Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Scripture Really Says About Homosexuality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need Advice: What Scripture Really Says About Homosexuality

    How should I respond to this claim?


    Scripture and Homosexuality

    In an article in Christianity Today, “Why Is This Important?” Stanton L. Jones gives three reasons for not changing the Church’s stance on Homosexuality. I believe his reasons are not valid, and I will refute them. To quote Stanton:

    “First, the church’s historically high view of the authority of scripture is threatened by efforts at revising the church’s position homosexuality.”

    His second reason is that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity. The third and most critical reason, however, is this:

    “We can only change our position on homosexuality by changing our fundamental stance on biblical authority, by changing our core view of sexuality, and by changing the meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives.”

    The first of Jones’s objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the challenged by a revision of the church’s position on homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church’s position on women, Jews, and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account that fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality.

    In his study Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell concluded his chapter on the New Testament texts having do with homosexuality with these words:

    “The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.”

    Jeffery S. Siker, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

    “Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity”

    Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

    “Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church…It is a mistake to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position in these matters.”

    As early as in 1964, German theologian Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote, “There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically.” He went on to observe, however that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing to do with biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls “doctrinaire prejudices.”

    “Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, “homosexuality is sinful,” is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.”

    Jones’s second reason, “that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity,” fails to take account that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms.

    Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a “problem” is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.

    What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say, but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and icon instead of the intended “living word of God.” Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self-serving reading of scripture might just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.

    The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but instead “invincible ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible; it is the Christians who read it.

    The gospel, like the life of Jesus, was meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The danger of Christian absolutism can be plainly demonstrated by the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Scripture’s position on monogamous, Christian, homosexual relationships is just not there. The heart of the opposition to homosexuals is clouded with fear, not love. The same fear as the heart of homophobia was at the heart of racism, and as with racism, religion – particularly the Protestant evangelical kind that had nourished me – was the moral fig leaf that covered naked prejudice. More rather than less attention must be given to how we read scriptures, what we bring to the text, what we find in the text, and what we take from the text.

  • #2
    Well for me, I go with what God feels toward this sin. As I read Romans 1, God uses many descriptive words and phrases to describe the sins discussed in this scripture, one of which is homosexuality (man lying with man). I'll post a few and this is from the NKJV: Wrath of God, ungodliness, unrighteousness, suppressing truth, did not glorify Him, nor were thankful, futile in their thoughts, foolish hearts, darkened, became fools, corruptible man, uncleaness, lust of their hearts, dishonored their bodies, exchanged the truth of God for a lie, worshipped and served the creature, vile passions, exchanged the natural use for what is against nature, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lusts, shameful, receiving in themselves the penalty of their error, debased mind, not fitting...

    So when I pull these words and phases from the Word of God... these are what God says about this sin as well as many others listed (Romans 1:18-32). We are to have a heart for God so if we go against this... IOW's defend a homosexual lifestyle or approve of this sin then such a person does not have a heart for God. In verses 21-23 would describe such persons and the choice word here is "fool". Also, as we see in verse 32 that such people that approve are held equal with those who practice these sins and thus... are deserving of death as well. Which is why I say that such people don't have a heart for God but for themselves instead, and they "suppress the truth", are "futile in their thoughts", and "became fools".

    One thing I always point out... the number one way to approve of sin is to ignore sin cause if you don't disapprove of sin or when you recognize sin then as a Christian with a heart of God you will help a sinner see the error of their way, NEVER ignore it, or NEVER approve of it cause then you would be a person covered in that v32 and be just as guilty.
    Slug1--out

    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't imagine why anyone would think we should our stance on this issue, and I, for one, have no plans to do so. God has defined homosexuality extremely well in His Word. Why do people think they challenge what God says? Dangerous territory, and those who have a healthy fear of God's wrath would never attempt to do so.
      "I will be glad and rejoice in thee: I will sing praise to thy name, O thou most High." Psalm 9:2

      Comment


      • #4
        God has made it quite clear in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, regardless of whether it's in a monogamous relationship or a one night stand. To attempt to suggest otherwise would no less foolish than trying to use a Philips screwdriver on a flathead screw. It's contrary to what the designer had in mind. God designed us for heterosexual relationships, end of discussion.
        ----------------------------------------------
        When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jns182 View Post
          The first of Jones’s objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the challenged by a revision of the church’s position on homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church’s position on women, Jews, and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account that fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality.


          A couple of things here: First, in the entire body of scripture...there is not one single reference to indicate that it is a sin to be a woman, a slave, or a Jew. There is however an abundance of scripture that declares homosexuality to be a perversion, a sin, and an abomination in the eyes of God. Someone need to read their bible here.

          “The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.”
          Hmmm....Romans 1:24-27

          "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
          For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

          1 Corinthians 6:9

          "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,"


          Jeffery S. Siker, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

          Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity”


          Just plain wrong...Really ought to read Matt 18 and 1 Corinthians

          Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

          Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church…It is a mistake to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position in these matters.
          You've GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!! Mr. Furnish must be reading a different Paul, then.

          As early as in 1964, German theologian Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote, “There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically.” He went on to observe, however that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing to do with biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls “doctrinaire prejudices.”

          “Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, “homosexuality is sinful,” is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.”
          As I said...reading from a different Bible....

          Jones’s second reason, “that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity,” fails to take account that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms.
          Whoa, hoss...Homosexuality is (scripturally) defined by the action...redefining terms doesn't change the truth.

          Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a “problem” is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.
          And the wolf is revealed for what he is....

          Ιησούς Χριστός ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου



          ****When the Lord opens a door, don't walk through it....run full speed; if it's the wrong one He'll let ya know...sometimes He just wants to see if you'll move at all!****


          A Minister of God Ministry - Support and understanding for a Christian serving in the military

          Comment


          • #6
            Further:

            People can say "Oh, so-and-so is a nice, loving person", but that does not change the fact that they are living in a sin. Being "nice" and "loving" is not an excuse for sinning.

            Christ Himself said that "sexual immorality" is a sin, and it is from the heart. Christ also showed the Law to be the foundation for His teachings. If Christ said "sexual immorality" is sinful, and He continually pointed to the Law, where do you think we're supposed to go to define "sexual immorality"? The Law, of course, which is where the most explicitly defined Bible statements are at on the topic of homosexuality: "It is an abomination".

            Is a homosexual condemned to hell once and for all for committing what God calls an "abomination"? No, of course not. They still have a chance to be saved, and God wants them to be saved. But once they are saved they must admit that it is a sin and they must turn their back on (i.e., repent of) their sin.

            A Christian who tries to defend homosexuality has either not studied the Bible enough, or they have studied it and are blatantly defying Christ's teachings on sin.

            To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.
            Two logical fallacies are presented here:

            1. The writer says Paul spoke of sexual "excess". The word "excess", in this case, means "too much". Paul wrote of "excess" yes, but he also wrote, as pointed out already, of "distortion". "Leaving what is natural" is entirely different from "too much". In the analogy of tools, as was used earlier: Taking a nail and hammering it into the wall over and over is bound to ruin the nail (i.e., excess). But that is entirely different than taking a screw and hammering it into the wall even once (i.e., distortion). Paul did specifically speaking of "distorted" sex, being men having sex with men, and women having sex with women.

            2. The writer compares sex to wine, and claims that saying homosexuality is sinful is like claiming wine itself is sinful. Meaning, he's saying that if Christians claim homosexuality is sinful, then Christians should also claim wine as a whole is sinful. This is not a proper comparison between sex and wine (if one could even be made). Too much sex in general is a better comparison to too much wine. Too much sex can mess with your head, and is sinful because you're placing too much of your life into sex. Too much wine can make you drunk, which is sinful. However, any amount of homosexuality is entirely sinful because homosexuality is a distortion of what sex is really supposed to be. So a proper comparison of this to wine would be like pouring wine in your eyes rather than drinking it, because it's a distortion of what wine is supposed to be.

            Sexual purity = good
            Smart drinking = good
            Sexual excess = bad, because it's too much
            Alcohol excess = bad, because it's too much
            Homosexual sex = bad, because it's a distortion
            Wine in your eyes = bad, because it's a distortion

            (Well, "wine in your eyes" might not be bad, but it would sure be stupid. Overall, wine and sex can't even be compared properly because they aren't the same thing. But hopefully the reader catches what I'm trying to point out.)
            To This Day

            Comment


            • #7
              1 Corinthians 6:18-19 states that fornication is the worse kind of sin. Every other sin is outside of the body(including murder), but fornication is a sin against the temple of the Holy Ghost(your own body).

              Revelation 21:8, states that fornicators will have their place in the Lake Of Fire.

              Comment


              • #8
                Marriage- Why God's Definition Matters by Pastor Steve King

                (excerpt)

                Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin has analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as
                the union of a man and woman and survived. 4 In 1947 Carle Zimmerman wrote “Family and Civilization.” He recorded his keen observations as he compared the degeneration of various cultures with a parallel of family life in those cultures. Specific patterns of domestic behavior typified the downward spiral in each one Zimmerman studied. He gave eight specific indicators. Number eight is pushing for other sexual expressions outside of marriage. He says in every single case where permission was granted, the culture fell apart. JD Unwin did an exhaustive research on 88 civilizations that have existed in the history of the world. Each culture has reflected a similar life cycle beginning with the strict code of sexual conduct and ending with a demand for complete freedom to express individual passion. Unwin reports that every society which extended sexual permissiveness was soon to perish. 5 In his exhaustive examination of human history,Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744) Professor of Rhetoric at the
                University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the “seedbed” of society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the
                absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and suddenly say two men or two women can be married you have automatically robbed the children of a father and a mother and it has ugly consequences. Think of the consequences in sex education. Can you imagine sex education if this becomes law? Then almost any sexual choice would be equal to any other sexual choice and marriage would lose its sacredness. If we take ten years of that kind of education, we will have chaos in the country. It will destroy the moral fabric and the children will suffer the brunt of it. If you say that two men being married, two women being married is equal to a man and a woman being married you have no basis whatsoever to let it stop there. The ACLU has already gone on record in support of polygamy. 3 The most common thought today affecting the elite is a new word, “polyamory,” that means many loves. Marriage can be groups of people as long as they just love each other. Do enough of that in a culture and you destroy it. It will disintegrate because we will no longer have strong families. Stanley Kurtz, author of “Beyond Gay Marriage,” did us a favor because we don’t have to wonder what will happen if we go in that direction. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have already been doing this for ten years, and the consequences are obvious. Marriage loses its sacredness. Couples there no longer chose to be married. In those countries 80 percent of the first born children are born out of wedlock, 60 percent of the second born children are born out of wedlock. Couples question why they should be married; believing it is just like any other relationship and they are destroying the fabric, the strength of a culture. History is a great teacher and there is a consistent voice throughout history which matches what God says. In Galatians 6:7 it says “Don’t be deceived. God will not be mocked. Whatever you sow, that you will reap. You sow to the flesh you will reap corruption.

                Last edited by Slug1; Oct 13th 2008, 04:47 PM. Reason: Enlarge the typeface.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sold Out, that's an awfully tiny font you're using there - any chance of making it a little bigger? Thanks.
                  ----------------------------------------------
                  When the plain sense of Scripture make sense, seek no other sense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah, I nearly pulled my hair out over it. I copied and pasted it and it didn't do right, even after my editing. Sorry! The full article can be read by clicking on the link.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have no doubt that God will bring judgment upon any nation that continues to turn its back to ignore homosexuality in its midst. Homosexuality is totally against His creative order. For the church to change its position and accept it as another alternative lifestyle, IMO, will be the sign of an apostate church and the final nail in the coffin.

                      Scripture is very clear as to what God's view is -- how dare we pervert it to satisfy our own lusts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lamplighter View Post
                        1 Corinthians 6:18-19 states that fornication is the worse kind of sin. Every other sin is outside of the body(including murder), but fornication is a sin against the temple of the Holy Ghost(your own body).

                        Revelation 21:8, states that fornicators will have their place in the Lake Of Fire.
                        I thought all sin was the same in God's eyes. Sin is sin.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          When a person loves sin, he will justify it any way he can.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jns182 View Post
                            How should I respond to this claim?


                            Scripture and Homosexuality


                            In an article in Christianity Today, “Why Is This Important?” Stanton L. Jones gives three reasons for not changing the Church’s stance on Homosexuality. I believe his reasons are not valid, and I will refute them. To quote Stanton:

                            “First, the church’s historically high view of the authority of scripture is threatened by efforts at revising the church’s position homosexuality.”

                            His second reason is that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity. The third and most critical reason, however, is this:

                            “We can only change our position on homosexuality by changing our fundamental stance on biblical authority, by changing our core view of sexuality, and by changing the meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives.”

                            The first of Jones’s objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the challenged by a revision of the church’s position on homosexuality, does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church’s position on women, Jews, and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account that fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality.

                            In his study Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell concluded his chapter on the New Testament texts having do with homosexuality with these words:

                            “The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul’s references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.”

                            Jeffery S. Siker, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

                            “Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity”

                            Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

                            “Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church…It is a mistake to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position in these matters.”

                            As early as in 1964, German theologian Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote, “There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically.” He went on to observe, however that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing to do with biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls “doctrinaire prejudices.”

                            “Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, “homosexuality is sinful,” is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.”

                            Jones’s second reason, “that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity,” fails to take account that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms.

                            Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a “problem” is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change, and must, and the “meaning and character of Christ’s call on our lives” thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.

                            What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say, but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and icon instead of the intended “living word of God.” Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self-serving reading of scripture might just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.

                            The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but instead “invincible ignorance,” which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The “problem,” of course, is not the Bible; it is the Christians who read it.

                            The gospel, like the life of Jesus, was meant to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The danger of Christian absolutism can be plainly demonstrated by the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. Scripture’s position on monogamous, Christian, homosexual relationships is just not there. The heart of the opposition to homosexuals is clouded with fear, not love. The same fear as the heart of homophobia was at the heart of racism, and as with racism, religion – particularly the Protestant evangelical kind that had nourished me – was the moral fig leaf that covered naked prejudice. More rather than less attention must be given to how we read scriptures, what we bring to the text, what we find in the text, and what we take from the text.
                            2 TIM 4
                            1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
                            2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
                            3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by markinro View Post
                              2 TIM 4
                              1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
                              2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
                              3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
                              When you find the verse which says homosexuality is not an abomination/sin, let me know.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X