Skip to comments.The Bible and Homosexuality
Posted on 03/11/2004 5:53:16 AM PST by Theodore R.
The Bible and homosexuality
Posted: March 11, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Kerry suggested to an audience in Mississippi recently that the Bible is ambiguous on the topic of homosexuality.
"Well, I know the deep beliefs, I respect, I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways," he said. "I'm not here to argue that with you."
Well, I'm here to argue with Kerry. The Bible is clear on homosexuality Old Testament and New Testament: Homosexuality is an abomination.
Kerry may not believe it. You may not believe it. But the Bible states it clearly and unambiguously. And, despite what Kerry says, there are no "clauses" that suggest anything else.
Here's a brief Bible study for the man who would be president.
It begins in Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
That seems pretty clear to me. Maybe Kerry has another interpretation. The chapter goes on to state that people who commit these acts, and others God considers abominations, causes the land itself to be defiled.
Then, in the New Testament, Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:
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.
I'm still waiting for any Bible student to show me even one verse that suggests a more "tolerant" view of homosexuality.
Generally speaking, the best they can do is to suggest Jesus Himself never spoke out against homosexuality.
There are two problems with that statement:
First, Christians believe Jesus came not to overturn the law but to fulfill it. They believe He is the Word its living fulfillment. They believe He is eternal and part of the Godhead that created the Heavens, the Earth and Man. Therefore, Jesus never contradicted any of the law. He quoted from it. He taught from it. He explained it. He affirmed it.
Second, Jesus did speak out, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Here Jesus had an opportunity to explain any middle ground in this issue of men and women. As if to underscore the point, he did later provide something of an exemption for eunuchs men who do not have testicles. But he doesn't suggest God made homosexuals, lesbians, transgendereds, transvestites or bisexuals.
Kerry likes to be on both sides of all the issues. But that's difficult when it comes to God's unambiguous Word on relations between men and women. Maybe Kerry can let the American people in on which "clauses" he's found in the Bible that would justify homosexuality as anything other than an abomination.
You can choose to believe the Bible. You can choose to disbelieve it. But you cannot say it says something it does not say.
"Receiving in themselves that recompence of their error." Sounds a lot like HIV.
Or maybe we could just speak the truth boldly.
I really think conservatives should get into the redefinition business too. Hmmmm....think of the laws we could ignore or create with this new progressive method.
Not a bad idea. It certainly would make men and women think twice before marrying and committing adultery. I think the stoning would be a bit too much, though. I am all for raising the bar on marriage and the consequences of divorce and infidelity.
Can anyone tell me how our culture benefits from adultery? Homosexuality?
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Strongs Concordance "dogs" 3611: to yelp, or else to attack. A euphemism meaning a male prostitute.
This section of scripture from Psalms 22 recording the thoughts of Christ on the cross, clearly reveal that the nature of homosexuality has not changed in centuries, nor it's desire to mock decency.
1. Denial--C really doesn't say that at all.Strangely, though, the "original text" in 4. looks just like what they had set out to find in order for them to attempt to control the religious establishment of the present day.
2. Reinterpretation--C doesn't really mean that at all; the words were mis-translated.
3. Contextualization--C means that only in that particular sitz em leben, the Mosaic Law, but we as Christians aren't under that law but under grace where there is neither male or female and, so, it doesn't apply to us.
4. Redaction--these things said by C about B were obviously added by later editors or copyists in an attempt to justify some measure of control they were trying to impose on the religious establishment of their time and, so, we are justified in disposing of them so we can get back to the original text (this method was a favorite of Jefferson)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.