Christianity & politics, when everything is politics

Douglas Wilson has some penetrating things to say about Christians getting involved in politics:

James Davison Hunter has this to say about contemporary Christian political involvement.

“These qualifications notwithstanding, the reality is that politics is the tactic of choice for many Christians as they think about changing the world . . . It is not an exaggeration to say that the dominant public witness of the Christian churches in America since the early 1980s has been a political witness” (To Change the World, p. 12).

. . . .

Think about this for a moment. The “most dominant public witness” of Christians has been political. Assuming this to be so (and I believe it is), there are different reasons why it might be so. One reason could be that Christians are the ones with the problem. They have politics on the brain. They rush to the mechanisms of the state (which were modestly hiding in a distant village), in order to advance their public faith with the politics of coercion. In other words, these Christians have lost faith in Jesus their Savior, and are trying to use the political process as a sort of savior's-little-helper.

Another option, and one that I consider far more likely, is this. The political state in our day is swollen and overgrown, and has gotten into everything. Politics, the great secular idol of modernity, has virtually filled up every public space. This means that it is not possible to go into any public space in order to have a public witness of any kind without it resulting in some kind of political confrontation.

To this extent, to blame public Christians for being “too political” is like blaming Noah’s ark for being “too wet.”

Abortion and sodomy were sins long before they were constitutional rights. If a minister preached against them a thousand years ago, he was preaching against moral failings, and he was not being political. He was being public, but not political. When I do it, I am preaching against moral failings also, but I am also being political. What changed? It wasn’t the Decalogue. It wasn’t the history of the church, or the history of preaching. It wasn’t the nature of the gospel. It wasn’t me. Rather, it was the nature of the idol being challenged — and this idol aspires to omnipresence.

We are told, ad nauseam, to keep our morality out of politics. It would be more to the point to tell the idol-mongers to keep their politics out of morality. Public morality need not be political, in the sense we are discussing. Public morality need not be a matter that concerns the legislature. But if the legislature concerns itself with everything, then any faithful Christian expression will immediately be concerned with the political.

The secular polis is an in-your-face polis. The polis tells me what kind of light bulbs I must have, how far apart my sheetrock screws have to be, whether or not I can smoke in a restaurant that wants to let me, whether or not I can remove that tag from my mattress, and whether I can say that sodomy is a sin from the pulpit, whether or not it is in my text. In short, if I step into any public space in the name of Jesus Christ, I will be indignantly told, almost immediately, that this space is taken, and not to be a claim-jumper. I may (for the present) believe in Jesus behind my eyes and between my ears, but if it goes any further than that, I am clearly out of control. I am meddling with politics.

via How Noah’s Ark Was Way Too Wet.

HT: Joe Carter

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Dan Kempin

    Not where I thought he was going, based on his initial quote, but good insight. Excellent, in fact.

  • Dan Kempin

    Not where I thought he was going, based on his initial quote, but good insight. Excellent, in fact.

  • http://prschroeder.wordpress.com/page/2/ Mark

    “Abortion and sodomy were sins long before they were constitutional rights. If a minister preached against them a thousand years ago, he was preaching against moral failings, and he was not being political.”

    Great point…but is this anything new? Another preacher had a one sentence sermon which became extremely political and because of it the preacher was decapitated by the governemnt: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” (St. Mark 6: 18).

  • http://prschroeder.wordpress.com/page/2/ Mark

    “Abortion and sodomy were sins long before they were constitutional rights. If a minister preached against them a thousand years ago, he was preaching against moral failings, and he was not being political.”

    Great point…but is this anything new? Another preacher had a one sentence sermon which became extremely political and because of it the preacher was decapitated by the governemnt: “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” (St. Mark 6: 18).

  • bunnycatch3r

    I’m afraid I don’t quite understand. “Sodomy and abortion” are moral failings but at one time they were also illegal. Therefore in order practice them the laws had to be overturned- that involves a political process. According to the bible owning and beating people as slaves is not a moral failing however the issue of slavery necessarily became both a political and moral one during the emancipation process. I really don’t see how you can have one without the other.

  • bunnycatch3r

    I’m afraid I don’t quite understand. “Sodomy and abortion” are moral failings but at one time they were also illegal. Therefore in order practice them the laws had to be overturned- that involves a political process. According to the bible owning and beating people as slaves is not a moral failing however the issue of slavery necessarily became both a political and moral one during the emancipation process. I really don’t see how you can have one without the other.

  • Orianna Laun

    If it’s political, it’s off limits. Take immorality, make it a political issue, then it becomes off limits. Makes one wonder how soon other moral failings (murder, abuse, and other practices still considered “bad”) will become political.

  • Orianna Laun

    If it’s political, it’s off limits. Take immorality, make it a political issue, then it becomes off limits. Makes one wonder how soon other moral failings (murder, abuse, and other practices still considered “bad”) will become political.

  • Jedidiah Maschke

    So basically, if I’m understanding this correctly, this article is blaming Christian political involvement on “big government.”

    One of the biggest reasons I’m against getting involved in politics except as a last resort is because 1 Corinthians 5 specifically says that while Christians are to judge those inside the church, God will judge those outside. In issues like sodomy, it doesn’t make sense to me that we can legislate that away. By doing so, we would be imposing a Christian standard on those who are outside the church, judging those whom God Himself can only rightfully judge.

    Because of this, I would fall into the first camp Wilson speaks of, that Christians “have lost faith in Jesus their Savior, and are trying to use the political process as a sort of savior’s-little-helper.” To me, this comes across as another excuse to rant against big government.

  • Jedidiah Maschke

    So basically, if I’m understanding this correctly, this article is blaming Christian political involvement on “big government.”

    One of the biggest reasons I’m against getting involved in politics except as a last resort is because 1 Corinthians 5 specifically says that while Christians are to judge those inside the church, God will judge those outside. In issues like sodomy, it doesn’t make sense to me that we can legislate that away. By doing so, we would be imposing a Christian standard on those who are outside the church, judging those whom God Himself can only rightfully judge.

    Because of this, I would fall into the first camp Wilson speaks of, that Christians “have lost faith in Jesus their Savior, and are trying to use the political process as a sort of savior’s-little-helper.” To me, this comes across as another excuse to rant against big government.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    As bunnycatch3r implies, the article doesn’t really touch on the proper connection/distinction between legality and morality in this. The two are not identical because there are times when evil ought to be tolerated for the sake of a greater good (i.e. when enforcement would cause even more harm). At the same time, the utter separation of morality and legality which many liberals and libertarians try to claim is untenable. Whenever one talks about what laws we “ought” to have, he is on moral ground whether he admits it or not.

    Part of the problem we have with religion and politics in this country is that most people don’t try to practice the balance of genuine tolerance (not the fake, self-contradictory “tolerance” we usually get crammed down our throats). This aspect of it is unavoidable no matter how intrusive (or not) the government is.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    As bunnycatch3r implies, the article doesn’t really touch on the proper connection/distinction between legality and morality in this. The two are not identical because there are times when evil ought to be tolerated for the sake of a greater good (i.e. when enforcement would cause even more harm). At the same time, the utter separation of morality and legality which many liberals and libertarians try to claim is untenable. Whenever one talks about what laws we “ought” to have, he is on moral ground whether he admits it or not.

    Part of the problem we have with religion and politics in this country is that most people don’t try to practice the balance of genuine tolerance (not the fake, self-contradictory “tolerance” we usually get crammed down our throats). This aspect of it is unavoidable no matter how intrusive (or not) the government is.

  • http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/ Anthony Horvath

    Jed-

    I’m with you to a point. However, you must take into account the fact that the political system we find ourselves in is not the same as the political systems that prevailed during Biblical times. In fact, except for certain city-states, our system is unique within history. I note this because our particular system generates its authority from the ‘consent of the governed’ and that would include you and me and other Christians. In sum, our system gives us explicit rights- and duties- to determine the direction that the government will go.

    If Christians withdraw their voices and perspectives from a system such as this, we do not need to guess- history is our guide- about what kind of tyranny will result.

  • http://onlineapologeticsconference.com/ Anthony Horvath

    Jed-

    I’m with you to a point. However, you must take into account the fact that the political system we find ourselves in is not the same as the political systems that prevailed during Biblical times. In fact, except for certain city-states, our system is unique within history. I note this because our particular system generates its authority from the ‘consent of the governed’ and that would include you and me and other Christians. In sum, our system gives us explicit rights- and duties- to determine the direction that the government will go.

    If Christians withdraw their voices and perspectives from a system such as this, we do not need to guess- history is our guide- about what kind of tyranny will result.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Perhaps there is a point where just preaching from the pulpit some of this stuff is considered political. Though even that can be more or less so depending on how the pastor preaches.
    I do think that many of these things do need to be addressed to some extent from pulpits, but I don’t think Churches need to be campaigning for presidents, congressmen etc. or sponsoring bills etc. I think it is a bit telling when pastors give up their pulpits to run for president.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Perhaps there is a point where just preaching from the pulpit some of this stuff is considered political. Though even that can be more or less so depending on how the pastor preaches.
    I do think that many of these things do need to be addressed to some extent from pulpits, but I don’t think Churches need to be campaigning for presidents, congressmen etc. or sponsoring bills etc. I think it is a bit telling when pastors give up their pulpits to run for president.

  • DonS

    Anthony @ 7: Excellent point. We are blessed to be under a participatory form of government, wherein our involvement will make a difference in our lives here on earth. To withdraw is to cede territory to those not having Christian values. We have done that too often in the past. In contrast, the Roman government was irredeemable, unmovable, and best left alone.

    Jedidiah @ 5: Yes, though we need to be involved in our government, we too often try to change people’s hearts through politics, rather than allowing those changes to take place through the movement of the Holy Spirit. But, let’s not put all the blame for this on the conservative Christians, who are typically largely fighting against the inexorable march of secular government into territory formerly occupied by vibrant, practicing Christian agencies. Liberal Christians tend to substitute faith in big government for faith in God, and to insist on using big government to respond to Christ’s commandment to love they neighbor, rather than taking personal responsibility.

  • DonS

    Anthony @ 7: Excellent point. We are blessed to be under a participatory form of government, wherein our involvement will make a difference in our lives here on earth. To withdraw is to cede territory to those not having Christian values. We have done that too often in the past. In contrast, the Roman government was irredeemable, unmovable, and best left alone.

    Jedidiah @ 5: Yes, though we need to be involved in our government, we too often try to change people’s hearts through politics, rather than allowing those changes to take place through the movement of the Holy Spirit. But, let’s not put all the blame for this on the conservative Christians, who are typically largely fighting against the inexorable march of secular government into territory formerly occupied by vibrant, practicing Christian agencies. Liberal Christians tend to substitute faith in big government for faith in God, and to insist on using big government to respond to Christ’s commandment to love they neighbor, rather than taking personal responsibility.

  • ptl

    Isn’t it true that much of the progress we have made over the past 200 plus years either began or had huge support from the religious community? Am thinking of the anti-slavery movement and the civil rights movement of the 60′s as starters. Perhaps it would not be a huge stretch to say even the founding of the nation included some religious support as well, given how the Dec of Indep refers to the creator, and the first amendment concerns religious freedoms? And although am sure most would not approve, but the movement that led to prohibition had plenty of religious support as well? So am not sure if there is a big change in the role of religion over the years and that seems healthy, given we live in a participatory democracy. What I am sure of is that our secular culture has changed very much from what it was 100, 200 years or so ago, and that many of the political differences of the two groups are much further apart now than then? If that is true, then each side would view the others political involvment as acts of hostility, which is probably is too strong a word, as opposed to mutual cooperation to accomplish common goals. Perhaps those differences that were small in the beginning are starting to add up to one big and bad for the country, irreconcilable divide?

  • ptl

    Isn’t it true that much of the progress we have made over the past 200 plus years either began or had huge support from the religious community? Am thinking of the anti-slavery movement and the civil rights movement of the 60′s as starters. Perhaps it would not be a huge stretch to say even the founding of the nation included some religious support as well, given how the Dec of Indep refers to the creator, and the first amendment concerns religious freedoms? And although am sure most would not approve, but the movement that led to prohibition had plenty of religious support as well? So am not sure if there is a big change in the role of religion over the years and that seems healthy, given we live in a participatory democracy. What I am sure of is that our secular culture has changed very much from what it was 100, 200 years or so ago, and that many of the political differences of the two groups are much further apart now than then? If that is true, then each side would view the others political involvment as acts of hostility, which is probably is too strong a word, as opposed to mutual cooperation to accomplish common goals. Perhaps those differences that were small in the beginning are starting to add up to one big and bad for the country, irreconcilable divide?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@9), “To withdraw is to cede territory to those not having Christian values.” Yes, I believe that phrase appears on the official crest of the Culture Warriors. Ah, the Culture War: And they’ll know we are Christians by the legislation we get passed! Doesn’t do a lick of good to those dying in their sins, but at least now they’ll be doing so in jail.

    Seriously, isn’t this obviously not an either-or situation, but rather both-and? Do Christians “rush to the mechanisms of the state … in order to advance their public faith with the politics of coercion”? Yes. I mean, was I the only one paying attention recently? Gay marriage? Drugs and alcohol? Hello?

    But is it also true that Christians, in going about their normal activities of preaching God’s truth, will step on some toes, politically? Yes. And it will always be so.

    I wish that the Culture Warriors were “stepping into [the] public space in the name of Jesus Christ” when they try to get this or that law passed or repealed. But (cf. the earlier post on the VFW cross) they usually soft-pedal any explicitly Christian message exactly so that they can get their law passed. They appeal to “Judeo-Christian” heritage, and to any number of groups who do not have Jesus Christ as their sole focus. They talk about “culture”, not sin. Their message is not one of “repent and believe that this forgiveness is for you”, but more of a “our laws need to reflect God’s laws, at least inasmuch as it condemns those horrid people”. I wish the Culture War was actually about Jesus. I wish.

    Christians should not for a second stop preaching and acting on the truth, regardless of the political situation. But to blame the current state of politics for Christians actively seeking out politics is kind of sad. When did “He started it” become a Christian motif?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@9), “To withdraw is to cede territory to those not having Christian values.” Yes, I believe that phrase appears on the official crest of the Culture Warriors. Ah, the Culture War: And they’ll know we are Christians by the legislation we get passed! Doesn’t do a lick of good to those dying in their sins, but at least now they’ll be doing so in jail.

    Seriously, isn’t this obviously not an either-or situation, but rather both-and? Do Christians “rush to the mechanisms of the state … in order to advance their public faith with the politics of coercion”? Yes. I mean, was I the only one paying attention recently? Gay marriage? Drugs and alcohol? Hello?

    But is it also true that Christians, in going about their normal activities of preaching God’s truth, will step on some toes, politically? Yes. And it will always be so.

    I wish that the Culture Warriors were “stepping into [the] public space in the name of Jesus Christ” when they try to get this or that law passed or repealed. But (cf. the earlier post on the VFW cross) they usually soft-pedal any explicitly Christian message exactly so that they can get their law passed. They appeal to “Judeo-Christian” heritage, and to any number of groups who do not have Jesus Christ as their sole focus. They talk about “culture”, not sin. Their message is not one of “repent and believe that this forgiveness is for you”, but more of a “our laws need to reflect God’s laws, at least inasmuch as it condemns those horrid people”. I wish the Culture War was actually about Jesus. I wish.

    Christians should not for a second stop preaching and acting on the truth, regardless of the political situation. But to blame the current state of politics for Christians actively seeking out politics is kind of sad. When did “He started it” become a Christian motif?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 9: I am not a “Culture Warrior”, particularly at the federal level. I don’t believe in legislating moral issues, and what I was talking about above was merely protecting the right of people of faith to continue to have a voice and a presence in the public square. We’ve already discussed the gay marriage issue in earlier threads. You and I just disagree on that one. It is the gay marriage proponents who are the aggressors on that issue, because they are attempting to force a change in laws and cultural practices that are millenniums old Those retaining traditional values are just defending the status quo, not attempting in any way to impose new restrictions or laws.

    As I said above, it is the politically liberal Christians who are “rush[ing] to the mechanisms of the state … in order to advance their public faith with the politics of coercion.” They are the ones who want to coercively confiscate more taxes and create new entitlement programs to satisfy their sense of how the commandment to love thy neighbor should be satisfied. We have Christians on this very thread who will comment that they are praying for my soul because I don’t support a particular government social welfare program. In my book, that’s as wrong as those Christians are who want to legislate morals laws. Christians should never be in a position of advocating the passage of laws which will step on the liberty of others, merely for the sake of advancing their religious views.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 9: I am not a “Culture Warrior”, particularly at the federal level. I don’t believe in legislating moral issues, and what I was talking about above was merely protecting the right of people of faith to continue to have a voice and a presence in the public square. We’ve already discussed the gay marriage issue in earlier threads. You and I just disagree on that one. It is the gay marriage proponents who are the aggressors on that issue, because they are attempting to force a change in laws and cultural practices that are millenniums old Those retaining traditional values are just defending the status quo, not attempting in any way to impose new restrictions or laws.

    As I said above, it is the politically liberal Christians who are “rush[ing] to the mechanisms of the state … in order to advance their public faith with the politics of coercion.” They are the ones who want to coercively confiscate more taxes and create new entitlement programs to satisfy their sense of how the commandment to love thy neighbor should be satisfied. We have Christians on this very thread who will comment that they are praying for my soul because I don’t support a particular government social welfare program. In my book, that’s as wrong as those Christians are who want to legislate morals laws. Christians should never be in a position of advocating the passage of laws which will step on the liberty of others, merely for the sake of advancing their religious views.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    glad the Founders of the US took a stand and didn’t wait on the Creator—in fact the Creator-Christ–gave a command to “Occupy til I come” Lk 19 KJV-doesn’t sound like He wants us sit back an wait on Him…
    Full Armor-anyone—-
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    glad the Founders of the US took a stand and didn’t wait on the Creator—in fact the Creator-Christ–gave a command to “Occupy til I come” Lk 19 KJV-doesn’t sound like He wants us sit back an wait on Him…
    Full Armor-anyone—-
    C-CS

  • fws

    last time I visited aberdeen south dakota, the pastors sermon was about 80% on the evils of homosexuality. The other 20% was probably from “Treasury of excellent sermon jokes and illustrative stories”.

    ‘Those homosexuals’.

    We don´t do that here in the Cranach room any more do we? We have a few of “those” now in this room, so it is now just “us” and there is no “them”. This sounds like proper Law and Gospel served up just the way Our Lord intended. Most don´t comment but they are here watching everything we have to say.

    That day in south dakota I turned around and looked around the congregation, and it seemed to be full of blue haired grandmothers. So…I either was wrong and these were lesbians being asked to repent or else the pastor got advance notice that I would be there.

    But then I got it.

    It was “those” homosexuals. It was quite obvious to everyone that there could, of course, be no homosexuals in the sanctuary that sunday right?

    Go ahead and read any christian paper or article on homosexuality published by the LCMS or others. Any. Homosexuals are never in the room or audience. We are always out there somewhere. But never actually in the room being spoken to.

    Then consider what the practical implications are to those homosexuals christians like me who have never ever heard a different voice from the church ever. It is the longing of every human to want to be a part of. To be included in “we”. To be denied that is to be denied existence. It is a death.

    What does someone like me do with that? Get angry? Some do. Get lost? most do. Stay and do no thing because someone who is dead can do only that? Yeah. That´s it I think.

    So that sermon in aberdeen south dakota was intentionally addressed to no one who was there. Is it just me or was that odd?

    So what was that sermon? Political? I really don´t know or care. I do care about the fact that there was no Jesus in it at all in that sermon… just one sunday in a “conservative” LCMS congregation. crazy really.

    Maybe someday christians will give homosexuality the true significance that it deserves: the exact same significance they assign to the fact that some people are left handed.

  • fws

    last time I visited aberdeen south dakota, the pastors sermon was about 80% on the evils of homosexuality. The other 20% was probably from “Treasury of excellent sermon jokes and illustrative stories”.

    ‘Those homosexuals’.

    We don´t do that here in the Cranach room any more do we? We have a few of “those” now in this room, so it is now just “us” and there is no “them”. This sounds like proper Law and Gospel served up just the way Our Lord intended. Most don´t comment but they are here watching everything we have to say.

    That day in south dakota I turned around and looked around the congregation, and it seemed to be full of blue haired grandmothers. So…I either was wrong and these were lesbians being asked to repent or else the pastor got advance notice that I would be there.

    But then I got it.

    It was “those” homosexuals. It was quite obvious to everyone that there could, of course, be no homosexuals in the sanctuary that sunday right?

    Go ahead and read any christian paper or article on homosexuality published by the LCMS or others. Any. Homosexuals are never in the room or audience. We are always out there somewhere. But never actually in the room being spoken to.

    Then consider what the practical implications are to those homosexuals christians like me who have never ever heard a different voice from the church ever. It is the longing of every human to want to be a part of. To be included in “we”. To be denied that is to be denied existence. It is a death.

    What does someone like me do with that? Get angry? Some do. Get lost? most do. Stay and do no thing because someone who is dead can do only that? Yeah. That´s it I think.

    So that sermon in aberdeen south dakota was intentionally addressed to no one who was there. Is it just me or was that odd?

    So what was that sermon? Political? I really don´t know or care. I do care about the fact that there was no Jesus in it at all in that sermon… just one sunday in a “conservative” LCMS congregation. crazy really.

    Maybe someday christians will give homosexuality the true significance that it deserves: the exact same significance they assign to the fact that some people are left handed.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @FWS
    In my opinion homosexuality is just as offensive as doing work on the sabbath. (The penalty for both is death). However, for some reason we don’t usually hear sermons against “those” who willfully break the sabbath. They should have made it a commandment-oh wait….

  • bunnycatch3r

    @FWS
    In my opinion homosexuality is just as offensive as doing work on the sabbath. (The penalty for both is death). However, for some reason we don’t usually hear sermons against “those” who willfully break the sabbath. They should have made it a commandment-oh wait….

  • Matthew Catalano

    I understand your frustration at misapplications of the law, fws. Certainly, it is a misuse to target specific forms of sin as more egregious before God than others. We are all well aware that pastors can use the issue to advance cultural and/or political pet peeves. They also tend not to follow up such statements with any hint of the Gospel.

    But left handed? Did the apostle Paul ever speak about the wrath of God against left handed people? The answer to misuses of the law is not to wipe out the law and revert to antinomianism. The Gospel is freedom from sin, not an excuse to continue in it.

  • Matthew Catalano

    I understand your frustration at misapplications of the law, fws. Certainly, it is a misuse to target specific forms of sin as more egregious before God than others. We are all well aware that pastors can use the issue to advance cultural and/or political pet peeves. They also tend not to follow up such statements with any hint of the Gospel.

    But left handed? Did the apostle Paul ever speak about the wrath of God against left handed people? The answer to misuses of the law is not to wipe out the law and revert to antinomianism. The Gospel is freedom from sin, not an excuse to continue in it.

  • fws

    Dear brother Matthew @16,

    I loved your quote from scripture on the new JC program. excellent.

    Did the apostle Paul ever speak about the wrath of God against gays and lesbians and transgenders? Your question assumes two things really and not just that one, which is wrong by the way:

    It assumes 1) that the bible talks about what we today know as “homosexuality” (as a clinical medical term). Is this true? No. It is anachronism. Homosexuality was not even a concept in society until well into the 20th century 2) It also assumes that homosexuals are “objectively disfunctional” heterosexuals. That homos are just heterosexuals who are damaged. Now if we accept that this is correct, that I agree that your logic is flawless Matthew and cannot argue against it. but it is a logical argument. It is not a scriptural or moral argument you have made. So may I ask you: is this premise for your argument true? We are called to live in the truth.

    Now as for 2) To say that lefthandedness is not a sin is not to lapse into being “anti-law” . Lefthandedness can influence how one sins, as can being black or white or albino. These will all sin. what else would sinners, with original sin do? Ditto with being gay. But I don´t accept that gays sin in a different way than others or are sinful because they are gay. “Being” gay is not the same as “being” an alcoholic I am saying for example. “Being” gay is the same as “being” left handed I am saying. Prove me wrong from scriptures. You cannot. That part is not an argument about morals or scriptures.

    So what part is about morals and scriptures? The following:

    According to my new birth, christ in me, I AM free from sin and my conscience no longer answers to the law or it´s condemnation. “I AM washed I AM sanctified”. Present indicative tense. I take that as literally as one could Matthew. This is what is meant in “there is now no condemnation for those who are in christ Jesus”. I am completely free from the law therefore Matthew as a believer in christ. Why is this true? Since when did christ, who is now in me, need any law to do or know what to do to be good?

    I do believe Matthew that good works are absolutely necessary and that God is pleased with them whoever does them. You know this right? I also believe that I fail to do them by the minute.

    Where is the antinomianism in that matthew?

    I also do believe, because both the Lutheran confessions and scripture say so, that if I have faith, then works MUST follow. I do believe, as a believer, that this part is true about me now, completely and perfectly! I hope that you know this is true for you too. Again where is the antinomianism?

  • fws

    Dear brother Matthew @16,

    I loved your quote from scripture on the new JC program. excellent.

    Did the apostle Paul ever speak about the wrath of God against gays and lesbians and transgenders? Your question assumes two things really and not just that one, which is wrong by the way:

    It assumes 1) that the bible talks about what we today know as “homosexuality” (as a clinical medical term). Is this true? No. It is anachronism. Homosexuality was not even a concept in society until well into the 20th century 2) It also assumes that homosexuals are “objectively disfunctional” heterosexuals. That homos are just heterosexuals who are damaged. Now if we accept that this is correct, that I agree that your logic is flawless Matthew and cannot argue against it. but it is a logical argument. It is not a scriptural or moral argument you have made. So may I ask you: is this premise for your argument true? We are called to live in the truth.

    Now as for 2) To say that lefthandedness is not a sin is not to lapse into being “anti-law” . Lefthandedness can influence how one sins, as can being black or white or albino. These will all sin. what else would sinners, with original sin do? Ditto with being gay. But I don´t accept that gays sin in a different way than others or are sinful because they are gay. “Being” gay is not the same as “being” an alcoholic I am saying for example. “Being” gay is the same as “being” left handed I am saying. Prove me wrong from scriptures. You cannot. That part is not an argument about morals or scriptures.

    So what part is about morals and scriptures? The following:

    According to my new birth, christ in me, I AM free from sin and my conscience no longer answers to the law or it´s condemnation. “I AM washed I AM sanctified”. Present indicative tense. I take that as literally as one could Matthew. This is what is meant in “there is now no condemnation for those who are in christ Jesus”. I am completely free from the law therefore Matthew as a believer in christ. Why is this true? Since when did christ, who is now in me, need any law to do or know what to do to be good?

    I do believe Matthew that good works are absolutely necessary and that God is pleased with them whoever does them. You know this right? I also believe that I fail to do them by the minute.

    Where is the antinomianism in that matthew?

    I also do believe, because both the Lutheran confessions and scripture say so, that if I have faith, then works MUST follow. I do believe, as a believer, that this part is true about me now, completely and perfectly! I hope that you know this is true for you too. Again where is the antinomianism?

  • Matthew Catalano

    @fws
    I don’t believe the Scriptures address it along the lines of a medical term. However, they clearly describe the behavior and the fact that it violates the law of God. Leviticus 18 mentions this behavior, which the apostle Paul uses the same Greek word for (arsenakoites) in Romans and 1 Cor. The question of whether homosexuals are dysfunctional heterosexuals is irrelevant. Giving in to the temptation is a sin, whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual.

    The antinomianism comes in, in that, what is clearly taught in Scripture to be sinful behavior, is denied as being sinful and equated to just another mechanistic function of humanity along the lines of which hand one favors. Denying God’s law is not an option for a Christian.

  • Matthew Catalano

    @fws
    I don’t believe the Scriptures address it along the lines of a medical term. However, they clearly describe the behavior and the fact that it violates the law of God. Leviticus 18 mentions this behavior, which the apostle Paul uses the same Greek word for (arsenakoites) in Romans and 1 Cor. The question of whether homosexuals are dysfunctional heterosexuals is irrelevant. Giving in to the temptation is a sin, whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual.

    The antinomianism comes in, in that, what is clearly taught in Scripture to be sinful behavior, is denied as being sinful and equated to just another mechanistic function of humanity along the lines of which hand one favors. Denying God’s law is not an option for a Christian.

  • fws

    matthew at 18

    “Leviticus 18 mentions this behavior, which the apostle Paul uses the same Greek word for (arsenakoites) in Romans and 1 Cor.”

    Where is arsenokoites used in romans? It is not. 1 cor uses this word which seems to be a clear ref to leviticus 18. So some of your “facts” are wrong.

    I disagree that the bible clearly describes “homosexual behavior.” first in romans 1:27 it clearly says that the “they” you call homosexuals left their women. I am not aware that homosexuals have women typically. so there must be an alternate reading of this that would make more sense?

    The bible has passages describing heterosexual rape as well. So it is sex between a man and a woman. check. It is heterosexual sex. check. It describes hetersexual sexual behavior. no. Again. you are using logic and not holy scripture. leviticus and sodom and gomorrah are about rape. ok. heterosexuals have raped other men. and that is not homosexual behavior. prison rape is not “homosexual behavior”. If you disagree with these assertions , then I have no way to argue with your logic. but then we are not arguing about scriptures or what they say. we are arguing whether your logical arguments are true or not.

  • fws

    matthew at 18

    “Leviticus 18 mentions this behavior, which the apostle Paul uses the same Greek word for (arsenakoites) in Romans and 1 Cor.”

    Where is arsenokoites used in romans? It is not. 1 cor uses this word which seems to be a clear ref to leviticus 18. So some of your “facts” are wrong.

    I disagree that the bible clearly describes “homosexual behavior.” first in romans 1:27 it clearly says that the “they” you call homosexuals left their women. I am not aware that homosexuals have women typically. so there must be an alternate reading of this that would make more sense?

    The bible has passages describing heterosexual rape as well. So it is sex between a man and a woman. check. It is heterosexual sex. check. It describes hetersexual sexual behavior. no. Again. you are using logic and not holy scripture. leviticus and sodom and gomorrah are about rape. ok. heterosexuals have raped other men. and that is not homosexual behavior. prison rape is not “homosexual behavior”. If you disagree with these assertions , then I have no way to argue with your logic. but then we are not arguing about scriptures or what they say. we are arguing whether your logical arguments are true or not.

  • Mark Veenman

    In the same way, abortion is neither mentioned nor clearly condemned in the Bible or the BOC. That we invent new ways to define “human life” or to “murder” is besides the point. Could it be that the sin so obviously belongs under “Thou shalt not kill” that it did not occur to us to refute and condemn the sin until now?

  • Mark Veenman

    In the same way, abortion is neither mentioned nor clearly condemned in the Bible or the BOC. That we invent new ways to define “human life” or to “murder” is besides the point. Could it be that the sin so obviously belongs under “Thou shalt not kill” that it did not occur to us to refute and condemn the sin until now?

  • fws

    Mark v @ 20

    “In the same way”. How is this similar? Is that a true statement? But the augustana and apology in article XXIII do say that attempting to be celebate is absolutely impossible to do except in rare exceptions. It also says that for the church to insist on it is “cruel” and responsible for terrible sin and vice. It finally says almost everywhere that for the church to require such religious sacrifices does not please God precisely because it does no one´s neighbor any earthly good.

    Somehow many here would say: “yes, we believe teach and confess this, but none of that applies to homosexuals!”

    Now dear Mark. Please tell me how you feel this is exactly the same situation as abortion?

  • fws

    Mark v @ 20

    “In the same way”. How is this similar? Is that a true statement? But the augustana and apology in article XXIII do say that attempting to be celebate is absolutely impossible to do except in rare exceptions. It also says that for the church to insist on it is “cruel” and responsible for terrible sin and vice. It finally says almost everywhere that for the church to require such religious sacrifices does not please God precisely because it does no one´s neighbor any earthly good.

    Somehow many here would say: “yes, we believe teach and confess this, but none of that applies to homosexuals!”

    Now dear Mark. Please tell me how you feel this is exactly the same situation as abortion?

  • Mark Veenman

    Dear FWS. I am genetically inclined to sleep with many different women. I am genetically inclined to lust for other women. I am even told by evolutionists that the male penis has evolved to have his sperma gain the “upper hand” among many potential male suitors. So I fall under the same condemnation as all others. There are some men with the same genetic predispositions as I who hire prostitutes. Since when are my genetics an argument against morality and justification for the overthrow of Truth itself? That the law is not currently applied equally to all, including fornicators, does not change the fact of the law. No law, no gospel. No gospel, no Christ. No Christ, no Church.

  • Mark Veenman

    Dear FWS. I am genetically inclined to sleep with many different women. I am genetically inclined to lust for other women. I am even told by evolutionists that the male penis has evolved to have his sperma gain the “upper hand” among many potential male suitors. So I fall under the same condemnation as all others. There are some men with the same genetic predispositions as I who hire prostitutes. Since when are my genetics an argument against morality and justification for the overthrow of Truth itself? That the law is not currently applied equally to all, including fornicators, does not change the fact of the law. No law, no gospel. No gospel, no Christ. No Christ, no Church.

  • Mark Veenman

    Now dear FWS:
    The two matters are not completely analogous, I’ll agree; I meant only to highlight that fact that one could perhaps defend abortion and claim to be a Christian at the same time. One could even argue that one is genetically inclined to adultery. My point, which you missed, or I perhaps did not make so clear, is that it would take a twisted hermeneutics. So twisted, in fact, that the ancients – who understood logic – never dreamt that one would attempt such an argument on scriptural grounds and therefore never wrote it into our creeds. No. This incoherentness is reserved for the 21st century.
    May God bless us.

  • Mark Veenman

    Now dear FWS:
    The two matters are not completely analogous, I’ll agree; I meant only to highlight that fact that one could perhaps defend abortion and claim to be a Christian at the same time. One could even argue that one is genetically inclined to adultery. My point, which you missed, or I perhaps did not make so clear, is that it would take a twisted hermeneutics. So twisted, in fact, that the ancients – who understood logic – never dreamt that one would attempt such an argument on scriptural grounds and therefore never wrote it into our creeds. No. This incoherentness is reserved for the 21st century.
    May God bless us.

  • fws

    Mark @ 22

    Mark, thanks for your gentility.

    “one could perhaps defend abortion and claim to be a Christian at the same time.”

    1) Amen brother! Not only CLAIM but BE a christian at the same time! One can defend abortion, calvinism, or any number of sins, and proudly, and still be a christian. Thank God we can know that to be true! And at the same time we pray “Cleanse thou me from secret sins” ie sins that our fallen pride or reason allows us to cling to. It´s it great that we are saved truly, and really, by Christ Alone and not intellectually assenting to whether a set of propositions is true or not? We see error and sin and others, and God sees the heart or faith, which is invisible. So Jesus says that it is not for us to separate the wheat from the tares.

    2) “…it would take a twisted hermeneutics…the ancients… would attempt such an argument on scriptural grounds. This incoherentness is reserved for the 21st century.”

    Again Amen Brother! It is sinful and wrong to translate Leviticus 18 or romans 1 or 1 corinthians using the word “homosexual”, which is a word that is a technical medical term whose definition only came about in around 1980. This is modernism and revisionism and twisted hermeneutics. What else would it be? This issomething akin to translating the biblical command to “be joyful always” as “It wrong be clinically depressed”. It makes no sense on any level whatsoever. But then I suspect you are thinking that the modern revisionism lies in what I am asserting: the very concept of homosexuality, as with helocentrism never would have occurred to the ancients and was as completely unknown to them as was North America or the theory of relativity. And I agree that they would never have tried to debate or argue such things, either for or against, ever, on the basis of Holy Scripture.

    3) “attempting an argument on scriptural grounds”.

    Agreed! We do not do well to try to base scientific arguments (ie arguments based on observable facts that can be proven or disproven based on tangible evidence) on Holy Scripture. God would not want us to use the bible for this purpose. His purpose is to bring us Christ Crucified there. Besides, there is nothing in scripture that would resolve the scientific argument we might have over whether homosexuals are just an “objectively disordered ” heterosexual or are in fact something other than heterosexual in a way that is similar to being left-handed. This is because the bible nowhere talks about homosexual behavior or homosexuality. It only speaks to heterosexuality. The ancients could not have conceived of what medicine and science now have discovered and labeled with the technical and medical term “homosexual”. Just as the ancients probably never could have conceived of a non earth-centric universe. In fact as recently as 1930 the head of the LCMS systematics dept maintained that the bible taught an earth centered universe (franz pieper). The evidence caught up to that view as it is catching up to the idea that homosexuality as defined by medicine and science does not exist as a category. You are so right that this is NOT an argument, in either direction, that one should attempt to argue from Holy Scripture. That would be false doctrine and so damaging to the cause of the Holy Gospel.

  • fws

    Mark @ 22

    Mark, thanks for your gentility.

    “one could perhaps defend abortion and claim to be a Christian at the same time.”

    1) Amen brother! Not only CLAIM but BE a christian at the same time! One can defend abortion, calvinism, or any number of sins, and proudly, and still be a christian. Thank God we can know that to be true! And at the same time we pray “Cleanse thou me from secret sins” ie sins that our fallen pride or reason allows us to cling to. It´s it great that we are saved truly, and really, by Christ Alone and not intellectually assenting to whether a set of propositions is true or not? We see error and sin and others, and God sees the heart or faith, which is invisible. So Jesus says that it is not for us to separate the wheat from the tares.

    2) “…it would take a twisted hermeneutics…the ancients… would attempt such an argument on scriptural grounds. This incoherentness is reserved for the 21st century.”

    Again Amen Brother! It is sinful and wrong to translate Leviticus 18 or romans 1 or 1 corinthians using the word “homosexual”, which is a word that is a technical medical term whose definition only came about in around 1980. This is modernism and revisionism and twisted hermeneutics. What else would it be? This issomething akin to translating the biblical command to “be joyful always” as “It wrong be clinically depressed”. It makes no sense on any level whatsoever. But then I suspect you are thinking that the modern revisionism lies in what I am asserting: the very concept of homosexuality, as with helocentrism never would have occurred to the ancients and was as completely unknown to them as was North America or the theory of relativity. And I agree that they would never have tried to debate or argue such things, either for or against, ever, on the basis of Holy Scripture.

    3) “attempting an argument on scriptural grounds”.

    Agreed! We do not do well to try to base scientific arguments (ie arguments based on observable facts that can be proven or disproven based on tangible evidence) on Holy Scripture. God would not want us to use the bible for this purpose. His purpose is to bring us Christ Crucified there. Besides, there is nothing in scripture that would resolve the scientific argument we might have over whether homosexuals are just an “objectively disordered ” heterosexual or are in fact something other than heterosexual in a way that is similar to being left-handed. This is because the bible nowhere talks about homosexual behavior or homosexuality. It only speaks to heterosexuality. The ancients could not have conceived of what medicine and science now have discovered and labeled with the technical and medical term “homosexual”. Just as the ancients probably never could have conceived of a non earth-centric universe. In fact as recently as 1930 the head of the LCMS systematics dept maintained that the bible taught an earth centered universe (franz pieper). The evidence caught up to that view as it is catching up to the idea that homosexuality as defined by medicine and science does not exist as a category. You are so right that this is NOT an argument, in either direction, that one should attempt to argue from Holy Scripture. That would be false doctrine and so damaging to the cause of the Holy Gospel.

  • fws

    Mark

    My overall point is that we must all make our reason captive to the Word of God. This means not reading something into Holy Scripture that is simply not there. We should not let our extra-biblical views on homosexuality be injected or read into scripture in this case.

    This does require discipline and faith.

  • fws

    Mark

    My overall point is that we must all make our reason captive to the Word of God. This means not reading something into Holy Scripture that is simply not there. We should not let our extra-biblical views on homosexuality be injected or read into scripture in this case.

    This does require discipline and faith.

  • fws

    Mark @ 22

    You have indicated that you think maybe we have a disconnect, or that I am missing something important.

    My whole point is that there are two parts to this: 1) what the definition of the word we are batting about “homosexuality” and then 2) is it right or wrong. You assume that 1) is obvious and undebatable and so jump to 2) based on that assumption. Again I need to ask: Is your definition and assumption the truth? We as christians need to be about the truth.

    So I challenge you brother Mark:

    Define the word “homosexual”. I sincerely doubt that you have thought to do that or would be able to articulate a definition that the ama, apa, aba or any medical professional or mainstream scientist would agree with or that I would recognize as reflecting , accurately what I am as a homosexual. I hope to be able to say “Yes Mark, you described what I know to be the homosexuality I have accurately. Only THEN we can discuss whether what you have described, that actually reflects reality, is a sin or not.

    So let´s be honest and accurate with our use of words and honor God in the use of our language to communicate and not merely argue shall we?

    In contrast with that word “abortion”: There is no question between anyone as to what that word “abortion” is defined as is there? Partial-birth abortion is still agreed by all to be “abortion”. THEN the only question remaining there is whether or not it is right or wrong, just a procedure to remove some “tissue” or what it really is: murder of an innocent.

    So there again, you drew a false parallel between abortion and homosexuality agreed? Note I am not trying to win any argument here Mark. I am merely trying to get us to that point where we know what we disagree about and how and so can have a meaningful argument or discussion. Does that feel clear and fair to you?

  • fws

    Mark @ 22

    You have indicated that you think maybe we have a disconnect, or that I am missing something important.

    My whole point is that there are two parts to this: 1) what the definition of the word we are batting about “homosexuality” and then 2) is it right or wrong. You assume that 1) is obvious and undebatable and so jump to 2) based on that assumption. Again I need to ask: Is your definition and assumption the truth? We as christians need to be about the truth.

    So I challenge you brother Mark:

    Define the word “homosexual”. I sincerely doubt that you have thought to do that or would be able to articulate a definition that the ama, apa, aba or any medical professional or mainstream scientist would agree with or that I would recognize as reflecting , accurately what I am as a homosexual. I hope to be able to say “Yes Mark, you described what I know to be the homosexuality I have accurately. Only THEN we can discuss whether what you have described, that actually reflects reality, is a sin or not.

    So let´s be honest and accurate with our use of words and honor God in the use of our language to communicate and not merely argue shall we?

    In contrast with that word “abortion”: There is no question between anyone as to what that word “abortion” is defined as is there? Partial-birth abortion is still agreed by all to be “abortion”. THEN the only question remaining there is whether or not it is right or wrong, just a procedure to remove some “tissue” or what it really is: murder of an innocent.

    So there again, you drew a false parallel between abortion and homosexuality agreed? Note I am not trying to win any argument here Mark. I am merely trying to get us to that point where we know what we disagree about and how and so can have a meaningful argument or discussion. Does that feel clear and fair to you?

  • fws

    mark @ 22

    God bless you for being open minded enough to actually discuss this with gentility and not go to a character attack.

    This marks you as a righteous man. I hope I am demonstrating a similar courtesy towards you dear brother and so show similar righteousness.

  • fws

    mark @ 22

    God bless you for being open minded enough to actually discuss this with gentility and not go to a character attack.

    This marks you as a righteous man. I hope I am demonstrating a similar courtesy towards you dear brother and so show similar righteousness.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @fws
    I’ve never heard this argument before and am trying to work though it the best I can. You say that the bible only discusses heterosexuality but then how do you interpret passages such as Lev 18:22 and 20:13?
    All the best,
    Bcatch3r

  • bunnycatch3r

    @fws
    I’ve never heard this argument before and am trying to work though it the best I can. You say that the bible only discusses heterosexuality but then how do you interpret passages such as Lev 18:22 and 20:13?
    All the best,
    Bcatch3r

  • Mark Veenman

    Dear fws,
    I’m not a homosexual. I’m not a homophobe either. Homophobe is actually a misnomer; I believe it would translate as “hatred of same”. In a way, I suppose then, I am a hater of same. I also have a number of gay friends. I am also related to a number of people who were abused by gay men. I also know a few (describing themselves in their own words as) redeemed ex-gays.
    You rambled for quite a while there, fws, for which I forgive you. I’ll pick up on your one request that I define “homosexuality”. I have not spun my head so rapidly around this issue that I can say that I understand that different people might define it in different ways. Heterosexuality seems pretty easy: sexual attraction to the opposite sex. The antonym should be the opposite, don’t you agree? So there you have it. Homosexuality, in my humble opinion, is a sexual attraction to the same sex. How am I doing so far?

  • Mark Veenman

    Dear fws,
    I’m not a homosexual. I’m not a homophobe either. Homophobe is actually a misnomer; I believe it would translate as “hatred of same”. In a way, I suppose then, I am a hater of same. I also have a number of gay friends. I am also related to a number of people who were abused by gay men. I also know a few (describing themselves in their own words as) redeemed ex-gays.
    You rambled for quite a while there, fws, for which I forgive you. I’ll pick up on your one request that I define “homosexuality”. I have not spun my head so rapidly around this issue that I can say that I understand that different people might define it in different ways. Heterosexuality seems pretty easy: sexual attraction to the opposite sex. The antonym should be the opposite, don’t you agree? So there you have it. Homosexuality, in my humble opinion, is a sexual attraction to the same sex. How am I doing so far?

  • fws

    bunnycatch3r @ 28

    I think I read them exactly the same way you would read a passage describing a rape of a woman by a man. You would “interpret” the passage as being repugnant. Placing yourself as the perpetrator or recipient of the act would be repugnant to you. So what about that passage would have anything to do with you and your sexuality?

    The fact that it was a man and woman engaged in sex? Would you say this is the description of heterosexual sex as you know it? How would you feel if people pointed to that rape passage and said it described you and defines who you are?

    So what is it in that rape passage that would say anything about you or your situation bunnycatch3r?

    Would that passage define what heterosexual sex is our it´s character or nature? or even further “heterosexuality” in total?

  • fws

    bunnycatch3r @ 28

    I think I read them exactly the same way you would read a passage describing a rape of a woman by a man. You would “interpret” the passage as being repugnant. Placing yourself as the perpetrator or recipient of the act would be repugnant to you. So what about that passage would have anything to do with you and your sexuality?

    The fact that it was a man and woman engaged in sex? Would you say this is the description of heterosexual sex as you know it? How would you feel if people pointed to that rape passage and said it described you and defines who you are?

    So what is it in that rape passage that would say anything about you or your situation bunnycatch3r?

    Would that passage define what heterosexual sex is our it´s character or nature? or even further “heterosexuality” in total?

  • fws

    Mark V @ 29

    “I also have a number of gay friends. I am also related to a number of people who were abused by gay men. I also know a few (describing themselves in their own words as) redeemed ex-gays.”

    You have an interesting circle of friends. “homophobe” means “someone who has a fearbased hatred of homosexuals/homosexuality”. I agree the etymology suggest otherwise. The commonly understood meaning remains what it is. So I do hope that you are not really a “homophobe”. Take care in labeling yourself. It is not worth arguing over is it?

    Thanks for your generosity in forgiving my rambling Mark. Kind.

    So now your definition:

    “Heterosexuality seems pretty easy: sexual attraction to the opposite sex. ” “How am I doing so far?”

    I would not give you a passing mark Mark.

    Can I assume here that ‘friend’ in reference to “gay friends” implies that your lives are mutually involved on a frequent and intimate basis? If so I am puzzled that your definition is so shallow and reduces to sex.

    I was a homosexual as far back as age 5 or so. I obviously had no sexual attraction before puberty Mark. If you check with your gay friends, I am fairly confident that all of them will attest to a similar history, except for maybe the “redeemed ex-gays”. So your definition seems to be missing something in terms of reflecting facts wouldn´t you agree?

    Here is a link that has a definition of homosexuality and sexual orientation that would square with the evidence that I know from my own experience and that of thousands of other homosexuals. The facts are not neat and clearcut in a way that would suit more strident homosexuals or the religious who prize that same tidiness for different reasons.

    I hope I have not rambled as much.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

    In your service, frank

  • fws

    Mark V @ 29

    “I also have a number of gay friends. I am also related to a number of people who were abused by gay men. I also know a few (describing themselves in their own words as) redeemed ex-gays.”

    You have an interesting circle of friends. “homophobe” means “someone who has a fearbased hatred of homosexuals/homosexuality”. I agree the etymology suggest otherwise. The commonly understood meaning remains what it is. So I do hope that you are not really a “homophobe”. Take care in labeling yourself. It is not worth arguing over is it?

    Thanks for your generosity in forgiving my rambling Mark. Kind.

    So now your definition:

    “Heterosexuality seems pretty easy: sexual attraction to the opposite sex. ” “How am I doing so far?”

    I would not give you a passing mark Mark.

    Can I assume here that ‘friend’ in reference to “gay friends” implies that your lives are mutually involved on a frequent and intimate basis? If so I am puzzled that your definition is so shallow and reduces to sex.

    I was a homosexual as far back as age 5 or so. I obviously had no sexual attraction before puberty Mark. If you check with your gay friends, I am fairly confident that all of them will attest to a similar history, except for maybe the “redeemed ex-gays”. So your definition seems to be missing something in terms of reflecting facts wouldn´t you agree?

    Here is a link that has a definition of homosexuality and sexual orientation that would square with the evidence that I know from my own experience and that of thousands of other homosexuals. The facts are not neat and clearcut in a way that would suit more strident homosexuals or the religious who prize that same tidiness for different reasons.

    I hope I have not rambled as much.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

    In your service, frank

  • fws

    Mark at 29

    Apparently one of your posts about genetic disposition made it as an email to me but not as a post because you used some xxx words.

    What does your genetic disposition or mine have to do with morality? Nothing at all.

    I disagree, along with the Lutheran Confessions and the fact of the Blessed Incarnation (and the rest of scripture) that any part of being human is intrinsically sinful as you seem to suggest..

  • fws

    Mark at 29

    Apparently one of your posts about genetic disposition made it as an email to me but not as a post because you used some xxx words.

    What does your genetic disposition or mine have to do with morality? Nothing at all.

    I disagree, along with the Lutheran Confessions and the fact of the Blessed Incarnation (and the rest of scripture) that any part of being human is intrinsically sinful as you seem to suggest..


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X