Ever wonder if Jesus would be out there holding a sign with those “Christians” who condemn homosexuals to hell?
I think He would be … only here is the sign He would be holding:
Love it? Hate it? Let others react to it by sharing it with the buttons below…
No I never have. This is ludacris…you read Jesus’ account/history in scripture and then you see these dangerous zealots and the two simply do not relate. No. I don’t think Jesus would’ve been involved in any marches….he was making change.
Gooff,
So…. do you like or not like what this “Jesus” guy is doing in the image? Because he is clearly disassociating himself from the marchers.
I agree. Cast the first stone-not Jesus. I see Jesus as inviting first and foremost. Then sin no more. The caboose comes after the engine.
Yes, Mark. He is always inviting. Drawing. Wooing. Forgiving. Accepting. Loving.
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Ephesians 5:11
Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:32
Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 1 Corinthians 13:6
And at the end of seven days, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. (Ezekiel 3)
Jeremy,
Your post raises a question that it doesn’t answer. That is, you’re stating a position on the subject that you think Jesus does not hold. The question is, “What position on the subject do you think He does hold?”
Mike,
Yes. That was intentional. This is a lighthearted Sunday post.
I had no desire for this image to turn into a theological debate about Jesus’ position on homosexuality. …Although I did write about that before… https://redeeminggod.com/what-jesus-taught-about-homosexuality/
As you may recall, Jeremy, I am firmly convinced that the Bible teaches that everyone is going to heaven – that Jesus truly died for all and will save all. That said, I am also firmly convinced that sex outside of marriage (and marriage is the union of a man and woman as designed by God) – whether it be premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, or anything else outside of marriage – is a sin.
While I don’t think Jesus would carry a placard and march with the Westboro Baptist Church, neither do I think he’d carry a placard like the one in the picture above. I believe He grieves over sin, and we should, too.
I don’t think it’s enough for us to tell the world that Jesus and His people don’t hate them. I think we must love them while never compromising the truth. I hope you’ll reconsider your public silence on whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
Mike, as someone who regularly works with addicts, thieves, murderers, rapists, prostitutes and similar folks, I wonder why you feel it necessary to “reconsider your public silence on whether or not homosexuality is a sin”.
Most of the people we work with know who they are and are aware of what they are doing or have done. Naming their behaviors sin is not helpful. They know that most Christians think their behavior is sin and find them disgusting. What they often do not know is anyone who follows Jesus who loves them. When they find such a person they sometimes find hope, hope that Jesus also loves them and that there may be a way out of the place where they find themselves.
Sam,
Society today is telling homosexuals that their behavior is righteous – passing laws in favor of permanent homosexual relationships and punishing vendors (e.g. bakers) who don’t serve such ceremonies. Why then should homosexuals be looking for “a way out”?
Jeremy thought it was worth his writing two posts on homosexuality – one to declare that Jesus never taught explicitly about homosexuality and another (the one above) to condemn those who think that homosexuality is a sin. I don’t know Jeremy well but I can’t imagine that he thinks homosexuality is a legitimate activity in the sight of God. Yet that’s the conclusion most readers would draw from his two posts.
I cannot see myself carrying a placard denouncing homosexuality, but in a forum like this (a blog) at a time like this, people need voices of moral clarity. Practically all media coverage in the US today refers to homophobia as a sin (homophobia being defined as thinking homosexuality is a sin). If Jeremy wants people to think that Christ views homophobes as sinners and homosexuals as being in no need of repentance then he should continue doing what he’s doing.
Mike, I love the fact that you can graciously and respectfully discuss a hot topic such as this.
If I remember correctly, the organization of which you are a part is perceived as homophobic, so the comments that get thrown your direction are probably much different than the comments I hear among the culture I am part of, which includes many LGBTQ people.
I don’t know anyone who perceives that society is telling LGBTQs that their behavior is “righteous”. There may be such people, but I don’t know them. I understand that many conservatives believe LGBTQs are asking for special treatment, but as one of our gay friends said “Most of us don’t really care what religious people think of us…. We’re not asking for special treatment. We asking for equal rights under the law.”
Jeremy has not said that “homosexuality is a legitimate activity in the sight of God”. That thought never crossed my mind in reading anything he has written on the topic. Have you considered that you jumped to conclusions based on the ideas you brought to your reading of what Jeremy does say?
You must watch, listen to and read media other than what I watch, listen to and read. I have never run across any media that refers to homophobia as a sin. I’ve heard other words used to describe it, but never “sin”. Jeremy nowhere says that Christ views homophobes as sinners and he nowhere says homosexuals are in no need of repentance. He has stated many times that we are all sinners in need of repentance. Jeremy will correct me if I’m wrong on this.
At this point in time there are those in both camps who believe that every religious person must take a stand on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. In their opinion, “if you’re not for us, you’re against us.” Then there are those of us who believe that doing so only polarizes people and solves nothing. Loving our neighbors, regardless of what we may believe their sin to be, is the approach Jesus recommends.
Sam,
I’m not part of an organization, so you may be confusing me with someone else.
I’m an admirer and supporter of Jeremy’s. My comments to him on this issue are those of one brother exhorting and appealing to another.
When I discussed how the media and society portray homosexuality and homophobia, I wasn’t meaning that the literal terms “righteous” and “sin” were being employed. Rather, I meant that homosexuality was portrayed in positive terms (at least positive enough to be worthy as the basis of a marriage) and homophobia in negative terms (such that homophobic is about as insulting a term as racist). You seem to acknowledge this general understanding, so, despite your protest, it appears to me that we are in agreement on this point.
As for “equal treatment under the law,” I’m all for that. However, such a statement merely begs the question of what marriage is.
Likewise, “loving our neighbors,” is a rallying cry to which any follower of Jesus can readily respond, but it begs the question of what love does in situations like this – situations where we all agree that Jesus wants us to be moral, but we disagree at a very fundamental level about what is moral and what behaviors lead to the best outcomes for people.
Settling the issue of what constitutes marriage and what constitutes love are probably discussions that are too big for this comment thread. What I can say now is this: I don’t think the post adequately accurately summarizes Jesus’ view on the subject. Rather, it conveys a view that is politically correct and ascribes it to Him.
“He who believes is not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the only begotten son of God.” John 3:18. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins.” John 8:24. “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24.
John 8:10-11
He straightened himself up and said to her, “Where are they? Is there no one left to condemn you?” “No one, sir,” she answered. “Well, then,” Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, but do not sin again.”
Jesus never encouraged / promoted any sin, including homosexual sins
The friendly West Brothers (get t) are almost certainly an anti-Chrisitain PsyOps caricature. I don’t believe that they represent a genuine Christian perspective.
But they do point to a very real and serious issue within all the Abrahamic religions, which is, they are inherently confrontational and violent belief systems.
LOVED your article…made some excellent points https://redeeminggod.com/what-jesus-taught-about-homosexuality/
“When Christians are ready to follow Jesus’ teaching on divorce, we can then begin to talk about what the rest of the Bible says about homosexuality. Until then, we should extend the same grace toward gay people that we extend toward divorced people.” A-freakin’-men
No, I think He would have been out there with the Chick Fil A employees giving the gays lemonade and sandwiches when they staged a national protest simply because the pres of the company had said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Oh , the “horrors” and “insensitivity” to say such a thing. What is this country coming to?
What do you think Jesus would say to a man climbing in bed with another man to have oral or anal sex together in light of the stats in the graphic below?
Marianne, I think comparing homosexuals who go on doing what they are doing to someone divorced is like comparing apples to oranges. I’ve been through a divorce, and I don’t defend it, or the damage it caused to a number of people. Nor, do I know of many Christians who have been through it that defend it — unless it is unavoidable due to abuse, etc.. Homosexuals are defending what they do, re-defining marriage, and screaming for rights to do it and do it and do it — regardless of the damage it is causing.
Absolutely! Jesus loves, died, and rose again for all. His grace is for all. Its only “Christians” that add conditions.
Isn’t it great that we live in a country where the courts have affirmed our right to express our opinions in the public square, even if the majority of the populace disagrees with those opinions and finds them offensive? This is not the case in every country.
Are the people in the picture expressing religious/political opinions or do they have other motives? Does the “Jesus” guy think he is representing Jesus? We may never know their real motives. I find it very interesting, however, to read what former members of the WBC “family” have to say about why WBC does the things they do.
I have personally witnessed several of these demonstrations and have listened to the reactions of those around me. Most people in the crowd believe that there are far better ways to express one’s opinion.
Why is it that many Christians pick and choose which sins they think are worth speaking out against. Jesus said the greatest commandments are to totally love God with all of your being and to love one another as yourself. When was the last time we saw Christians protesting people who don’t love one another? Where are the protest signs against those who do not forgive others 70 times 7 for sins against them? These modern day Pharisees like to call out others as sinners, forgetting that sin is sin in the eyes of God and no one sin is any worse than any other. Have they forgotten what it means to be a disciple of Christ? It means to learn to live and act as He did. Can they honestly believe that their actions reflect Christ’s life? To a Jew in the time of Christ there was hardly a worse act than adultery, yet Christ’s response was not condemnation but, compassion and grace towards the adulteress brought before Him. If grace does not abound in the Church how are any different than the world?
Didn’t Jesus accept some sinners, partying with them and protecting them, and yet condemn others for mere hypocrisy and violently expelling others from the synagogue? What difference is their between the imperial tax collector and the temple money changer, both are thieves?
Didn’t Yahweh show favoritism on the irrational basis of race and genetics, revealing himself to one group and ordering genocide against another?
Your picky Christians are simply following the example of their God, the lessons of the Bible and their own violent historic traditions.
isn’t Christianity a divisive religion that predicts it’s own victory and the humiliation, judgement and final solution for those fail to respond adequately to the demands of its God?
The tax collector stole in the name of the state.
The temple money changer stole in the name of God.
If you study the Bible, you will learn that the harshest punishment is dealt to those who sin in the name of God.
Jonathon, I presented a forest but you saw only one tree? Also, I am not sure that a study of the Bible would confirm your position. In the old testament one could be put to death for a great many things including adultery and homosexuality—hardly lacking in harshness. Your answer also raises some ethical and theological questions; am I to take it that some sins are misdemeanors while others are felonies, and that this explains Jesus’s different responses?
I was hoping for an answer that owned up to historical and textual realities but that would at least seek to balance things by stressing the centrality of forgiveness and loving one’s enemy within the Christian tradition.
Another approach would have been to appeal to the strong tradition of promoting peace, racial harmony, the relief of poverty, the ending of slavery, and profound teachings on forgiveness and reconciliation that have been a consistent part of Christian teaching from the early church fathers to the modern era. A similar tradition existing within the non-zionist Jewish community too. There is of course the opposite tradition, one that is dominant, at least vocally, within the current American evangelical movement, but at least mentioning the more peaceful tradition could have formed the basis of a defense.
As I see it, all religious traditions, and the atheist tradition, contain these two strands. A partly explanation is that religions are powerful institutions and certain kinds of people with ulterior motives have sought and will seek to co-opt them; on the other hand there can be genuine conflicts over which values within the faith should be emphasized at any particular moment, and that often depends on how one reads the contextual situation.
Or perhaps a different, more interesting and enlightening answer might have been offered.
If someone is challenging the church, offering “If you study the Bible” defensive, legalistic, and unconvincing answers to one part of their challenge is really not helpful. Quite the opposite.
This is not just addressed to Jonathon but anyone else whose taking the time to read my reply. I have presented challenging questions both in content and tone, and only rarely received a reasonable and intelligent answer. It’s been suggested that I’m a troll, which means an ugly spirited person. Only one person seems to have understood that I am trying to provoke deeper thought. Saul literally persecuted the church, not merely asked some tough questions. To make Pauls you must be willing to engage, not only with difficult voices, but with the difficulties within Christian theology.
If you don’t think, and if you don’t defend the faith with effort, intelligence, love, and patience, you will be led into disaster by the wolves who are right now leading the world into religious conflicts for their satanic ends.
Pray for the church. Pray for the enemies of the church. Ask God to create some Pauls and play your part.
Since stable, long-term monogamous relationships would solve much of the disease problem in the gay community, and we are just getting started in encouraging those, I think sheer compassion would drive Jesus to join that effort. STD’s are on the sharp increase in the heterosexual community, also…for the same reason.
The population group with the lowest incidence of STD’s is lesbians.
Part of the reason why STD’s appear to be increasing, is the explosion of diseases being designated with that status.
At least one STD, throat cancer, erupts, regardless of the number of sexual partners one has had, or not had. (Ironically, it was first isolated in monogamous heterosexual males, then confirmed in lesbians.)
Jim Wehde, I think it is clear that throughout human history societies are made stronger when there is a strong foundation of nuclear families. That is, a male father, female mother, and children born to those parents. When marriage and families are re-defined and the nuclear family is undermined, becomes fragile, and breaks apart societies are weakened.
Not to mention scripture is clear in its definition of what constitutes a marriage, and where it stands on homosexuality throughout the Old and New Testament. Christians backing the gay lifestyle and marriage are a very dangerous element in the body of Christ, and to the societies they are a part of.
Here is a tip for you, Pal: “It is clear” is not a valid argument. That phrase is used by those who, by force of sheer authority, are seeking not to actually talk through the argument. More often it is pastors.
As to your historical argument, nobody is arguing that strong families are preferable to what society, including much of evangelical Christianity, is living out right now. But you are presenting a false dichotomy. Heterosexuals can, indeed, be encouraged to live in strong family situations. What does that have to do with whether homosexuals can also be encouraged to live in stable situations?
You know very well what the consequence is of discouraging stability among gays. I remain firm in my contention that Jesus was less prone to want to make them suffer from what they have always been, than the Fundamentalists do.
Here is the clarity of Biblical Marriage:
When God determined to give humankind the ability to procreate and reproduce he didn’t create Adam and Adam, or Eve and Eve, he created Adam and Eve, man and woman, male and female. And, that was the definition of marriage, and the foundation upon which mankind is to develop a family. Anybody that can’t see that is lacking common sense and the rudimentary elements of good, sound wisdom.
Amazes me the people that don’t understand what the penis and vagina was created for, and how God intended it to be used. Those who use those organs for sexual means outside God’s original intended purpose are perverted.
Pal, do you have an ability to actually talk through a topic, without resorting to rhetorical tricks and insults? If not, I would suggest you refrain.
Sorry you feel insulted. Not the intent. If the facts appear to you as tricks you’re only fooling yourself.
“Anybody who can’t see that is lacking common sense”. Hahaha! Oh I didn’t meant to insult you.
That is some classic passive aggression.
Do you put your car key in the glove box key hole to turn on the engine? Do you put the gas nozzle in your radiator hole to put gas in your car? No, basic education teaches us the car wouldn’t start, and gas in the radiator would cause serious problems with the car. Get the picture?
People exhibiting passive aggressive behavior are the kind that stand outside a restaurant with signs to protest because the owner makes a simple statement he believes in the traditional, biblical family.
Carry on, Pal! I have a suggestion for you, though: do not make any close friends who are gay. Your love for your cold, hard theology just might give way to a love for real people, where they are.
Ever heard of tough love? It begins with the truth. Christ gives it to us. He says He is the Way, Truth, and Life, that no one comes to the Father but by Him. He says the path to destruction is wide, but the path to eternal life is narrow. Few there be that find it. Nobody wants to hear it, and many disagree with it, but that doesn’t make it untrue. It is what it is – the truth.
Spend exactly as much time addressing the ills of homosexuality as Jesus did, and we will have very little argument.
If you, instead, want to keep misusing Biblical passages to say things about gay people that are untrue, then we have a problem. I don’t think you want to carefully work through the biblical passages. That would also be uncomfortable for you.
There are a number of sinful behaviors that Christ didn’t specifically address in scripture that are clearly addressed in other scriptures such as homosexuality. Anyone using the argument that Christ didn’t speak directly to it, and therefore it is justified, normal, and okay, are grasping at straws. The more you write the more I feel sorry for you that can’t see the forest for the trees.
That is not the argument I made, but I understand that you need it to be.
The fact that you will not carefully discuss this issue with another human being belies that you love your theology far more than people. And that is the only kind of person Jesus expressed open contempt for.
No, Jim, it is you that has no argument at all. It is clearly stated in scripture that homosexuality is sinful. You know this starting in Romans. No need to show it to you. You just want to argue for argument’s sake.
Further, there are NO scriptures that support homosexuality. In addition, the stats presented above gives clear evidence of the dangers involved. Any man aware of those facts who climbs into bed with another man for either oral or anal sex cannot possibly have the other man’s best interest at heart, is thinking only of himself, and his own selfish, perverted, sexual desires. It is an act absent of any moral courage and the act of a neo-classic narcissist. And, you want to turn a blind eye to it all the and make mealy mouth statements that have no basis in fact.
I have no pity for you or those that think like you. I’m done with anymore direct involvement with you on this thread.
Is fellatio a sin?
Is cunnilingus a sin?
Is analingus a sin?
Is pegging a sin?
Cn you support your answer with appropriate scriptural citations, bearing in mind that different methods of Bible Study result can result in contrary and conflicting understandings.
I am completely willing to start with Romans 1, though in honoring our friend Jeremy here, we may want to take the discussion off his page here. I am never afraid to carefully work through my thinking with others, because that is, without insulting, because that is what relationship in the body of Christ is all about.
You will not like the result if you decide to carefully look through Romans 1, btw. It does not serve your theology as well as you think it does.
Jim Wehde and Pal Madden, I actually would like to observe this exchange on Romans 1…. as I have many questions about that chapter as well…. so feel free to talk about it here.
It might be simpler/more productive to have a blog post on Romans 1, where each word, phrase, verse, and pericope is torn apart, and re-assembled.
Yeah, undoubtedly so….
Jim Wehde I support homosexuals as they are God’s children, I don’t support their sin against God! I just want all to have the opportunity to spend eternity in Heaven with our Lord and Savior, unless they repent and change there ways I don’t believe they stand a chance of getting to Heaven, just as if I have sin that I don’t repent from. You can make any argument you want, the simple truth is, most of is don’t want to recognize our sin.
Dennis – might it be a good idea to make sure that being a homosexual is a “sin against God” first? Do you think it is a worthy topic to explore to make sure the theologians who instructed you may not have been in error?
Lol, and that is why many more won’t make it to Heaven as they won’t acknowledge homosexuality as the sin it is!
So you will believe the men before you will carefully look at what God said? Did you hear what I told Pal about the one group of people Jesus had no patience with?
Yes it’s a sin, period, just as adultery is a sin even though many say it’s not! Put God first, get out of the world and into the world!
Okay, then this practice of carefully looking at the Scripture may not be for you, Dennis. For the Good Bereans out there, Romans 1 is a good place to start, out of the six or so passages that allegedly address homosexuality. But I would like to throw a question out there – what is the clearest statement in Scripture of the sin that God punished Sodom for?
EZK 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Yes, and it would be good to look more closely about exactly what Paul is saying.
Jim, I pray your opinion is right and you spend eternity in Heaven! Praise God, our Saviors return is near!
Well, I am not simply looking to spout “my opinion”, Dennis. I am looking to handle the Scriptures carefully, especially when so many are using the ones in question to exclude people from the Kingdom of God.
Romans commentary by John Schoenheit
1:26. “females.” The Greek word is not “women” (gunē; #1135 γυνή; pronounced goo-nay) but “female” (thēlus; (#2338 θῆλυς), which in this context is more degrading. See commentary on 1:27, “males… females… males with males.”
1:27. “males… females… males with males.” In this context of unnatural sexual behavior, Paul does not use the usual terms “man” and “woman,” but rather “male” and “female.” This serves two purposes. First, because the subject at hand is the proper correspondence between the sexes, using the words for “male,” arren (#730 ἄρρην), and “female,” thelus (#2338 θῆλυς), draws appropriate attention to the issue of biology and what is natural. Second, as Lenski has pointed out, in this context such language is somewhat degrading, portraying the people as “nothing but creatures of sex.”
“burned with intense desire” The Greek phrase is ekkaiomai en te orexei (ἐκκαίομαι ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει), and the lexicon by Louw-Nida points out that this phrase is “an idiom, literally ‘to burn with intense desire’; ‘to have a strong, intense desire for something’; ‘to be inflamed with passion, to have a strong lust for, to be inflamed with lust.’ In some languages the equivalent idiom is ‘to boil with desire,’ ‘to feel hot in the genitals,’….” Both the word “burn” and the word “desire” are used only here in the New Testament.
1:28. “they did not approve.” This is very difficult to translate. The verb here is dokimazō (#1381 δοκιμάζω), which is used of the testing of metals or coins, which were tested then approved (or disapproved) based on the results of the test. See Commentary on Romans 12:2, “test and approve” the will of God. In this case, these immoral people “tested, then disapproved (or saw no value in) holding God in a way that fully recognized Him” (see commentary on 2:18, which also uses dokimazō.)
“fully acknowledging.” The Greek is epignosis (#1922 ἐπίγνωσις), a full and accurate knowledge or acknowledgment. This is really important, but not well represented in most translations. Cp. the following translations:
ESV: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,…”
KJV: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,…”
NIV: “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,…”
In contrast to those above versions, Williams gets the sense correctly: “…as they did not approve of fully recognizing God…” The phrase, “fully recognizing” cannot be underestimated. Many people who do not obey God recognize Him to some degree, and obey Him to some degree. God wants people to fully obey Him, not just to believe and act on the things about God that they want to.
1:29. “mean-spiritedness.” This comes from the Greek word kakoetheia (#2550 κακοήθεια). BDAG’s definition is very insightful: a basic defect in character that leads one to be hurtful to others, thus, mean-spiritedness, malice, malignity, craftiness. The translation “malignity” (e.g., KJV) does not express the sense of the word as well as “mean-spiritedness.
1:31. “family affection.” See commentary on Rom. 12:10 and John 21:15. The Greek word is astorgos (#794 ἄστοργος), which is made up of the prefix –a, “not, no,” and storgē, which is familial love. The term however can be used in extension beyond just familial love, to be applied to others in a general sense. Louw-Nida explains the word as “pertaining to a lack of love or affection for close associates or family—‘without normal human affection, without love for others.’”
Okay, then. Starting in Romans 1:18. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Paul is discussing a certain set of people, and we are not sure who they are yet. We know that they ignored what they knew about God, and suppressed that truth.
Rick, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t jump yet, the text does not say yet he is speaking of Gentiles.
Anyone, feel free to jump in and disagree, or give a different take on the verses being discussed. Rom 1:21-23: ” For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”
The group of people he is speaking about becomes a little clearer. Whoever they are, they suppressed the truth about God, became fools, and committed literal idolatry – worshiping things created to look like people, birds, creatures.
Jim God hasn’t changed,
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:22-32 KJV)
Dennis, you are jumping. Don’t be afraid to work carefully through the passage.
Jim I have and did work carefully, we disagree, no big deal, as I said earlier I wish you the very best.
Hope you can come back for open discussion. Scripture bombing is not very constructive.
I don’t think most people completely understand what the LGBT community is really fighting for. I do agree that homosexuality is sin and that marriage is defined by God as marriage between a man and a woman. If they were simply looking to change the rules just for the sake of living the way they wanted to then our protests would be more justified. However, unless you completely ignore the recent history of their movement you should see that it’s not the case. Does Matthew Sheppard, Seth Walsh, Cody James Parker, Harrison Chase Brown, Tyler Clementi ring a bell? Just a few examples of those murdered and driven to suicide by anti-homosexual bullying and attitudes. What was the Christian response? Enter the Westboro Baptist Church. While we were so busy with Prop 8, Chick Fil A, DOMA, and Rick Perry’s strange idea of sniffing feces for gay conversion therapy we let the hate and ignorance spewed by politicans and some religious groups become our definition in the debate and therefore we are accountable for the evils which have been done to them. I stand firmly with them against that kind of uncaring attitude and treatment. You don’t have to stand for gay marriage to stand against injustice. There’s no other sin in this country that people have to worry about not being served at restaurants and being evicted without hurting anyone. By all means give them the truth, even with tough love. But even with tough love there is love and grace.
Justin,
Thank you for some words of grace and love here. I think you are right that we Christians have really dropped the ball in how we respond to some of the hateful rhetoric that comes from certain churches and “Christians.”
However we feel about the lifestyle of others, we must not be hateful as this does not properly represent Jesus Christ.
Thanks Jeremy.
I think a lot of my irritation comes from some of my fear. These two warring schools of thought make it hard to look for the good in each side without being labeled as compromising by one and a Pharisee by the other. It’s hard for me to know where God really wants me to stand with such strong opinions but I believe that it’s not too late to reach out and condemn the pain that we’ve either caused them or tolerated but to also show them the life-changing truth of the Gospel and the power to grow and serve God. I think the Church is spending too much time invested in debating doctrine and supporting politics that more and more lives are just passing by, and it breaks my heart because at the foot of the Cross I need Christ just as much as they do. I just wish that we can figure out how to give them the truth in love, and every single one that would accept would be a wonderful victory in my book.
Romans 1 is not about homosexuality per se; it’s more “See how the non-believers act. Don’t be like that.”
I don’t know if this is the proper post for this but it reminds me of a question that I haven’t found an answer to yet. Some argue that God only permits intimacy between one man and one woman bound in matrimony. Where does this leave those who through hormonal or genetic abnormalities are neither? What is the biblical directive for those who are born intersexed?
Several years ago the Marin Foundation placed several podcasts online. One featured a person who had been analyzed by medical professionals, who had determined that the person was truly 50/50, neither/both male and female. According to that person, there are several (8 or 9 if I remember correctly) factors that are used by the medical profession to determine gender. He/she said that some people are 60/40, 70/30, etc.
I know a person who worked in OBGYN in a hospital who said that over the course of her career at least a dozen babies were born in that hospital with both male and female genitalia. At that time, that was the only way to determine gender. I asked her why those stories never seem to get in the news. She said all of the families kept them secret.
The Biblical directive for such cases would appear to be nonexistent, unless one thinks Jesus’ comment about eunuchs somehow applies. Such people do appear to create a predicament for other people with strongly held convictions on gender issues, don’t they?
>for those born intersexed?
This is a tough issue.
It was not easy when genitalia were the sole criterion.
It is even more difficult when genitalia are excluded from the decision tree.
Eunuch _might_ be the scriptural term for that condition.
The starting point would be the construction of a list of all specific acts of a sexual nature done by an individual, without taking into consideration the number of people who participate therein.
Then determine the conditions under which the act is a sin, and the conditions under which it is not a sin. Do ensure that one walks through the list with no partners, same gender partner, opposite gender partner, a partner of the same gender alongside one of the opposite gender, two of the same gender, two of the opposite gender, etc.
That way, an explanation of why, or why not a specific activity is a sin can be provided along with the category it falls into.
Rule 34 might be useful in construction of that list.
Tough questions with no easy answers! The Bible speaks very little on these sorts of issues as well, which leaves us to try to follow the intent and trajectory of Scripture.
I think the starting line is to recognize that we all live in a broken world and God wants us all to move toward healing and restoration with Him and with one another. How this looks exactly, is hard to say…
You ask an important question that I don’t think anyone has really addressed. I often wonder this after watching a sad documentary about a women born ‘intersex’.
So Paul is discussing a group of people who refused to acknowledge Him, suppressed the truth about Him, and then commit literal idolatry and worship handmade statues and images instead. Now God takes action (vs. 24-27):
“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.”
So these idolators, God punishes them by turning them over to impure sexual desires. Using a “therefore” and a “Because of this” about the literal idolatry, God punishes them … how?
Mostly Gentiles who reject God (he’s writing to a Gentile audience).
http://www.freewill-predestination.com/romans9.html
http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/18-23.htm
Multiple comments on this post in a comment string from this afternoon will be deleted. Additional comments of a similar nature will be placed into moderation or deleted. Those who made or saw the comments will know which comment string is being deleted.
Read the “Comment Policy” for this blog at https://redeeminggod.com/comment-policy/
In short, you are expected to treat everyone here with respect. From this point forward, demeaning or putting down other people who comment, name-calling, rudeness, unkindness and similar behavior will result in your comments being edited or deleted. If you disagree, do so respectfully. If you cannot do so respectfully, refrain from commenting.
So… Back to the passage… These people denied God, committed literal Idolatry, and God punished them with…?
I don’t believe God wants us to hate anyone. When we are living in our sin then I do believe he teaches us to love one another enough to help each other to get closer to him. For some reason it seems that love means different things to some of us. So until some people understand that then there really isn’t any reason to try to reason with people, because all they can see is their sinful prideful ways.
Ever noticed that those that call homosexuality a sin, neither define the term, nor provide specific behaviour patterns of what they are condemming.
Have you noticed that some people do not understand there is a distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual relationships? Not all who are SSA (same-sex attracted) engage in sex with same sex. Some people who are married to opposite sex are SSA, and may not even be attracted to their spouse, but are married for other reasons. If a person is SSA only, but married opposite sex to make family happy and have grandchildren for grandma (so grandma will leave her considerable estate to the adult child who never told her they were SSA), would that be sin? 🙂
> If a person is SSA only, but married opposite sex … would that be a sin.
Yes, No, and Maybe.
I’ll give the one sentence summary here, since for each answer, the complete explanation is around 25,000 words long.
The Yes part is from Matthew 5:28, except applied to same gender, rather than opposite gender.
The No part is from Rabbinical Judaism, where sin is only in the action, not the thought.
The Maybe part is Matthew 19:12 superimposed upon 1 Corinthians 7:4-11.
“How Jesus would join those who condemn “Homosexual Sin?”
I suspect he would join them in prayer, praying that they would repent of their own sins and bring their wills into harmony with God, that their lives might be a light to the world.
Yes, if he “joined” them at all, it would be point out their own sin … the log in their own eye …
Great point!
What I find amazing, that in all the Gospel accounts, not one of the writers recorded Jesus in a conversation with a gay person. We find Jesus conversing with an adulteress, a prostitute, tax collectors, etc. Obviously there is an argument/interpretation that they didn’t have to because of the understanding within Jewish custom and Law in regard to homosexuals, and therefore the writers found it unnecessary to give an account of such an incident, if there were any. But I’m pretty sure He must’ve somewhere spoken to at least one gay person. I wonder if He would’ve have treated them any differently? I sometimes wonder that if there was an account recorded, the whole debate around this issue would be solved. Why? Because we could then say “Thus saith the Lord!!!!” as we do with so much of Scripture, and continue with our ‘hell-bent’ message driving sinners away from God instead of drawing them to God by His life that indwells us.
And yet doesn’t Jesus perhaps say something? Maybe there is something in Matt.19:12. Obviously each one of us will interpret this text from his/her frame of reference. Anyway, thanks Jeremy, I appreciate your sincere approach to these questions.
Yes, isn’t that interesting? We know from historical records that there were many “gay” and “homosexual” people at the time (though they didn’t go by such terms).
I think you may be right though about why there is no recorded conversation. God didn’t want to give us a proof text for this which would enable us to bash others over the head… We do that pretty well without any verses from the Gospels.
Hi, Jeremy. There are proof texts in Leviticus, Romans 1, and Revelation that clearly condemn homosexuality as sin.
Curtis,
There are also “proof texts” as you call them that are condemning of divorce. Do yuou see any Christian groups standing outside of the family courts holding signs that say “God hates Divorce”(which is actually in the bible, while God hates Homosexuality is not) or “Divorced People go to Hell”. How about gluttony, the bible is pretty clear that gluttony is a sin, have you ever seen a picket line going into your local all-you-can-eat buffet, saying God hates Gluttony”.
The point is that Jesus really was not in the business of condemning, in fact, when he had the opportunity to condemn a woman who was actually caught in the very act of adultery, Jesus words were, “Neither do I condemn you.” Whether or not something is a sin is something altogether different from how we treat those who commit those sins. Jesus came not to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. The whole point is that when Jesus had the opportunity to stand with the religious leaders who wanted to stone someone for her obvious sin, He instead shielded her from their condemnation and demonstrated love towards her. I am pretty sure He would be doing the same thing at these anti-Gay protests, standing between the accusers and the accused and shielding them from condemnation.
Just saying, lots of things are sin, we can proof text everything from eating shellfish to wearing jewelry if we wanted to, however, no proof text is able to excuse us from our duty to treat people the way Jesus treated people.
Pastor FedEx
FedEx, great comment! Yes, there’s always someone who can find a “proof text” for almost anything, but fails to read the Gospel accounts about how Jesus actually treated people, and his direction to “go and do likewise”. Jesus knew the Scriptures, but quoted them mostly to the religious folks who were failing to love the people around them. And so it is today.
We know a homeless guy. He talks to us about God, and asks us questions about God. A few Sundays ago two “church ladies” in long black dresses with big black Bibles decided to confront him with what they perceived his “sins” to be. As we were approaching I heard them reading the “pertinent” Bible verses, followed by the Bible verses about why he should repent. It did not go well for the church ladies. He did not respond well, which is the understatement of the century. They have not been back. But Jesus is there.
BTW, did you notice the policeman in the lower left of the picture at the top of the post who is looking at the “Jesus” character? In case the Jesus guy doesn’t make the point, the policeman does it for me.
Sam,
Thanks for the comment, glad to see you are still hanging around this site. Your story about the homeless man is exactly what I was talking about. I truly believe that if Jesus were alive today, he would be shielding many of these “sinners” from those who go around proclaiming to be His followers.
FedEx
Pastor Fedex and Sam,
You need to re-read the story of the woman caught in adultery so that you might better understand it. The religious leaders did not want to stone the woman. If they had, they would have done so. Rather, what they were seeking was to catch Jesus in an inconsistency regarding the Law of Moses so they could embarrass Him in front of the crowds. The woman was just their means to an end. When theire ruse failed to trap Jesus, they dropped the issue. Neither is it true that Jesus was silent about the woman’s sin for He said to her, “Go and sin no more.” Thus He made sure that neither she nor anyone else interpreted His unwillingness to condemn her as an approval of adulterous behavior.
I agree with both of you (and with Jeremy) that it’s counterproductive for God’s people to march in the streets with placards condemning sins by name. What I wonder is whether you guys think homosexuality (and, by extension same-sex marriage) is a sin that Christians ought to sensitively help people resist (a la Galatians 6:1) or is homosexuality an innate human characteristic like being left-handed and therefore something we ought to accept as normal?
MIke,
I never said Jesus ignored her sin, but I did quote him “Neither do I condemn thee:” Yes, he does follow this statement with “go, and sin no more.”, but I do not believe he meant to never again commit a sin, as this would be inconsistent with all the rest of the New Testament, particularly 1 John, where he who says he has no sin is a liar. Perhaps Jesus was addressing the particular sin of Adultry, and admonishing her not to continue on this, but either way, He had the opportunity to condemn her, and He knew she was guilty, he knew she deserved the punishment that the Law called for, and as the only one without sin, HE ALONE HAD THE RIGHT TO THROW THE FIRST STONE… but he chose mercy and love and to not condemn. Yes, “kai hermatano merketi” may go and sin no more, but even if it does, he said it as almost an afterthought. He had already made His point, I do not condemn you, no go, and don’t keep doing things the way you are now.
As to your second question, I really cannot answer that right now. I used to think I knew the answer to what was and what was not sin, but over the last few years, my theology has been tossed about and I have yet to land on a lot of issues.
What I can say is this, whether this is sin or not, I am called to love them and not condemn, I am called to proclaim Jesus to them, and to try to portray God to them in such a way that it draws them closer to a relationship with Him. And I am convinced that once they are in a relationship with God, that he will work in their life, and convict them as HE sees fit, and will lead them as I trust that He is leading me. And so disputes over whether or not one thing is a sin or not misses the real issue, and that is growing closer to God and bringing as many people as I can along for the ride, and trusting that He will do the work in their lives and mine that He promised to ensure that in the day of judgment, “we will stand, because our God is able to make us stand” Rom 14:4.
Pastor FedEx.
Mike, I think I more or less agree with what you’re saying about the woman caught in adultery, if I follow what you are saying.
On the issue of whether or not “homosexuality is a sin”, no I will not take a position on this blog on that issue. I have followed that discussion on several “Christian” blogs, and whatever position one takes on the issue, the ensuing discussion always degenerates into “demeaning or putting down other people who comment, name-calling, rudeness, unkindness and similar behavior”, which the Moderator of this blog warned us in the above comments (See August 4 at 4:34 PM) will not be tolerated on this blog. Please understand that I do not think you would ever do such things, but there are those who would.
There is a mega church in OC that hosted a group of well-known Christian speakers in January for two or three years in a row (Lumen). Andrew Marin of the Marin Foundation spoke twice. Both times there were people in the audience who almost got out of control, and would have save for a very strong and insistent moderator. I was there, sitting directly in front of the podium and saw and heard it all.
When there is a time and place where we could discuss these issues calmly in a group setting, I might be willing to do so. I have yet to see such a place online or offline.
Pastor Fedex and Sam,
I commend you for acknowledging that you are undeclared on whether or not homosexuality is a sin. However, the One we call Lord says in His conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, “Depart from Me, you who do iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-27). Therefore, it would seem important to know what is and what isn’t sin.
Either homosexuality is a sin and we should seek ways to “speak the truth in love” regarding this point, or else homosexuality is not a sin and we should seek ways to “speak the truth in love” to those who are caught up in “homophobia.” Either way, there is a sin to be avoided. Until you make up your mind on this issue, you are going to have a hard time knowing which sin to help your brother avoid and thus fulfill scriptures like Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20; and Jude 1:22-23.
Jesus shows us how to fulfill these scriptures by what He did with the woman caught in adultery. He confirmed that what she had been doing was sinful, and called her to change without condemning her. Therefore, when you come to decide whether it is homophobia or homosexuality that is the sin, you will know how to help the one sinning. But trying to stand in the middle, undeclared about the path of righteousness (Psalm 23:3), is not a place that the Lord stands.
Mike,
You of all people should understand, being a universalist, and taking the Bible to mean ALL when it says ALL. Trouble is that Paul, twice in his first letter to the Corinthians says that “ALL” things are lawful to him. Not some, not only a few, but ALL, Hear that, ALL things, there is nothing that can ever again bring Paul under the condemnation of the Law, even a sin we consider really bad. Now, if to those who believe, there is no longer any sin, then what? Paul also addresses this, “not all things are profitable” and “not all things are beneficial” and “I will not be brought under the mastery of any”.
Note also, that the definition of “sin” is also difficult. Sin literally means missing the mark, it most likely means that something is not as God had intended it to be when he originally created all things. It really means “I was aiming at this, but did not hit what I was aiming at”. Under this definition, A person who is born with down syndrome is “sinful” or not as God intended them to be. So you see, the question is are homosexuals not as they should be, or are they defying a command of God?
Now, we address the issue of whether Sin matters to God. The answer of course is yes, God made the world to be a certain way, and he set in place certain laws to govern the world, and there are consequences when things are not as they were meant to be. One of those consequences is being disconnected from relationship with God, and living a life without the divine purpose for which God originally created all things. God desires for us to bear his image accurately, and it matters when we are not doing so. God also desires to be in relationship with us, and it mattes when we are not. Sin grieves God because His creation is not living in the life He intended for them, and He knows better than anyone the consequences that will come from that.
Lastly, How then do we deal with what we perceive as sin in someone else’s life. I believe that this is where being fully convinced in our own life and trusting God to be God in the life of the other person comes in. If it is not sin for me to eat meat offered unto idols, then that is between me and God. I must be true to my own convictions and relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, and also allow room for the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin in their own life and to be true to their own convictions. In the end, we know what Paul says in Romans 14:4 is true, to our own master we will stand or fall, and we WILL stand, not because of our ability to manage sin, but because God is holding us up.
Pastor FedEx.
Pastor FedEx,
I would like to respond to what you’ve just written, but I cannot discern in it a coherent view of sin. You are not only unsure of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, you don’t even seem to be in a position to define anything as a sin. That being the case, it’s amazing indeed that you make all your comments so confidently and boldly – as if you expect all reasonable people to agree with your view.
(I should add that your pseudonym is not helping either. I feel silly even writing it.)
Mike,
I apologize, for the confusion, I did not choose my pseudonym, it was given to me by the bikers I work with. I became a pastor later, and Now, most in my ministry work know me only as Pastor FedEx. Believe it or not, It makes me less anonymous than using my real name.
As for the sin issue, you are not far from the truth. Our current definition of sin, falls woefully short of dividing that which is simply not as God intended it to be and willful disobedience to a command of God. You see, we were never meant to experience death or decay, or mental illness or deformity. We were not meant to divorce, every day we experience the idea of not-rightness.
Likewise, since Christ himself is the fulfillment of all the commands of the law, we are no longer under those commands. and so we can eat shellfish and ham, and cook meals or do yardwork on Saturday. Most of the express commands of God no longer apply, and if we are to take Paul at his word, then YES, there is no longer anything that qualifies as sin if my conscious is clear before God.
So the only thing I can do is say, this is how God designed this world, and when things are not as they were meant to be, there are natural consequences of that not-rightness, and I want you to avoid those consequences in your live, and so, I desire for your life to be as it was meant to be, but really, how that looks in the end is between you and God.
Pastor FedEx
Mike, we do not look at this alike. I believe that only the Holy Spirit can convict any of us of sin. It is not my job to be a “sin inspector” or “sin convicter”. That would be the Spirit’s job, and I should not butt in thinking I should be doing it.
I know many people who identify as Christians who are very obviously “sinning”, as most Christians would say is “clear” in the Christian Scriptures. Regardless of what I say or do to try to help them to “resist” those “sins”, they continue in their sin. In some cases they may decide to be more discreet, but they continue in their “sin”.
Case in point: A Christian health professional I know knew eight gluttons, all of whom identified as Christians. I’m not defining gluttons as people who are overweight, but as people who eat six plates of food followed by two pies for dessert for lunch, and do it regularly. Said health professional did their best to warn those eight people away from the “sin” of gluttony, all to no avail. This health professional explained to those eight people the health consequences of their behavior. All to no avail. Such concerns, warnings and attempts to help them resist only made them angry. Every one of the eight died in their thirties and forties, all from health complications related to their gluttony, per their doctors.
It has been my observation that most people do what they like, including Christians, and care not what I or you think about it. If they are Christians and are doing something that Christians believe the Scriptures identify as sin, they almost always, if not always, know that. I think only the Spirit can possibly be effective in convicting them and helping them change their ways. If they are not Christians, they do not think that what the Scriptures say applies to them, just as I do not accept that I should follow what the Koran says.
Sam,
What you are not willing to say about homosexuality you seem quite willing to say about gluttony.
I love it. I never understood the church’s obsession with homosexuality. Then again, I’ve never really understood the obsession with homosexuality in general; it’s exhausting from both perspectives.
That said, this view of Jesus being like a book we can just open and flip to a certain chapter to know exactly His position on everything at all times and what exactly we should be doing to represent Him best is silly. It leaves no room for Him. Or reality.
Excellent point!
Probably, Jesus is a bit more concerned without how we treat Him like a book (and as a result, how we treat other people) than what our neighbors do in their bedroom…
Life is found in Him; not in a book!
All the trolling notwithstanding, It is instructive to me that those willing to cherry-pick their judgments from a passage like Romans 1 are not really willing to carefully work through exactly what Paul is saying.
Do not let what you want decide for you what God wants.
Jim, what does God want?
Well, You and much of Evangelicalism have made a claim that God wants “X”, and you claimed to base that on at least one Biblical passage. Careful thinking would call for a careful look at that passage, no?
Jim, at least one! You either believe the bible from cover to cover or you don’t, that’s up to you. There are all different interpretations of the same words by mortal mankind, whose right, we will find out when our Savior returns, his return is near, be ready!
Mortals making decisions on behalf of God, or speaking for God. I was taught that is Blasphemy. I must have been taught wrong.
No, James, you were indeed taught right. Dennis, I can say I believe the Bible cover to cover, and still not believe what you are saying the Bible says, cover to cover. That’s why I’m challenging you to carefully look at the passages, because you (and those who teach you) are claiming to speak for God. That is a situation that calls for GREAT CARE.
When I tried to take great care with Romans 1 with you last week…you bailed.
James and Jim where did I say I was speaking for God?
Shall we run back through your comments?
To ally yourself with another man….to lie with another man? Sounds eerily similar..Take the sex out of it. The Bible reads much differently. Much of what we believe comes from King James edits…..Personal Perspective can read the same sentence, and get very different interpretations. So I have always felt arguing any holy books is a giant waste of time. Again, I am obviously, wrong.
Jim I looked at Romans 1, don’t understand what you’re trying to say at all
Please do Jim, I can hardly wait!
I can repeat what I was saying: Paul is describing a specific set of people starting in 1:18. He says they forgot or supressed their knowledge of God, and committed real idolatry, worshiping hand-made objects made to look like humans and animals (literally). So then, God takes action, and “gives them over” to sexual sin…the last question I asked them was – God punishes them for their idolatry by….?
James, not similar at all in my opinion.
Jim it’s your story, explain it however you think is right.
If you have an alternative reading that takes the text seriously, rather than cherry picking from just a portion of it, I’d love to discuss it.
I am nearly quoting Paul in my summary.
Like I said I read it, just evidently don’t believe it the way you do, as I said before, no big deal, my main concern is as many people being saved and spending eternity in Heaven with our Savior. By everything that is going on in the world, and his teachings, his return is near. I pray you’ll be one that will be in Heaven, take care and God Bless!
I believe the Bible is clear, that homosexuality is wrong, however, to condemn them to hell, even after they told you they trust Christ alone, is also wrong. Balance
Dennis, may I say you are a bit of a coward on this one? All I have done is review the passage to a point, almost quoting it word for word, and have not yet shared what I believe. Thank you for wishing me well, I think the Pharisees of the faith are the only ones with something to fear.
BTW, if you are unwilling to carefully view the Romans 1 passage, do the rest of us a favor and stop using it carelessly.
I will tip my hand on where I am going now. The progression of Romans 1:18:f, which is basically:
1. People suppressed their knowledge of God;
2. People then commit literal idolatry;
3. God turns them over to sexual immorality, including homosexuality;
This progression describes exactly zero of my homosexual friends, and if you are like Christ, and have befriended these outcasts also, I daresay it describes none of your gay friends either.
What the progression does an amazingly good job describing is something that was happening, and well-known, in Paul’s day. That is, Pagan Temple ritual sexuality. It has every one of the elements, including the idolatry.
Jim, using what carelessly?
The Romans 1 passage.
I didn’t use it period
August 4, 3:20 pm, you snagged your favorite part out and quoted it out of context.
Isnt fair to say, both historically and grammatically, that temple prostitution and homosexuality are negative contextual components of the passage?
Not sure exactly what you mean, Dominick. Pagan Temple prostitution, including homosexuality, appear to be the point of the passage.
Since Paul’s progression does not describe garden-variety homosexuality, either he is describing something else, or he is incorrect.
the way I see it, is that both temple prostitution and homosexuality are looked at in a negative way in Scripture
But that is what we need to ascertain, not just accept. For example, I see God call, as a part of the Mosaic Law, homosexuality an “abomination”. Then, very shortly later, he calls eating shellfish by the very same word.
Question: is there something inherently abominable in eating shellfish? Because, if there is, God changed his mind later in his vision to Peter. The same question can be asked about homosexuality. We may have different answers, but the question is just begging to be asked.
Sorry Jim, don’t see anything there
Most of the problem seems to be people believing they are equal to God, can think like he thinks, he is far greater than us.
Jim, are you not mixing dietary laws with behavioural laws?
Jim, ask yourself this, is the topic of shellfish repeated in the New Testament in a ppositive way and is homosexuality repeated in the New Testament in a positive way
sorry about the voice texting
Not a problem on the voice texting. Yiur question is exactly what we are trying to grapple with. Well, I am anyway 😉
Considering I see myself as a truth seeker/defender (apologia), I have no problem walking through Scripture, trying to understand the various views.
those who condemn homosexuals to hell, are no different than those who try to isolate the temple prostitution views isolate the passages to one or the other, never arriving at a balanced view. imho
The interesting thing about Romans 1 is that homosexual acts actually were a part of the ritual, and had been a central part of the Roman world for centuries. Since Paul’s progression in the passage does not describe everyday gay people, to apply it to them would be an injustice.
Progression merely points out a full blown rebellion.
The progression, as I said, does not accurately describe any gay person either you or I
know. He must be progressing somewhere else.
A child can start off smoking pot, which can lead to cocaine, but both are wrong regardless of progression.
Yes, in the passage, suppressing knowledge of God is wrong, committing idolatry with statues and images is next, and is wrong. Then God’s punishment, making them slaves to their sexual desires…that doesn’t seem to be part of the “wrong” progression, rather part of their punishment.
Still not describing gay people. None that I know have gone through this progression, and almost all of my gay friends have felt nothing different their entire lives. Unless we want to say that they committed idolatry at six and then God made them gay as a result.
“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.”
sinful desires. Question: would one of them be homosexuality?
So do you think what Paul is saying that this group of people he is discussing was heterosexual, committed literal idolatry, and was turned over by God to homosexuality? Could be, but that still does not describe the normal gay person.
sexual relations. …natural for unnatural.
women exchanged…men abanoned. This is not God’s doing.
“God gave them over”. This apparently is both God’s and man’s doing. And still not describing everyday gay people, who never felt any different.
God gave them over…meaning, have it your own way.
That is one interpretation, yes.
But their sin had nothing to do with sex – it was idolatry. Then God acted.
sinful desires of THEIR HEARTS
DESIRE (S). Plural, not just…idolatry (singular)
I think that “therefore” at the beginning of vs. 24 carries much weight.
So does the plurality of “desires”.
What do you think the plurality means?
What’s interesting also, is the distinction between natural and unnatural.
It means idolatry wasnt the only “sin” involved.
NASB translates it “lusts”.
Still plural
That would point to the realm of sexual sin. Interestingly, and that is what God turned them over to (“They committed idolatry, therefore God….”).
When God let them have it their way, why is the aftermath described negatively unnatural?
“Turned them over” is just a bit more active than “let them”. But apparently God does not believe straight people should move toward homosexual action in the context of Pagan temples.
plural
Yes, among other things, I was trying to concentrate on the homosexual part, since that is the allegation of the passage.
Pro-gay authors refer to the heathen rituals of the Canaanites-rituals including both homosexual and heterosexual prostitution-as reasons God prohibited homosexuality among His people. They contend homosexuality itself was not the problem, but it is association with idolatry and, at times, the way it was practiced as a part of idol worship. In other words, God was not prohibiting the kind of homosexuality we see today; He forbade the sort which incorporated idolatry.Response #1:The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 appear alongside other sexual sins-adultery and incest, for example-which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God’s displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved.Response #2:Despite the UFMCC’s contention that the word for abomination (toevah) is usually associated with idolatry, it in fact appears in Proverbs 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony:There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable [an abomination or toevah] to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.Idolatry plays no part in these scriptures; clearly, then, toevah is not limited to idolatrous practices.Response #3:If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.
http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/respondingtoprogaytheologypartiiip346.php
The article is a bit off topic from the Romans 1 discussion, and the logic is a little suspect. We have not yet established that homosexuality is banned elsewhere in the OT and NT, for example. I am not a big fan of dropping articles without personal comment. Is your post, two posts above, drawn from somewhere else, for example?
Sorry, during our whole exchange earlier, I was driving on the hwy. The article was for your perusal in the meantime.
Okay.
Dear Randy I don’t think homosexuality is as simple as any other sin in our society even to God which He calls it abomination but not all sins are. Most overt sins usually are secret and private but homosexuality goes into every aspect of society for the reason to spread its perversion in religion, education, politics, Law just to name a few. So if you think that Christians or even non-Christians will accept homosexuality is no different than any other sin in their society you are incredibly misinformed. You believe they are wanting equal rights? They already have them but they claim to be a minority race deserving those rights just as blacks but the only trouble with that is they are not a race but a perversion of nature. Remember Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist was put to death for their views on sin in their world. I think if you, Sam , and Jeremy could look at the Yahoo news forums every day there is a gay issue you will find what Christians are saying opposed to what gays are saying and you will not find gay love anywhere just complete disdain, intolerance, hate for anything Christian what so ever
Dominick I think you need to stat reading in Genesis where God created everything to produce after its own kind then to Sodom where He thought is was necessary to destroy what was spreading into several cities then to Lev. 1 where homosexuality is a abomination before the lord and there was no mention that it had to do anything other than a perversion and rebellion of what God intended for His creation
A friend of mine and I wrote an extensive look at addressing the homosexual lovingly. I invite you to check out my blog on the subject LOVING BOUNDARIES. http://lovingboundaries.blogspot.com/