My observations of various bible verses regarding homosexuality

This letter is to explain my observations of various bible verses regarding homosexuality. Since the ordination of the actively homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church, I needed to answer certain questions to my satisfaction. While I am still pursing answers, I thought it would be helpful to you to understand what I have ascertained for myself. You will find that some of my approach is different than the typical writings from traditionalists. It is different because the traditional arguments fail to address the theological arguments that homosexuals actually use and they fail to address the bible’s message of salvation and redemption.

The Law condemned homosexual relations, specifically in Leviticus, but it is also accepted that Jesus fulfilled the law. It is accepted that since Jesus fulfilled the law, that Christians are no longer bound to the law. The law is written in our hearts and Paul provided examples. Jesus doesn’t address homosexuality directly but he did address marriage and celibacy.

Beginning with the law. We usually assume the law begins in Leviticus and homosexual theology likes to start with that because Leviticus only applies to the Hebrews who entered into a special covenant with God at Mt Sinai. This covenant provided for many rituals and customs that we no longer keep and consider silly by today’s standards. Although it is possible to demonstrate that we can discern between customs and rituals that no longer apply and laws that still apply (The Ten Commandments), it becomes a debate that can become hopelessly circular.

A favorite argument is to ask if you wear fabric woven with different materials. In today’s garments the answer is yes. Leviticus forbids weaving linen and wool, therefore the argument states, Leviticus is illegitimate as the source of law. Even though most people who sew tell me its still advisable to avoid weaving wool and linen together, its not an argument they want to hear. They are too excited by the prospect they can invalidate one law in Leviticus so that they can claim all laws in Leviticus are invalid. They also seem oblivious to the problem they create by invalidating scripture in one area in order to claim that some other scripture validates their life style.

Another favorite argument to disarm Leviticus is to ask if we should still put homosexuals, witches, and other breakers of the law to death. This line of arguing is designed to render the traditionalist speechless because no one today advocates the kind of penalties that Leviticus calls for. The problem with this argument is it completely ignores that the people of Israel voluntarily agreed to the Law of Moses. At Mt. Sinai, God offered his people the option of being his chosen and they agreed. According to Exodus 24:3

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

Therefore, the best place to start is to realize that before Moses, there were laws and that these laws applied to all people in all nations. These laws are called Noahide laws or “the seven laws of Noah”. I have attached an essay from another writer that provided a more in depth discussion. With this in mind, it makes Leviticus 18 more relevant because it can be assumed that Leviticus 18 is an exposition of what was considered to be universal laws against sexual immorality. The key then in understanding that Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, has universal application to all nations is what follows in Lev. 18:24-30

24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

It is clear from the verses that follow those in Lev. 18, regarding sexual relations that God held accountable other nations that were not subject to the law of the covenant. It is clear God continues to hold the nation of Israel and all other nations accountable for “these practices”. These sexual practices share the same prohibition and consequence to all nations, with or without the Mosaic Covenant.

Once it is understood that the law didn’t start with Moses or Abraham but with Noah and Adam, that Leviticus builds on this law, it is easier to understand the outcome of Acts 15:5-6

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

This was a major question. Did the Law of Moses apply anymore to gentiles? For the homosexual, the answer to this question is critical. The answer is given by Peter in Acts 15:2 0

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

These are 4 of the seven Noahide laws. We can speculate why they reduced the list but for whatever reason, the importance is to recognize that they are not arbitrary and that they have their source in a well known body of law which goes back to Noah. The reason this is important is because one is then faced with the many ways homosexuals will go about disassembling the meaning of “fornication”. The revisionist has two tools at his disposal. He can either make the word so narrow that it is meaningless. For example, they claim it means a passive male having sex. The flip side is to make the meaning so broad it is meaningless. For example, by claiming it includes anything and everything like any unclean thought it is so broad it is meaningless.

The antidote to this deconstruction is to understand the history of biblical law. Starting with Noah, the Hebrews understood that the law for all nations included bans on sexual immorality. Leviticus provides a reinforcement of this law by detailing the specific acts included as sexual immorality and restates that it applies to all nations and not to just Israel as part of the Law of Moses. When faced with the question about what laws must remain for gentiles to follow, the Church, led by Peter, made up of other apostles, pared down the law to include 4 out of 7 laws that go back to Noah. The law regarding fornication can be traced to its roots by passing through Leviticus back to Noah. It is clear to me that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 detailed what sexual acts constitute “fornication” and further that the prohibition of those acts applied to all nations as well as Israel. It is also clear that Jewish interpretations of the law recognized that certain laws applied to gentiles as can be seen by the Hebrew understanding of the Noahide Laws and by their reaffirmation by the apostles and elders of the original Church. Acts 15 sets out clearly that the acts listed in Leviticus 18, which include homosexual relations, continue to be applicable to Christians.

We have no record why the apostles and the elders of the Church, led by Peter, declared that these four Noahide Laws remain and can only speculate. My belief is the answer is contained within all three synoptic gospels as told by Matthew 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

his answer shows by loving the Lord and our neighbor and by putting these commandments in our heart, we replace the need for some of the Noahide laws. It appears to me that the new Commandment that is written in our hearts negates the need for at least 3 of the Noahide laws and those that it doesn’t obviously replace are those that remain in Acts 15. Again, this is merely my guess. It has been said many times by the pro homosexual theologians that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. And this is usually countered by traditionalists that Jesus never would have had to address homosexuality because as discussed above about the law, it was considered a given that such practices were obviously wrong. It is also discussed that Jesus did address marriage and by implication, shows that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Matthew 19

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

As I am sure you have heard often, that the above verses makes it clear that marriage is only between one man and one woman and that this is has been true since creation. The homosexual arguments about this very clear statement are similar to the strategies mentioned above. Make the definition, in this case the definition of marriage, so narrow its meaningless or so broad its meaningless. The broad approach is imply that Jesus is speaking metaphorically and that the principals of marriage can be applied to any committed relationship. Never mind that the text is impossibly specific to a man and a woman. The narrow approach is that of course God isn’t addressing homosexuals because the people of that time were not ready to hear this message of inclusiveness. Again, never mind that Jesus would certainly be aware of the practice of homosexual relations stated in the bible as well as having the prophetic gifts to know what is in the heart of each man he meets.

We should note that Jesus didn’t respond in Mat 19:4 by referring to the Law of Moses, nor the Seven Laws of Noah. No, he went all the way back to Adam. Marriage and its obligations are the earliest laws and have their beginnings in Genesis. This response by Jesus reinforces the statement by Peter in Acts 15 that laws regarding fornication are intended to apply to gentiles because these laws precede the Law of Moses.

The traditionalist at this point usually ignores the rest of the text on marriage, while at the same time the revisionist who continues to grasp at straws, finds an imaginary straw to grab in the remaining text. Lets follow the dialog further because it points out some additional points about marriage, homosexuality and the law.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

We see that the Pharisees recognized that Jesus appealed to the laws before Moses instead of the authority of the Law of Moses and called him on it in verse 7. Jesus rejects the exceptions that Moses allowed and essentially pointed them back to the beginning. A point when the law regarding sexual relations had fewer exceptions. From this exchange, its impossible to discern that Jesus preached a loosening of the Law of Moses. In fact, he points to the beginning, the laws in effect before Moses. The Pharisees are apparently gone and the disciples have a question for Jesus, Mat 19:

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Can’t you feel they are disturbed about the answer? This question makes it obvious that Jesus just made the rules tougher by appealing to pre-Moses authority. To my ears, I hear strong defiant tone in the question. For me it reads, “If its going to be that tough to get divorced then the heck with getting married, we’ll just shack up”.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

This dialog about eunuchs is one that provides some homosexual readers who are grasping at straws, an imaginary straw to grasp. To me this dialog provides the answer to ALL people who don’t get married. Jesus responds to the statement “it is not good to marry” by bringing up eunuchs whose pure definition is a castrated man. It is also widely accepted that a eunuch is a term that applies to any man who does not have sexual relations.

By any definition, this is a strong response to “it is not good to marry”. It reads to me that Jesus is saying in the strongest terms possible if you don’t want to marry, then remain celibate. Not all men can be celibate, all men cannot receive this saying. There are those who are born without desire, there are those made by men to have no desire and those who chose to have no desire or chose to remain celibate for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Jesus leaves no wiggle room. Either be celibate or be married.

The statement about eunuchs means to me that a homosexual should not marry until he regains his desire for a woman and in the meantime he stays celibate. One can argue his lack of desire is from birth, or that man made him celibate. Whatever the cause, Jesus doesn’t change the stand on marriage. Instead he provides that such a choice is done for “the kingdom of heaven’s sake”.

The straw that some homosexual see in this exchange about eunuchs requires some bending of logic. The argument is made that Jesus recognized that some eunuchs are born that way. If they are born as eunuchs then the law restricting sexual relations by a man and a woman to marriage doesn’t apply to them. This conclusion is so amazingly illogical to me I don’t even see the need to refute it other than letting it fall on its own weight. Apparently Jesus slips some special law that exempts homosexuals from any restrictions on sexual relations by the idea that a homosexual is a eunuch who was born that way. How, it true, they reconcile this with the idea that a man can make himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven is not explained. How, if true, Jesus negates all previous laws regarding sexual morality from the Law of Moses just minutes after establishing that Moses was a push over on marriage and divorce.

Now lets examine the Greek words for eunuch. Two forms of the word (2134 and 2135) are used in the KJV.

2135 (Some eunuchs) Transliteration: eunouchos {yoo-noo'-khos} Word Origin: from eune (a bed) and 2192 TDNT: 2:765,277 Part of Speech: noun masculine Usage in the KJV: eunuch 8 Total: 8 Definition: 1. a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain 1. in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives the superintendent of the women's apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs 1. an emasculated man, a eunuch 1. eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39. 1. one naturally incapacitated 1. for marriage 1. begetting children 1. one who voluntarily abstains from marriage

2134 Transliteration: eunouchizo {yoo-noo-khid'-zo} Word Origin: from 2135 TDNT: 2:765,277 Part of Speech: verb Usage in the KJV: make eunuchs 2 Total: 2 Definition: 1. to castrate, to neuter a man 1. metaph. to make one's self a eunuch i.e. by abstaining (like a eunuch from marriage)

TDNT - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament TWOT - Theological Word Book of the Old Testament

In order to get a better understanding of the use of the word eunuch, the original Greek uses two different words that are translated above. The text starts with the broader definition and says “some eunuchs” and ends with “made eunuchs”. It goes from the general to the specific. Its clear that the original Greek and that the context of these verses that eunuch doesn’t refer to a castrated man but to any celibate man. Many traditionalists desire to avoid the homosexuals arguments above by avoiding the subject altogether by insisting that the translation be literally a castrated man.

I have covered what I think Jesus and what Peter and the apostles say on the subject which leaves Paul. As you know, Paul relies heavily on the spirit as stated in Galatians 5:

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

It should be noted that Paul mentions adultery and fornication separately. Some revisionists want to desire to make the claim that fornication is really just another word for adultery. This verse shows that there is a distinction. For me, Paul is saying that even if we are not bound by any law and we make the argument that Jesus fulfilled the law, our flesh is still acting against the Spirit and that the works of the flesh include fornication.

This brings us to the strongest and clearest condemnation of homosexual behavior in the new testament. From Romans 1:

26 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: 27 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.

One would think this is pretty clear language and after examining the Noahide laws, the teaching of Jesus regarding marriage and celibacy, and the examples of the works of the flesh, that the meaning of this language clearly condemns homosexual behaviors and is consistent with the rest of the bible. Unfortunately, the revisionists have an answer. They explain that Paul could not have known what are modern psychologists know about homosexuality and its supposedly genetic causes. In other words, if God made them this way then homosexual behavior cannot be wrong.

Further, to strengthen their case they examine the changing attitudes toward slavery. In the past many Christians found biblical support for keeping slaves. The analogy is drawn that homosexuality will follow the same track, namely in time the bible will catch up with culture and modern science and we will all wonder how we ever thought homosexuality was condemned by the bible.

This is one of the weakest arguments because the analogy fails miserably. The bible clearly speaks against homosexual behavior. Making the comparison that the bible instructs slaves to be obedient to their master isn’t the same as saying the bible endorsed slavery. We can still agree that being free is superior to being a slave and still understand that slaves (or employees for that matter) should still obey their masters. Even though we have changed our attitudes toward slave holding we do not need to rewrite the bible passages related to slavery. In the event someone holds slaves or someone is a slave, the scripture related to slaves would still be applicable.

On the other hand, the revisionist wants to argue that because we no longer allow slaves in our culture, the scripture verses regarding slaves are no longer relevant, therefore we should make the scripture verses regarding homosexuality irrelevant. The point is lost that we can stop slavery without changing scripture but we have to change or eliminate scripture in order to make homosexual behavior acceptable.

Another general line of argument by the revisionist is the idea of continuing revelation. This takes two forms. One is the idea that is called open theology. Open theology assumes that God is learning and winging it as he goes along. God tries things and if it doesn’t work, he tries something else. God listens to man’s arguments and can be persuaded to change his mind. This is not a new heresy and is beyond the scope of this letter. Let me just point out that you cannot argue scripture with someone who holds this view because their can be no common ground with someone who sees God is changing constantly.

The second form is what I call continuing revelation. The verse in John 16:12 is used as follows:

This verse says to the revisionist that Jesus continues his dialog with his Church and he continues to reveal his truth to us. As a recent convert to a Pentecostal Church, this appeals to me and I believe it is true up to a degree. I part ways with this continuing revelation when the revelation contradicts the central part of scripture. In order to accept that God is continuing his revelation regarding sexuality we have to assume God was wrong or allowed grievous errors of doctrine to be taught by Moses, the Gospel writers and Paul. Further, if its true its like pulling a string from a woven fabric. Once you start pulling the thread there is no stopping until the whole thing is just one big ball of string.

We have also heard that Jesus fulfilled the law and that we are therefore released from the law because it has been written in our hearts. Luke 24:

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Again, as mentioned above. It is clear that Jesus is speaking of fulfilling the Law of Moses. The fulfillment releases Christian’s from those laws, but its not consistent to believe that Jesus releases us from those laws that originate since Noah. If so, it would negate Jesus’ teaching on divorce and marriage as well as negate the commandment to love God and our neighbor. No, the fulfilling that was done was Jesus fulfilled the promise made by the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai.

So, where does this leave the homosexual? Well, for starters they must remain celibate if and until God heals them from their desire for the same sex. If they remain celibate, it means they “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.” I believe that Jesus was pointing to the words of the prophet Isaiah 56:

4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

I believe that the homosexual is called to repent, seek healing and stay celibate. I also believe that God has recognized this special suffering and will reward their celibacy through the covenant specified by the prophet Isaiah. He will give them an everlasting name, hat shall no be cut off.

I feel strongly that we do not help the homosexual by letting scripture be rewritten and deconstructed to affirm a lifestyle that is contrary to God’s will. I feel strongly that the law has many uses. Its primary use is to show we need a savior and that by allowing it to be rewritten so that homosexual behavior is okay, we rob the homosexual from the primary purpose of the law. One of the secondary uses of the law is to provide us a roadmap to learn the goodness of God by conforming our behavior to the law. In this respect, the law is not meant to hurt, it is not meant to penalize, it is not a thorn, it is the way toward living a life fulfilled and content.

God has placed you in a special place where you are in contact with gay couples. It is inevitable that your understanding of scripture will be challenged by this revisionist theology. It is also possible you will have the opportunity to help begin to change some hearts and minds. I have written this letter to document my own study and my thoughts and feelings about the subject. I hope this is helpful for you.

Yes, it does go back to Adam, expected of Noah and confirmed by Jesus

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/7lawcomm.html

The Encyclopedia Britannica says this about the Noahide laws:

"Noahide Laws, also called NOACHIAN LAWS, a Jewish Talmudic designation for seven biblical laws given to Adam and to Noah before the revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai and consequently binding on all mankind.

Beginning with Genesis 2:16, the Babylonian Talmud listed the first six commandments as prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, and robbery and the positive command to establish courts of justice (with all that this implies). After the Flood a seventh commandment, given to Noah, forbade the eating of flesh cut from a living animal (Gen. 9:4). Though the number of laws was later increased to 30 with the addition of prohibitions against castration, sorcery, and other practices, the "seven laws," with minor variations, retained their original status as authoritative commandments and as the source of other laws. As basic statutes safeguarding monotheism and guaranteeing proper ethical conduct in society, these laws provided a legal framework for alien residents in Jewish territory. Maimonides thus regarded anyone who observed these laws as one "assured of a portion in the world to come." Throughout the ages scholars have viewed the Noahide Laws as a link between Judaism and Christianity, as universal norms of ethical conduct, as a basic concept in international law, or as a guarantee of fundamental human rights for all."

I'm not familiar with this one. Can you expand? I'd like to tackle it as well but I need to understand it more.

What I'm doing is reporting on arguments I've seen commonly employed. If you're going to send this out, you would very likely see these presented as counter-arguments to your points.

The first argument is employed as a response to the claim that homosexual activity is an aberration. The intent is to call into question our ability to define what is a "normal" sexuality. At root, "normal" sexuality has a reproductive aspect; however, it is correctly pointed out that there are heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce, or choose not to do so; and methods of sex which cannot produce offspring. As such (so it is claimed), there is no intrinsic merit to claiming "reproduction" as a signature of "normal" sexuality. Sex is therefore reduced to a matter of genital stimulation and companionship, and we are expected to admit that, on that basis, homosexual relationships are therefore just as "normal" as any other sexual relationship. This is, as noted above, a red herring. Of course, physiology tells us that there is a very specific definition of "normal sexuality," which is obvious from the fact that the male and female sexual responses are exactly complementary -- the male is designed with the female in mind, and vice versa. When you think about it, all of the various alternative forms of genital stimulation are imitations of the one we're built for; i.e., there is a "normal," and it's very obvious.

. I intended to demonstrate that 1) laws against fornication preceded Leviticus, 2) Leviticus confirmed the specific acts as well as the fact they applied to all nations and 3) It was recognized by the early Church in Acts that the laws against fornication continue to be minimum requirements for non-Jews.

I know that's what you intended. What I was trying to do in return, was to forewarn you against the counter-arguments to that approach. A plain reading of Leviticus leaves no ambiguity on the matter of homosexuality. The task of the person who would attempt to argue with you, is to create ambiguity. Thus you'll see the attempt to dismiss 18 Leviticus as a series of "cleanliness" laws.

As I noted previously, this approach is easy to turn aside. First through context: unless child sacrifice, bestiality, and incest can also be dismissed as "cleanliness laws," there is no way to cherry-pick homosexual activity out of the mix.

The other common tactic is an attempt to point to other laws in Leviticus that we no longer follow -- the "no mixed cloth" one being a quite common example -- and thus we are not required to take seriously the Levitical statement against homosexual activity. The logic of this, however, extends to all sins -- if we can dismiss homosexual activity on the premise that we now permit "mixed cloth," then we can likewise dismiss any Scripturally-defined sin. In other words, logically we must conclude that there is no sin. In colloquial terms, this is called "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

The first argument is employed as a response to the claim that homosexual activity is an aberration.

Okay, I got it. I believe the fact that Jesus gives 2 choices regarding sex, namely marriage or celibacy that that covers it.

The logic of this, however, extends to all sins -- if we can dismiss homosexual activity on the premise that we now permit "mixed cloth," then we can likewise dismiss any Scripturally-defined sin.

That is why I believe Acts 15 is so important. These men of the early Church, which include Peter, were called on to do precisely that; pick and choose. They determined that fornication, among other things, MUST not be done by Christians. Acts 15 provides an authority by which the selection is made. It is further the consensus of the leaders of the early Church. It isn't just Paul who seems to get all sorts of accusations thrown at him.

Hold on. I don't mean to give offense, but this is getting silly.

All of the revisionists arguments are silly but they have convinced many intelligent people. The concept of guilt as part of law is something I did not consider. Its a valid point. I believe that homosexuals feel guilt, otherwise they would not want the bible rewritten. On the other hand, I don't think slaves feel guilty.

You accept all parts of the bible as truth, as I do. However, the revisionists are picking and choosing. I believe the remedy for that is to point out that the prohibition for homosexuality is from beginning to end and that the prohibition is unanimous.

"I take it as an indication that we need to know Scripture and we need to have other Christians to talk to to be sure our hearts are not lying to us."

I agree that we have to consider the Scriptures in light of how the Church has viewed the matter at hand for 2000 years to give us an indication on the stand we are to take. When Scripture is ambiguous, we rely on the teachings of the Church, as God's Revelation is not entirely within Scripture itself. Case in point would be examining contraception. Scripture doesn't make comments about such matters, but our Tradition gives us a lot of material that continuously berates such activity.

Regards

I believe the remedy for that is to point out that the prohibition for homosexuality is from beginning to end and that the prohibition is unanimous.

You've got to be careful, though, about descending to legalism on this point. (One of Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy is to not fall into that trap.)

IMHO the thing about homosexuality is that it's disordered, and in many respects it's not something that can be helped. This is like any other disordered desires, such as you or I may have. The "sin" of it comes in when we attempt to defend and justify our disordered desires.

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.