Argument For Homosexuality In The Church

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

[Blind Eye Jones]

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

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

Here is a review of his book:

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

[Waryone]

The boy prostitute argument does not stand up to Romans 1. See my post 139 above.

As for the shrimp argument, every verse that shows homosexuality is depraved behavior of a reprobate in the New Testament such as Romans 1, and Jude 7, as well as the New Testament admonishment for non Jewish converts to stay away from sexual sins in Acts 15, all refute the shrimp argument.

[Waryone]

You do understand that eye for an eye was a determination of the punishment for particular crimes. If someone committed a crime of hurting someone, the punishment meted out by the authorities should match the crime. So, an eye for an eye.

Turn the other cheek was not about punishment for a crime. It was about how we as individuals should approach persecution or difficulty with others in particular authority.

It seems the reason you have so much trouble debating these homosexuals is that you yourself don’t know the Bible as well as you could.

I suggest you do more study and invite the Holy Spirit and more Bible literate Christians to guide you.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Thanks for your input and great quote.

[Waryone]

You are absolutely correct. I came across this verse recently that says it very plainly.

Titus 3:

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

[ReformationFan]

By that logic, a man could marry more than one woman at a time and claim “it’s not adultery because I married both or all of them.”

[Blind Eye Jones]

“It is generally agreed that the Apostles, acting under Jesus’ commandments and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, did away with the ritual laws.”

I’m wondering if the ban on eating shellfish and on homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13) can be considered a “ritual law” that has been lifted? The pro gay community will probably see it that way.

“For instance, Jesus made it harder for Christians to get divorced.”

The author of the book I’m reading is claiming that though the Anglican church upholds the right to divorce this practice is ‘clearly against the “teaching of scripture,” and, more crucially, against the teaching of Jesus Christ.’ He goes on to say this is odd, selective and discriminatory use of scripture — so much for the teaching of scripture being even handedly applied. I guess he is getting back to the idea that the church should uphold the injunction on eating shellfish and homosexual behavior if they want to be consistent.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Well, I’m not actually debating the pro gay people yet — I’m preparing for it — and you are right that I don’t know the Bible that well. Actually, the course I’m taking is an introduction to Bible Studies.

[ReformationFan]

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

The New Testament says that. It also says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” 1 Timothy 2:12

So all distinctions between the two sexes were not completely overthrown as feminists and homosexualists wish they were.

[Blind Eye Jones]

I like your point that Jesus mentions marriage is between a man and a woman. However, the author says, 'Jesus refers to Genesis 1 and 2 in the context of criticizing the excessive practice of husbands divorcing wives (Matthew 19:3-9). The New Testament does not say the Old Testament gives a theory of sexuality which it affirms. The New Testament interprets the Hebrew scriptures as pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. To say Genesis provides a "framework for understanding what it means for us to be male and female before God" is already to offer interpretation well beyond what the text itself is able to authorize.' Still, I think your point holds that Jesus defined marriage as male and female. If it was something else as well then I assume that Jesus -- to be just -- would have mentioned it.

As for any sexual activity that’s not in that relationship sanctioned by God, He would have called it fornication:

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” Mark 7:21

I'm wondering why fornication wouldn't apply to adultery? He mentions both adultery and fornication, but why bother mentioning both if fornication already covers for adultery as an activity not sanctioned by God?

[Blind Eye Jones]

I like that argument! It’s suggesting homosexuality is against nature. But the gays might respond that HIV is a recent thing and that condoms should be used for safety. They might even say that if homosexuality is unnatural it is no more unnatural than man flying — if God intended us to fly he would have given us wings — and yet people fly everyday.

[ReformationFan]

“I like your point that Jesus mentions marriage is between a man and a woman. However, the author says, ‘Jesus refers to Genesis 1 and 2 in the context of criticizing the excessive practice of husbands divorcing wives (Matthew 19:3-9). The New Testament does not say the Old Testament gives a theory of sexuality which it affirms. The New Testament interprets the Hebrew scriptures as pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. To say Genesis provides a “framework for understanding what it means for us to be male and female before God” is already to offer interpretation well beyond what the text itself is able to authorize.’ Still, I think your point holds that Jesus defined marriage as male and female. If it was something else as well then I assume that Jesus — to be just — would have mentioned it.”

Thanks. Plus, I don’t see how the homosexualist argument works in light of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen 1:28). Also, the original hearers in Jesus’ day would have assumed marriage is male/female. Same-sex “marriage” would have been unthinkable to a first century Jewish audience.

“As for any sexual activity that’s not in that relationship sanctioned by God, He would have called it fornication:

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” Mark 7:21

I’m wondering why fornication wouldn’t apply to adultery? He mentions both adultery and fornication, but why bother mentioning both if fornication already covers for adultery as an activity not sanctioned by God?”

I’m not sure. In the original Greek, the word for adulteries is moicheia which translates as adultery. The original Greek word for fornication is porneia which translates as illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc., sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18, sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 according to this source:

http://bible.worthwhile.com/bible.php?b=mark&c=7&v=21&d=8&w=0

[Captain Rhino]

Yes, the homosexualists always focus on these references to “love.”

Unfortunately for them, analysis of the Greek text shows that the word we translate as “love” in English is actually three different words in Greek:

Agape - the reverent and pious love of a believer towards God;

Philos - brotherly love (non-sexual love between relatives and friends); and

Eros (sexual love).

Of the three, Agape is, not surprisingly, the the most frequently used, followed by Philos, and Eros runs a very distant third. BTW, Eros is always used in the context of heterosexual relations between a man and woman. IIRC, Philos is the Greek word used in those references between Jesus and the disciple(s).

However, if you are a sexual pervert (or one of their enablers) looking for validation of your deviance in scripture, you are unable or unwilling to accept that the same warm but nonsexual feelings of affection that kin and close friends of the same sex can have for each other also existed between Jesus and the Apostles. Then every mention of “love” must be interpreted through the distorted lens of their own unnatural and unholy sexual desires.

Their presence corrupts everything else. We should not be surprised at their attempts to corrupt scripture as well.

They are to be pitied as the unrepentant sinners they are. Their sin, like all sin, is to be despised and thwarted whenever and wherever possible.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, Pieter. One has to start all the way back at the first question from the Son of Man:

"Who do you say that I am?"

[nonsporting]

But the gays will say Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Furthermore, it shouldn’t matter whether you marry a woman or a man because St. Paul says that “in Christ” there is no ”woman or man.”

More perversion of scripture. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He changes not. He condemned sodomy in his law for all time. Read Romans 1 about these reprobates whom God has given over to their perversion. The Bible calls them reprobate silver. Jesus Christ destroyed them utterly at Sodom and Gommorah (see Genesis 18 and 19) and has prepared a place for them, the lake of fire.

Jesus Christ is God. Who do you think spoke the law to Moses?

[Blind Eye Jones]

“Plus, I don’t see how the homosexualist argument works in light of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen 1:28)”

The author I’m reading says that this view (”be fruitful and multiply”) was abandoned by the church even though it was asserted to be God’s holy will revealed in scripture. The view was made into an argument against the use of contraception, even within marriage but, according to the author, Protestant denominations now sanction intentionally childless marriages. In some ways the author seems unclear (at least to me) and I’m assuming that he is saying if the church can abandon this view (he considers them revisionist in this respect) they can abandon their views against homosexuality. Or they can bend their views about homosexuality in the sense that the procreative purpose is not thwarted if some people use sex for other reasons that procreation. Most heterosexuals do this almost all the time when they have sex. The existence of men and women who don’t fit this pattern should indicate that the traditional understanding requires exceptions. He says reproduction is something that species do but, to be successful at it, it is not necessary for every member of the species to be at it.

[ReformationFan]

‘“Plus, I don’t see how the homosexualist argument works in light of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”(Gen 1:28)”

The author I’m reading says that this view (”be fruitful and multiply”) was abandoned by the church even though it was asserted to be God’s holy will revealed in scripture.’

So? That’s the sin of the church, not the Bible. My point is that the ones who were the initial hearers of Scripture would never have considered the homosexualist argument as a viable possibility. Childlessness in marriages was seen as a curse, not a blessing. The homosexualists and their liberal enablers are trying to read their own moral relativism and sexual worldview into the Scripture and transform it than let the objective Scriptures be used by God to transform them.

[Blind Eye Jones]

“Eros is always used in the context of heterosexual relations between a man and woman.”

Well, this author will use the passage, “And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him; And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.” to suggest that “we are left with an apparent allusion to the typical homoerotic attention (the nude youth) in Hellenist periphrastic culture at a decisive moment in the passion of Jesus, and with the suggestion of a particularly close relationship between Jesus and this youth.” Again, most of this is speculative but I do agree with you about its corrupting influence. The enablers want to cast doubt and chip away at the tradition understanding in order to validate their lifestyle. I think what drives this issue is ultimately something political — this is part of a bigger corrupting influence. Anyway, thanks for your input.

[ReformationFan]

This is an excellent book by Reformed pastor Douglas Wilson:

http://www.cmfnow.com/fidelitywhatitmeanstobeaone-womanman.aspx

The chapter on sodomy does a very good job with the correct Biblical interpretation on this issue.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

This is in the religion forum - just letting everyone know. Excellent comments from many different angles proving why the Bibles' teachings on homosexual are true, worthy and not "savage".

[Cicero]

There is quite a bit of ancient commentary on that passage.

The usual explanation is that all this happened in the middle of the night. In the confusion a young disciple got involved wearing only a toga or a bed sheet or something.

The mob grabbed hold of him, and rather than get himself jailed or executed, he abandoned the cloth they had grabbed hold of, so he could escape.

Somewhat embarrassing, but hardly homosexual activity. And probably better to run off naked than to get caught and executed.