT'S WHAT JESUS WOULD DO.

This comment serves as a reply to many of the other comments here, not the post. As for the post itself, I am quite refreshed and pleased, and, in fact, my faith in the world has grown quite a bit stronger since reading this article.

For those who say that homosexuality is a choice - I must reply that you must, then, not be homosexual. I have trouble believing that someone would willingly choose to (a) disobey God directly, or (b) subscribe to a lifestyle that so many people (as seen in many comments above, quite clearly and adamently) disagree with and condemn. No one WANTS to be condemned. No one WANTS to be shunned by their family, by society, by their community. The matter of attraction is something that is a part of you. It is just as hetersexual men are not simply attracted to, or automatically in love with, every woman. Love, attraction, is not a game, it is not a simple shopping trip, it is something that comes from within. This is why I believe that orientation is a part of us, not a choice we make. Therefore, if God made us as He did, made us attracted to whichever sex, or sexes, we are attracted to, He cannot condemn us for being ourselves.

In addition, I must comment on the Biblical literalists who are many of the above commenters. The Bible was, indeed, written by men and not God. The words in the Bible were inspired by God, but, as I said, written by men. The men who contributed wrote on subjects that were relevant to their time. We must realize that the specifics in the Bible cannot be taken so literally, as they were written so long ago. The world continues to change, and people change with it. The principles of the Bible are what should be taken as seriously as some seem to take certain words. For situations change, but principles remain. So, I believe that our first priority according to the Bible is to love and respect everyone.

We must not judge. Each and every one of us will be judged when the time comes. We are not meant to judge each other, we are all headed for the final judgement. So, I do not judge any of you, even those who believe that homosexuals will be condemned in the end. I do not judge you for your beliefs, but I do think that you need to step back and realize that you are judging someone who may just be next to you in line to be judged for the final time. And if God were to ask them whether or not you were a good person in life, treating everyone with respect, love, and equality, you had better hope that that homosexual is a forgiving person as God taught him or her to be. You shall be saved though, because God would never ask one of his children to judge another. Do you see? What God wants of us is that we all exist in harmony, spreading our love as far as it will reach, and giving of ourselves as much as we possibly can to help better the world and its people.

Thank you for writing this.
I cannot thank you enough.

Concerning Romans, Nik Ansell has written an article published in Third Way magazine. Unfortunately it's not online so I'll attempt to summarize his arguement:

In this passage, Paul is using rhetoric to get the Jews that he is preaching to on his side. After all, salvation is first for the Jew. You can imagine the cheers as Paul starts to comdemn those they think deserve it. "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness... God gave them over to shameful lusts... They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice."

Today he might have added: "They pick and choose their beliefs as if God doesn't matter, they support the terrorists, the enemies of God, they slaughter their unborn babies and have faith in stupid horoscopes."

But Paul's intention isn't to comdemn any of those acts (and neither is mine). The passage continues in Chapter 2 when Paul turns it onto those same Jews who just cheered. "at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things... So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?... But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath... There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. ... For God does not show favoritism."

Again, if Paul was a Christian and writing today, he would be turning those things against the Christian community, against those who think they are doing right by judging others. Today, the trouble and distress would be first for the Christian, then for the non-Christian.

So Paul wasn't mentioning those acts because they were wrong, he was talking about them because they were seen to be wrong by the Jewish community to which he was talking. But then he comdemns the Jewish community for their hypocrisy. The passage is a Jew condemning other Jews, critiquing his own religion in order to improve it (by freeing it from the corrupt temple order and compliance in the oppressing Roman empire).

And so does not the Christian community today need to hear the same message? Stop judging, stop hating, stop being subject to the American empire of capitalism. This is offered by a Christian who is critiquing his own religion in order to improve it. Homosexuality is not wrong; comdemning homosexuality is wrong.

I know this often breeds the fear, "If we don't comdemn homosexuals, then we can't comdemn polygamy or paedophilia." And maybe this is right. We can't use the Bible to impose our view on another (whether or not they accept the Bible to be an authority at all). Out of the best 3 marriages I know of, one of those is polyamorous (2 guys, 3 girls), and one of those is non-exclusive. But they work, the people are deeply committed and loving, and the polyamorous relationship includes one Christian.

As for paedophilia, I have a confession. I used to be a Conservative Christian, and I put up with the sexual repression. I may have held hands with girls, but that was about it. My one sexual experience was when I was in my mid-teens. And for the next 7 years, I fantasized about that 14yr old girl, because that was all I had. I wasn't lucky(!) enough to get married (for sex) like many of my friends. So I fantasized. And as my frustration grew, I turned to other girls around that age on the internet. I felt the sin and I beat my self up almost every day. But I was addicted. I tried read every book that promised to help me and tried every method available to me. But none of them worked, none of them helped. I was stuck, a slave to teen internet porn.

But now I am no longer. I have been freed from that slavery. And that freedom came with the removal of sexual repression. I realized it was not sinful to have sexual relations with people. And as I started to have sexual experiences with people my own age (mid-twenties), I was freed from the fixation of 14 yr olds.

I tell my story here because I suspect there are many others who are in the same situation I was in. Trapped because of repression and hypocrisy. So do we condemn paedophiles? It does not help. But I will encourage them to grow up, to enter into mature, fruitful and committed relationships. I will condemn brutality and rape, brainwashing and repression, those things that limit freedom and cause people's life to wilt rather than to blosson.

I prayed. God loves me as is.

Sigh...just reading through your comments further reveals the outdatedness of the theistic belief structure. It's an interpretation of moral truth that people have vested personal power and reputation on the validity of, while it actually ceased to be valid when we ceased to be semi-nomadic goat herders. The "divinely inspired prophets" would be schizo's or acid freaks in today's context, and given as much creedence as we give the nutter homeless guy on the corner who screams about conspiricies [even if he's probably right]. Honestly, if you want to experience what joshua or muhammed experienced, take some LSD or Mescaline. It's not god, it's your brain ODing on dopamine, which causes awake lucid dreaming. A similar thing happens with intensive meditation. Spiritual interpretations were neccessary when we had no other way to explain natural and psychadelic phenomena; truth has progressed since then, and it only persists because demagogues use it to retain power and presitge. However, people are wising up to their abuses, and whenever they try to be logical and inclusive, the need for religion and god is shown to be hollow and pointless. Either way, religion is losing it's credibility. It's a long, slow process, due to the strength of the forces arrayed against the interests of humanity [as religion is one of the most effective ways to control people ever devised...what with being responsible for the creation of the fear of death and all], but it is slowly but surely on the way out. And good riddance...the future will be bright once the long shadow of religion and god recedes into the dusky night of history.

I'm often perplexed by the certainty people have in their bible interpretations. Here we have a text that has been assembled, edited, translated and (even if that all has somehow happened without introducing error and uncertainty) ultimately read and interpreted by a falible human being.

It seems to me that those who seek to condemn people (in this case homosexual people) based on their understanding of so few words are at the very least guilty of a severe lack of humility.

With regards to Romans, the exact idea expressed is of men 'exchanging natural relations with women and turning in lust towards men. This therefore does not describe homosexual people as for them sex with women would be an unnatural lusting. The greek word used to signify this changing or turning is one that has implications of a great deal of force used to change the circumstances being described.

As for the male prostitutes section, it is true that there was no specific noun for homosexuality in common usage, and that the greek words in question 'malakos' and 'arsenkoites' are highly ambiguous. It must also be said that there were OTHER very DEFFINATE ways that were used to describe homosexual acts, without the ambiguity of these two words and, given the clear cut ferocity with which Paul treats moral issues, he surely would have used if he was condemning homosexuality in all forms rather than using two words that were highly ambiguous even in his own time, never mind almost 2000 years later.

I will admit, up front, that I haven't read the commentary all the way through, so if this was mentioned already I'll stop.

It has been suggested to me by some professors of mine that the biggest reason that acts of a homosexual nature were condemned in biblical times was because in order for homosexual sex to happen, one male needs to subject himself to the other -- in other words, he takes on the sexual role normally assigned to women. For a man to take on a woman's role in those times was a Bad Thing, because it subverted the "natural order" of God's sex roles; it -feminised- men, which was a horrible evil thing. Women were, after all, second class citizens, occasionally property, and the ones responsible for Original Sin. It outright reprehensible for a man, made in God's own image, to act like a woman.

If that possibility wasn't enough, the rules against nonprocreative intercourse and outercourse (such as masturbation and interfemoral sex) -- i.e., the proscriptions against wasting seed, "the sin of Onan," etc. -- quite convince me that any passages forbidding homosexual intercourse had nothing at all to do with gay love. To my mind, to insist that the Bible rightly denounces queer sex is tantamount to saying "I support the subjugation of women and the suppression of feminity, and I believe that the only sex one ought be having is sex that has the possibility of resulting in a child" (which also, if you think about it, gives women a status as incubators, not people).

Of course, that might just be overanalysation on behalf of the UCSD staff, coupled with my belief that the Bible is just a book and that it's silly to hang one's whole life and afterlife on a single book.

All I can say about this is bravo! Everything else I've thought of has already been stated, reiterated, and ignored by someone who managed to skim the enire post just so they could refute the possibility that the Bible doesn't condone their blind hatred toward something out of their version of ordinary.

Somehow I am saddened by your thoughts on scripture, hypocrisy and what light they shed on God's desire for us.
First I have to say that God didn't leave out any permutation of sin when he condemns any 'act'. There is nothing new under the sun;not for a God who is Omniscent and Omnipresent (present in all times). You see, you infer homosexuality had not been "invented" when God was giving His children boundaries but this loving relationship to which you refer existed between Older and younger Greek men in the military. It was a common practice, for the most part consensual, and you have to assume at some point some feelings became involved. Ridiculous to think a man never loved a man romantically until someone came up with a 7-syllable name for it.
Second there is a seeming deception in omitting scriptures that forbid a man to lie with another man...in any context, and forbid any union of the heart that does not involve one man and one woman in marriage. By your reasoning God should have no problem with a prostitue who falls for her customer. Or the 13 yr old who falls in love with the 49 year old pervert who seduces her.
Third you seem to miss the fruit of our relationship with God. As you spend more and more time with God thru His Son Jesus you become more like His Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. God does not overlook the ways in which you were displeasing and imperfect. he changes them little by little or dramatically, in His own time. Sanctification. You see for Him it is never about the outside of the cup but about the inside..the Heart. Pharisee-clean the outside of the cup but inside is full of men's bones...dirty, disgusting. Jesus never addressed sin without referencing repentance and or forgiveness. AND Jesus, time and again backed up chastisement of sin as sin of the Heart. God never, NEVER condemned empty actions...He condemns the rebellious heart that will not submit to follow and love Him only and abide by His ways. You make God smaller by your flawed logic and faulty conclusions.
You say you are ashamed but you should only be ashamed for taking away the hope that God can change anyone and anything about Him. You SHOULD be ashamed for loving people so much you are willing to overlook their sin. You SHOULD be ashamed if that's what christianity means to you. But don't HOLD all of the flawed executions of Christianity against the God who is perfect, loves us perfectly, and would see us healed of even the sins we find appealing and addictive. I can't name one sexual sin that isn't sweet to the perpetrator. Can you? I can justify all of my own addictions if all I call into question is my own approval and the pleasure I gain from it. I can even do that for others. But God's standards are not quite so easy to digest. they require true inner purity, self-sacrifice, and a desire to leave every way behind that even hints at displeasing Him...yet now out of obedeince alone but out of Love and gratitude.
One of my friends saw your posts here and you gave him false hope that he can reconcile GOD and this practice. Stop!
I don't mean figuratively. I mean right now. i mean recant ALL that you have posted that does not fall in line with ALL of scripture. I mean remember that like God we can love every sinner(that means all of us) FULLY without ever approving of their sins! Love the murderer;hate murder. Love the pedophiliac; hate pedophilia. Love the adulterer; hate adultery. When Jesus defended the adulteress caught right in the act he wasn't defending her sin. He was condemning her accusers for preaching what they didn't practice. Every man among them, by lusting, stood condemned of adultery. Love the adulteress. Hate adultery, and hypocrisy, and lowered standards disguised as all welcoming love. I mean, it really frustrates me to hear people who have no experience with life or parenting try to reason how God would parent. God knows that children ache for boundaries and guidance and that they long to please their parents. Are you aiming people at embracing god's guidance and pleasing HIM. In YOUR heart of hearts is this your undefiled motive...to please God and to point others toward pleasing HIM?

Addendum. I do have to note that in focusing on the perspective of God and scripture i left out one clear truth. God does love homosexuals and I know believerin/followers of Jesus christ who struggle with homosexual lust but refuse to indulge it. This is the only acceptable manifestation of homosexuality. Of course we can acknowledge the sin but we must refuse to embrace it. Whatever the sin. God doen't hate homosexuals any more than He hates liars or thieves or overeaters or masturbators or vain people. And all of those can be christians.

Thanks for writing this article. It has helped me tremendously to be OK with myself.

If group health insurance was more efficiently priced, and individuals paid premiums that truly reflected their unique risk of coverage... then I believe behaviors and attitudes towards obesity would begin to change. WBR LeoP

"I think you are trying to twist Scripture around to accept homosexuality."

For someone who is trying to oppose homosexual people, this statement itself is quite ambiguous and lacks support for its purpose. I respect the RLP blog even when I do not agree. For one, the comment I quoted says it in itself. It seems we have two sides, eh? Human beings, flaws abound, will interpret the Scripture in whichever way is suitable to our lives. It seems we can do this with most literary writings. We all, as imperfect men and women, are guilty of this eternally.

Point is made where RLP states that all Christians have skeletons in their closets that they don't clean out--that we all have continuous sin that we choose to ignore or sometimes simply feel we are helpless of. The point that impresses me most is expressed in many of these comments. Whether I agree or disagree is not the matter. Christians, the ideal of love to all men and God's creatures are ignoring some because they are detestable in their finest nature. Let's assume God is condemning homosexuals; where did He proclaim for those in sexual perfection to do the condemning? What happened to love thy neighbor as a brother? I am not a Bible buff, but I feel I don't need to be to understand the basic principles of God's endless mercy and immeasurably unconditional love.

If you're the proud, ideal Christian who abhors the homosexual nature because it is God who proclaims it...if you have the Scripture and explanation to prove it, what good is it doing??? I don't mean to sound criticizing, but real Christians are not proud in their ways, but humbled by mercy. Compassion and human understanding are their middle names. If you're a Christian who feels they are in the right...one who has spent a whole 15 minutes condemning homosexuals while proving a point, you have done nothing productive but restate a common theme. Christian brothers and sisters are compassionate...and if they are concerned enough, care enough AS CHRISTIANS to tend to their homosexual counterparts and at least aid in directing them to the light.

A flaw in modern Christian society is going on within these comments: "Christians" going out on a limb to prove a point with redundant claims when what the world really needs from Christians is love, understanding and a gentle guidance. In other words...if you feel the Bible is saying homosexuality is a sin, get off of the dang computer and spread compassionate help to those homosexuals who are suffering condemnation by offering a new insight...by helping them to reorganize their lives. Condemning others gets us NOWHERE. This, I feel, is the most ridiculous aspect of judgment and argument in homosexuality.

I noticed someone defending the opposite view of the blog by interpreting the Scripture in a different light in order to disprove of homosexuality; yet again a way that we can't PROVE what is being said and that we all perceive things differently. I think we ought to relax and focus on our own problems, helping those we can along the way. Life is too short to spend years doing this kind of thing when we know full well that God is not going to tell us who is right. Neither of us...or both of us...we're brothers and sisters all the same.

(Note: I am heterosexual and have no homosexual friends. I believe marriage to be a sacred union between one man and one woman, but since I am not God, I've no room to condemn ANYONE. God will do the judging...and only He can do it with justice. Leave it at that. What does proving homosexuality sinful do for those who are hetero? Nothing. Leave it alone.)

I appreciate the openmindedness of your blog...and I value the Scripture in every context. However, if I were to advise anyone on an Earthly basis of my human knowledge, I would remind the world that while it is societal and historical belief to perceive the Bible as a rule book, it was written to inspire, motivate, and strengthen our hearts and will for life. It should not dictate our actions and thoughts or restrict our life, but embellish them and teach us to be the best images of God we can be. There is no time or room for judgment when we ourselves are endlessly struggling.

While the Bible focuses on different issues, each of us are struggling with our own unique combination of sins. Take care to know that RLP's view on sexuality was not a 'siding' decision. If it was, who was he against? No one. It was an acceptance of all people as equals.

God bless all...
Peace, love, and rockets!

Right now i don't trust any dr they bost to help they don't . i have treid lot of meds nothing works i don't care any more my heath is bad i can't get my dr do any thing. WBR LeoP

Well written. One of the reasons I no longer attend church is that the preacher/priest gets to select what they want to preach about and the congregation blindly follows. If more would focus on the fact that the bible is a book of stories, and a guideline on living a good life, rather than a book of literal laws to pick and choose from, I might be more willing to accept religion.

Yep, I think its right.

I think you are wrong.

I have recommended this essay countless times... Thanks for getting the word out.

I've got one question. I happen to be a lesbian, and a Christian, and yes I do believe you can be both. Here's my question, should I marry a man and be unhappy? If homosexuality is a sin, and I'm not saying it's not, does that mean I'm supposed to remain alone for as long as I live? Would that not make me unhappy as well? If God is a merciful and loving God would he want to see one of His children unhappy? I've read all the comments, and I make no judgements on anyone, it's not my place, only God can do that. All I can do is love everyone as Jesus loves me. It may not be the most intelligent thing written on here, and is only the views of a human being, but that's all I have to go by, God doesn't let me in on His plans. And for anyone out there who judges others, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't expect any rocks to be thrown anytime soon. One final thing, I don't presume to know the will of God, and I wish others would realize that they don't either.

God Bless each and everyone of you.

well written.