Argument For Homosexuality In The Church

http://www.relegere.org/index.php/bct/article/viewFile/274/257 ^ | Blind Eye Jones

[Blind Eye Jones]

Adriane Thatcher has written a book (Savage Text) where in he offers an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian church. His argument runs along the lines that we should look at the passages that condemn homosexuality as savage text (text that renders scripture holy) – in the same way we should look to passages in the Old Testament that show God’s predilection for child killing, his wrath and vengeful wars against local tribes as savage text. These texts should not be used by the church because they contradict the loving character and message of Jesus. It should be reminded that the Bible is not the Word of God, but a witness to The Word of God. To elevate these passages as the Word of God or use the Bible as a guide book approach is bibliolatry: to make the Bible into a false idol. Jesus (as the fulfillment of the Old Testament) ultimately provides the standard by which we should judge homosexuals and minorities. Jesus would not condemn homosexuality because he is the God of Love and preaches love, compassion and inclusivity.

I am taking a course that will be using Adrian Thatcher’s book and looking for ideas that will counter this argument. Thanks.

Here is a review of his book:

http://www.relegere.org/index.php/bct/article/viewFile/274/257

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please excuse this attempt of mine to discuss with you both at once. My computer is acting weird, and I'm trying to see if this will work.

Pieter, you're making an argument for consistency with 2,000 years of Christian scholarship, making sure it does not contradict the meaning of Scripture. This is entirely sound; but it has been violated by most Evangelical and Reformed churches to approve of unnatural sexual practices that were never approved by Scripture, nor by the Catholic Church, nor by the Reformers themselves, nor any other Christian until the 20th Centry, e.g. to approve of deliberately contracepted sex. Never approved by any Christian church until 1930. Now approved by alsmost all.

The approval of unnatural, homosexual sex is just Part II of the approval of unnatural contracepted sex.

---

And CynicalBear, (Continued from previous post)

You may say, "OK, what about this? This is New Testament:

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless ...

Gay Christian: this clearly refers to men who ”gave up natural relations with women.” This applies to heterosexuals---men who have relations with women---who give that up and have sex with men. It doesn’t say anything about men who are homosexual by nature.

Scripture says lust is a sin. That’s why Paul says “It is better tomarry than to burn.” Marriage isn’t based on lust. It’s based on love. ( Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”) That’s why Gay Marriage is good: it’s honorable”for all,” and it’s the remedy for lust.

You say: OK, what about this? This is New Testament---(Computer weirding out again, I'm going to have to go to another post---

[Mrs. Don-o]

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,”

Gay Christian: The words mistranslate here as “men who practice homosexuality” actually mean “temple prostitutes and pedophiles”.It does not refer at all to "nice" "married" "Gay" "Christians". Read all about it here ”Malakoi does not mean all homosexuals” (Link)

[CynicalBear]

The New Testament indeed changes many things from the Old Testament. The New Testament however does not change the requirement that if we are truly indwelt with Holy Spirit we will no longer want to engage in activities that are contrary to God’s wishes. If we do willingly engage in those activities we are clearly opposing God’s will. The New Testament tells us what activities, willingly engaged in, will exclude us from “the kingdom of God”.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans that God “gave them up” because they changed “the truth of God into a lie”. Because they were more interested in their “lust for the flesh” they “served the creature more than the Creator”.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6 again. It not only mentions homosexuals but also fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves covetous, and others. Would we also accept those openly active in any of those other sins as the homosexuals want us to accept them?

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Those who openly and actively engage in any of those sins are condemned in both the Old and the New Testament. It is only that openly and active homosexual community that thinks we should single them out for some reason.

[CynicalBear]

>>It doesn’t say anything about men who are homosexual by nature.<<

Anyone who says “homosexual by nature” has already denied the entirety of scripture and should be given no credibility whatsoever. First they want us to believe that God only called it an abomination in the Old Testament but not the New than try to claim they are homosexuals by nature. Are they than saying God created what He calls an abomination? I think not.

[Mrs. Don-o]

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

Gay Christian: this does not mean all homosexuals. Just the "effeminate" and abusive. Or (another attempted line of argument)"the words mistranslated as "effeminate" and "abusers" actually mean men who have sex with boys (or boy-prostitutes), and rapists. These words do not apply to loving Christian married gay couples, who are engaged in neither prostitution nor rape.

You say:"Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans that God “gave them up” because they changed “the truth of God into a lie”. Because they were more interested in their “lust for the flesh” they “served the creature more than the Creator”.

"Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Gay Christian says: this refers explicitly to lust, not to Holy Matrimony. This is why the Gay Christian supports Gay Marriage. It is marriage, which Paul says is honorable, not lust.

"You say: Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6 again. It not only mentions homosexuals but also fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves covetous, and others. Would we also accept those openly active in any of those other sins as the homosexuals want us to accept them?"

Gay Christian: The word "homosexual" is a mistranslation. It is referring to temple prostitutes and pederasts, not honorable married gay spouses. Your whole argument (says the Gay Christian)is based on an erroneous translation. The word "homosexual" didn't even exist in the English language until the19th century. It is not possible that Paul could have meant "homosexual" as we now understand the term.

"1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Gay Christian: two men or two women united in Holy Matrimony are not "fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate." They are married. Married spousal relations are not fornication or adultery, I (says the Gay Christian) am a Christian. I do not worship idols.I despise pagans who do that.

Plus, marriage is never condemned in the New Testament. Paul even says that "in Christ there is no 'woman' or 'man,' so it really doesn't make any difference what the gender of your spouse is. None of these condemnatory Scripture quotations apply to gay couples in love (not lust), united in marriage. Paul says marriage is honorable for all. Therefore the condemnatory quotes do not apply to gay married peopleper se, only to fornicators, people who have sex outside of marriage, whether gay or straight.

---

Disclaimer

I disagree with every damn one of these gay arguments. I just would like to know how you refute them Scripturally.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Again: the Gay Christian insists that the word "homosexual" is not the accurate equivalent of any term used in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures. He (or she) would caution you to stop basing your arguments on a mistranslation.

Did you check out those websites? They claim the scholarship is on their side. They have the whole translation thing down to a welter of plausible-sounding lexical adjustments.

Som address the "malakoi and arsenokoitai" issue!

[metmom]

There’s a difference between being a Christian homosexual and a Christian who struggles with homosexual tendencies.

Any one who calls themselves the former is discrediting themselves and not giving God enough credit. Not only that, most of the times I’ve noticed the phrase is used is by those who want to indulge in homosexual activity without restraint and still be considered Christian. (As opposed to those who struggle and fail occasionally, just as anyone can fall into adultery, even somewhat premeditated at that, like King David did)

But God’s grace is sufficient to forgive all our sin. Even Lot was considered *righteous Lot* because his heart was right, even when his behavior didn’t line up.

Christianity needs to take a definitive stand on the morality of the sin, and extend compassion towards those trapped in it.

Our motto in dealing with others should be *There but for the grace of God go I*.

[Future Snake Eater]

Good post, you nailed it. Unfortunately so many these days think that if you don’t like (actually, if you don’t 100% embrace) the homosexual lifestyle, then you obviously HATE that person. What a lie that is...

[metmom]

That’s VERY interesting....

I had never heard that before.

[CynicalBear]

Jesus clearly defined what marriage is and who is to get married.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

No amount of twisting scripture or words can change that. Getting hung up on the one word “homosexual” is nonsense. Both Old and New Testament describe the act of sodomy as something God abhors. Add to that all the scriptures that show a man and wife are opposite sex and it becomes clear that active homosexuality is something that God will not tolerate.

[metmom]

Jesus clearly defined what marriage is and who is to get married.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

No amount of twisting scripture or words can change that. Getting hung up on the one word “homosexual” is nonsense. Both Old and New Testament describe the act of sodomy as something God abhors. Add to that all the scriptures that show a man and wife are opposite sex and it becomes clear that active homosexuality is something that God will not tolerate.

And that marriage is not only something that God ordained, but something that God DEFINED.

[metmom]

“The best arguments against homosexual acts continue to be scientific ones.

For example:

In order for a pregnancy to be successful and not rejected by the mother as something foreign to the body, sperm and seminal fluid suspend the immune system in a small way to allow pregnancy to take place.

When these things are repeatedly introduced into the digestive system, by both hetero and homosexuals. The results are things like HIV and HPV.

It’s an easy link to make and to understand.”

*****************************************************************************

Where is the source for that information? Where did you hear that?

[warsaw44]

Can one even imagine the reaction if Christ was asked by one of the Pharisees or even an apostle:

’ Say, Jesus - I'm shacking up with another man but we have a real gentle kind of love going on - no involvement with boy prostitutes or forcible anal rape - thats ok, right? “

[CynicalBear]

And yet there are those who even call themselves pastors or preachers who claim it’s ok. Go figure.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You believe that and I believe that. But GC would say (Gal.3:28) "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ. "

GC would say, "Don't you believe that? Gender doesn't matter anymore."

You and I would say "Nonsense. Absurdity."

GC would say "But it's Scripture! It's true for all of us who are 'one in Christ."

And around and around we go!

[Colonel_Flagg]

Jesus would not condemn homosexuality because he is the God of Love and preaches love, compassion and inclusivity. "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -- Matthew 7:23

God hates sin. That is why God sent Christ into the world, that through his perfection, our sin might be removed. Throughout Scripture, notably the woman caught in adultery, Christ commands to 'go and sin no more'. He would condemn homosexuality as he would condemn any other sin. There is no difference between them; God hates all sin in equal measure.

[CynicalBear]

And some are given over to a reprobate mind. Not much we can do if God has turned His back on them.

[PieterCasparzen]

Pieter, you're making an argument for consistency with 2,000 years of Christian scholarship, making sure it does not contradict the meaning of Scripture. This is entirely sound; but it has been violated by most Evangelical and Reformed churches to approve of unnatural sexual practices that were never approved by Scripture, nor by the Catholic Church, nor by the Reformers themselves, nor any other Christian until the 20th Centry, e.g. to approve of deliberately contracepted sex. Never approved by any Christian church until 1930. Now approved by alsmost all.

The approval of unnatural, homosexual sex is just Part II of the approval of unnatural contracepted sex.

Yes, I agree. Most mainstream Protestant churches of today are heretical. That's why there have been splits over all these years. Every time something liberalized, there would be a split, for example, ordination of women. So at this point there are a few smaller denominations that are true to Scripture and still adhere precisely to Scripture as described in the confessions developed during the Reformation.

The fact that many Churches are heretical, however, does not change the facts about what the Bible says. Misguided congregations and sinful pastors or congregants (I'm sure you agree as a Roman Catholic) do not provide an excuse for everyone else to sin (isn't that what children say - "well he was doing it").

If one has hours and hours and hours, every single claim sodomites make regarding a Scriptural basis for their sin somehow not being a sin can be refuted. But the listener is only going to be convinced if they understand and accept the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. Anyone who refuses correction on such a misguided view does not want want to hear the truth, so going painstakingly point by point will probably not convince them. If they can't agree that hundreds of references saying it's evil and zero saying it's acceptable makes it obvious and elementary, that means they have not become convicted of their own sin. Without being convicted of one's own sin, a person's mind finds no logical need for forgiveness; they don't admit that what they've done is wrong.

If you're trying to come up with a way to successfully convey to such people that sodomy is a sin, it's probably best to approach them first with a discussion of other basic Christian doctrine. You probably will also run into all sorts of misunderstanding and obstinance on their part as well. But it's probably a better place to start because they won't have their personal guilt blocking them from accepting the truth.

[Waryone]

First, I'm not a theologian or Bible scholar. I'm not a person who can translate ancient languages. But I have read the Bible. It is quite clear on this subject. These homosexuals have gone through a lot of work to justify their depravity.

1. Jesus may not have mentioned homosexuality directly but He did address marriage directly and at no time did He mention men with men or women with women. He only mentions men marrying women.

2. The same Paul they quote was very clear in Romans 1 about women having sex with women and men having sex with men being shameful and depraved behavior. Here from Romans 1 from the New Testament:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I have also seen that they choose to believe that words referring to homosexuals in the Bible refer to temple prostitutes, etc. I've seen that they believe that the homosexuals punished in Sodom were punished for lack of hospitality even though the real reason is homosexuality is was confirmed in the New Testament book Jude verse 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Sodom and Gomorrah was not punished because they lacked hospitality. It is because of their sexual perversion.

These deluded homosexuals ignore the fact that every single time either the word or the behavior is mentioned in the Bible it is shown in a very bad light.

They can cherry pick the verses they choose to hold to and pervert the meanings all they want, but they can't change the fact that homosexuality, not just the word but the very act of men having sex with men and women having sex with women, is a sin against God and a perversion of His Will.

[metmom]

If one has hours and hours and hours, every single claim sodomites make regarding a Scriptural basis for their sin somehow not being a sin can be refuted. But the listener is only going to be convinced if they understand and accept the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. Anyone who refuses correction on such a misguided view does not want want to hear the truth, so going painstakingly point by point will probably not convince them. If they can't agree that hundreds of references saying it's evil and zero saying it's acceptable makes it obvious and elementary, that means they have not become convicted of their own sin. Without being convicted of one's own sin, a person's mind finds no logical need for forgiveness; they don't admit that what they've done is wrong.

In that case, by presenting them with the facts as stated in Scripture, we have discharged our obligation to them to show them the truth.

We are not responsible for what they do with it, they are and they have to answer for that.

It's a difficult thing to watch someone reject the truth and in willful defiance walk away from it but that is the consequence of free will.