Either “Is Homosexuality A Sin?” OR “Is Homophobia A Sin?”

The modern Church’s overall inability to properly engage the culture in which it exists is none the more evident than in the issue of homosexuality. There is nothing more appalling (except perhaps our treatment of African Americans and women), than the pure hatred that the church has shown to the homosexual community.

This will be my attempt at helping to add something meaningful to this conversation by addressing the question: how should a Christian in today’s western culture understand the issue of homosexuality.

Recently Dan Wilkinson posted an article titled Why Homosexuality Isn’t A Sin, which was widely circulated within social media. I was looking forward to reading Dan’s article when I first saw the posting on Unfundamentalist Christians Facebook page simply because very few good attempts have been made at writing about this issue. Perhaps my eagerness to see critical articles regarding this issue has clouded my judgment, but the article was anything but spectacular. The article uses C.S. Lewis’ “moral argument” in order to establish a foundation from which one can argue (supposedly) that homosexuality is not a sin. The argument is summarized below:

  1. Everyone has within them an innate moral law that enables them to appreciate what is right or wrong.
  2. Homosexuality neither hurts the self or another and its participants are exceedingly happy.
  3. Therefore, it must be the case that homosexuality is not in violation of the innate moral law.

This seems to not only be a fallacious argument, but also a complete misunderstanding of the innate moral law, In fact, I will argue the following:

The innate moral law shows us that the act of homosexuality is both “not natural” as well as “immoral”, and therefore to be considered sin. However, and infinitely more important, I will also show that this sin is no different from any other that the individual commits.

Romans 1:18-32

Paul presents us with two contrasting pictures of humanity and their relationship to sin. In the first picture he identifies those who “deny the obvious” – God’s existence as demonstrated by the creation itself. Moreover, all people know of God and as a result of this revelation are “without excuse”.

As a result of denying this obvious “innate” existence people began participating in all sorts of sinful behavior. Among these he lists homosexuality.

The second picture Paul presents us is the life in Christ.

In contrast to a life lived in sin, life in Christ does not push you away from God, but draws you to him. What’s more, it provides the individual with meaning and purpose for their existence.

Two important observations regarding this passage:

First, Paul clearly states that the practice of homosexuality is not “natural” behavior for humans. I do not think Paul is being scientific as much as he is being “obvious” in making this connection. The fact that it’s not natural does not necessitate that the behavior is sin. However, it does dismiss the claim that it is natural behavior. With that said, it could be argued that the act is an act against the natural order of things, in which case it could be deemed as sin on that basis.

Second, Paul does not differentiate this sin as being any worse than the others. He also does not give us permission to judge those to whom this applies. In fact, if you continue to read on, you will notice that chapter two is very clear: God is the judge of Sin, not man. Therefore, this is between the individual and God. I cannot help but think of that powerful story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone“. People, I urge you, put down your stones!

 

Being Honest

No doubt, for some, this section will be hard to read, but if you have made it this far, I encourage you to continue. The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow.
We need more homosexuals in the church! What does it mean that 99% (this is my sarcastic non-scientific number) of those who attend our churches are NOT homosexual? Is there any other “sin” that is so exclusionary to the point that we refuse to let the individual in on the basis of that sin. I would argue that there are more rapists and murderers in the church than there are homosexuals. In fact, there are hundreds if not thousands of churches and organizations that reach out to rapists and murders through prison ministries. There is much less love shown to the homosexual community.

I understand that in most cases sin is a very private matter. That is to say, we don’t walk around with signs that tell everyone what sins we have committed for the day. Moreover, having a practicing homosexual couple in the church makes their “issue” more obvious.

Here are the reasons I think we don’t have as many homosexuals in the church as we should. Please feel free to think of these as the great sins of our time:

We treat homosexuals much like many of our ancestors treated African Americans. We just don’t let them in. The unfortunate segregation that still occurs today within the church is an abhorrent result of the segregation that took place only a couple of generations ago. Can you imagine creating laws that purposely singled out individuals solely based upon the color of their skin? Just remember that the next time you go to the polls to vote. It was a sin then, and it’s still a sin now.

We are ignorant. We think homosexuality is some disease that is going to rub off on us or our children. I can’t begin to name all of the problems associated with this line of thinking.

Its complicated. We like our churches to be nice, neat and organized – not messy. We like our hour long church service (so we can make it back in time for football of course), and we don’t like disagreement. My response is simple: that’s childish, grow up!

It doesn’t line up with our politics. Good grief do I hate the fact that I have to say that. I am still baffled by the fact that being a Christian is almost synonymous with being a republican. It makes no sense to me that we demand the government stay out of our personal lives; to not deny us our “rights”, etc. However, we are very quick to deny those same rights to others that we so vehemently demand for ourselves. And we do this simply because we disagree with a choice they made.

…and there are certainly more that I could put here, but alas I have ran out of energy.

Concluding thought: the real problem

I don’t think the real problem is homosexuality, but its much deeper. There is a problem with the church. There is a problem with the “modern worldview”. There are problems with how we understand the role of the church in culture. There are problems everywhere.

Homosexuals are not the problem. We are.

You can find this article here

  • http://www.malakhgabriel.net/ Gabe

    “the act of homosexuality is… to be considered sin. However, and infinitely more
    important, I will also show that this sin is no different from any other
    that the individual commits.”

    Oh goody, another cishet thinking he’s helping while making sure to remind everyone that, it’s okay, he still thinks queer sex is a sin.

    You’re not helping. Stop.

    It’s true, you are the problem. The problem isn’t “homosexuals,” it’s cishet Christians making pronouncements about about whether or not how queer people love is acceptable. If you say “It’s a sin, but it’s just like every other sin,” then you’re not being welcoming. You’re not being an ally. You’re not making room. You’re pontificating from a place a privilege without actually considering the lived experience of the people about whom you’re pontificating.

    • Eric English

      I believe your bias is overshadowing your rationality as it relates to this conversation. I have simply taken a passage of scripture and commented on it. Your issue is not with me, it is with the Bible.

      • feetxxxl

        eric, you are making an interpretation of a passage of scripture and of instead owning that your comment is your interpretation of that scripture, you characterize it as the only possible interpretation of that scripture. you don’t annotate the scripture so there is no plumb line basis for discussion except your opinion, which has no resemblance to what romans, galatians, and ephesians say about being of the new covenant. you try to make it an issue about biblical legalities, when paul says in scripture we have died to the law in jesus, serve of his spirit, his love, and do not serve of any written code.

  • csalafia

    I have to say I’m rather disappointed that you’d take the same tack re: Romans 1 as conservative Evangelicals do.

    Simply put, Paul is not talking about homosexuality. He’s speaking to the Jews and Gentiles who have heard the Gospel, yet returned to Roman pagan temple worship (most likely out of conformity to the society) and returning to the rites and rituals thereof. The over-arching theme of this passage deals with idolatry. The sin Paul is talking about is not sex, but idolatry, which was a capital offense per the Law (hence v. 32).

    Additionally, to condemn homosexuality through Romans would require that the understanding and concept of human sexuality was the same in Paul’s time as it is in ours. That is simply not so.

    To sum this up, to use this passage to condemn homosexuality as sinful is, IMO, incorrect. Doing so throws away the historical, cultural, and societal context in which Paul was living and superimposes the modern on top of it.

    • Eric English

      You are incorrect. Paul is not doing this. Instead is he is telling the gospel story and in so doing begins by recounting the story of humanity in relation to their current situation. He is demonstrating the need for Christ through the retelling of the story of sin.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

    This is a horrible post. Completely misguided.

    • John Lussier

      This is a horrible reply. Completely useless.

    • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

      Maybe not horrible. But yes, misguided. ;)

    • Eric English

      Really? Perhaps you could elaborate, instead of “doing a drive by posting”.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

        Honestly, I don’t think your post deserves more than this. My thoughts on this subject are voluminous and public. Nothing personal, Eric, just not a post that I appreciate.

  • Kimberly Roth

    In all fairness, the info to the right states:
    “This blog is an experiment. We are seeking to include as many voices as are willing to join together and tell stories, create ideas, and generate friendships that will compel us to the future… You will hear from Christians and Jews; denominationalists and free-range spiritualists; conservatives and liberals; the faith-filled and the faith-hesitant.”

    So, how do we engage this post in a way that is generative & moves the conversation foward. I would not write this post today, but if I look far enough back on my personal blog – I bet I could find something that sounds similar. My perspective has grown because of friends who shared their stories and perspectives with me, and helped me to see what I was communicating out of my limited experience.

    How do we critique the ideas without attacking the person? To educate rather than exclude? Once place I would start is by inviting folks to the exciting conversation that seems to be forming over at http://www.queertheology.com.

    • Kimberly Roth

      And as a cisgender straight woman, I’m speaking more to those who, like me, have the privilege of ignoring this conversation altogether. How do I speak to those who are where I was, in this space where diverse conversations are advertised as welcomed. I am not asking queer friends to come into this space and educate – I understand your frustration. But I have benefitted from your stories & I know others can, as well.

      • feetxxxl

        decide if the discussion is according to what scripture says or about human reasoning of the essence of being gay. if its about scripture annotate the scripture. if its about reasoning of the essence of being gay, then give a quote of someone’s actual experience of interacting with someone who is gay. all discussions have to start with a valid plumbline, which is defintely more than an unsubstantiated opinion.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    I find this post somewhat confusing. I think it would be helpful if you clarified what subset of the LGBT community you’re hoping to engage with. Just celibate gays and lesbians who consider their idenity a sin or, as is implied, practicing homosexual couples as well? Because I suspect there are very few open and active LGBT Christians who would agree that “the act of homosexuality is both ‘not natural’ as well as ‘immoral’” and that this conclusion is “obvious.” We’re not talking about people who totally agree that they are sinning but would prefer if you’d get off their backs! If you can’t see why this framing is not just insulting but destructive, note how easily it lead in your piece to comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers!

    I do appreciate the “It doesn’t line up with our politics” section. But even there you use the language of “choice” to describe homosexuality. If you are really intersted in engaging with the LGBT community, I recommend a thorough study of the prevalent views on homosexuality both within that community and outside the Church (not to mention views of more liberal Christians) to avoid accidentally uses phrases and framing issues in such a way that will likely shut down conversation before it starts.

  • theSunRoseClear

    Re: below; If “queer theology” means giving out my e-mail address to websites no questions asked, I’m afraid that I cannot subscribe to such a proposition. :) But I’ll keep typing because I can.

    As for the post above — I’m aware of the sidebar regarding the Emergent Village Voice. I also say — not ironically — that I’m responding to the above post as a heterosexual white male. But I still think the above post misses the point in many many ways. Let me describe some of them. I’ll try to be constructive.

    I will say right here that if the above post was a satirical attempt to parody foolish unconvincing arguments from Christians, yes, you got me. I took it seriously.

    The post claims it is addressing this question: “how should a Christian in today’s western culture understand the issue of homosexuality.” I’m not sure why there should be one answer to this question. Considering the fragmentation among Christian denominations for nearly 2000 years, I’m just not convinced that one blog post is going to settle any controversial question.

    The post then sets up a mighty tall order: “The innate moral law shows us that the act of homosexuality is both “not
    natural” as well as “immoral”, and therefore to be considered sin. However,
    and infinitely more important, I will also show that this sin is no
    different from any other that the individual commits.” That’s not a modest claim.

    By “innate moral order”, Mr. English basically means “I’m going to quote some verses from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans outside of any meaningful context.” Perhaps this trick works with (some) Christians. Mr. English fails to consider how, even among Christians, how many different ways there are of approaching the Bible. Considering the broader world that considers the Bible an irrelevant collection of old writings, this isn’t an effective method of inviting people to take the Bible seriously.

    Mr. English actually goes on to say this:
    “We need more homosexuals in the church! What does it mean that 99% (this
    is my sarcastic non-scientific number) of those who attend our churches
    are NOT homosexual? Is there any other “sin” that is so exclusionary to
    the point that we refuse to let the individual in on the basis of that
    sin. I would argue that there are more rapists and murderers in the
    church than there are homosexuals. In fact, there are hundreds if not
    thousands of churches and organizations that reach out to rapists and
    murders through prison ministries. There is much less love shown to the
    homosexual community.”

    Mr. English, I apologize if my analogy here is a little too graphic for your delicate Christian sensitivities, but I must use it.

    I don’t believe that masturbation is a sin. (Suppose for the sake of argument that it’s not. If you disagree with me — which is your right — I’d recommend not posting about it.) If I masturbate in private while thinking of Sofía Vergara, because I’m male, my arousal is “heterosexual.” But if I identified as female, my arousal would be “homosexual.” Do you think that I, as a female, would feel as free to admit to you that I find Sofia Vergara attractive? Why should there be any difference?

    One difference I can point out comes from your words above: without any sense of irony, you say being homosexual is the same thing as being a rapist or a murderer. This is offensive. (Maybe “It’s not your opinion; you’re just following God.” Sir, your God is a hideous monster.)

    You continue:
    “I understand that in most cases sin is a very private matter. That is to
    say, we don’t walk around with signs that tell everyone what sins we
    have committed for the day. Moreover, having a practicing homosexual
    couple in the church makes their “issue” more obvious.”

    How do you know that a homosexual couple is “practicing” merely by looking at them? Do you assume that every “heterosexual” couple who isn’t married spend all their time together in intensive Bible study? Perhaps their sexual sin isn’t really as bad as rape and murder. What might the difference be?

    You continue:
    “Here are the reasons I think we don’t have as many homosexuals in the church as we should. Please feel free to think of these as the great sins of our time:

    “We treat homosexuals much like many of our ancestors treated African Americans.
    We just don’t let them in. The unfortunate segregation that still
    occurs today within the church is an abhorrent result of the segregation
    that took place only a couple of generations ago. Can you imagine
    creating laws that purposely singled out individuals solely based upon
    the color of their skin? Just remember that the next time you go to the
    polls to vote. It was a sin then, and it’s still a sin now.”

    Mr. English, what are you talking about? This is confusing at best.

    “We are ignorant. We think homosexuality is
    some disease that is going to rub off on us or our children. I can’t
    begin to name all of the problems associated with this line of thinking.”

    I won’t claim that I’m knowledgeable. I’m just not sure that “We are ignorant” means that “we” want to learn more.

    “Its complicated. We like our churches to be
    nice, neat and organized – not messy. We like our hour long church
    service (so we can make it back in time for football of course), and we
    don’t like disagreement. My response is simple: that’s childish, grow
    up!”

    Mr. English, that sums up my response to much of your post.

    “It doesn’t line up with our politics. Good
    grief do I hate the fact that I have to say that. I am still baffled by
    the fact that being a Christian is almost synonymous with being a
    republican. It makes no sense to me that we demand the government stay
    out of our personal lives; to not deny us our “rights”, etc. However, we
    are very quick to deny those same rights to others that we so
    vehemently demand for ourselves. And we do this simply because we
    disagree with a choice they made.”

    Mr. English, do you choose to have the sexual attractions that you experience?

    And your post ends:
    “Homosexuals are not the problem. We are.”

    Mr. English, saying “they” are not the problem is not as enlightened as you might wish. Would it be OK to say that “women” are not the problem?

    Yes, I have used the second-person singular excessively. I plead guilty. Mr. English, no matter how sincere your post felt to you, at no point in reading it did I feel that you cared beyond your own narrow understanding of Christianity.

    Kubricks_Rube has a more sophisticated understanding of “marketing to the LGBT community,” but I’d rather not discuss this any further with Rube either.

    • Kubricks_Rube

      I think my comment must have been very unclear. I agree with you (and most of the others commenting here) completely.

  • EdinburghEye

    I appreciate, honestly, that you mean well.
    But you sound like a plant collector: wanting “more homosexuals” in the church and not, apparently, realising that your nastiness in telling LGBT people that we’re unnatural and our relationship is a sin and having a same-sex couple in the church is like ministering to a rapist – is a large part of what keeps LGBT people *out* of church: I certainly wouldn’t go anywhere near the kind of Christian who smugly trots out Paul as “proof” that normal human sexual orientation is “unnatural”.

    Update: Look, going to a religious service – worshipping, becoming part of the community – is to make yourself vulnerable to other people in that community. The kind of language you use in this post, Eric (as discussed in previous paragraph) tells me that because of my sexual orientation, you don’t really see me as a person with feelings: you see me as a “homosexual”, an “issue”, a sinner whose relationships are unnatural and for whom having sex is a sin like rape or theft. This is horrifying and hurtful – but it also warns me that you are not someone whom I would ever want to be vulnerable with: you are not trustworthy. You will not notice or care if you hurt me. Therefore, out of self-preservation, I need to stay away from you.

    Since I’m actually quite sure that this is not what you intend, I’m telling you this: if you want your church to welcome more LGBT people, you yourself need to change your language, to stop thinking of “the homosexual act” as a sin like rape, to stop classifying same-sex relationships as an “issue” or as “unnatural”. You need to do that. Then you can try to change your church.

    • Kubricks_Rube

      Well said. You captured what I was trying to say much better than I did.

    • Eric English

      Thank you for your thoughtful post. Perhaps you are too caught up in the use of ironic language that was used – as I see most people who posted here have. For example, the use of what you term “comparing” was only “comparing” in the ironic sense. It is used to show the foolishness of a ministry towards something like rapists and murders, but not towards the homosexual community. The comparison is “absurd” as it is supposed to be to illustrate the point.

      • EdinburghEye

        as I see most people who posted here have

        At some point I think you have to admit you’re just a terribly bad writer, Eric.

  • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

    Thank you (I think!) for engaging with my post. But you misunderstand my argument. It would be something more like this:

    1. Everyone has within them an innate moral law that enables them to appreciate what is right or wrong.
    2. Using that moral intuition we can (and should) recognize that homosexuality isn’t wrong.
    3. Therefore homosexuality isn’t a sin.

    You say that my argument is fallacious, but fail to point out what the fallacy is (whether you agree with the conclusion or not). You also say that I misunderstand the moral law, but you simply appeal to Romans 1 as saying homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. But that begs the very question at hand! My post was not discussing what the Bible has to say on the topic, but rather what our hearts have to say. While I find your exegesis of Romans 1 to be highly problematic — there are many more complex issues at play in Romans 1 & 2 than you acknowledge — in the end it doesn’t matter to me whether or not Paul condemns homosexual behavior as sinful. Paul can shout till he’s blue in the face that homosexuality is sinful and slavery is just fine and I’ll disagree with him no matter what.

    Your position seems to be nothing more than “hate the sin, love the sinner” which, to me, when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, really just amounts to “hate the sin and pretend to tolerate the sinner until we can persuade them to change who they really are.” Needless to say, I find such a position to be the antithesis of love.

    • Eric English

      Thanks for the interaction Dan. I do apologize if I misrepresented your position, that was certainly not my intent. The way you present it above is NOT a fallacious argument. The way I presented your argument (thinking this is what you were saying) was the fallacious argument. The fallacy in that argument was that the conclusion did not follow from the premise.

      • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

        Here’s the bigger problem: you say, “People, I urge you, put down your stones!” But I read this post and it seems to me that you have a very large stone in your hand. Saying “The innate moral law shows us that the act of homosexuality is both ‘not natural’ as well as ‘immoral’, and therefore to be considered sin” is tantamount to angrily waving a rock in the direction of the gay person about to enter the church as you hold the door open for them.

  • Eric English

    Lady’s, gentleman, boys, and girls…Perhaps some notes on
    my post above would be helpful. Clearly, if every single person here (except
    one) misunderstood the post then I have not communicated properly. However,
    first let me make a couple of observations. First, it’s clear than none, except
    perhaps one or two of you read the post that I was responding to. Second, it’s
    clear that the “Emergent Voice” is not a forum that really cares about diversity
    of opinion. Even though many misunderstood the overall response, the comments lacked
    the necessary critical value necessary in having this conversation. I am
    especially disappointed in one comment in particular from an individual who
    should know better, but clearly does not and I believe set the tone for the
    majority of the comments.

    Nevertheless, here we are…the post is meant to be a
    combination of satire as well as some straight forward condemnations. I also
    attempted to be a little vulnerable in the sense that I was honest enough to include
    myself in the category. Ironically enough in a forum like this, I was condemned
    for doing so. For those who participated in that, you are a bunch of
    hypocrites.

    To the “secular” homosexual community: I am sorry, but this
    post was not meant for you. I did not provide (nor was it my intent) enough “inter-family”
    context for you to understand why I am saying what I am saying. There is way
    too much baggage and history regarding this situation.

    Finally, those that know me would definitely put me in the
    liberal camp. If you read any of my other writings I think you would agree with
    that assessment. However, apparently, I
    am not liberal enough if I am not willing to deny the authority that the bible
    has in my life.

    The only “attack” I appreciated was from the individual who
    attacked based on my hermeneutic. Thank you. That is the conversation I am
    wanting to have. With that said, let me actually provide the interpretive
    context for this passage (for those who care anyway).

    Paul is writing to Jews and Gentiles in Rome. He is
    attempting to tell people why they need Christ, from a more
    theological/philosophical perspective (contrastingly to his other writings).
    His approach (which is quite brilliant) in doing this is to show why we need
    Christ. In order to provide the necessary context for our situation he tells
    the story of sin as it relates to humanity. His primary emphasis is to show how
    sin has moved us (humanity in general) from God. He goes on to say that it’s
    not just that sin has separated us from God, but it has this “snowball” effect,
    which pushes us further and further away from him. Christ is the only thing
    that can draw us back closer to God.

    I would appreciate from this point forward to have “constructive
    criticism”.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      Can you explain to us which part of your post is satire, and which is not?

      Also, you can’t say that EV doesn’t value diversity of opinion just because people disagree with you.

    • feetxxxl

      my apologies, apparently I misunderstood what you were trying to say(didn’t see the sarcasm). from my own experience I know that emotional context in written words can be easily misunderstood. personally i think you were trying to cover too much territory at one time. but of this last post I can agree with you. romans1:18-32 is paul explaining the basis of all sin: not glorifying and thanking god, exchanging our eternal relationship with our eternal father for obsessions about excesses of the flesh of this mortal life, exchanging the truth about god’s love(god is love) for a lie and worshipping and serving the created, powers and principalities(jesus said we were to battle against), and not thinking it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of god. in doing so he showed how replete it was in us humans, that everyone needed a savior.

  • feetxxxl

    dear eric, im more than happy to engage you, starting romans 18-32, where paul explains the basis of all sin, showing how replete it is in humans, therefore all need a savior. romans1: 25 they exchanged the truth about god’s love for a lie, and worshipped and served the created, powers and principalities(the things we are to battle against , not flesh and blood) and were given over to the things that served them…………………shameful lust (essence of spirit). because they were given over to shameful lust, they abandoned all that was not of that lust,(its lust that is not natural, not the orientation) and out of that lust had relations with those of the same gender. those who are gay no more bond out of shameful lust than do heterosexuals. instead like heterosexuals they bond out of mutual love, devotion, affection, trust, and respect, for a shared committed life together.

  • feetxxxl

    the bottom line: under the new covenant of the revealed jesus(under the old the son of our triune god was hidden) we serve of his love, his spirit, not any written code. for anything to be a sin under his new covenant, its essence must come against the essence of his love. the marriages and lives of those who are gay are filled with the fruit of his spirit, gal5, in the same way as those of heterosexuals. where his spirit rests is what is of god.” that which is not against us is for us” mark 9.

  • feetxxxl

    our faith is not about religion. it is about relationship.we believers do not worship and serve a set of moral values, we worship and serve his living spirit living in us, to be of his love, as in love one another as I have loved you, as you love your neighbor as yourself. there is no higher love than his godlove. this is our standard against sin. being gay has to come against the essence of his love to be a sin. it doesn’t. if you think otherwise please explain.

  • Jerry Lynch

    My wrist may be too limp not to make an occasional typo; please forgive me. I would truly like people who blog this stuff that so riles other Christians to offer the spiritual axiom:” Whenever you are distrubed, the problem is in you.” Nothing is “out there.” Reality is only in the heart.

    The presumptuousness of being the arbiters of judgment by verse has to be a form of insanity. God is the only judge of sin, he alone knows the heart. You walk past the foul-smelling bum in the street, you vote Republican concerning entitlements and taxes, you put your trust in politics and IRAs: no less egregious.

    There is another blog on Patheos that supports this one, so, get your stones ready. Has your child been repeatedly rebellious? Stone that child, don’t go to Joel Olsteen or the like for psychological counseling, for if you do, you are at enmity with God.

    I see no Wisdom in almost all of these posts railing against what was said, and a rather (sorry) wimpy defense of things that needed to be said. The posts are just judgmental, formula Christians without a nano of spiritual depth. Be as hard on the adulterers, illegimate children, the divorced, soldiers, CEOs, and other equal sinners. If so, then you better purchase a large quarry for a righteous, and blunt, reply to these sinners.

  • Ken Bussell

    Eric, you are right that the problem is not homosexuality. The church as you see it is 99% straight because it teaches that “homosexuality” is a sin. Your words will do nothing to draw queers to the church. You have affirmed the root cause of discrimination against them.

    If you love the LBGTQ community, I would encourage you to rethink your interpretation of scripture. The word is living and active only as we allow our understanding of it to grow and change, as all active living things do. Perhaps you are the one struggling to swallow the hard pill of truth?

  • tedseeber

    On the moral argument, there is data from the world of medicine that suggests #2 fails.

    • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

      “Homosexuality neither hurts the self or another and its participants are exceedingly happy.” What data are you referring to?

  • Dave Turner

    I appreciate your post. I don’t agree with people who say you have to change your views of homosexuality and what the Bible says in order to love the LGBT community. Sin is ultimately devastating and if we misrepresent sin to someone or a community, we are only encouraging them to embrace something God has said will only draw them away from faith and ultimately hurt them. It’s unfortunate that this sin has been so overemphasized within the church but the solution isn’t to say it’s not a sin at all.

    I was once a part of the LGBT way of life but believed homosexuality was a sin. I have left that lifestyle, I went through years of healing, I’m married and have a daughter. I still struggle with the feelings from time to time but it’s not the dominant issue it was for me previously. I’m thankful my Christian friends didn’t tell me to embrace what the Bible calls sin. I’ve needed to stay closer to Christ as I navigate the temptations of my life but it has been entirely worth it.

    • Fred Houston

      Dave, you are an gay man living in a pretend marriage. You’d rather be making love to a man, but instead you lie each and every day to your family. You have not been healed. It isn’t a choice.

      • Jason Clark

        @Fred. This is one of the most ridiculous judgmental comments I have ever heard. Who are you to make a remark like that? I am sure you have to believe that for your world to make sense to you, but that doesn’t make it true. All sexuality is a choice. I know over-sexualized Americans don’t want to believe this, but we also have a choice to remain celibate. It is called self discipline. We do not have to be slaves to our sexual impulses. According to your logic, pedophiles who resist the urge and remain faithful to their spouse instead of raping their daughter are lying to their family every day. It isn’t a choice.

      • Dave Turner

        @fredhouston:disqus I agree with Jason that your comments are both ridiculous and judgmental. It’s a very modern concept that we even base our identity on our sexuality so I first reject that notion. Secondly, my wife knows about my history so there’s authenticity in our relationship and, yes, I have experienced tremendous healing. My attractions haven’t gone away completely and perhaps they never will. But it doesn’t matter to me. I have other leanings that I know are also sinful and I choose not to follow them by God’s grace. We have a great marriage, a wonderful kid and life is good. I’ve learned that following Jesus is far better than following what the world says will make me happy.

      • Jimmy Johnson

        You do realize that those so-called medical studies showing a genetic link for homosexuality have been shown to be run and falsified by known homosexuals, right?

  • http://www.LTCartoons.com/ LTCartoons

    I would imagine homophobia is a sin and its a double-sin if the homophobe is at least 10lbs overweight. You see, that’s gluttony. So you’ve got a sinner, pointing his/her finger at what he/she considers a sinner, not even thinking or trying to correct his/her own sins. 90% of America is overweight and/or obese. I say take care of your own sins, some prayer wouldn’t hurt to keep you from projecting your hate of your sin onto homosexuals so you won’t have to focus on the pain you’ll go through to stop the sin of gluttony. And you too can be redeemed. Good luck!

    • Daniel McPherson

      You are so asinine, you’re telling people to focus on their own sin practice what you preach.

      • beardiethor

        I have two stents in my heart. I was 60lbs overweight. You can’t sin more than that (well you can but I don’t recommend it). I just finished hiking with my wife (a female) in the mountains 4.5 miles. I’m not God’s little policeman, I’m sure He made gays and straights for a reason; He’s a lot smarter than me; but of course only half as smart as you. I have nothing against gays, nor do I have anything against the cognitively challenged (such as yourself). It breaks my heart though, that this kind of labeling, this kind of division in America, was Bin Laden’s dream. He’s beating us even in death because of people like you. I hope it feels good to be the puppet of a madman. Have a great day!

  • Lesly Henriquez

    Yes! Thank you! I am a Christian myself, and I also do think homosexuality is a sin, but that does not mean that I am going to go around disrespecting homosexuals. Murder, lying, thieving is also a sin, but that doesn’t mean that Christians should go around attacking these people. That is not the purpose we were given. We are all sinners, just as homosexuals, so we should seek to get them to the word of God, and the only way that can happen is through testimony and respect. Just as Jesus respected the adulteress woman, so we should with homosexuals. Sin is really a personal thing between ones self and God, and the Christians job is to bring the sinner to the church in a love and kindling way, not by giving them the cold shoulder.

  • Reverb

    There is nothing wrong with encouraging full acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won’t hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving family.

  • Athan Rules

    http://gayallchat.com/

    Fresh gay meeting point!

  • Zagil Zashov Yuri Yuryev’c

    PRIVET?
    We are all created in this world according to Gods image; i strongly believe that homosexuality is a huge SIN. i mean literally i just follow the teachings of christ. whether we are protestant, roman catholic, jewish, eastern ortodox, or perhaps muslim. I strongly believe that we only worship one God; i myself born in Turkey. a country made up of largest population of muslims. A very conservative country, we muslims are not so liberated. Our parents, & fellow muslim brother hood teaches us the right conscience. generally speaking We all know that from the very beginning in this world God made a man & a woman. ADAM & EVe. god made them bcoz we all know that heterosexuality can reproduce life, if the world are tolerating homosexuals wat will happen in this world no reproduction, i am not blind of wat is happening in our society, In the 21st century ther are so many laws that has been ligalize that we or i find it as a mistake for example DIVORCE, ABORTION, & HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. i am not being prejudice but like i said its the moral teachings of the church i follow. i will really explain first DIVORCE – i find it not good bcoz choosing the right partner is nesesary base on my persona;l experience i hate divorce bcoz if i was the parent i would think the brighter future for my kids marriage is a very sacramental thing which is made by God & most of all LOVE. Second is ABORTION – killing an innocent person inside the womd of a mother is not really good. i believe that there is proper time for engaging sex & that is marriage we should be responsible for our actions bcoz in the end there is regret. Finally Homosexual marriage, for some countries this law had alresdy been legalize, I strongly believe that homosexuallity is a sin which is punishable by God. We cannot realize that one today but the time of our death and its called THE JUDGEMENT DAY… while still leaving we should do good. Im not saying that i cannot make mistakes, but i will be a good citizen… i am just 19 but im responsible for my actions.

  • bob butthead

    The reason homosexuals and the church has not clicked is because homosexuals want it both ways. They want their sin and they want full acceptance in the church. You don’t see other sinners flaunting their sin like homosexuals saying, I’m gay and proud. Neither do you see thieves or adulterers, or arsonists identifying with their sin. The church is a holy organization, the body of Christ. The church cannot tolerate sin and must call it what it is. Membership is for believers only but anyone can attend the meetings. Homosexuals are welcome in the church, but don’t feel offended if the sermon strikes a nerve. It was not designed to chase you out of the building nor is it us being unloving, but we speak the truth for your benefit. So in my opinion, believers should not be accused of being unfriendly and unloving to homosexuals because they can’t take the ideology. I will say this much, believers should under no circumstance judge unbelievers. When folks come to church we need to love them, make them feel welcome, talk to them, but speak the truth in love. Never should we condemn ridicule or judge them. Let God do a work on their heart. If it is of God, they will see the truth. If it is not of God, they will not stick around. They went out from us because they were not of us.

  • Jimmy Johnson

    It is true that regarding salvation, God views all sin the same. The least sin possible to commit will get you the same sentence of eternal condemnation in Hell as a murder or a homosexual lifestyle, if you do not repent(change your mind) and trust Christ alone as savior.

    Once saved however, there are major differences between types of sin. The Lord never even called murder an abomination! He repeatedly calls homosexuality an abomination. And the reason most people in the church don’t “react positively” to homosexuals is because we innately respond with revulsion to homosexuals in our presence. We are wired by God that way.

    Should we be more loving yes. Should we allow them to stay in our church as open homosexuals. May it never happen!

    Visit to hear the word of God. Yes.

    But as members, remaining openly homosexual. Never. If they choose to trust Christ, they must stop if they wish to remain in fellowship with us. Paul’s clear on this in 1 Corinthians.

    To be clear, a homosexual can trust Christ as savior and decide not to stop that sin and live the rest of their life as a homosexual and they most certainly WILL be saved by God. That is the power of the gospel unto salvation. It is not based on his or her performance. It is based on the promise of God.

    So let’s not condemn them as being unsaved if they must be put out of your churches. They are truly saved if they believe the gospel no matter what they choose to do – just like you and me.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X