We Can’t Agree to Disagree on Homosexuality

We Can’t Agree to Disagree on Homosexuality January 24, 2017

I write a lot on the sexual ethic. Roughly half of the posts that I have written are in some form or another touching this topic – whether homosexuality, transgenderism, or sexual license in general, and I don’t think that will be settling down any time soon. Yet contrary to the chagrin of many it is one addressed with profundity in the scriptures. The topic of sexuality and idolatry are so closely united within the biblical corpus that it is not a topic which can be ignored, especially given humanity’s inability to avoid sexual license and idolatry. To be quite clear – I am not speaking solely to the liberal sexual ethic, though this is invariably wrapped up under the auspices of what the scriptures speak to.

Try as they might to change the definition of words, such as the intended meaning of Paul’s usage of μαλακός or ἀρσενοκοίτης in 1 Cor. 6:9, there is no biblical defense of homosexual practice. Though others would seek to define μαλακός simply as “soft,” the context of any given passage is what provides the proper gloss. Lexical differences are just that, but we know words from how their definitions flesh out in the given context and to define this particular usage as “soft” without proper contextual support is just plain silly. In this case, μαλακός finds a rather nuanced definition, given that it is referring to passive partners in the homosexual act. In the practice of Paul’s day, this often involved what we know as a catamite, who would be the young male in the consensual relationship with his pederast (the active participant in homosexual behavior: ἀρσενοκοίτης) – yet the terms could also be used broadly to simply refer to the passive and/or active partner.

What is clear from the usage of both of these terms is that the coupling of ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός are being used to denote either party engaging in homosexual activity. This is further served by the immediate context wherein we find “vice catalogues” from Paul, and while many theologians may differ on the purpose behind these “vice catalogues” (i.e. is Paul advocating that they merely do not behave as the Gentiles, or is he indicting some among them as unsaved?) – they still all function to resoundingly deal with issues of sin and find the inclusion of a severe, pastoral warning.

Yet one finds even more clarity on this issue when they refer to Paul again within the content of his epistle to the Romans when he simply makes the comment that these relations (male on male or female on female) are unnatural to created order – and specifically connected to idolatry. What this highlights quite well is the disposition of the unregenerate man, in regard to their sexual practices, is actually tied to unbelief (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Thess. 4:5). Remarkably, these references by Paul hearken back to the Old Testament – where one not only finds equally strong condemnation of sexual licentiousness, but an allusion to the vengeance poured out upon those who do not know God. A simple word study will prove quite illuminating on the topic of “vengeance” or even the phrase “do not know God.”

As an aside: it is quite interesting how often those who are inclusive toward the practice of homosexuality, transgenderism, etc. do so under the auspices of love – especially when the apostle John connects loving others with obedience to the commands of scripture (1 Jn. 3:24-25).

However, many ignore this simply by leaping headlong into the tumultuous grounds wherein they deny authority of the scriptures by placing special authority on the red-letters, as if the incarnate Christ, the divine Logos, is not found elsewhere within the scriptures as the harbinger of such teaching through the apostles (for example: 1 Thess. 4:1-2, 5:12; Heb. 13:17). What one finds then is the illumination of the text in that it is not any ordinary set of letters where one finds the freedom to pick and choose what they will – for it bears eternal consequences to reject the scriptures in their fullness and the teaching of the apostles (1 Thess. 4:8; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). Incidentally, it is this very same Word which will reject the rejecter, bearing the grounds on positional authority in the person of Jesus Christ (John 12:48).

What’s more than this is that Christ specifically highlights why this is so: Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God (John 8:47). That same foundational rejection addressed to the Pharisees is that rejection addressed to those who do not heed the voice of God in His scriptures: you do not belong to God. One then moves full circle to see the direct connection that the scriptures make to draw the conclusion: those who do not know God are bound by their deviancy and will be judged fiercely in the end, not only on the grounds of practice, but of idolatry (or as the scriptures simply call it in the NT: unbelief).

This is what can be particularly frightening to many who claim Christ due to the fact that the scriptures do not address homosexuality alone in the biblical corpus, but all forms of sexual immorality. The topic of homosexuality deserves quite a bit of attention these days simply because many claiming to be of God are affirming and inclusive to the practice of this sin – yet the issue surely does not stop here. There is a mass of conservative Christians who miss the mark, for while they decry homosexuality and transgenderism, they are unwilling to critically examine their own lives in regard to forms of entertainment, or more specifically, the fact that sexual deviancy has mastery over them, even though they claim allegiance to Christ.

The world, though being in darkness with respect to who God is and the goodness of His restrictions, knows hypocrisy quite well when they see it. This does not revoke the truthfulness of His Word nor the authority it bears over all mankind, but it does give reason for them to blaspheme God. Brothers and sisters, this should not be so. I’m not advocating a life without any pleasure, but asking whether there is an inherit difference between the one who is thrust into temptation simply by the fact that they live in a fallen world that rejects the teaching of the scriptures – and the one who willingly invests their time and money into things which have no business in the life of one who claims Christ.

To sum it all up – warning passages serve as a warning to all. There is every reason to believe that if one’s life and doctrine do not conform to the practice of repentance outlined in the scriptures, they are not saved and do not contain a love for their Savior. I speak not of the one who struggles in that act of repentance, but the one who rejects the need for any repentance. There are measures in our lives wherein we can easily find greater refinement in the fight against our flesh and the misguided sexual ideologies of this world. Yet in the end, even one with a “conservative” sexual ethic can be barred from the Kingdom if we take a closer look at those vice lists Paul gives (Rom. 1:29-31, 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:10-11, 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 12:20-21; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:31, 5:3-5; Col. 3:5; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; Tit. 3:3).

These catalogues highlight more than just one sin; they provide a swath of sins which demonstrate not only that the Christian is not to be conformed to this age – but that the continual practice of such things constitutes a continual rejection of God. This is not said with intent to deny the reality and heinousness attached to sexual deviancy, and in particular, the acceptance of what the Lord calls abominable – but to understand that these vice lists function in much of the same way that the Law functions: to reveal sin leading to death (Rom. 4:15, 5:20, 7:5-7). There is no practice, which if repented of, that can bar one from inheriting the Kingdom of God if they trust in Christ for forgiveness – yet there is no sinful practice we have liberty to defend or deny if it has been revealed by the Lord to be sinful.

For those rejecting the teaching of the scripture on these matters, you are not rejecting man, but the God giving His Holy Spirit to you (1 Thess. 4:8). Notice that Paul doesn’t say, “You are not rejecting [me]…” as if the one you’d be rejecting is simply Paul. He leaves it ambiguous. This again, brings the reader full circle to that positional authority of the teacher in Jesus Christ’s revelation given in the scriptures. It not only serves to demolish the red-letter nonsense so many wish to appeal to, but categorically rejects a denial of the text by all those whom would reject the sexual ethic plainly given in scripture. Let the reader take note.


Image Credit: IMG_7670 by Olivier Ortelpa; CC 2.0

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Iain Lovejoy

    You clearly don’t know what the phrase “agree to disagree” means.

    • Gilsongraybert

      I do, I am choosing that intentionally – as it is not a “live and let live” issue. Ultimately, people’s eternal destinations are at stake and that is not something that can be sidelined.

      • Iain Lovejoy

        Thought you didn’t.
        People “agree to disagree” when an impasse is reached, both sides have presented their arguments, neither persons arguments are considered a clincher by the other and neither side is going to change their mind.
        “Live and let live” means something different (and you obviously can’t grasp that concept either).

        • Gilsongraybert

          Lol, I used the second phrase to give you a reason why I don’t just move on, as I figured you would understand the colloquial arguments that are always at hand in these discussions. An impasse is never reached this side of heaven, as people are quite capable of changing their opinions on the matter and re-examining the evidence. Beyond that, and more importantly, I believe that illumination is not the work of myself, but the Spirit of God who reveals truth to mankind.

  • Caspian

    With your outright rejection of God’s GLBT children, you inadvertently sacrifice other Scriptural truths and much more well established Church doctrine.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Caspian, the biblical witness itself precludes those in active, flagrant sin from being part of the Kingdom. There is a vast difference from one who seeks to be repentant, yet fails time and again, and one who openly flaunts sin as if it is not sin, making a mockery of the crucifixion of Christ.

      • Caspian

        A few questions for you.

        1) Jesus teaches in Matthew 12:7, Matthew 12:17-20 and Mark 3:4 that biblical morality should be determined by what is merciful, good and restorative and that it should not cause unnecessary sacrifice or suffering. The ‘Great Commandment’ implies that all doctrine should confirm to the ‘Rule of Love’. Assuming we acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that changing ones sexual orientation is extremely rare, how then is demanding life-long celibacy for gays and lesbians obedient to that teaching? How is it loving our neighbor?

        2) God says in Genesis 2:18, before the creation of Eve, God describes Adams life of forced loneliness as “not good.” How then is demanding life-long celibacy for gays and lesbians honoring God’s foundational decree?

        3) Scripture shows from passages like those in Deuteronomy 30:15, Isaiah 59:2, 1 John 1:6 and Romans 6:23 that all sin causes harm. According to scripture there is no such thing as harmless sin. What spiritual, psychological or relational harm do monogamous same-sex relationships cause? Is there valid evidence documenting this?

        4) Scripture tell us in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 13 the attributes of what defines genuine love between people (while originally describing ‘charitable’ love, Christians have long applied it to marriage). If a monogamous same-sex marriage could meet these rigorous standards set by Scripture for what defines this kind of love, would it still be a sin? If so, can you think of any other sin that functions like this?

        5) Scripture contrast in Galations 5:16-23 the incompatability of sinful behavior with the “fruit of the Spirit,” that is, what a life looks like when it is led by God. This passage even makes it abundantly clear that Christians should not label anything a sin if it bears the fruit of the Spirit (“against such things there is no law”.). How then can it be explained biblically that there are gay and lesbian Christians exhibiting all the fruit of the Spirit if they are allegedly engaging in pervasive, unrepentant sin at the same time?

        6) Scripture explains in 1 John 2:27 that the Holey Spirit teaches truth through the body of believers, and Romans 8:5-6 teaches that the spirit grants “life and peace” where the Spirit resides. In light of this, how can every Christian who expresses spiritual peace about being in a same-sex relationships be deluded into thinking that the peace is from the Holy Spirit.

        7) The Gospel has been a historical source of inspiration for human rights, the inclusion of social “outsiders,” and a threat to those with privilege and power. Can you name a time when any nation embraced a civil or human rights movement, only to recant that movement in the future? If you can, how is the gay civil/human rights movement similar? If you can’t, how can the gay civil/human rights movement be the sole exception in human history?

        8) An implication of the biblical of the imago Dei is that, while cultures have always struggled to identify Justice; can you name a time when any culture collectively recognized an injustice within itself, only to decide that it was actually just in the future? If so, how is the moral critique and sense of injustice from the growing majority of heterosexuals in our culture about the traditionalist position of homosexuality similar? If not, how can it be the sole exception in human history and how would it not undermine the doctrine of the imago Dei?

        Keep in mind I am not trying to persuade you from changing your interpretation of scripture regarding homosexuality; just challenging your adamant stance that there is no room for Christians who happen to be in monogamous same-sex relationships within the Church and church. Specifically your indirect accretion that there is no room to allow the Holy Spirit to accomplish what scripture say it does.

        • Gilsongraybert

          1. These same vice lists that Paul has include gossip and slander as habitual sins which disqualify one from eternal life. The point being that it is sinful. You seem to conflate the idea that by saying something is sinful it must mean that you don’t love a person – yet we would all agree that one who wants to go and rape someone should emphatically be told NO and also be informed of the wrongness of that sin. I’m not comparing the two; I’m using an example to drive the point home that sin is not defined by what you feel is loving; it is defined by what God has declared – and love manifests itself through truth and forgiveness in Christ. You’re also approaching what is merciful, good, and restorative based on your own convictions rather than the teaching of the scriptures. Beyond this, the whole of the NT teaches that suffering (not as the result of sin) is a blessing.

          2. Is singleness not a gift? At least the apostle Paul felt as much in 1 Cor. 7. Do only those who are married or having sexual relations finding the fullness of joy in Christ?
          3. Yes, all sin causes harm. Does this mean certain sins, due to social acceptance, do not harm the individual, families, businesses, etc.? Even if no immediate repurcussions were seen – does that revoke the sinfulness of an activity which is declared to be sinful from the standpoint of the God who again, determines what is harmful? You’re placing yourself or anecdotal evidences from your peers as the litmus for deciding whether or not something is biblically revealed to be sinful – shouldn’t the bible define what the bible declares to be sinful..?

          4. By very definition, a monogamous same-sex relationship cannot meet that criteria, as it is antithetical for God’s revealed design for marriage. That is a misnomer and a blatant red-herring, as it ignores the qualities of a legitimate marriage yet seeks to be defined as one, under the auspices of something that shows time and again in plain context that it cannot be construed in any sense as a legitimate marriage. Again, scripture defines these boundaries, not you or I.

          5. You are taking this passage far out of context – as the passage itself assumes the vices listed within it to demonstrate that those practicing such things cannot walk by the Spirit. The imperative is showing the mandate of repentance – not that one continue in immorality. The vice lists are not complete in each context, yet through the list found above, one can easily see much overlap (yet also some unique contenders). The point in this being that the imperative (walk by the Spirit) is necessary for those who are in Christ, and this fleshes itself out in the indicative (and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh). The course of the text actually walks us right through that principle to demonstrate the disparity between walking in the Spirit and gratifying the desires of the flesh, as seen in the vice list set at contract with the virtues. What’s more than this – Paul calls these immoral acts obvious.

          6. The scriptures also clearly teach that teachers/preachers are the gift of God to the church for their edification. Yet the more clear issue here is the immediate context. John is warning them against false teachers (calling them antichrists) and saying that these congregants are the ones not in need of such teachers (see verse 21) as proper teaching has already been given. They are simply in need of applying such teaching, which they have heard from the beginning (c. 24), and heeding Paul’s purpose of writing to them (v.26-28) so that they abide in Him, rather than depart the faith via false teaching. Expressing spiritual peace has nothing to do with this passage – and all that this is, is a subjective appeal to emotionalism to justify what Paul says is “obvious” in the former vice lists mentioned.

          7. If you’re reading the gospel as a social manifesto for progressive ideals, might I suggest the main storyline is not about us, but about the glory and majesty due to Christ specifically for His death upon the cross? Secondly, you’re still arguing as if morals are subjected to cultural ideals rather than transcendent, meaning that they are handed down to us via revelation. In the end, you’re elevating social constructs as if they define what is moral, and subsequently, a proper way to study the scriptures through. It should be the opposite. And yeah, there are numerous examples where civil/human rights movements have been recanted; it depends on your operating definition of a “civil right” – but abortion (forgive me, I can’t remember which South American country repealed it).

          8. Again, this is a completely subjective approach to define ethics and morality, which simply can’t work in the end. The implications of the Imago Dei intend that humans are of intrinsic worth and value, and to be given dignity – this does not mean they get to do whatever they wish to do. Yet if we were consistent in our understanding of the Imago Dei, abortion wouldn’t be around. Yet ultimately, again, you’re defining biblical morality on the basis of societal perception of morality, which ranges from culture to culture. The clear reasons why actual justice has been done is due to a consistent application of the Imago Dei – yet justice is not determined by you or social progressives. It is determined by God. Anything contrary to God’s determination is, wait for it, injustice.

          I understand you have a differing opinion, but let’s both be realistic here – the only biblical application happening for pro-homosexual unions is that of cherry picking sustainable verses and neglecting those which plainly speak against it. The same can be said for any sanction of particular sins. This also doesn’t mean that both are sustainable and correct approaches to understanding what the scriptures actually teach.

          • Caspian

            Thanks for the response, Grayson.

            The unique thing about all these questions is while taken individually they are also dependent on each other. One formulation for answering one, immediately becomes dependent on how others are answered.

            I’m afraid though, in most of your answers you either rephrased/reframed the question or didn’t answer it at all. Whatever answers you did provide conflict with the scriptural passages of the other questions.

          • Caspian

            I wanted to elaborate on this but time constraints are interfering. Yet I still want to ‘strike while the iron is hot;’ so I will try to touch on a few things.

            First let me state that it seems you are taking a specific doctrine and holding many other broader ecclesial doctrines up to it. However it would be wiser to take the broader and more grounded doctrines and hold any specific doctrine up to them.

            1) Your first answer did not actually address the question. Rather than addressing the question you start listing other vices. You then suggest that the only way we can know if something is right or wrong is if God, through scripture, tells us it is right or wrong. Such reasoning never moves us beyond spiritual infants. More importantly however, is the fact that we make numerous moral conclusions on many things that scripture never even addresses, some even contradict scripture. Or more accurately, the contemporary popular reading of scripture in a given time. You then compare (despite your protest otherwise) same-sex relationships to rape; suggesting someone who’s never heard the Gospel wouldn’t be able to discern a difference since they were never told.

            But the thing is, believing your doctrine to be correct because you believe your holy scripture said it is correct is not good enough theology for the Son of God. According to Jesus, the consequences of true doctrine should be in the best interests of those to which it pertains. If a doctrine appears to be harming others, then that doctrine may very well be incorrect-regardless of any alleged scriptural references supporting it.

            2) Thanks for bringing up 1 Corinthians. While I would certainly love to go into all of it, let me just reference one segment. That segment being Paul’s wise pastoral concern for the unmarried (vs. 8 & 9). It is here that Paul mercifully concedes that not all can restrain their passion, (and from the number of Christians who merry, thus ignoring Paul’s advise that it is better if they do not, it’s safe to assume this is the majority), and he advises that it is better to reign in those passions within the bonds of marriage. It is foolish to suggest that same-sex oriented individuals can suppress their passions any better then most Christians. So yes, life long singleness is a gift (however rare), but a gift only, not a command.

            Oh, and you didn’t answer the actual question.

            3) So your answer to this question is that, contrary to what scripture tells us, if a sinful act is accepted by a given culture, it ceases to manifest as sin. And regardless of any quantifiable good that seems to flow from those acts, it is still a sin ‘Because God says So™’ Which only suggest that God uses His sovereignty to be arbitrary.

            4) You dismiss this question out of hand; and discard the long establishes doctrine of what constitutes Love along with it. Your dismissal couldn’t be more clear if you put your fingers in your ear and said ‘I’m not listening.’ But ignoring the challenge does not disqualify it.

            Times up for me at the moment. If I can find some more time, I will touch on the rest. I still want to address the 3rd way approach your article says is impossible. To which I would say. ‘Oh ye of little faith.’

    • Iain Lovejoy

      Not really, his theology is completely consistent:
      1. God hates (although he misleadingly uses the word “love” to describe it”) mankind, considering us all utterly vile.
      2. God created mankind principally for the purposes of torturing them eternally.
      3. In return for getting to inflict the commensurate suffering on Jesus, God condescends to let off a few lucky elect survivors, provided they are sufficiently grovelling and subservient.
      4. You can generally tell the elect because they are identical to me and my mates and agree with everything we say, and the damned because they are different from us.
      It is therefore entirely consistent that he should consider homosexuality a sign that God intends to fry someone, since (a) arbitrary distinction between saved and unsaved is God’s normal mode of operation (b) moral culpability is irrelevant because everyone (except me and my mates with our special “Get Out of Jail Free” passes) is evil anyhow, as is the fact someone is made that way, since God created the bulk of mankind specifically for burning them anyway, (c) the elect (i.e. me and my mates) find homosexuality different and yucky so it must be wrong, and (d) arguments that me and my mates ignore far more specific commandments in the Bible and apparently that is OK miss the point, because it must be OK because me and my mates do it and we are the elect.

      • Gilsongraybert

        Iain, might I ask where in the world you have come to your conclusions from? Are you intentionally misrepresenting things, or do you earnestly believe that this is what Christians holding to orthodox teachings believe?

        • Iain Lovejoy

          If by “orthodox” you mean “Calvinist” (and you do), yes.
          1 = Total depravity.
          2 = Predestination and limited atonement.
          3 = Penal substitution + limited atonement + salvation requiring subscription to this rubbish
          4 = In your own words, people’s “eternal destinations are at stake” if they don’t believe what you believe, and join in with the right team.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Ok, so to answer my question more simply and directly: yes, yes you are intentionally misrepresenting things in your initial comment?

          • Iain Lovejoy

            Apart from not dressing it up in disingenuous theological language, how am I actually wrong?

          • Gilsongraybert

            I mean, I could copy and paste your initial comment, but you’re fairly aware of what you wrote. You’re assertions are simply rejections of the convoluted conception you have of God.

          • Iain Lovejoy

            My assertions are rejections of my conception of God? You resort to gibberish. I provided an entirely accurate if stark description of your blasphemous conception if God, which you are apparently unable to deny. I have yet to mention mine.

          • Gilsongraybert

            I never made mention that you had given me your full conception of God. However, you are clearly giving a caricature of Calvinism and you even know this. Now, we could have a logical discussion about the doctrine without the straw-men and fallacious arguments, or we can get emotional and lob “bombs” at one another through a screen. But, you’re human and so am I, and I want that same basic respect afforded if we’re going to discuss it. There’s no point to getting inflammatory and you habitually do so when you comment on our blog. My skin is quite thick, but my patience is wearing thin on continuing to try and talk about these things with you. If you want to talk, let’s treat each other like humans and discuss the merits of the argument. If you want to lob insults, go on. I won’t take offense in the least – but I certainly won’t respond any longer. Give an honest critique, or move on and go badger someone else. It is literally lost on me.

          • Iain Lovejoy

            You are right, my comment wasn’t exactly constructive and I should probably rein in my snark a bit when addressing Calvinism, so sorry. I do genuinely, however, consider the fundamentals of Calvinism to be truly, truly horrible and very, very wrong and can’t really apologise for that.
            My original post was addressed to Caspian, not you, so wasn’t intended as a structured argument as such, but it dud make a serious point, which I can make more seriously if you are interested.
            The serious point is you are never going to grasp the arguments of LGBT-affirming Christians because your underlying theology is diametrically opposed and basically prevents you from understanding it.
            The principle concept behind the various progressive approaches to the issue has as its starting point the love of God for his creatures, and the need to understand the text in a way that does not to violence to this, which is (for progressive Christians) the central message of the entire Bible.
            Calvinism however starts with the concept of “total depravity” under which it is asserted that God considers our entire nature thoroughly evil without good in it anywhere, and us all deserving eternal torment. You can call this “love” if you like, but only if you abandon any connection with the actual meaning of the word: in any other context to anyone other than a strict Calvinist, the most apposite word for this attitude would be “hate”.
            It is a further fundamental of orthodox Calvinism that non-elect mankind was created by God predestined and intended for hell. Whilst Calvinists seem to differ as to exactly what flavours of Christian will escape, non-Christians at least come into this category, and they form the bulk of humanity.
            I did not even parody penal substitutary atonement – the doctrine is precisely that God insists that the requisite measure of suffering commensurate with sin is inflicted, but in his “mercy” condescended to inflict some of it on Jesus instead.
            If you believe in a God whose need to inflict pain for sin is absolute in this way, and think that words like “love”, “mercy” and “forgiveness” can apply to such a being, the LGBT-affirming Christian’s need to allow compassion for LGBT people to guide their interpretation of the text in order to factor in the compassion and love of God just cannot make sense to you, because you just don’t understand God that way.
            “Grovelling and subservient” was, I admit, snarky and not helpful. Again, sorry. What this refers to is the Calvinist concepts of “repentance” and “faith”. “Total depravity” forbids any concept of repentance meaning actually ceasing to sin (since this is impossible), so “repentance” becomes just feeling sufficiently sorry and apologising enough, and salvation through faith comes not from nurturing an open and trusting heart to God but acquiescing to and vigoursly asserting a prescribed set of theological positions in order to stave off punishment for sin. These theological views render meaningless to you affirming Christianity’s pointing to the “faith” of LGBT Christians because to you this is an oxymoron: they can’t have “faith” because having faith would require their agreement to the required theological proposition that homosexual relationships are automatically sinful.
            Calvinism’s doctrine of salvation is expressly binary and predestined: from the beginning you are either in the elect “in” crowd or the doomed “out” crowd regardless of what you actually do. However, it is a further principle of Calvinism that you can generally (if not 100% reliably) identify the “in” crowd principally by whether they believe the correct things and (to a lesser extent) how they behave (and the behaviour is in any event asserted to be derived from having the correct and sufficiently strongly held beliefs). Since the saved are the saved and not required to do anything further, the actual result in practice, whatever protestations to the contrary, is that the behaviour which designates someone as “unsaved” is whatever falls outside the “saved” norm, and more universal sins shared by the “in” crowd are frequently coincidentally not a salvation matter (so long as the suitable formulaic “mea culpas” are pronounced).
            Your theology does not allow you to recognise any force in affirming Christians arguments that your interpretation of the Bible would be arbitrary and unfair because you believe this is what God is like anyway, picking and choosing who to save or damn without any reference to the individuals themselves.
            I am in no little difficulty in working out whether I was being unfair to you personally in my characterisation of Calvinism as taking only the strict literalist approach to sins the self-declared “elect” can generally profess to avoid. From a brief look at some of your other articles you seem to have a heavy focus on sex and homosexuality in particular but this may be because you think society or other Christians do not take them seriously enough, rather than because it is easy target practice against someone else’s sin. On balance, probably not. It takes quite some level of hypocritical blindness to have any familiarity with the Bible, look at the poverty, inequality, selfishness and greed which characterises the modern world and decide that the biggest problem the God of the Bible has with our society, the God who is stated over and over to be the God of the poor, the widow and the orphan, and the fount of justice, is people having sex.
            For you, if those who follow your creed are rich, then injustice, wealth and inequality are OK, because the “elect” are wealthy, so this is God’s will, and the Bible must be re-interpreted accordingly, to preserve the salvation of the elect. You see no reason, however, to permit a similar re-interpretation of the verses on homosexuality to preserve the all encompassing love and justice of God, because your concept of God is neither just nor loving.

        • AML

          I’m pretty sure he’s referring to scripture in the Bible that clearly state the following:

          1. If you don’t repent and believe in Jesus, you suffer eternal separation from God and torture. If that is not the case (if you do not believe in Jesus), then please tell me what happens.
          2. In Genesis God orders that the entire face of the earth (including mothers and children) be destroyed because God is unhappy with sinful behavior. I assume there was at least one innocent person in there who didn’t deserve to be drowned.
          3. God has a “Book of Life” where the names of the elect are. Everyone else goes to Hell.
          4. God intentionally allows suffering so he can see how much faith you have (Job & Abraham).

      • Dan

        A caricature of a hard reformed view of God.

        • Iain Lovejoy

          Well spotted.

  • TracyH

    Need to read Zondervan’s brand new, Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. All the scholars hold a high view of Scripture- Two affirming scholars (Loader, and DeFranza) and two traditional scholars (Hill and Holmes). This is where the action is on this topic now, it appears. Here’s a link to an earlier Loader article outlining his views, http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~loader/SameSex.pdf. Hill writes on the Spiritual Friendship blog, https://spiritualfriendship.org/

  • DoctorDJ

    “For those rejecting the teaching of the scripture on these matters, you
    are not rejecting man, but the God giving His Holy Spirit to you.”

    Your Fred Phelps-like bluntness leads me to recommend you listening to his son, Nathan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9yiRbOkx28

    And I hope that none of your children or grandchildren end up gay. Your head would explode from the cognitive dissonance of trying to love a child who lives against the dictates of a 2000 year old book.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Yeah, I’m just like Phelps, appealing to biblical languages and the historical position of the church.

      • Bravo Sierra

        When you dress up your hate speech by using ancient Greek and Hebrew, it has so much more authority and gravitas.

        • Gilsongraybert

          Richard, you can call it what you will – but it is certainly not hate speech. Otherwise, call out any aspect of me saying anything is sinful as hate speech as well. Be consistent.

          • ChrisDACase95

            Except scholars how debunked the interpretation of homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. In fact some of those same scholars make pro gay arguments and interpretations from the Bible. Consistently the only arguments I’ve seen against these scholars are from people who won’t even consider their arguements and akin to an angry toddler stomping their feet when they don’t get their own way.

            In my comment above, I’ve listed out the bad fruit of the “homosexuality is a sin” belief, so how one can see it as anything other than hate speech towards gay people or even people struggling with their identity and their upbringing, is beyond me.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Except that’s not actually true at all. Several top scholars actually do show considerable and demonstrable proof that homosexuality is a sin. As you said above, it is all there for people to find and look into. Robert Gagnon is one of the top scholars on this subject and he’s gone to great lengths, as have many others, to demonstrate the sinfulness of homosexuality. Like it or not, several liberal scholars have done just the same – yet they at least have the gall to say candidly that they would never worship such a God rather than try and redefine His standards. It is painfully clear on these issues; the terms above are unique to Paul. If you’ve looked into this deeply, you know that.

            Secondly, bad fruit can be born from any doctrinal position. Legitimately, there are abuses that happen constantly on every front – even just in the plain old sense of the gospel. Does abuse of such doctrine disqualify the truthfulness of said doctrine? You are essentially making the same argument (with a slightly different causality) than the post I wrote yesterday (which you referenced above). Ultimately, you do have to be consistent if you are going to apply that hermeneutic and apply it elsewhere in Paul’s vice lists. There are all sorts of complexes one can argue come from believing, say, that sex outside of marriage bears bad fruit. We won’t limit it to cheating on one’s spouse – but there are points many have made against the repressive nature of sexual chastity. What is there to stop you from applying your same interpretive principles to that particular sin?

            Or perhaps we can focus on another sin – yet in the end, the idea is that we all fall short of the glory of God and scripture requires we must not live in unbridled sin if we are to genuinely bear good fruit (that is, fruit of repentance, faith, and the qualities of a follower of Christ) and demonstrate that the Spirit of God resides in us. The deeds of the flesh are incompatible with the deeds of the Spirit.

          • ChrisDACase95

            And what of those who argue against Gagnon ? After all with every doctrine argument, there’s gonna be a counter argument. Such on as here http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexuality-Wrong.html

            Or here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/tag/robert-gagnon/

            Or here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/05/06/what-romans-1-teaches-about-sin-and-why-it-ironically-exonerates-lgbt-identity/

            But in any case, if scholars are gonna argue day back and forth with the same old arguments that they aren’t really going anywhere. Not that it matters, people on both sides of the argument will run to the scholars that tell them what they want to hear.

            You ask me to be consistent of applying the bad fruit hermeneutic to Paul’s other vices, you’d have to bring up examples of Bad Fruit produced in opposing drunkards, slanderers, idolaters and adulators, and comparing to that of the bad fruit the anti gay theology.

            Last I checked no one prayed and cried their hearts out for years until they fell into a suicidal depression and a drug habit just because they couldn’t slander someone.

            Now as you and I have referenced your previous blog about hypocricy and biblical truth and you say that all I did was make a slightly different argument; that false teachers bare bad fruit, a paraphrase of what Jesus said. If the teaching bares bad fruit, it is a false teaching and the ones who teach it are false.

            As is the teachings against homosexuality, fruits are consistent; years of slander, emotional and psychological abuse, assault, drug addictions, family abandonment and even murder.

            Or you could just read here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2015/07/when-churches-make-people-need-therapy-or-why-anti-gay-christianity-is-an-abomination.html

            Or this page http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/2014/03/27/what-do-you-do-when-your-son-is-gay-2/

            That plus the Luciferian reflection on those who teach and preach it; hateful, arogant, apathetic to suffering, while claiming to be loving, humble and compassionate. And if it doesn’t paint God in a devilish light, at the very least he’s Chakravartin from Asura’s Wrath (I don’t know if you are a gamer, but the short version he’s one of the most Malatheistic characters in fiction).

            It is a false teaching. Just as the passages supporting slavery and led to things such as the Salem Witch Hunts, and the Spanish Inquisition, are false teachings. They ARE Biblical teachings no doubt, but they are now considered false, aren’t they ?

            Now this might make you dismiss my argument all together but here it is; I am not an inerrantist. Anyone who seriously looks at the Bible, they can plainly see scientific and historical errors and even error in the accounts of the apostles. Kieth Ward explains it better here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2WMYgMfjUR4

            I believe part of the Bible is allegorical. I don’t believe it it the Word and the elevate it to such a status borders onto idolatry. It would be placing it as a fourth person in the Trinity. I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve, nor a six day creation.

            And while not officially a Universalist (although I do say they have valid arguments) I’m starting to not believe in a literal Hell (I have reached the conclusion that if there IS a Hell it’s not the ETC interpretation, but more akin to what TektonTv describes in this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-q5vGcpx1sY)

            However since you do belive in inerrancy, this once again brings us back to Paul’s statment of if you’re bound by one law, you are bound ball all laws. The “moral” “cerimonial” and “dietry” laws are not defined as separate – as John Shore explains here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2013/10/when-are-the-bibles-laws-on-homosexuality-unbiblical/ and here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/10/are-not-the-bibles-laws-on-homosexuality-unbiblical/ – and hence you are bound by them. In other words you’d have to follow Rachel Held Evans example of “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” and thensome.

            Even if one where to make a distinction of cerimonial and moral laws one would logically take it into account that the only moral law is in the Ten Commandments alone and the other laws would fall into the cerimonial laws, including those of Leviticus. But most importantly, you must consider Paul’s other statement “The Written Law Kills”.

          • Caspian

            You ask me to be consistent of applying the bad fruit hermeneutic to Paul’s other vices, you’d have to bring up examples of Bad Fruit produced in opposing drunkards, slanderers, idolaters and adulators, and comparing to that of the bad fruit the anti gay theology.

            Amen and Spot on! This is how I intend to address Grayson’s response to my question about the Fruit of the Spirit. You just saved me a bit of time.

          • Bravo Sierra

            Well, your own rebuttal to being compared to Phelps was,”But I appealed to biblical languages,” and your explication of 1 Corinthians 6:9 doesn’t seem much different from a sign that says “god hates fags.”

            You just dress the message up a little, make it seem a little more “academic,” but you’re really saying the same thing. What I don’t understand is: Why don’t you see it?

  • ChrisDACase95

    A while back as I did my research on the subject both applying Biblical knowledge and what scholars have deduced I have reached the conclusion regarding the belief of Homosexuality being a sin.

    Firstly one must prove that these relationships of Aresenokoitis are in fact the same as consensual homosexual relationships, when scholars place it in the same category as the exploitive and abusive context. Same could be said of Leviticus using same sex shrine prostitution in worship of Moloch in fertility rituals preformed after child sacrifice. And the same for Romans, in the name of the Greek/Roman God’s, with ritualistic acts such as drug use, genital mutilation and bestiality as committed by the women – these, not the homosexuality, are the shameful acts.

    The research is there. All one has to do is look and listen. At the very least you could try to come up with some argument against it, lest you say “Nuh-Uh” making yourself look intellectually dishonest. At the very least you could go to other gay affirming blogs on Patheos alone to listen to the arguments of gay affirming Christians and even practicing Gay Christians within their comments. I suggest Freedhearts.

    Many make the arugment that God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality despite it being debunked in both scripture and outside of scripture. But even if that was the case at best it makes God hateful (yes, hateful is the word) for killing people for presuming romantic relationships. I’ve even heard the claim that these relationships hurt God for going against his design, which makes God look narssistic at best (think a kindergardener throwing a temper tantrum over the other kids playing the game way) and even applicable to the long dead arguments against interracial marriage from the 50’s.

    As Caspian down below stated, all sin harms and as Paul once said love does not harm its neighbour. And Jesus says a good tree bares good fruit and that you will know false teachers and teachings by their fruit. And the truth is the teachings against homosexuality is consistently rotten.

    To claim that a romantic relationship between two partners of the same sex is sinful when they are virtually no different than hetrosexual relationships then the same can be said of hetrosexual relationships. And it’s important to look at the fruit of Anti Gay theology and what they beliefs have wrought.

    If you are going by Leviticus alone it gives the impression that being gay is worthy of execution. But it’s not Christians are actually pushing for their execution right ? Oh wait, there’s Uganda, and how Evangelicals encouraged and helped push the law to make homosexuality not only illegal but punishable by death.

    It also led to parents abandoning their children when they come out to them. Faith based homeless shelters refuse to take them in. They resort to drug abuse and even suicide.

    Some seek therapy to “cure” them which more often then not does more damage to them then good (see the Exodus program).

    There was the World Vision incident in 2014 in which 10,000 Christians who sponsored a poor or starving child who had virtually nothing and relied on their sponsorships, who even shared letters with their sponsors developing something of a relationship with them, threatened and even went through with pulling their sponsors when World Vision began to hire practicing gay people. Let me repeat; they decided it was better for a a child to starve to death and left with nothing than to be feed by a homosexual and shunning them over a perceived sin! Jesus must’ve been proud!

    Some realize they are gay and spent years fearing for their souls, praying and crying their hearts out begging God to make them normal. In some cases they lose their faith, or worse commit suicide, but others find a way to make peace with their homosexuality and reconcile it with their faith.

    And the people of faith who still hold to “homosexuality is a sin” belief ? How do they respond ? Should they gay children be put out on the street ? not their problem. They gay spends years praying to be normal and ends up commuting suicide, if not being emotionally and psychologically damaged ? I’ve seen statements along the line “They where just to weak to accept the truth” and in one case when asked about being responsible for the suicides “It can’t be our fault, that would make US the villains!” The children left to starve to death to protest hiring gay people ? They pay themselves on the back. And the gays lucky enough to make peace with themselves and reconcile their faith ? “Bah! What heretic’s, they don’t love God at all if they aren’t praying for him to change them.” They more often than not bare hatred, arrogance and self reighteousness.

    Sometimes I wonder if some of them are genuinely offended by the likes of Fred Phelps, or just embarrassed by the reflection they see in him. I believe at one point he said “I don’t hate gays. Hell, I’m the only one who loves them!”

    Some react differently. Some change their hearts, but some realize this to late. I suggest you look up “Just Because He Breathes” and here the story of Rob & Linda Robertson when their son came out to them. I also suggest you look at the other gay affirming blogs on Patheos and read all these testimonies.

    To say this is an argument to preserve marriage, one must understand that polygamy was only precluded to bishops. The fact that marriage is no longer practiced as property exchange shows how we have redefined marriage and the fact is today’s condemnation of polygamy is based soley on culture, NOT scripture. As a matter of fact relgion, especially Christianity, has always been shaped by culture.

    If one makes an argument of being obedient to scripture, then as cliche as it will sound the laws regarding slaverly/polgyamy/marrying ones rapist/divorce/eating with Gentiles/shellfish etc because Paul says that if you keep one of these laws you must keep the whole law. But we don’t do that nowadays do we ? Why ? Because culture shaped Christianity over the centuries. As a matter of fact in order for Christianity to survive, it always had to be Progressive. It always had to adapt. I can guarantee in the next fifty years the church will say they where always Pro Gay, it was just a few bad apples abusing ancient laws.

    So where does my conclusion reach ? Well, let’s describe the devil. He is described as being prideful, hateful and often disguising himself as God. God is revealed in Jesus with his traits being loving, merciful and humble. Where am I getting with this ?

    This also releates to my above statement that the God described in Anti Gay descriptions. The way they describe God as arogant at best and hateful at worse with a self serving, if not alien, idea of love. One who flies into a murderous rage at the slightest defiance. Think Hitler using the holocuast to exterminate the undesireables for his “master race” and you’ll get an idea of what I’m talking about.

    From the way I see it, one is not a good image bearer for God if their image reflects that of the devil. More often than not I see hatred and pride disguised as love and humility coming from Anti Gay Christians, especially in the light of the bad fruit it bares.

    To put it simply, the anti gay theology hardly fits the Christian bill. it’s about as Luciferian as it gets. Like all Toxic “Christianity”. And with all the bad fruit it bares and the reflection of its followers, how could it not be ?

    Yesterday’s you wrote a blog concerning how hypocritical Christians don’t mean their teachings aren’t true, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if their teachings bare bad fruit they are false teachings and that is what I am arguing.

  • EtiennaD

    The books of the bible weren’t written or established in thought by the creator of the universe. As long as ignorant and fearful people, continue to allow ancient beliefs to govern the modern world, there will never be peace and respect maintained between nations, communities, and individuals.

    The books of the bible were written by men who were limited by a lack of knowledge and limited by regional cultures. They were also shaped by the politics of their day.

    Making their writings the authority on human beings’ identities and way of life is disgusting.It is disgusting because it is inherently malicious to do so and willfully ignorant.

  • Matthew Statler

    Great work! Keep speaking the truth!

  • Andy

    I agree that we can’t agree to disagree, and I disagree with you. Have a nice day.

  • David Hancock

    Grayson Gilbert, I will pray that God frees you from the bigotry in your heart, so that you will gain the ability to see that you are not in God’s will and do not yet know the truth of God.

    • How do we know the will of God apart from the Scriptures, which universally condemn homosexuality?

      • ChrisDACase95

        If you rely on scriptures alone, you are already cherry picking what is God’s will since you have the countless verses and passages from the Bible that Christians have dismissed for centuries. Logically the omlp thing we can be sure is God’s will is directed to Christ alone and can only be concluded in the commandments.

        Also Paul states that even non believers and pagans (who clealry don’t follow the scriptures) can follow the will of God and worship him without knowing it. Paul says said there are those who have never heard the Law who live as though it is written on their hearts and it is accounted to them as righteousness; see here http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2016/06/a-fundamentalist-response-to-paul.html

        As for the alleged universal condemnation of Homosexuality in scripture I direct your attention here – http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/resources/ – they won’t tickle your ears, but it’s something.

        • How am I cherry picking from the Bible? You only make vague reference to unspecified verses that unidentified people have ignored as evidence.

      • Tianzhu

        No one does. They’ve created a fictional “Jesus” who approves of sexual sin. They don’t read the New Testament at all.

      • Wheezy1952

        Universally? Jesus never mentioned it.

          • Wheezy1952

            Jesus is on YouTube?

          • Maybe you can’t watch the video. Jesus is the same who God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, He is the same God that inspired Leviticus 18 and 20, Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman in Matthew 19, He spoke through His apostles by the revelation of the Holy Spirit and condemned homosexuality (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6). Furthermore, even if Jesus never did speak about homosexuality, since when would that make it ok? He never spoke about child sacrifice either, does that mean that it is no longer a sin?

          • Wheezy1952

            A pretty generous interpretation.
            I think Jesus also said “judge not”.
            Do I have the right to judge you for your sins and conclude whether or not you’ll make the grade?

          • If you disagree with my interpretation, where is it wrong?

            Let’s put that verse back in it’s context.

            Matthew 7:1-5 – “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

            Jesus is speaking against hypocritical judgment, which would be akin to me condemning a sin while practicing it in my life as if it were not a sin.

            Jesus also said, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24). Paul said, “The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.” (1 Corinthians 2:15).

            Thankfully neither you nor I gets to decide what is sin and what is not, yet we are responsible to submit ourselves to what God has revealed in His word and that means recognizing what He has called sin and repenting of it.

          • Wheezy1952

            “Thankfully neither you nor I gets to decide what is sin and what is not”. One thing we can agree on.

            Didn’t Jesus overrule many of the Levitical sins? (Wearing multiple fabrics, touching a football made of pigskin, or cutting your sideburns, for example). If not, we are all in trouble.

            A different example – with Jesus’ “render unto Caesar” command (more specific than any comment on sexuality) one could assume that cheating on taxes is a sin. Does this mean that all good Christians who fudge a little bit in their deductions, probably with little contrition, every year will be denied salvation?

          • Many of the Levitical laws were abrogated, but some were not. I would encourage looking into the moral, ceremonial, civil distinction of the Mosaic law.

            Perhaps I can answer your question about taxes like this: All sin deserves death (Romans 6:23), from the smallest to the greatest. That means we are all under the wrath of God against our sin because He is holy and just, He cannot let it go unpunished. But the good news is that Christ came at took the wrath of God upon Himself, satisfying it’s just demand, so that all who have faith in Him will be saved. Yet one cannot have faith in Christ and at the same time celebrate and define yourself by sin, Paul says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

            Do you call yourself a Christian and claim to believe in Christ? If so, we must both submit ourselves to Him and His word and humbly accept what it teaches.

          • Wheezy1952

            The devil’s in the details, you might say.

            We Christians get to pick and choose which of the ancient societal and religious laws that no longer apply to us, as we eat our bacon and eggs in the morning.

            And we sometimes choose other ancient laws in order to pass eternal judgment on people who are not like us, and who we may not even know.

            The latter is playing God.

  • Wheezy1952

    I think sexuality is a small, or maybe even insignificant, part of what makes someone a good human being.
    And I know homosexuals, Christian and otherwise, who are some of the finest human beings I know.
    If I had to choose eternity with them vs. someone like this author, I would without hesitation choose the former, wherever that may take me.

    • Buck Robinson

      There is no such thing as an homosexual christian! If one does not repent, turn away from sin, he will not enter into God’s kingdom.

      • Wheezy1952

        Thanks, God.

        • Buck Robinson

          You are welcome!

          • Wheezy1952

            Careful. Blasphemy may keep you out too.

          • Buck Robinson

            Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness
            for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for
            sweet, and sweet for bitter! Sorry no cigar for you!

          • Wheezy1952

            That’s ok, God. I’m not a cigar guy.

      • OhSoGood

        No true Scotsman…


  • MrCorvus

    What a hateful screed. Caught up in legalities, threats, and warnings, you miss the whole point of Christianity.

    • OhSoGood

      Law has nothing to do with the christian myth.

  • Tianzhu

    Yale professor Sarah Ruden wrote the excellent book Paul Among the People, in which she looks at the pagan culture of Paul’s day. Homosexuality was tolerated, but still thought to be abnormal. Ruden quotes from several comedies of those days in which homosexuals are depicted as figures of contempt. In fact, the philosopher Plato stated that homosexuality was para phusin – “against nature” – the same term Paul uses in Romans 1. The idea that Christianity invented the belief that homosexuality is abnormal is totally wrong. The pagans did not regard it as sinful, just contemptible. A man who only had sexual relations with other men was held in contempt, as were effeminate men. The idea of “marrying” homosexuals would have had the pagans rolling with laughter,

    As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6, “such were some of you” – meaning, ex-homosexuals in the Corinthian church. The church offered a community and family for men and women who had engaged in same-sex relations and found them unfulfilling. The church can still do the same today. Conforming to the world, going along with the crowd, is just wrong. Christians are going to be called bigots and haters for following the strict sexual ethic of the New Testament. We just have to accept this and soldier on. The Supreme Court has no power to change the moral order that God ordained. If we lower our ethics so that we are no different from nonbelievers, we are not worthy to be called Christians. Conform to the will of God, or conform to the secular culture – that’s the hard choice we face. No compromise is possible. Christian love does not require us to condone sin.

    • ChrisDACase95

      Except the reality is the Church ALWAYS adapted with culture. In many ways the Christianity as we know it today has been shaped by culture over the centuries and will take credit for the progress, even declare they where ALWAYS on the winning side of history.

      I can pretty much guarantee that in the next fifteen years, the church as a whole will be fully affirming of homosexuality and will even claim to have always been pro gay, saying that it was only a few bad apples that where abusing ancient laws. The evidence is right in front of you, every year church’s are becoming more affirming of LGBT relationships and as are more notable evangelicals.

      Also ex-homosexuals ? Burden of proof’s on you. For the most part, 98% of ex gay therapy ends in failure. Just look up the Exodus program and the “ex gays” I’ve seen fall into the criteria of “I have been kicked around so long that I’m gonna grin and bare it and preach that I am free in order to keep the Anti Gay people around me happy, I will live a lie by marrying into the opposite gender until the event I am got on Grindr or hiring a male prostitue behind my wife’s back.” There’s also the bi sexuals who decide to love hetrosexually, but that is not the same as an ex homosexual. There is no such thing as as ex homsexual.

      And for the alleged sinfulness of homosexuality, I draw your attention here; http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/resources/

      • Tianzhu

        I read the New Testament in the original Greek. The New Testament is my guide to life, not some homosexual on the internet.

        • ChrisDACase95

          Then you’d know Arsenokoties refer to pedastry, least you be intellectually dishonest.

          Or you’d take Jesus seriously enough to know that false teachers and their teachings bare bad fruit.

          And the fruit of Anti Gay theology is consistent; Emotional and mental abuse in the form of years of crying and praying their hearts out, “therapy” that contributes to their existential crisis, families disowning their children (to save face to their church or just strait up hate), dehumanization and slander of gay people, suicide, drug addictions and even murder.

          There’s also the Luciferian reflection of those who preach it; hate claiming to be love, arrogance claiming to be humble, indifference claiming to be compassionate.

          Not that you care. You people never do.

          • Tianzhu

            It’s puzzling why homosexuals have the delusion that Christians want their approval. Utterly irrational.

          • OhSoGood

            It’s puzzling why fundies and other mythologically insane folks have the delusion that gay folks want their approval. Utterly irrational.

    • OhSoGood

      I see a LOT of assumption and personal interpretation here.

      I see zero taking the words for what is said.

      Your god is NOT our law… we are not a theocracy.

      Keep your god if you wish… but stop expecting others to be forced into it.

      You do not know love… only condemnation and judgement. You are as muslims, only held in check by a functioning government. If left to your own devices, you’d be no different.

  • AML

    The more I try to understand why Christians feel homosexuality is so sinful, the more I find that it’s purely about the type of sex gay males are having. Christians are simply uncomfortable with anal sex. Christians will say that it’s ok for someone to be gay, but to act upon it is sinful. So basically, you can be gay, but gosh darn it don’t enjoy sex like the rest of the heterosexual species, even in a committed, monogamous relationship! Would Christians be ok if two men loved each other romantically and were monogamous and committed to eachother, but never touched? Or is that still bad and enough to condemn you to Hell?

    • All sins deserves Hell because God is holy and righteous. Christians should be against homosexuality because the Bible universally condemns it. Paul lists it among the various sins to which God handed over mankind as a result of their idolatry and suppression of the truth (Romans 1:18ff). It is not sinful because we feel it is sinful or dislike it, it is sinful because God has declared it to be.

      • OhSoGood

        God is a myth.

        Nothing more.

      • AML

        Do you feel that you are just as evil as Hitler, and that both of you are deserving of the same eternal punishment?

        Your logic says yes, and I’m sorry you think so poorly of yourself.

        • It does not matter how I feel about myself, that does not determine by standing before God. Hitler might have felt that he was a pretty swell guy.

    • Michex

      Nearly all men and women are naturally and intrinsically put off by homosexuality.
      They pull back from it.
      Moreover, to remove the homosexual taboo invites predation by homosexuals on heterosexuals.
      No high school heterosexual boy wants to get a call from a homosexual boy asking him to go to the movies where the latter boy may try to kiss him, whereas the same heterosexual boy would be Ok if a girl asked him out and kissed him.

      If we remove the homosexual taboo, we invite sexual anarchy.

      If you doubt this, just look at the public sexual anarchy in a gay pride parade:
      S and M, bondage, frontal nudity, whips and chains, denigration of Christianity, drag queens, and little kids dragged into this public spectacle to get brainwashed.
      That is what the LGBTQ movement is about in the end: sexual anarchy.

      • OhSoGood

        “Moreover, to remove the homosexual taboo invites predation by homosexuals on heterosexuals.” — How?

        I was a high school boy that would have loved that call. You’re a shallow, sheltered little thing.

        WTF is “sexual anarchy”?!

        Look at the “sexual anarchy” at Mardi Gras, sugar… how is that any different?

        You’re a prude… that’s all there is to it. Sex scares you.

        • Michex

          Mardi Gras is a once a year thing and is disgusting too.
          One small example of sexual anarchy: some state laws now allow a male boy who merely considers himself to be a girl to use the girls restroom and shower room.
          Defies all common sense but in the world of sexual anarchy, there are no sexual rules in society.
          Homosexual romance books are required reading in many elementary schools. Look them up.
          Little kids are being told in school that they can be any gender they want.

          • OhSoGood

            “is digusting too”.


            Transgenderism is about gender… not sex.

            Why should there be “sexual rules”? Because religion?

            You offer a source for your claims… otherwise, it’s a lie.

            You’re confusing transgenderism with homosexuality. They are not the same. Your not very well read or educated.

          • Michex

            I was addressing sexual anarchy, and for a male who merely thinks he is a female to enter a female shower room and display his sex organs to females while washing up is inherently sexual in nature, especially as it may both arouse and frighten the females.

            When you put a naked male and naked female together in a close physical situation, that’s a sexual situation.

            I suggest you go back to your childhood book on the birds and bees, which clearly you neglected to read, perhaps because you weren’t interested in the opposite sex or reproduction. I don’t know.

          • OhSoGood

            “sexual anarchy” is a stupid concept… people have ALWAYS entertained whatever kind of sex they chose to.

            Your hangup is on transexuals… that is not the same as being homosexual.

            If you put a naked male and naked female together without sex, you have no sexual situation. Nudists all over this planet prove this daily. You’re a prude who cannot separate nudity and the human form from sex… that’s a personal problem.

            I’ve never been interested in reproduction… and I’m still glad that I’ve never done so, as is my liberty.

          • Michex

            I think people now fully understand what you and people like you stand for.
            Thanks for that.

          • OhSoGood

            And what is that, darlin’?

            Why does sex scare you?

      • AML

        How can possibly make that statement? People are put off by homosexuality because people like you demonize it. There are plenty of people who have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, and it does not make them feel icky. Do they want to date someone of the same sex? No, because that is not their orientation. Similarly, gay men don’t want to have sex with women.

        You make the inaccurate assumption that S&M and other sexual taboos are only associated with the LGBT community. There are plenty heterosexual people into some pretty nasty stuff, far worse than what the pride parades advertise. You automatically associate anything gay with sexual deviancy, which is proof that you have never met or broke bread with a gay person. Talk to your gay neighbor who doesn’t participate in a pride parade or drag shows (there are plenty who don’t), and would simply like to live happily ever after monogamously with their partner, like any other heterosexual couple. It’s sad that you feel YOUR religion should not permit this. Your stereotyped judgments are false.

        • Michex

          “Gay pride” parades are public events and are the only type of ongoing, major, public events that features S and M and all the things I cited. This is highly unusual.
          If the homosexuals who run the parades just wanted them to be about homosexuality, why the frontal nudity, whips and chains, and drag queens? Because it’s about anarchy – anything and everything goes.

          Yes, heterosexuals are into nasty stuff but they don’t push it into schools at the kindergarten level, whereas that is precisely what the LGBTQ movement does.
          Google childrens gay books. You will find plenty.
          LGBTQ also push the idea to kindergartners that gender is a mere social construct.
          You would not know this unless you read pro-family websites.
          Mainstream media will not cover these issues.

          As a general rule, people are put off by homosexual advances. This has always been true everywhere.

  • OhSoGood

    Christian fear of homosexuality is silly.

    It demonstrates a weakness in faith and outlook… Makes me happy our nation doesn’t consider religion to be law.

    • TK

      Yeah, why be “phobic” of a lifestyle that on average kills people 12 years earlier than others?

  • mitchw7959

    If any LGBT youth are harmed from beatings or bullying at school, if any LGBT youth are thrown out of their homes by their fundamentalist Christian families, if any LGBT individual commits suicide after reading this author’s nasty idolatry, let the blood be on the hands of Grayson Gilbert and let him know that the violence will be avenged against Moody Bible Institute and all in its miserable orbit.

  • Donalbain

    If you think that in sex, one partner is “passive”, there may be something wrong with your love life.

    • George

      You obviously know little – if anything – about pederasty.

      • Samuel D. Granger

        ??? …what the hell are you talking about??

        • George

          Have you been triggered, Samuel?

          Read first, think second, and comment third. If you won’t do the first and second, don’t do the third.

  • I’ll just hope that someone will be prepared to listen to the sound arguments that even having a conservatively ‘biblical’ worldview can lead to LGBT-affirming perspective quite consistently, if one is prepared to acknowledge the language ambiguities of Hebrew and Greek alongside grammar, literary and historical context.


  • rtgmath

    “Roughly half of the posts that I have written are in some form or another touching this topic – whether homosexuality, transgenderism, or sexual license in general, and I don’t think that will be settling down any time soon.”

    Showing that your focus is on your perception of the sins of others, and not about your own sins.

    But then, that is the way of fundamentalist Pharisaism. Funny that it was not the common sinners Jesus condemned, but the religious zealots who affirmed their own righteousness and despised others.

    But you just go ahead. You’ve told us you won’t change. Meanwhile, Jesus will love sinners and change their hearts. Yours he might not change because you might just fit into the Matthew 7:21-23 category. You’ll never know because you are so busy working to condemn others you miss the point of the gospel.

  • Kellie Brown

    We can’t agree to disagree? Sure we can! Watch: I disagree. See? It’s easy! Why, you already did it right up there with your article. You disagreed with me and I disagreed with you and “the world turned, and the world turned and the world turned….” just like the song says.

  • Vance Morgan

    You’re right–I can’t agree to disagree either. You’re completely wrong, and I am sick to death of seeing Christianity reduced to an obsession with a person’s sexual orientation. Enjoy your twisted obsession, but stop calling it Christianity.

  • Samuel D. Granger

    Lots I want to say to this article. I’ll start by quoting the chorus of my FAVORITE song from Kesha’s new album:

    This is a hymn for the hymnless
    Kids with no religion
    Yeah we keep on sinnin’
    Yeah we keep on singin’
    Flying down the highway
    Backseat of the Hyundai
    Pull up to the front
    Let it run, we don’t valet
    Sorry if you’re starstruck
    Blame it on the stardust
    I know that I’m perfect
    Even though I’m fucked up
    Hymn for the hymnless
    Don’t need no forgiveness
    ‘Cause if there’s a Heaven
    Don’t care if we get in

    I’m going to Hell for refusing to pathologize something that, based on mere observation without the taint of religious absolutism, ISN’T inherently harmful? For advocating a world in which LGBTQ people are loved, accepted, and affirmed?

    Light me on fire, baby! I’m probably going to hell anyway, and the prospect strikes no fear in me. And it feels pretty damn liberating.

    Also, if you agree with this, I’d better not hear any of you fuckers whine about “liberal intolerance” ever again. Your view is that people are not saved by God for entering same-sex relationships, or having a gender different than the one they were assigned at birth. That is not tolerant, and I don’t have to be tolerant of it. Those who believe that is hypocritical or “silencing any view you disagree with” should look up the paradox of tolerance. If a society tolerates views that say LGBTQ people are condemned to hell for living affirming lives, it becomes intolerant of LGBTQ people, and undermines the very goal of tolerance.

    So don’t anyone dare reduce it to “liberals are tolerant until you disagree with them”…that is deliberately ignoring context and refusing to think about the nuances of the issue. Being tolerant does not mean that I have to tolerate every view under the sun, no matter how harmful. My lack of tolerance for this view is NOT just because I disagree with it. It is because it perpetuates a common mindset behind a long history of oppression of the LGBTQ community. And a society which tolerates that view is not tolerant of LGBTQ people.

    • Lacey

      Hear hear. I always like to correct those people to, ‘liberals are tolerant until you become harmful to others.’ The attitude displayed in the article is absolutely harmful to others and I don’t feel even a little bit bad saying that I think it’s bullshit and the author should be ashamed.

  • Eric Morgan

    Wrong. Romans 1 suggests that giving up “the created order” is not homosexuality, but sexual immorality related to idol worship. It is clearly documented throughout Greco-Roman history that idol worship involved paid sex with children and people of the same gender. Sexual immorality is wrong. Idolatry is wrong. PERIOD. Homosexual monogamy is not what is being addressed by this passage, or any passage in the Bible.