Replies

Hello. Where is the “danger” in abhorring homosexuality as God the Creator abhors it?

Homosexuality ought to be shunned everywhere on earth at all times.

God abhors it less than certain other things, according to Jesus, such as stiff-necked pride and an unwillingness to repent and yield to the gospel. Though homosexuality appears in lists of man's sins against God, it is nowhere in Scripture described as the ultimate of sins, neither in kind (it is one mentioned in Leviticus amongst many involving sexual relations with relatives, animals, or menstruating women) nor by penalty. Those who make it so are erecting their own peculiar form of idolatry.

Remember that under the Law, along with homosexual practices (for men, not women), the death penalty was reserved for such things as adultery, witchcraft, cursing one's parents, striking one's parents, a girl lying about her virginity, the daughter of a priest practicing prostitution, being profligate and a drunkard, certain types of perjury, not following the verdict of a judge or a priest, not controlling a dangerous animal that subsequently causes another's death.

Even more weird than the peculiar insistence on insisting on some sins as being particularly heinous while ignoring others that clearly got exactly the same penalty, is this insistence practiced by those of the Calvinist persuasion: if everything is, as Calvin maintained, the outworking of God's secret will by which he ordained the outcome of each human life as well as the least motion of the least of all divinely created creatures before anything ever came to be, then there is no sin whose origin and execution was not merely foreseen but foreordained, set up, set into motion, and guided to completion by God as a horse by its bit is directed here or there by its rider. Given this, the porking of Barney Frank by Herb Moses (or vice versa) is as much a special creation and divine appointment of God as the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary. One is hard pressed, though, in this particular theological scheme, to see how something could possibly be an abomination to the one who was its direct cause in every sense of the word or how it, or anything else, could be considered a sin in the absence of any agency in the person of the "sinner."