Jesus didn’t address homosexuality…right?

Brent Cunninghamblog15 Comments

silence

A friend of mine recently stated that we ought to give pause before tackling the morality of homosexual practice from a biblical perspective.  After all, he reasoned, Jesus never even addressed it in the Gospel accounts.  Therefore, as professed “followers of Jesus,” how can we be so confident on the issue?  And while I think this assumption about Jesus’ supposed silence on the issue is quite common, I don’t believe it’s an informed assumption.  Instead, I think that a careful examination of this assumption will both demonstrate its inadequacy, as well as give us greater confidence in understanding how Jesus views homosexual practice. 

 

CLAIM: Jesus didn’t address homosexuality
1. We don’t know that

We don’t know that Jesus didn’t specifically address homosexuality.  We must remember that the Gospels are selective (as all history is), especially as they express a very narrow purpose—to be gospels/evangels/heralds/proclamations of what God had done through Israel—specifically, through Jesus.  As Bishop N. T. Wright often states, the Gospel proclamation was that, through Jesus, God was making right the world and that new creation had begun.  Though we’d all like to know more about the “silent years” of Jesus’ life, the gospel authors are primarily concerned with his activities once he had received the anointing of the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:16-17).  And even with this narrow focus, the gospels only offer a very select slice of those three years.  John, in hyperbole or an intended exaggeration, reminds his readers, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (Jn 21:25). 

An obvious weakness of this point is that it is what is called “an argument from silence.”  Nevertheless, some arguments from silence are stronger than others.

CLAIM: Jesus didn’t address homosexuality
2. Even if we did know that…

Let’s suppose that Jesus never actually did address the issue of homosexuality.  Can we then conclude that it becomes an issue which is less clear to us?  I don’t think so.  Even if Jesus didn’t specifically and directly address the issue of homosexuality, it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t speak to it.  After all, Jesus didn’t specifically and directly speak out on gay bashing.  Should we then conclude that Jesus was rather indifferent on the matter?  Of course not.  Several comments could be made here.

(A) This second point goes to show that the accusation of making an argument from silence can be levied against both sides here.

(B) This second point also demonstrates that we don’t have to look for Jesus to have used our specific wording (condemning or condoning a thing) in order to know what he thought about it.  For instance, we know that Jesus would not condone gay bashing because he told us to act in love toward not only our neighbors but also our enemies (Mt 5:43-45).  And I’m not suggesting here that homosexuals are anyone’s “enemies,” just that Jesus extended the requirement of showing love to literally all people.  Further, we could look at Jesus’ common response to those who were trapped in the sinful lifestyles they had chosen (the Samaritan women at well in Jn 4, and the women caught in adultery in Jn 8).  While Jesus commanded these people not to continue in their destructive and sinful lifestyles, he demonstrated counter-cultural love and compassion toward them.

3. Jesus DID address homosexuality
We see from the above comment that instead of looking for Jesus’ views by a skewed criteria of a demanding a particular wording that we want to see (e.g., “Thou shalt not…”), we must look at how he did chose to communicate his views on the matter.  And I believe we can see that Jesus actually did address homosexuality in three different ways.

(A) Though he was regularly accused of breaking the Old Testament Law, Jesus denied this charge, insisting that he affirmed the entire Old Testament (both the Law and the Prophets).  In fact, Jesus habitually spoke of the eternal nature of God’s Law, insisting that even his own actions as Israel’s Messiah would not “abolish” the law but “fulfill” it (Mt 5:17-19).  And since we know that the Old Testament forbade homosexual practice, seeing it as a moral departure from God’s design in creation (Genesis 19:4-13; Lev 18:22-23; 20:13), we don’t have to wonder what Jesus thought about homosexual practice.

(B) As a related point, Jesus believed that his contemporary audience should have been able to deduce certain moral/social “oughts” from something called “authorial intent.”  That is to say, when Jesus was questioned about the appropriateness of divorce, he didn’t cite a passage from the Old Testament which directly addressed divorce (though there were many).  Instead, he went to the book of Genesis and reminded his hears of what the Author of life intended for human relationships.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”  “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (Mt 19:3-5)

The old adage applies here: intent is 9/10 of the law.  In this case, authorial intent, or knowing the Author of creation’s intent, settles many of the specific questions that one might ask. 

So, let’s apply Jesus’ criteria of authorial intent to the question of how God sees homosexual practice.  As Jesus pointed out, “at the beginning [Author’s intent] the Creator ‘made them male and female…’.  Therefore, according to Jesus, we can conclude that any deviation from this standard (one man and one woman in the covenant union of marriage) constitutes a corruption of God’s design (note: Jesus affirmed singleness as an exception for those who were called to it, Mt 19:12).  And so, we don’t need to wonder what Jesus thought about polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, serial monogamy, or other examples of God’s authorial intent being violated.  All such questions, in Jesus’ mind, were settled by considering what God had intended from the beginning as the pattern for His creation.

(C) Finally, if you believe that the same Holy Spirit who empowered Jesus during his earthly ministry also inspired Paul’s writings, then we can see that Jesus has addressed the topic of homosexual practice through the writings of Paul (e.g. Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11, etc.).  For the Christian (who holds to the Divine inspiration of Scripture) this may be the strongest argument.  While the previous arguments above offer indirect statements by Jesus about this issue, this point offers direct statements by the Triune God, and therefore, by Jesus himself.

4. Message & Method
Much more needs to be said here (and maybe I will in a future post) not about the correct views or beliefs we ought to hold in regard to homosexual practice, but about how we hold and share those convictions.  It is nothing less than a tragedy that millions of people are caught in the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality.  And God’s heart breaks for those who, like the prodigal son, live in a far off country (Lk 15:11-32).  If we then share the heart of the Father, will run to those who are stranded in that far off country, winsomely compelling them to come back into the welcoming house of the Father.  After all, we serve a God who is radically liberal with His grace.

WHAT DO YOU THINK . . . ?

SUGGUSTED RESOURCES:

Audio:
Stanton Jones, “Homosexuality in science and Scripture: What do we know?” 
and the Q&A Session which followed.
Brent Cunningham, “What does the Bible really teach about Homosexuality?”

Books:
John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, Ch 16, “Homosexual Partnerships?”.
Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality.
Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate.
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.
Joe Dallas, When Homosexuality Hits Home.
_______, A Strong Delusion.
_______, Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle With Sexual Identity.
_______, The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible.

Online websites:
www.narth.com
www.pfox.org 
www.exodus-international.org
www.apa.org
www.aclj.org 
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.lovewonout.com

15 Comments on “Jesus didn’t address homosexuality…right?”

  1. Jesus’ assumption of NORMALCY was that a man and a woman marry. That was what He meant. He meant what He said. That settles it.

  2. i am not saying i disagree, however if your argument is that Christ came to fulfill the law and not abolish it, why do we as believers in Jesus, not hold to all Levitical laws such as Leviticus 25:44?

    i know this was posted in August, but this topic is huge for my friends and i and i would like to know more.

  3. Douglas,
    It sounds like there may be a couple questions that you’re asking. Please correct me if I’m not scratching where you’re itching.

    If you’re asking about why Christians believe themselves to be bound by some of the Old Testament law but not all of it, let me first attempt to answer that. It’s important to distinguish between three aspects/parts of “Law” that we find in the OT (moral law, civil law, ceremonial law). Most Christians would argue that while the moral law (how we reflect God’s moral nature to other and to God) continues to command our obedience, the other aspects, like the civil law (how we relate to the state, legal consequences for breaking law, etc.), as well as ceremonial law (e.g., vestments, washings, clean and unclean foods, etc.) do not command our obedience. I think distinguishing between these three categories will help in understanding how Christians have wrestled with the place of OT law in the lives of those who follow Jesus.

    You know, if you’ll be patient with me, this makes me think that maybe I’ll write a blog post exploring this a bit more—it’s a super question. Let me know your thoughts, Douglas.

  4. The gnostic gospels tell what jayzus was doing in the garden with a naked young man!!! Nasty nasty

    Read the online book called Betrayal of Trust, all about preachers who rape little children. There have been and are thousands of them.

  5. David and Jonathan’s gay love affair. The bible makes it clear they were lovers.

    If you would like to follow along in your Bibles, please turn to the Book of I Samuel.

    After killing Goliath, the Gath Philistine, David went to King Saul for an honorific ceremony. Following that meeting, it appears, David met Saul’s gay son Jonathan. It was, if we take the Scripture literally, love at first sight. I Samuel 18:1, in the Authorized King James Version, tells us that: “… the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him [David] as his own soul.”

    Jonathan loved (Hebrew: ‘ahab which includes both family and sexual love) David at first sight. Their souls were knit together (Hebrew:Qashar which is to tie, physically or mentally in love, league). Their feelings were very strong, love at first sight, however at this point their love could be interpreted as platonic, although platonic love is almost never refered to as love at first sight.

    At Saul’s insistence, David moved into the royal household and things quickly heated up between Jonathan and David. I Samuel 18:3,4, in the Byington Translation, says that they: “pledged themselves to each other, in the love that he had for him …” and “Jonathan stripped off the robe he had on and gave it to David…” This ritualistically represented the establishment of a love covenant relationship between the two men: What’s mine is yours, what’s yours is mine. From this point on there is no question about their relationship being platonic. This sharing of garments, covering the other, shows it was more than that in context of their culture.

    Shortly after Jonathan and David consummated their love, Jonathan’s father Saul arranged for David to marry his daughter (Jonathan’s sister) Merab. Could it be that Saul knew about their love and was trying to intervene by offering David his daughter instead? The Jewish people, at this time, were still as homophobic as anyone else (though it was due to their desire for offspring, not over any alleged moral concerns). The only condition Saul set for the marriage was that David be “valiant” for him (I Samuel 18:17).
    “And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD’S battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him.”

    Why did Saul give his daughter to David in marriage? This was before the real problems we know about arose between the two men. Marrying the king’s daughter elevated a person and was considered an honor, however in this case, Merab was given to David to bribe him into going off to battle the Philistines believing that in such a battle David would be killed. Why would Saul, at this point, want David killed? We only know of one reason from the text, his relationship with Jonathan. AND why would Saul first marry David to Merab? As king, Saul could have ordered David to join the war without giving up his daughter to David. There’s only one reason, to explain the closeness between Jonathan and David. “Sure they were close, David was his brother-in-law!” There’s no other logical explanation for this turn of events.

    The idea of being “valiant” here in the Hebrew is two-fold. First, to be valiant David was to be bën, (a father to children); and secondly, he must be chayil (a good fighter). Now, one might expect the condition of loyalty to the king as a good soldier, but why would Saul also make David promise to father children? The obvious contextual answer, in light of the preceding verses, is that this was Saul’s way of saying: “Hey look, your a good fighter, the people love and respect you, but this thing with my son has got to stop. You just need a good woman” (which is still a common misconception by those who view homosexuality as anything other than a natural orientation).

    Granted, these verses are insufficient by themselves to establish conclusively that Jonathan and David were lovers, although I think its pretty clear already. A more orthodox assessment of the situation might be that Jonathan accepted David as a compatriot and that the act of exchanging clothing with him would indicate Jonathan’s bestowal of his royalty on David as a political commitment. After all, these texts do not specifically state that they were lovers. Among the problems with this view is that as the prince Jonathan had no such authority to confer the equvilent of knighthood on another, such would have been treason.

    However this is only the beginning.

    At 19:2 the plot thickens. Due to reasons not revealed in the text, Saul wanted David killed. While the text, as it has come down to us, does not specifically say so, it is quite feasible that David and Jonathan’s continuing relationship may have been largely responsible for Saul’s determination to do away with David. Saul obviously intended for Jonathan to succeed him to the throne and for this Jonathan needed to “valliant” himself. In such a homophobic culture, an openly gay king would have been unheard of. Jonathan’s homosexuality, in Saul’s mind, would have constituted a threat to Saul’s continuing lineage. Nothing in the text contradicts this idea and it would explain the passion with which Saul sought David’s death. Looked at objectively, this is by far the most likely cause of Saul’s determination to have David killed and his giving his own daughter to him.

    When Jonathan learned of Saul’s plans to kill David, he quickly warned him, as a lover would. The reason for this warning is quite interesting. The Authorized King James Version (the textus receptus), the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew Bible), and The Revised Standard Version all agree that Jonathan quote, “delighted much in David.” The Byington translation says that “Jonathan liked David very much,” The Jerusalem Bible says “Jonathan held David in great affection,” while the NIV paraphrase says “but Jonathan was very fond of David,” and so sought to divert Saul’s wrath.

    Was Jonathan’s fondness for David simply platonic? The Hebrew text says literally that Jonathan desired (châphèts) David. This is the same word used in verses such as Genesis 34:19 where Shechem sexually desired Dinah.

    At I Samuel 20:24-30 the homosexual aspect of their relationship becomes undeniable:
    24 So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.
    25 And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul’s side, and David’s place was empty.
    26 Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean.
    27 And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?
    28 And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem:
    29 And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king’s table.
    30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

    Here Jonathan desperately attempts to defend David from his father’s wrath. Saul’s response is unmistakable, and for too many of us quite familiar! The Authorized King James Version is surprisingly candid here: “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?” In The New King James Version Saul becomes angry with Jonathan for lying to him about David’s whereabouts, and so shouts: “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse [David] to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?”

    What could be more clear? Saul here calls Jonathan a shameful pervert (‘âvâh). Depending on where the English translations place the comma (ancient Hebrew didn’t use them), before or after the words perverse and woman, he may even be calling his son a perverse woman, in other words, a homosexual, directly. Different versions handle it variously. But regardless, Saul here accuses Jonathan directly: “Don’t lie to me, I know about you and David, you’re a couple of sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!”

    After this emotional event, Jonathan and David met secretly in the woods. The biblical record of their rendezvous at 20:41 is charged with love and sexual passion as they intimately kiss and embrace.
    “And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”

    “…until David exceeded.” What does this mean? The Hebrew word used here is Gadal and is an interesting word to use. It literally means “to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things.” Now, this was one of the low points in David’s life. His mentor, King Saul, was seeking his death, Jonathan had just come into the woods where he was hiding to tell David he needed to flee for his life. As in English, the context in which a word is used can alter its meaning. In this case, David obviously didn’t remain hidden in the woods until becoming the great leader he eventually became. The only other possible meaning for this phrase is they enbraced and kissed until David had “grown” or become erect, until he, and obviously Jonathan, became “great” or “swollen” and had made physical love. This is the only concievable meaning.

    After this touching scene, David fled from Saul’s wrath, kissing his lover good-bye.

    At 23:16-18 Jonathan again meets David in the woods and the two re-swear their undying love and devotion:
    16 And Jonathan Saul’s son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.
    17 And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.
    18 And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

    If this was a heterosexual couple there would be no doubt about how the episode should be understood: David was again living in the forest. Jonathan went to him, encouraged him in God and the two men made a “covenant” to one another before God. What was this covenant? The text clearly tells us with yet another unmistakable confirmation about their marriage: “thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee.” In other words, You David will be the king and I will be, so to speak, your queen!

    You recall how I interpreted Saul’s accusation that Jonathan and David were “sexual perverts who shame both me and your mother!” Here Jonathan confirms this understanding. Not only does he promise loyalty to David, to be his “queen,” he also says, “I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.” Saul knows what? It is obvious!

    II Samuel 1:26 tells us that after Saul and Jonathan’s death, David remembered his lover fondly and lamented: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
    With the possible exception of certian of his Psalms to God, one seeks in vain for any description of love more profound or heartfelt from David than this. He had sex with women, many of them, but these relationships seem to have been little more than sexual conquests of political expediency, with the possible exception of his relationship with Bathsheba. But clearly Jonathan was the love of David’s life. He loved him with a love surpassing all others. Jonathan was David’s husband and one true love, the others meant nothing by comparison.

    Such a profound love is a wonderful example for all gay and lesbian people. Despite what we are told by the homophobic culture in which live, and as many of us have discovered on our own, like David and Jonathan, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people can indeed find lasting love, both with God and with one another.

    David and Jonathan are not alone in the Biblical record. The potential depths of lavender love was perhaps never expressed more beautifully than as the Bible presents the commitment of two great Biblical women, Naomi and Ruth:
    Wherever you go, I will go;
    And wherever you lodge, I will lodge;
    Your people shall be my people,
    And your God, my God.
    Where you die, I will die,
    And there will I be buried.
    Yahveh do so to me, and more also,
    If anything but death parts you and me.

    Sound familiar? Their vows to one another form the basis for the traditional wedding vows used today.

    I am not surprised to see homosexuality as a topic here. Christianity is a sexual cult religion and always has been. Jesus men are girly guys who love to get on their knees, eye level to the crotch area of their imaginary ‘god’. Your religion is a phallic religion and that is why it has always been such a sexually violent one. Women who follow such a religion should be kicked in the… [edited]. The bible gods had no use for women and any… [edited] fool who can read should know that.

  6. Jake,
    I can only guess by the nature of your response that you’ve been hurt by followers of Jesus in the past. Please allow me to apologize for them. If someone who claims the name of Jesus has treated you curly or unjustly, that is a tragedy to your dignity as one who has been created in the image of God, and one for whom God sacrificed all to know.

    Jake, may I also ask you some questions?

    (1) First, I am a bit troubled by your response. You seem to be condemning followers of Jesus when they have reacted in a hatful and angry manner. However, you yourself seem to be expressing extreme hatred and judgmentalism in your own comments. In another post on Abraham you just commented, about those who claim to follow Jesus, “You people are too stupid to breath good air.” Similarly, above you suggest that “Women who follow [Christianity] should be kicked in the [butt]” (edited). Jake, to state than another person should be either harmed or killed because of what they believe (as you state above) is no better than someone who states that a person should be harmed or killed for their sexual orientation. Wouldn’t you agree? I really don’t know of another classification for your language other than to use descriptives like hateful, judgmental, and condemning. I don’t think any of us wants to live lives of hypocrisy, in which we condemn other people for the very things which we ourselves are willfully engaging in.

    (2) Second, I am also a bit puzzled by your argument regarding David and Jonathan’s supposedly open homosexual relationship which the Hebrew authors of the Bible approvingly recorded (as you suggest). My difficulty is this. You label and condemn the Semitic cultures/authors which were responsible for the Hebrew Bible as narrow-minded and homophobic. However, you also claim that these same cultures/authors approvingly offer us a beautiful picture of homosexual love between David and Jonathan. Well, which one is it? Is the Bible condemning or approving toward homosexual practices?

    (3) Third, though in the above point I referred to the comments you left as “your argument,” you really should have stated that these were not your words, but that you were simply cutting and pasting the copyrighted words from the website Allfaith.com (© June 1998). Passing them off as your own words is disingenuous. And I assume this accounts for your confusion in condemning the Bible in one sentence and approving of it in another (as stated in point #2 above).

    (4) Forth, and lastly, you seem to castigate the entire Christian Church for the abuses of some “preachers who rape little children.” I would certainly agree with you in condemning the acts of any adult who would violate the innocence of a child. However, your universal condemnation is equivalent to someone disparaging the entire homosexual community for the stance and practice of those homosexuals involved in NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association). I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be painted with so unfair a brush stroke as that, would you? Neither do I.

  7. Brent,

    Recently I became aware of Klinefelter syndrome, a genetic condition where a man’s chromosomal make-up is XXY rather than the typical XY. Men with this condition have male genitalia but often have hormonal imbalances such as lower levels of testosterone and higher levels of estrogen.

    Since learning of this condition, I have felt incredibly confused. Although men with this condition are physically male, genetically they are both (or neither, depending on how you look at it) male and female, and the personal accounts of people affected by this syndrome reflect major gender identity issues (I saw an ABC Nightly News story that documented one married father’s transition from a man to a woman, http://chloeprince.blogspot.com/). I agree with your conclusion that homosexuality is a sin and how we as Christians are to treat the issue and those plagued by it. However, what about men with this syndrome? God made these people with this

  8. As a new member of Timberline Church I came upon this post. I am pursuing counseling for this former issue in my life. I still battle it everyday. Homosexuality by far as defined in the Bible isn’t an acceptable choice from Biblical stand point. Anyone caught up in this life style will not accept this view. Churches around the country to initiate blessings and gay clergy. This is a spirit of Jezebel or Babylon coming upon the Church.

    In dealing with friends and my child, who asks questions, I have some responses. First, it isn’t our role to judge. Second, it isn’t our role as Christians to blaspheme or become involved in conversation about Gay relationships. I am upfront with anyone who approaches me about my believes. After suffering from this sin, I no longer support or encourage gay relationships. I explain to the person that I do not see there sex, and that God loves them and can help them.

    For years, the gay community has screamed that reparative therapy doesn’t work. It doesn’t work if you don’t want it to work. I am committed to the cause of Christ and understand how I went astray. Many do not feel they are going astray. Many want to accept the fact that we should just look the other way.

    Remember, Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, he came to uphold it. If we are true believers, the question we must ask ourselves is how we approach societal attitudes and christian ideals. The bible is clear. I have wandered for a few years now without God and I can honestly say, that sexual addiction of any type was addressed as a whole by the bible. It doesn’t have to be laid out in terms by Jesus. God is the all knowing authority on everything. He is the one who created gender, marriage, relationships, etc. I think it is high time that we looked at teachings in the Old Testament.

    Again as a person who has struggled with this issue, the issue is not discovering who talked about it. God is clear in his command, “And do not lay with a man as you lay with a woman, for this is detestable!”
    As much as people want to think that we can carry a world view on this issue, it is in my eyes a judgment of the heart.

    As I completely heal and become a new person in Christ, I understand how far away we can be from the teaching of the truth because of False prophets and false teachers. The person we need to ask first hand about this issue is God himself.

  9. “If it is not my sin, it must be worse”, may be the attitude of too many Christians when it comes to homosexuals. I suggest reading Alan Chambers book, GOD’S GRACE AND THE HOMOSEXUAL NEXT DOOR.
    There are two polar oppisite thought on homosexuality being a choice. The gay commnunity believes one is born that way; so except it. The church community believes it is a choice; so change.
    Say one’s image is formed because of chilhood sexual abuse or physical abuse, or mental abuse or tauted because of a mannerism Would the gay community say “except it?” Would Christian say “change”? In reality, if one is thoughtful and caring, wouldn’t they encourage the person to discover why the brokness?
    Homosexuality is complicated and reparative therapy can be successful. We as Christians need to “let love live” and pray for the those who struggle with same sex attraction. Keep in mind that homosexual sex is a symptom of a broken image.
    God gave me a heart for those who struggle with SSA. He has let me see past the sin and see the God’s child. God has opened my ears to hear the stories behind the broken image. God has blessed me.

  10. “If it is not my sin it must be worse,” may be the attitide of too many Christians when it comes to homosexuals. There is a thoughtful book by Alan Chambers, GOD’S GRACE AND THE HOMOSEXUAL NEXT DOOR. I challange Christians to read this book.
    I believe there are two polar thoughts on homosexuality that are harmful to the individual who struggles with same sex attraction (SSA). The gay community believes one is born that way and should except it. The church community believes it is a choice and should just change.
    Say one’s image is formed because of a chilhood of sexual abuse or physical abuse, or mental abuse or taunted because of a mannerism or neglected? Would any thoughtful, caring person say to that person except it, or just change your image? How about suggesting reparative therapy to find out the why of the broken image. How about praying for the brokness? How about realizing the sex is sypmptomatic of a broken image. Those with SSA have a very complicated situation and I suggest Narth and Exdous websites. For a personal testimony, look up Sy Rodgers.
    I didn’t change first and then except Christ. He changed me after I knew Him. I am blessed that God gave me a heart for the homosexual.
    peace be with you all

  11. It is rather interesting how we, as humans, try to fully explain the Bible or God’s meaning, through a corrupt, sinful mind. If homosexuality is a sin, a homosexual should be able to turn and flee from it as the Bible says. If it is a lifestyle choice, then it is a choice to remain in that lifestyle. If I was an adulterer I could probably interpret the Scriptures to support my behavior rather than changing to a moral lifestyle. One can look at a woman and a man and see how biological compatible they are. If I take two screwdrivers, pardon the analogy, and try to fit them together, the outcome may be rather frustrating. If I take that screwdriver and fit it to a corresponding screw, the use of the screwdriver is now quite apparent.

  12. ln response to your supporting the old and new testament condeming homosexuality. To try to use the bible as an authoratative resourse on any thing as a complicated scientific issue as sexual orientation is ludicrous. Once one of my philosophy college professors indicated that the jewish culture has no real relevance to the American culture. Also, he said you have to read the bible as to the time and place that it was written. Leave the solution up to the experts in psychiatry and other social scientists instead of prematurely casting judgement about those things you are totally ignorant about.

  13. “…And since we know that the Old Testament forbade homosexual practice, seeing it as a moral departure from God’s design in creation (Genesis 19:4-13; Lev 18:22-23; 20:13).” You speak of how homosexuality is a moral departure from God’s “design” in creation… If it is a departure from God’s “design”, then why do we see such an abundance of homosexual relations in nature. We have observed homosexual relations in Black Swans all the way to Penguins, from Sheep to Dolphins, and in various kinds of insects. If Homosexuality is deviant from God’s “design” then why is it everywhere in nature?

  14. Dear Lucifer, thanks for the comment/question. I think your question fails to take into consideration the entirety of how the book of Genesis explains both the original and current conditions of the created order. Genesis 1-2 speaks of the goodness or orderliness of the original design of all creation (humanity’s relationship to God, others, self, and the world). However, Genesis chapter three recounts the fall or departure of that original design, in which all of creation became disjointed, and humanity’s relationship with God, others, the self, as well as the physical creation experienced a deep brokenness. This is what’s keenly observed by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament book of Romans, when he writes, “The creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom of the children of God” (Rom 8:20, 21).

    With this in mind, merely pointing out a dysfunction in creation (if one could demonstrate that same-sex sexual activity is observable in certain animals) in no way leads to a conclusion that humanity OUGHT to engage in homosexual activity, anymore than demonstrating that cannibalism within certain animal species leads to the conclusion that it’s morally permissible within the human species. Lucifer, hopefully you can see how this line of reasoning could lead to condoning many other significant human atrocities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *