Posted on 02/17/2014 2:47:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer. I'm not suggesting that the Scripture doesn't give us insight. I think it does, and I'm going to offer that, but I'm not convinced the answer is going to be satisfying to a lot of people because most have lost the ability to recognize the significance of teleology.
“Teleology” is a theological and philosophical term referring to the purpose things were made for. Things are made with a “telos,” or an end, in view. For example, thumbs are made for grasping, eyes are made for seeing, and ears are made for hearing. Of course, if evolution is true, there is no teleology. If the Darwinian story is true, there are no purposes. Instead, there's just a mechanistic characterization of the biological world; things work a certain way, but not for any reason or to any end.
On a the theistic worldview things are the way they are for a reason. There are certain ends God has in mind for things. I'm thinking of Frank Beckwith's comment, “Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn't make it food.” There's a certain purpose for food, and it is tied to the design of human bodies. Just because you can get something into your stomach—an ashtray, for example—doesn't mean you're eating food. This is all part of the notion of teleology.
So the first problem here is that teleology in the natural realm is hard for people to affirm.
Secondly, people do not want to acknowledge God's appropriate role in the world. Every created thing is a result of God acting, willing it into existence. If God makes something, then it belongs to Him. He has appropriate authority over everything He has made, which is everything. Therefore, He can make things for ends that suit Him. Those ends are the proper and right ends, and a disregard of those ends results in something that's not right, not the way God wanted, and not what He made it for.
The answer I'm going to give about homosexuality trades on these two notions. First, things are made for certain ends. Second, the one who made them has the final say on what the appropriate ends—or purposes—are. Both of those things make modern man uneasy because he wants to be the center of the show. He doesn't want to acknowledge someone else is in charge. Man wants autonomy, the liberty to use things as he pleases, regardless of what God had in mind.
This brings us to the issue of homosexuality. There are passages in the Old Testament and in the New Testament that give us some indication of what is really wrong with homosexuality from God's perspective.
Leviticus 18:22 says that when a man lies with a man as a man lies with a woman, it's an abomination. The verse is sandwiched between prohibitions of bestiality and prohibitions of child sacrifice. Both bestiality and child sacrifice are not what God intended of human beings. Children were not made to be sacrificed to idols. Animals were not designed to be the sexual partners of humans. In the same way, if a man sleeps with a man the way he's supposed to sleep with a woman, it violates the purpose—the teleology—God had in mind when he created human sexuality. When we take what God has made and use it in a way completely inconsistent with God’s purpose, that is a rejection of God himself. That's why I think Leviticus 18 is worded the way it is.
Now, let’s fast-forward to Romans in the New Testament. We find the same thing going on, but the language is more precise. In my Bible I’ve highlighted certain words in the second half of chapter one: the word "exchanged" in verse 23, "God gave them over" in verse 24, "exchanged" in verse 25, "God gave them over" in verse 26, underneath that "exchanged," and "God gave them over" in verse 28.
This is a passage about God being angry at human beings who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Some of the truth they're suppressing is that things were made to be used in a certain way, according to God's desire. Man didn't follow God’s purpose, though, but rather “exchanged” and, therefore, perverted. “Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible men, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored.” So they exchange, and then God gives them over to this depravity.
Verse 25: “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions.” What “degrading passions” is He talking about? “For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way the men also abandoned [note the parallel here with “exchanged”] the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their persons the due penalty of their error.” The next verse: “God gave them over to a depraved mind.”
Here are human beings exchanging their desires for God's intentions—God's telos—so God gives them over to that. He removes grace from them and they get worse and worse and worse. This is the condition of humankind. Homosexuality is given as an example of man’s rebellion against God’s designs.
I want to read the passage once again because you can hear in this verse the same concept we saw in Leviticus, yet with more clarity. Leviticus seems to be saying that it’s wrong when a man lies with a man the way he ought to lie with a woman. I inserted the word “ought” here, but I think it’s implied. In Romans, though, it can't be missed: “For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”—that is, they're doing with women what they should be doing with men—“and in the same way, the men abandoned the natural function of the woman.”
Notice what's being abandoned here: “the function of the woman.” God gave the man a woman for the sexual function, but he's exchanging the woman for a man. They “abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another.” Consequently, these acts are described as “indecent,” a “degrading passion,” “unnatural,” characteristic of a “depraved mind.” Those are all words Paul uses to describe the behavior.
The simple answer to why homosexuality itself is bad is because it is a perversion of God’s provision regarding a deep and profound aspect of the created order. God made things one way because He's in charge. He created the world to function a certain way. There's teleology, a purpose to it, and when the purpose is fulfilled it's a beautiful thing.
Instead, human beings took the truth of God, suppressed it and exchanged it for a lie. So God gave them over to degrading passions in which they exchange the sexual function of the opposite sex for same-sex sexual behavior.
I understand there’s a psychological reason some people have same-sex attraction. It's a gender confusion that develops under certain circumstances that’s inconsistent with the way God intended people to function sexually.
However, all sin is similar to homosexuality in that it is a temptation and a desire to do what is contrary to God's purpose. The response should be the same as for any other kind of sin. We should stand against it, but instead we love it, at least in the moment, because it brings us satisfaction. We are driven to sin because we're fallen.
Romans is a book that records an argument by Paul about the human condition and what God has done to rescue us from it. Paul's point in Romans 1 is that human beings are desperately lost. All humans—not just homosexuals—suppress the truth and righteousness. The human condition is universally rebellious: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them. God made it evident to them, for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes of his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse.”
Given God's revelation and man's response of rebellion, no one has an excuse. This is the case Paul is making in the first three chapters of Romans. Everybody, the “heathen,” the Jew, the so-called “moral” man, are all condemned. Paul concludes this point in chapter 3 when he writes, “…so that every mouth may be closed and all the world become accountable to God.”
Homosexuality is wrong because it perverts the good purposes of God. This is true of all sin, though, and Romans makes it clear that each of us is guilty in our own way, even if our sin is not homosexuality.
It’s intrinsically sexist.
It’s not diverse.
That's it? That's a terrible counter-argument.
Frankly, without using the Bible, I don't think there really is much of a counter-argument. However, if one doesn't give a damn what the Bible says about this topic (or any other one), then it's also a terrible counter-argument. Since so few in this country seem to care about the Bible or God, it stands to reason why we're losing on this issue rather handily, and, I believe, will continue to do so.
The very act exceeds design tolerances. Only a moron would engage in a continual act that results in self destruction in the short term.
Short summary: Mental disorder.
Really? Mental illness is not bad in itself? Aids is not a bad thing? Other diseases are not bad things? Disintegration of society morals is not a bad thing?
I agree. When we use the bible or religion as the main source of evidence to back an argument, I think we lose because political correctness has indoctrinated people shut off and not listen. We’re just a bunch of stupid bible pounders after all.
When trying to wake people up, I think we need to talk in secular terms to argue our points. And unfortunately on the gay issue we don’t have much of a non religious argument.
Well, there’s at least ONE culturally important “problem”.
You’ll find it mentioned in this short video:
WOMAN’S LIB AND ISLAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0cS4p9cFlo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFDlhK80EdO28R-iGTXiGaw
But it's a classic case of people not seeing what they don't want to see.
Read Genesis 38 up through verse 26 to see how YHvH made it whole. The story of Onan has only to do with his failing to obey YHvH's
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
levitical marriage( Deuteronomy 25:5-6) i.e. marrying his brothers's
widow in order to provide progeny.
While not perfect, I thought this was a pretty good article. It’s not exhaustive - but states some good points. I think the author would agree with the posts here stating all the bad things that go along with the homosexual life style - and how destructive that life style is. But I think what he meant by saying, “The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer,” is that our current culture would not find these arguments enough (at least, I hope that’s what is going on). The Bible does seem to indicate that some sins are worse than others (those done with the body vs those done without, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). But the unregenerate human heart, separated from a living relationship with the Creator, will pervert one or more of the human appetites with destructive consequences. James talks a lot about this. Romans seems to teach that God punishes sin with more sin. If you do not repent after some warnings/time, he allows you to go deeper and deeper into it. Next, seems to be the giving over to a depraved mind and heart. At some point, and I don’t know where that is, you are beyond repentance and given over to a depraved mind and heart. At that place, no argument from Scripture or the medical community or any other source will change your mind. Like Sodom, destruction and judgement are all that are left. Welcome to the new America. I’m afraid that’s where we are as a nation or at least headed strongly in that direction. The Scriptures warns about a time in the Last Days when men will no longer listen to sound doctrine but will heap unto themselves teachers that will teach what their itching ears long to hear. Are we there yet? I think we are.
"What he DID was evil in the sight of the Lord, and He killed him."
"It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime" (Calvin's Commentary on Genesis, vol. 2, part 16).
and this...
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him" (Luther's Commentary on Genesis)
The Protestant scholar Charles Provan listed over a hundred Protestant founders or leaders in every major wing of (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) who condemned the use of contraception, calling it a sinful act (Provan, 1989, The Bible and Birth Control). Why the change in Protestant Biblical interpretation over the last 80 years or so?
Both dreary kinds of unnatural sex --- gay intercourse and contracepted intercourse---- are being justified by the same form of erroneous argument: a rejection of Natural Law so that we don't draw the line at unnatural forms of intercourse; and a relativizing of Scripture so that its teachings are not applied to the deviancies accepted by ourselves and our friends in our particular milieu..
“...Onan...”
He had vaginal sex with his brother’s wife (his brother died and he was supposed to be her husband and get her pregnant with a male child), but if he did he would lose all his brother’s possessions because she could leave with all the livestock brought with her plus all that had been born since. So he withdrew and ejaculated upon the floor. His sin was disobedience to the law, depriving her of her freedom and greed.
For one thing, the human race would die out. I figure that’s a point that both the religious and the non-religious can agree upon.
RE: For one thing, the human race would die out.
Well, the gays will tell you that with artificial insemination technology, surrogate motherhood and adoption, that need not happen ( Not that I support their lifestyle, but still... )
God certainly gave us the sacrament of marriage to keep us “safer”, less sinfull, whatever you want to call it. A faithfull marriage keeps you good, children really give you a greater sense of motivation and reason to be responsible.
I have seen too many otherwise good decent men, simply unable to have committed relationships because they have been single too long. They become jaded, selfish, have habits contrary to a committed relationship.
I’m sure the same applies to women. Throw in porn and you have a BIG problem. Sex addiction is an epidemic. Many men who finally get treatment are concerned with the fact that they loathe homosexuality but it becomes the only thing that does the job.
Homosexuality is full of sex addiction, drugs, dysfunction, abuse, and a non stop party lifestyle. The nice little homosexual couple is a myth. I have NEVER heard a homosexual couple grow old together.
So from what I have seen, God was right all along. Any sexual deviance hetero or homo is a slippery slope. Porn is a serious addiction and is devastating families.
Please read the entire chapter for understanding. YHvH has no ordinance against contraception If you rip a verse out of context and torture
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
it long enough it will yield anything you wish.
except be "fruitful and multiply".
One was a sin of omission (what Onan didn't do): he didn't impregnate Tamar. This was selfishness and disobedience.
The other was an act of commission (what he DID do): he perverted the act of intercourse by an intentional act of contraception.
Scripture says that "What he DID was evil in the sight of God, and so He killed him."
There is another provision known as halizah (Deuteronomy 25:9-10), which decrees that if a man refuses to carry out this duty, the woman must spit in his face -- in the presence of the town elders --- and remove one of his shoes. He is then to be called "this shoeless one'. This shows that a brother-in-law could opt out of Levirate marriage, and suffer no more than a public shaming.
In other words, mere failure to carry out the Levirate duty did not entail the dealth penalty --- far from it.
What aroused God's wrath was that other thing Onan did: performed a perverted act of contraception.
And that was how all of Christianity --- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant --- saw it until the Anglicans approved contraception at their decennial Lambeth Conference in 1930.
Was all of Christendom wrong for almost 2 millennia, until God vouchsafed to the Anglicans in 1930 that, really, He was OK with what Onan did?
The significance of this is explained here: #38
Thank you.
The text has to be read carefully. Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.. What you are suggesting is that since Onan withdrew in time so that Tamar could not conceive, that means that the very same identical act is always a sinful one in all circumstances. I don’t believe that you can read that into the text. The act that Onan withdrew from was related to a very specific provision made referred to as the Levirate Law…this special provision is found in Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. The sin here is very simply that Onan refused to obey the law, God knew why and as it states, He was displeased and killed Onan.
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.