Why same-sex intimacy is sin...

(Tim) This evening I received the following e-mail from a reader of the post, "Christianity Left Behind." Although I sent an initial brief response to my correspondent covering several matters, I also told him I would post his e-mail here asking our other readers to assist with the work. Would you, dear readers, please help by posting responses to the questions here asked, with loving clarity pointing this lost soul to the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ? I'd be grateful.

I'm not as convinced as you are that the Scriptures unequivocally condemn homosexuality, but I think your position has a practical problem that nobody on your side of the argument is addressing.

With sins like adultery and greed, it's readily apparent from the harm they do why God says not to do them. It takes no intelligence whatsoever to see that a society in which murder or theft were acceptable would not long survive.

That's not true of homosexuality...

If you take the Bible out of it, there is absolutely no reason why the tiny minority of men who are attracted to other men shouldn't seek the same happiness that comes from sexual relationships as do men who are attracted to women. Practiced responsibly, homosexuality does no more harm than responsibly-practiced heterosexuality.

And people know this. At this point probably everyone has gay friends, relatives, classmates, co-workers or neighbors who are decent, honorable people, and they can't for the life of them figure out why those gay people they know and love aren't entitled to the same pursuit of happiness as they themselves.

So here's what it comes down to: You believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and so for you it's a doctrinal issue. The problem is that your doctrine has no obvious supporting rational basis. In fact, it's absurd on its face. And the reason you're losing the culture war on this issue is that your side is making what, apart from your Scriptural interpretation, is a completely ludicrous argument. It's a tactical and practical problem your side really needs to address.

Sincerely,

Comments

[Tim Bayly]

To begin, here's my own brief response:

Dear Mr. (Doe),

There are many responses to this line of reasoning, and I'm going to post your e-mail on the blog asking others to help with it. Still, I want to make it clear to you that, with God and His Word, we don't seek understanding so we can obey, but we obey so we can understand. In other words, obedience causes us to understand the reasons for the law which reasons often cannot be understood or won't be revealed by God until we obey.

As I've gotten older, it's come to me that the essence of rebellion is the demand that we understand the reason for the command before we'll obey it. God has, in the simplest and most straightforward way possible, made it clear throughout His Word that same-sex intimacy is wickedness that will bring on those giving themselves to it His most severe judgment here and throughout eternity. There's no argument about Scripture's clarity on the matter although there are many rebels against God who claim Scripture's not clear. Either God has blinded them, allowing them to be deceived, or they're lying.

So, my friend, repent of your unbelief and rebellion so you may have your eyes opened to the many ways sodomite practice is a crime against Heaven and earth with terrible consequences and countless victims.

Under God's mercy and the precious blood of Jesus Christ,

Chief of sinners Tim Bayly

[Alex Costa]

There are plenty of people who secretly want to legalize bestiality. They might not come out and admit that, but if people were honest I think you'd be surprised.

One could argue that "if you take the Bible out of it," there is absolutely no reason why the tiny minority of men who are attracted to their pets or farm animals shouldn't seek the same happiness that comes from sexual relationships as do men who are attracted to women.

They too could argue that they were born to love animals, and that they didn't one day just wake up to find out that they were in love with their horse/cow/dog/donkey/fill in the blank. And hey, who does it harm? The person is happy... the animal is probably indifferent, and likely has worse things to think about.

But surely such thinking and practice is abominable.

I mean, honestly, if you fight for homosexuality, you need to fight for things that you know are wrong... at least I'm hoping you know they're wrong. Bestiality, polyamory, pedophelia (where the child is consenting), etc. What's the difference? I'm hoping that you would readily admit that those things are evil behaviors... but there's that question again... who are they hurting? Why don't we just let them be happy?

The problem with homosexuality is that it is just as abominable in God's eyes, but this evil deed has been normalized and glamorized by the world today. It is unnatural and shameful (see Romans 1:26-27), and those who commit such acts will only go from bad to worse.

I'm just an amateur around here though... you'll probably hear better arguments from those who are wiser.

[Don Johnson]

Actually, the Bible takes itself out of it when it says, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Romans 1:26-27, NASB)

The sin of homosexuality is a rebellion against natural revelation, the revelation of God and his truth seen in the natural world outside the Bible. It is something that everyone can see unless they are willfully blind.

[Carole Canfield]

"If you take the Bible out of it, there is absolutely no reason why the tiny minority of men who are attracted to other men shouldn't seek the same happiness that comes from sexual relationships as do men who are attracted to women. Practiced responsibly, homosexuality does no more harm than responsibly-practiced heterosexuality."

First, taking the Bible aside for the moment, why should the "tiny minority" set the standard for the majority? By popular vote in America, 31 states have now said they do not want gay marriage to be recognized. And it is the tiny minority that is trying to overturn those votes of the majority.

"At this point probably everyone has gay friends, relatives, classmates, co-workers or neighbors who are decent, honorable people, and they can't for the life of them figure out why those gay people they know and love aren't entitled to the same pursuit of happiness as they themselves."

I have many gay relatives and friends, and former boyfriends. I am very close to them. I love them dearly. And it is for that reason that I do NOT believe that they should be in same-sex relationships for the pursuit of their happiness. I know that it is not lasting happiness. I've watched them go from person to person, looking for that happiness, and they have looked in vain. That is not to say that some don't find long-term relationships, but because they do go against God's design, their relationships cannot have the expected result of a God-sanctioned union. And because I love my gay friends and relatives, I do not want them to suffer eternal damnation.

"You believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and so for you it's a doctrinal issue. The problem is that your doctrine has no obvious supporting rational basis. In fact, it's absurd on its face. And the reason you're losing the culture war on this issue is that your side is making what, apart from your Scriptural interpretation, is a completely ludicrous argument. It's a tactical and practical problem your side really needs to address."

If you go back and read the many posts here, you will see that just about any argument you want to come up with has been addressed already with regard to same-sex relationships. But the bottom line is this: It is not my belief, nor anyone's belief in Scripture that makes it true. It stands as Truth whether or not I believe it. I am not God, therefore what I think about Scripture doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's true because of its own merit. People will come & go. The earth and heavens can disappear, but the Word of the Lord will stand forever. See, we can't just set the Bible aside. Like it or not, it's there -- for eternity. The only thing left for you to do is pray for the Lord to remove the scales from your eyes and replace your heart of stone with a heart of flesh, and repent of your unbelief, so that you, too, can recognize the True God, Jesus Christ, through His Holy Spirit, and no longer be deceived. Whether or not you do, God will remain, and His Word will remain. Better that you see it this side of your grave, for you WILL bow the knee before Him in the end.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>If you take the Bible out of it, there is absolutely no reason why the tiny minority of men who are attracted to other men shouldn't seek the same happiness that comes from sexual relationships as do men who are attracted to women.

>>You believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and so for you it's a doctrinal issue. The problem is that your doctrine has no obvious supporting rational basis.

>>And the reason you're losing the culture war on this issue is that your side is making what, apart from your Scriptural interpretation, is a completely ludicrous argument.

>>It's a tactical and practical problem your side really needs to address.

Voters in Maine voted against same-sex marriage. And voters in California did too. And I think same-sex marriage initiatives have lost in every state in which voters had a chance to vote on the issue.

Our side addresses the tactical and practical problems with prayer and prayerful action.

What does your side do?

[Cindy Paakkonen]

I noticed you mentioned in your statement to "take the Bible out of it". God gave us the Bible, we can't leave it out .
Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin. If you read the first few pages of Genesis you will notice that God saw Adam needed a helper. Whom did He create for Adam? Not a man, but a woman named Eve. You can't argue with what the Word of God says no matter how much you struggle with it. All of us struggle with one type of sin or another, but as christians we know we NEED to turn away from our sin and live the way God tells us to live in His Word.
My advice would be to find a church which preaches God's Word and tell a pastor or elder in that church what your struggling with and then allow yourself to be discipled by that individual. You won't be sorry.

[Matthew Hoover]

Dear Mr. Doe,

God says that there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death in Proverbs 16:25. And the first ten chapters of Proverbs have some stories that illustrate that, especially involving opposite-sex sins like adultery.

The interesting thing about those passages is that they show that whenever you get into a sin, it just might feel real good. It "seems right to a man." It might feel natural and easy. It might feel like you've gone to a higher place where you don't need to struggle any more, and now you're going to have a happier life. It might feel like you've broken a bond that has been holding you down.

But that is the devil's way, because he is always lying. He knows how to take death, make it seem like life, and sell it to you. It's all a lie that will wrap you up so that you cannot get out without the help of Jesus. The Bible is warning us against that because God cares for us very much. He doesn't want you to go there.

So Cindy is right that we can't take the Bible out of the discussion. It's the way that the God who made us communicates about the way of life. And Pastor Bayly is right that God makes it very clear that homosexuality is a particularly deadly trap. Please consider that perspective. We're not trying to win a culture war so that we can keep people down, we are trying to warn you against the snares that the devil is laying for you.

And I have to make one last comment... the Bible also says that we have all gone down the devil's path already and are on the way to death. If you believe what I wrote above you will have to acknowledge that. But there is good news, that Jesus walked that path for us and died so that He can take us from it and put us back on the path to life. Believe in Him and He will save you!

Yours,
Matt Hoover

[David]

I don't think God gives us laws that do not directly benefit us. This is clear in many cases (most, if not all of the ten commandments are clearly for our own good in incredibly obvious ways). In some, not so much.

I think homosexuality falls into this second category, but I do think the case can be made that it's bad for those who practice it. I've known a few gay people over the course of my life, and without exception, all were fundamentally unhappy people. Some looked happy and well-adjusted for the most part, but were lonely, desperate people if you knew them well enough. Many had this sense that all they needed was universal acceptance, and then they'd be happy (i.e. if they could only legalize marriage and get rid of homophobia, then they'd be happy). Reasoning like this is common in any sort of addictive behavior (including heterosexual promiscuity), of the "if only x were different..." sort. In most, if not all cases, the "if only" thinking is an easy-way-out scenario, putting the burden for happiness on changing others rather than doing the hard work of allowing ourselves to be changed. Homosexuality, like any sin, is at root a preference of our way of life over the one God marked out for us and tells us is better. As long as we don't trust Him enough to give up the reins, we'll never experience the joy He has for us.

As a corollary, I don't think God designed the laws only for our benefit (i.e. that He gave us the law solely to show us how to be happy), but I think that we, as creations of God, need to obey the laws he used to make us, and that that obedience will necessarily lead us to happiness through aiding our communion with Him (only available through His saving grace, etc.). We don't follow the law to be happy, we follow the law because that's what God wants us to do. That He wants it for our benefit as well as His glory simply demonstrates His love and His sovereignty over our design.

[Mahoney]

Anonymous,

If you look at the Godly counsel of all of these people you see commonalities:

1.) Homosexuality is like all sin - and should be treated as such.

2.) Homosexuality is one of the Romans 1 "degrading passions"

Satan seeks to make you think that your sin is unique that somehow since your sin is harder that it deserves a special indulgence, despite what God's word says plainly about sin.

Also, even from a non-Christian's understanding, sexual sin is particularly a degrading passion, like drinking salt water, it just makes you more thirsty and ravenous for pure water - but you've denied the pure water of life in Christ so you thirst constantly. This is also true of men who seek sex with women outside of marriage.

Everyone here has spoken the truth, we speak it because we see the sin in our own lives and know that there is no relief apart from God. It's the deceitfulness of sin that tells you those living the "gay lifestyle" are happy.

Hear the truth, it has been spoken here.

-Clint

[Craig French]

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death (Prov 14:12 & 16:25)

This is, as Tim pointed out, an issue of obedience. For the believer, we don't measure rightness or wrongness by perceived harm...we know what love is and is not. It is not love when a father has sex with his grown children. Likewise, it is not love when a man has relations with another man.

The question is one of love, not "harm" (though there is harm...but I don't think we should hang our hats on that...man is great at making sins "safer")

Sincerely,

[Diane]

While the "inalienable right" to pursue happiness is a decidedly American notion, the Bible isn't so quick to support it. Consider these verses:

He sets on high those who are lowly, and those who mourn are lifted to safety. (Job 5:11)

Sorrow is better than laughter, for by a sad countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. (Ecclesiastes 7:3-4)

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Matthew 5:4)

Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. (Luke 6:21)

Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up. (James 4:8-10)

God grants joy to those who are willing to lay it down in search of Him.

[Kamilla]

I could play the little game of leaving God and revelation out of it - leave out Scripture and even the natural law. Let's just do that for a moment. I am afraid you will find it cold comfort. For what I am them left with is pathology reports, physiology textbooks, cat scans, MRIs, etc., etc.

And they all point in the same direction that those you want to leave out of the discusion point -- that "responsibly practiced" homosexuality is a myth and a path leading to physical destruction.

Tim is exactly right. We have to obey to understand. I had to do it when I crawled my way out of the pit of religious feminism (and not on my own, I might add). We have all had to do it, each in a dozen different ways.

Find yourself a good church. Not simply one with correct doctrine but no grace, no love. And not on with love but no law. Find a church with the grace enough to love you and doctrine enough to show you the way.

Pray the Scriptures - like the father of the boy whom Jesus healed, cry out to God, "Lord, I believe, Help my unbelief!"

Kamilla

[Bike Bubba]

Well, if one won't believe Romans 1, Leviticus, and other places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, consider that the church is the "bride" of Christ. So in a manner of speaking, any sexuality outside a heterosexual marriage is to model Christ as united with someone not His bride. In the case of homosexuality, it models the church as a groom, or Christ as a bride. Heterosexual fornication models the church as Christ's mistress. All of these are blasphemous.

But if we must walk away from the authority of Scripture, is it not significant that such sexuality carries the high likelihood of massive e coli infections, much higher risk of STDs, and far higher risk of substance abuse? If we claim "no harm done," we simply aren't looking at the data. General revelation tells us a lot about this behavior.

[John Doe the Email Guy]

I'm the anonymous guy who sent the email that got reproduced here.

OK, so the voters have rejected gay marriage; how well do you think inter-racial marriage would have done at the ballot box 40 years ago?

Here's what my position comes down to: If your interpretation of the Bible produced much misery and no obvious benefit, it's fair to at least ask if you're sure you're interpreting the text correctly. Don't forget that Peter was also right on the text when he had his vision about the unclean animals that he initially refused to eat.

To give an example, if you think you have found a text that says you should beat your wife, obviously you need to do what you think God is teling you to do. But make absolutely positively certain that the text really does say that, because if you turn out to be wrong, the fact that you misread the text won't be a defense.

And yes, I do think that much of how the evangelical church interacts with gay people is directly comparable to wife beating. And don't think that a wife-beater couldn't find proof-texts to cite in support of wife beating. Bottom line, if you think God is telling you to be nasty to other people, there's ample historical precedent that you're probably wrong.

[BettySue]

Doctors in the mid 1800s "left the Bible out of it" and didn't wash their hands after touching dead bodies and body fluids as the Bible tells us to in the Mosaic Law. As a result, tens of thousands of women died of "childbirth fever."

Our knowledge is incomplete. We must trust God to know what is best.

Sex is the reward for marriage, not the reason for it. Marriage is for two purposes according to the Bible: to produce godly children (Malachi), and to picture Christ's relationship with the church. Homosexuality can't do either of these. They can not produce children at all. And a gay relationship says Jesus doesn't need the church, just another god to fellowship with. Lesbianism says the church doesn't need God, just a sister church. Totally ridiculous.

[Carol Blair]

Addressing only medical issues: STDs are much more common in homosexuals than in the general population. Years ago, HIV initially spread throughout the US and Canada primarily by way of one extremely promiscuous male flight attendant. Hepatitis B and C are now considered STDs – because of their high prevalence in the gay community. From a medical news e-mail that I received yesterday, a new strain of Hepatitis C has been discovered in the MSM (males who have sex with males) community. This new strain is fast moving and causes rapid deterioration of the liver.
Because of specific unclean practices of MSMs, the term “gay bowel syndrome” was coined -- to describe the diseases common to this group. Gay bowel syndrome included not only STDs, but also parasitic infections which spread quickly. Certain bacterial infections also spread quickly. I remember a co-worker who had E coli in his throat.
And finally, the average age of death of male homosexuals is about 42. That’s the ones who *don’t* die of AIDS. In those who have AIDS, the average age of death is about 40.

[Tom Brainerd]

The thing that separates us in our conclusions is our presuppositions. Your initial presupposition is:

"If you take the Bible out of it..."

We cannot, of course, take the Bible out of this one issue…or any other. If you read it and come to understand it, you will find that it speaks to all issues. And the Bible stands alone in an accurate assessment of mankind and its tendencies.

And if we take the Bible out of everything, what are we left with? A Creator-less universe. You and I are just accidents, an accumulation of chemical reactions. As Star Trek put it, ugly bags of mostly water. There is no dignity there. None of us has any inherent value.

If you take the Bible out of it, you must live with ALL the consequences and repercussions. It is true that without the Bible we would have no ground for objection to same-sex intimacy. Nor to bestiality. Nor to the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Nor to abortion. Nor to taking unwanted infants and tossing them in the dumpster (a practice of the Romans). The list goes on and on, has its basis in history, and I will leave it to you to figure out its personal impact.

So…our difference is more basic than a single issue. Our difference really lies at the heart of all issues.

[Max (David) Curell]

“With sins like adultery and greed, it's readily apparent from the harm they do why God says not to do them. ---That's not true of homosexuality...”

You’re kidding right?

These practices are extremely harmful. They lead to an inordinate number of diseases and deaths spread throughout both the homosexual and heterosexual communities by various forms of illicit and non-illicit transmission. (Everyone is up in arms today about footing the bill for the health care expense of chronically sick people, defective newborns, old people, fat people, smokers, drinkers and etc. What about the extra costs of treating STD’s and AIDS? Where are all the “Make the Sodomites pay higher premiums” lobbyists? Instead of a fat tax on Big Macs perhaps we need a latex tax for all Trojans?)

The physical is just the beginning of the harm.

Each successive class of students in our schools is a little more sexually confused than the one preceding it. First we legitimize fruitless marriage, then fornication, then adultery, then divorce, then sodomy, then pedophilia, then bestiality. In a period of 50 years or so we go from children having a father and a mother to Heather having two mommies. Is Heather confused? Would it be better if Billy had two mommies instead of Heather? What if Heather’s mommy is a sheep? Forget having a mommy at all, Heather’s dad can sleep with her and she can become her own mommy.

“Practiced responsibly…”

You’re kidding right?

Which story is true? :

1)
Bob and Tom met in Algebra class. They became good friends in high school. Throughout college they corresponded. After college they ended up in the same city attending the same church. Bob was attracted to Tom and he was fairly certain Tom was attracted to him so he called Tom’s father to ask permission to call on Tom. Tom’s father knew Bob from the time the boys were in school together but wanted to know what Bob’s intentions were so he arranged a meeting with Bob to see whether Bob had the qualities necessary to be a good husband to his sweet Tom. Having passed the test of Tom’s father, the two boys dated taking care not to place themselves in compromising situations so that they would remain pure until they could make the trip to Vermont. They were married and remained in their monogamous relationship until Bob died from heart failure in 2040. Tom lived to be 87 and died in the home of one of he and Bob’s adopted children, Mae. Mae had cared for Tom for three years as his health declined.

2)
His uncle repeatedly molested Bob as a child. A domineering mother raised Tom daily squelching his male characteristics. In high school Bob was completely given over to sexual immorality of every type. Tom was confused sexually but, through the advice of his English teacher, he decided he would explore his sexuality by pursuing sexual relationships with other males. While in college at IU both men advertized on Craig’s list. They hooked up and exercised filthy, shameful, self-seeking, immoral, sexual behavior in the handicapped stall of a nearby public men’s room. They did this frequently with other men as well. Eventually, not having seen Tom for 8 years, Bob died of AIDS. Tom got fat therefore no one wanted to hook up with him anymore. Even though he was a successful lawyer he became so depressed that he ended his own life in January 2022.

[Craig French]

John Doe,

You're comment is proof you're not here to gain understanding...you're here to obfuscate, raise a bunch of nonsense, and pretend believers are simple-minded dunder-heads.

BTW (to follow suit), when did you stop kicking puppies? Was it after you stopped punching invalids? Maybe it was after that time you took the job as the mall Santa Claus at Christmas where you'd tell each child (upon sitting on your lap) that Santa was dead and you are his re-animated corpse?

With sincerity equal to your questions,

[John Doe the Email Guy]

Carol, you can't possibly know that STDs are more prevalent in the gay community because nobody knows to anything even approaching certainty what percentage of the population is gay -- estimates range from 1% to 15% -- so there's no baseline to work from. (That's also true of Max's statement that the life expectancy of a gay male is about 40).

Max, if you think your characterization of Bob and Tom doesn't have heterosexual counterparts, you need to get out more. That plus if gay people are all the self-absorbed promiscuous hedonists you portray, why are so many of them demanding to take responsibility for their relationships by getting married (many after being together for many years), with all the responsibilities marriage entails? Why are so many of them wanting to be active in the life of the church, and serve their country in the military? This does not sound like self-absorbed hedonists to me.

[Michael McMillan]

> If you take the Bible out of it...

Yes, let's take the Bible out of it for a moment. That leaves us with evolution. And we all know what evolution says about the survival of the fittest. Those that don't reproduce, are not fit to survive. Such are an aberration, a mutation, an abnormality -- doomed to extinction. The same goes for those who insist on indulging in deadly, high risk behaviors.

Evolution dogma condemns homosexuality.

No, we shouldn't protect homosexuals because they are an endangered species. Let nature take its course.

[Alex Costa]

"And yes, I do think that much of how the evangelical church interacts with gay people is directly comparable to wife beating. And don't think that a wife-beater couldn't find proof-texts to cite in support of wife beating. Bottom line, if you think God is telling you to be nasty to other people, there's ample historical precedent that you're probably wrong."

I don't think that's very fair. Do you have examples of people in the evangelical church who have done such things? If you do, do you realize that they're a very small minority, some of whom may not even be Christians? Also, do you realize that the people who walk around with the signs that say "God hates fags" speak for only a very small portion of the Church? A very large majority of us have done nothing "nasty" to gay people. It saddens me to know that if I even say the words "I am a Christian," an emotional barrier will probably be put up by that other person if he or she is gay.

Perhaps this is your smokescreen. Are the loud minority of people who call themselves Christian keeping you from turning to Christ? If you want to talk about something that is unfair, imagine being in God's position. Romans 5:6-10 mentions that we all were (and most still are) enemies of God, but then God showed love to His enemies by sending His Son to die on the cross for our sins. This kind of love is unprecedented in the history of the world, and it is fully undeserved on our part. We deserve hell... I would argue that we don't even deserve to hear the name "God," but we do get to hear it. My prayer is that God would draw you to Himself soon.

[Mark Chambers]

>It takes no intelligence whatsoever to see that a society in which murder or theft were acceptable would not long survive.

And how much intelligence is required to believe that a homosexual society would thrive beyond its present generation? Yes indeed sexual aberrance is a boon to any culture. Anyone run into any shakers lately?

[John Doe the Email Guy]

As far as reproduction is concerned, most of the population will continue to be heterosexual no matter what the laws say, so the small number of homosexuals aren't putting the human race in any danger of extinction.

Biological anomalies happen. Most people have five digits on each hand; a few have six. Most people have skin pigmentation; a few are albinos. And most people are attracted to the opposite sex; a few are not. We don't make moral judgments about other biological anomolies; we understand that's just the way some people are and we judge them by the content of their character rather than the number of digits on their hands. Why is this one different?

[Michael Foster]

John Doe the Email Guy,

You say the homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody. How do you arrive at any moral conclusions? Or, in other words, what is the standard by which you judge things as good, bad, hurtful, and non-hurtful? Moreover, how do you define hurt? If you remove the Bible as a standard something will fill that vacuum. What is your operating system?

[Michael McMillan]

> If you take the Bible out of it...

Taking the Bible out of it is taking God out of it. And God is the Designer, which is convenient for those who want to operate complicated equipment by ignoring the Instruction Manual AND the design of the equipment itself. The purposes of various parts of our anatomy are OBVIOUS to anyone with the least amount of common sense. Yes -- taking the Bible out of it, we still have natural revelation. And we still have the natural CONSEQUENCES for doing things contrary to the intended design. "No, that doesn't go in there."

For example, men have designed "male and female" fittings for countless types of equipment. If you have two male fittings, or two female fittings, the intended function is guaranteed not to work. You may be able to use the parts for something other than what they were intended, and think it is just wonderful, but you are making a fool of yourself from the standpoint of the purpose of the gaget. If you are doing this with something you bought at Best Buy, no biggie, because the designer doesn't much care.

But if you are doing this with you own body, that is a different matter, because we all must give an account for how we used our bodies to the Creator of them. The Designer said: "Be fruitful and multiply" and designed things so that would happen naturally. The obvious twisting of God's design from the intended functions can easily be seen to be an abomination even by fallen humans because of natural revelation, except when their foolish hearts are darkened. Natural revelations says something depraved is happening. It isn't a simple matter of two neutral choices.

What I've always wanted to know was -- why do "homosexuals" often have relations with members of the opposite sex? "Hetereosexuals" never have relations with members of the same sex! If they were born "homosexual," then they would never think of having relations with someone of the opposite sex. This is another indicator to me that something is broken, not normal. And that it is their conscious choice. We all choose to sin. Our circumstances may may us more suceptible to a certain sin, but we still choose it, act on it.

[Bike Bubba]

John Doe, you need to consider whether the pain felt by homosexuals is the result of repression, or whether it's the ordinary result of that sin.

So let's start where we have the data; about 1-3% of the adult male population, by best estimates, is homosexual. That portion accounts for, by CDC data, 40-50% of HIV infections and deaths in the USA. Homosexuals are literally one thousand times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals who do not inject illegal drugs by needle or sleep with prostitutes.

Now is that caused by disapproval, or is it caused by men sharing bodily fluids with a lot of other men?

In the same way, recent spikes in syphilis and genhorrea--not diseases traditionally isolated among homosexuals--are exploding in homosexual communities. In fact, one of the questions they ask when you give blood is whether you've had such an infection--part of the reason being that a donor who lies about homosexuality might tell the truth about a syphilis infection and thus exclude himself.

Now is this spike in infections due to disapproval of a lifestyle, or is it due to men exchanging body fluids with a lot of other men?

Sorry, John, but this is documented by the CDC. To put it bluntly, those who substitute an orifice that bleeds easily and does not lubricate itself for an orifice that is comparitively more robust and does lubricate itself are asking for trouble--especially when they, contrary to the Scriptures, partake in a LOT of those unnatural orifices.

[Lauren Pickett]

Dear Email-writer,
Please forgive me for being a bit grotesque (and Pastor Bayly, feel free to delete this comment if the material is inappropriate), but I speak this way in order to perhaps give clarity to the matter.
Masturbation is a sin. It is a sin before the Lord, it is despicable in His sight, and from our sight it hurts absolutely no one and only gives us pleasure. Unfortunately for us wicked sinners, God cares about our hearts. He cares not only what we do with our bodies, but He cares about where our minds wander as well (and He knows exactly where they wander all the time, yikes!).
Is it sin to masturbate even though from our sinful point of view it does no harm? Yes, 100%, yes. While we touch ourselves inappropriately our minds wander into a fantasy land that places our sexual desires ahead of God's glory.

Is it sin for a heterosexual male to lust in his heart over a woman? Yes, 100%, yes and for the very same reasons as before.

Is it sin for a homosexual man to have relation with another man? In all situations, yes. Look at the motivations of your heart for this behavior, and you will find that seeking sexual pleasure from the same sex (monogamous or not) has everything to do with lust and nothing to do with fulfilling the will of God and glorifying Him forever.

It's not about exclusively condemning the homosexual, it's that we're all condemned because we are all hopeless perverts without the Holy Spirit.

[JD Stuart]

God, in the Bible, doesn't forbid extra fingers or lack of pigmentation. He forbids male-male and female-female sexual relations, though. God judges the content of people's character by how well they uphold His law or, for those who have seen His grace, how truly they follow Jesus. So, when someone breaks His law--by stealing or, yes, by male-male sexual relations--and does not repent (i.e., turn to Jesus) with respect to that specific sin, that character-content judgment is not going to be a positive one.

I'm sorry, but there's just no way to discuss these issues with Christians apart from the Bible. We believe it's true, every word of it. It shapes, or at least should, every single one of our opinions, arguments, and actions.

[Max (David) Curell]

John Doe,

I wasn't excusing the sins of heterosexuals by pointing out the sins of sodomites. Both are wicked.

I can think of many motives for sodomites wanting the legalization of sodomite marriage that have nothing to do with taking responsibility. The most obvious is the social and legal legitimization of their perverted behavior. Also, they can use this to benefit financially as insurance companies would have to acknowledge partners as spouses.

As for responsibility, if you think that homosexuals are anywhere in the neighborhood of normal as regards sexual appetite you are the one who needs to get out more. The lifelong monogamous sodomite relationship is a myth.

[Rebecca Nugent]

John Doe the Email Guy,

Methinks that the reason that you are engaging in this debate has very little to do with your staunch certainty on the matter, but much to do with wanting to find a "yes man" in the church to appease your conscience. Of course, I could be mistaken regarding your motives.

However, there is one thing that I am sure of: If you don't believe what the Bible is saying about homosexuality is true, then not only can you discount that, but you can discount anything else that doesn't sit well with you. I'm not really sure how many times one can split hairs regarding the statement the Paul makes that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven. You can make a case for the innocuousness or even the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle all you want. That's not going to help you when you come face to face with a Holy God.

[Cindy Paakkonen]

`Dear John Doe,

Please understand that all of us who have posted want to help you. If we hated you there would be no comments listed, right?

The bottom line is this: no matter how much you struggle with your sin, homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God. We are all sinners and each struggle with our own sins. Legalizing homosexuality is not the answer. You have to deal with the sin and not act on it. As christians we walk in God's Ways, not our own.

[Rob Bedinghaus]

>>"Biological anomalies happen. Most people have five digits on each hand; a few have six. Most people have skin pigmentation; a few are albinos. And most people are attracted to the opposite sex; a few are not. We don't make moral judgments about other biological anomolies; we understand that's just the way some people are and we judge them by the content of their character rather than the number of digits on their hands. Why is this one different?"

"This one" is different because homosexuality is not an innocent "biological anomaly." It is a choice to willingly follow one's confused sexual desires that arise from any number of things (abuse, lack of a father...who knows what else etc...), and it's a choice that is clearly condemned in the Bible, as has been noted by many before me. As JD just said, nowhere in the Bible does it say having 6 fingers or a different pigment of skin is an abomination in the eyes of God. The problem with our society is that it thinks homosexuality is a "biological" thing that homosexuals can't change, that they were born with it and have no choice. This is simply not true, or I think God would have mentioned it in His word, that he made some "this way" and some "that way." It is a sin as much a sin any other, in that we knowingly disobey God (we may think we are right...hence the verse from Proverbs that has been mentioned, but we cannot rely on our own sense of right and wrong. It can fail us and we need to look to God's law.) God made men to be attracted to the naked female body. That is something that IS biological. But does that make it right for a man to look at porn or to look at/sleep with any naked female body? Not in any way. Having a "tendency" doesn't mean you have to act on it. The Bible says whoever looks upon a woman with lust in his eyes commits adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). You've already admitted adultery is wrong and harmful. So just because something is "biological" doesn't make acting on those desires right. And again, homosexuality is not biological because God made man and woman to be for each other. It's throughout the whole Bible.

Every man and woman need to repent of any sin and turn to Jesus. And all sin is the same in the eyes of God, be it lying or murder. And homosexuality is as much a sin as any other on the face of Earth. I pray, as others have noted, that God will wipe the scales from your eyes so you can see and get past your mere "human knowledge/wisdom" and understand the wisdom of God, which is eternal and a treasure more than any silver or gold. Jesus loves you too and I hope you can see why you need him.

Rob

[Max (David) Curell]

"if gay people are all the self-absorbed promiscuous hedonists you portray..."

>Few “gay” relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. Source: Pollack, M. ” Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A.Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, N.J., Jason Aronsons Inc., 1991), pp.124-25.

>50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year. Source: M. T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 1973), pp. 56-57.

>In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers. Source: Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. ” Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women ” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.)

>Another large survey found that only 7 % of male homosexuals had been in a relationship that had lasted more than ten years. Source: K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report, (New York: Summit, 1979), pp. 339-40.

>A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexual could be classified as monogamous or even semi monogamous (having ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners). Source: Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., Hammersmith, S.E., Sexual Preference, 1981, pp.308-9.

>According to the American Psychological Association, after the AIDS epidemic the average number of male homosexual partners only dropped from 70 to 50 per year. Source: Sally Ann Stewart, ” AIDS Aftermath: Fewer Sex Partners among Gay Men,” USA Today, 21 November 1984.

>The 1984 book the “The Male Couple ” was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist (David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D, who happened to be a homosexual couple), and they hoped to dispel the myth that “gay” couples lacked stability and long-term relationships. Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.

>Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in “steady relationships”. 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed “clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification” between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, ” the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year.” In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, ” Now they know the other half,” Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27.

Source:
http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/05/the-monogamous-male-marriagefidelity-promiscuity-and-gay-marriage.html

There are two more pages of studies and articles listed at this source alone.

Monogamous lifelong homosexual relationships are a myth.

[Mark Chambers]

>We don't make moral judgments about other biological anomolies; we understand that's just the way some people are and we judge them by the content of their character rather than the number of digits on their hands. Why is this one different?

Because appearance (having six fingers, being blind, club footed, whatever) isn’t a behavior or a desire that might lead to a particular type of behavior and therefore not a moral issue.

Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

All men, non-Christian and Christian alike are subject to temptations, each rooted in ones own particular weakness. You will suppress and control aberrant thoughts and appetites by taking them captive to the obedience of Christ or you will suppress the truth in unrighteousness, allow lust to conceive and embrace destruction. Appealing to a homo chromosome, or one for murder or alcohol or gluttony or anything else is quite irrelevant. Let sin reign and you’re a dead man walking.

Homosexuality, and I’ll include the sin of abortion as well, are unique in that they not merely sins that will be judged, but are themselves judgments that God inflicts upon a reprobate people as he withdraws his providential constraints and gives them over to their depraved minds. Those that will not have God terminate their own posterity whether through deviant sexual behavior or slaughter. Apropos is it not?

[Mark Chambers]

>We don't make moral judgments about other biological anomolies; we understand that's just the way some people are and we judge them by the content of their character rather than the number of digits on their hands. Why is this one different?

Because appearance (having six fingers, being blind, club footed, whatever)isn't a behavior or a desire that might lead to a particular type of behavior and therefore not a moral issue.

Jas 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

All men, non-Christian and Christian alike are subject to temptations, each rooted in ones own particular weakness. You will suppress and control aberrant thoughts and appetites by taking them captive to the obedience of Christ or you will suppress the truth in unrighteousness, allow lust to conceive and embrace destruction. Appealing to a homo chromosome, or one for murder or alcohol or gluttony or anything else is quite irrelevant. Let sin reign and you're a dead man walking.

Homosexuality, and I’ll include the sin of abortion as well, are unique in that they are not merely sins that will be judged, but are themselves judgments that God inflicts upon a reprobate people as he withdraws his providential constraints and gives them over to their depraved minds. Those that will not have God terminate their own posterity whether through deviant sexual behavior or slaughter. Apropos is it not?

[Mark Chambers]

Sorry for the double. Please delete one.

Thanks

[Michael McMillan]

> Most people have five digits on each hand; a few have six. Most people have skin pigmentation; a few are albinos.

Which is normal, and which is abnormal?

> And most people are attracted to the opposite sex; a few are not.

Which is normal, and which is abnormal?

Homosexuals want what is abnormal to be officially considered normal. [Now we have hate crime legislation that even gives the abnormal special protection.]

> We don't make moral judgments about other biological anomolies

They didn't do anything that caused their condition. [Except maybe Wacko Jacko.] There is nothing to make a moral judgment about.

> we understand that's just the way some people are and we judge them by the content of their character rather than the number of digits on their hands. Why is this one different?

People with character don't promote evil.

We all are inherently evil -- but will we excuse it, or not? Will we call good "evil" and evil "good," something the Bible condemns? Only God is good, and what He says is evil is evil.

[Charlie]

"Practiced responsibly, homosexuality does no more harm than responsibly-practiced heterosexuality"

Mr./Ms.Doe, I would but ask you this: Responsible to whom?
The apostle John (1John 5:16b)speaks of a sin that is unto death. Being non-specific, he leaves us to ponder 'which sin?' Perhaps it is open, habitual rebellion against the Creator God and His purposes, that is not repented of, nor has claimed Christ's atonement for the sins of the world. TO WHOM INDEED!

[John Doe the Email Guy]

Max, I grew up in the South before civil rights, and I'm old enough to remember the horrible, horrible caricatures of Blacks that white supremacists used to make. Blacks were portrayed as baboons, as unable to control their sexual desires, as prospective rapists, as unable to control their basest desires. And don't think those caricatures didn't have plenty of footnotes and citations.

So when I read your comments about gay people, about how promiscuous and immoral and hedonistic and disease-filled they are, I have to tell you that it smells exactly like what I used to read from the White Citizens Councils about African-Americans. True, I haven't heard anyone claim gays are baboon-like (though it's still early), but other than that, your rhetoric and their rhetoric pretty much track side by side.

Now, on the question of whether it's a choice, I haven't seen any documentation of that, and if you have any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice I'd be most interested to see it. So far as I can tell, no one has any real control over what they find sexually attractive. If theirs is a choice then so is yours.

Finally (and I'm sorry but it's getting late in this time zone so I'm off to bed in a few minutes), assume for a minute that gay people really are hyper-promiscuous, unable to form stable relationships, etc. Well, in a society that does everything it can to undermine stable gay relationships, what exactly would you expect. Any gay couple that showed up at any of your churches would be strongly encouraged to break up. You guys raise millions of dollars and collect thousands of signatures to prevent gay marriage wherever you can. With no spousal benefits in place, gay couples have to work twice as hard for financial security. Etc. So why are you surprised if, after all of that, gay people have a bad track record in the relationship department?

I had a heartbreaking conversation with a gay 14-year-old a couple of years ago; when he told his parents he was gay they kicked him out of the house and he ended up in prostitution because that was the only way he knew to keep himself fed. I have no doubt that his story would generate much heated antipathy toward the older johns who took advantage of him, but remember, they only had the opportunity to take advantage of him because his parents put him in that position in the first place.

So take the worst wrecks of gay humanity you can find, and at least ask them how they ended up that way. In a significant number of cases, you'll find they didn't jump off the cliff; they were pushed. Often in the name of Jesus.

[Rob Bedinghaus]

>>"Now, on the question of whether it's a choice, I haven't seen any documentation of that, and if you have any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice I'd be most interested to see it. So far as I can tell, no one has any real control over what they find sexually attractive. If theirs is a choice then so is yours."

See http://www.ExodusInternational.org/content/blogcategory/20/149/ for many, many stories of ex-homosexuals who have come to know Jesus and have made a CHOICE to leave the homosexual lifestyle and have left behind their homosexual attractions and have become attracted to the opposite sex and have had fulfilling marriages and sexual lives with their spouses (this page is focused on men but there is a page for women too). If homosexuality were something biological that a person had no control over, this would not be possible. Exodus International is the largest ministry to homosexuals in the Church today, and these are no phony people.

It's things like this: "Over those years, a good friendship developed, and almost without knowing it, I came to love her. We were married in July 1991, not in the mistaken belief that marriage "cures" homosexuality, but because I truly loved her and was attracted to her. This was a great surprise to me; I hadn't expected to get married, nor had I been sexually attracted to women before. I now experience sexual attraction to women, and find my physical relationship with Wendy very satisfying."

The most real evidence you can get is from real people, real stories, real life change. No science can tell you how someone's life changed. Talk to a homosexual who has changed their life and they'll tell you it's not biological.

[Abram Hess]

The question was, "How can opposition to homosexuality be justified, apart from the Bible?"

Here's a really simple reason: The State should oppose sodomy because it undermines the government by reducing the number of future taxpayers. Immigration accounting for a very small portion of population growth and replacement, the government depends upon families (a father and mother, making babies) to produce more taxpayers. Thus, any attack on procreating families is an attack on the longevity of the government, and the nation itself.

Fornication, adultery and divorce attack the stability of the family, making maladjusted taxpayers who are more likely to cause trouble within the system, and less likely to enter into procreative marriages to generate a third generation of taxpayers. But abortion and sodomy immediately reduce the number of future taxpayers at the second generation.

You'll say, "Oh, but those gay men wouldn't have had children anyway, so let them spend their sexual drive upon each other."

Both a man and a woman are required to make a new taxpayer, but men and women are different, and differ very basically in their sexual drives. Men want to have sex, regardless of which orifice they're attracted to. If within the society it becomes acceptable for men to have fruitless sex--and lots of it--of course that's what they'll do. That future taxpayer poops, and pukes, and cries all night long; babies are a huge responsibility, and if a man can get sex without responsibility, he'll do it.

Sodomy isn't the only worm gnawing away at the fabric of society. Long ago fruitless, childless marriages gained acceptance. And when the procreative function was removed, sex became nothing more than a recreational activity within marriage; or a recreation before marriage; or a recreation with multiple partners after marriage. And now, who needs marriage, let's just have our recreation! In that light, of course it's arbitrary for the State to say, "Two men may not recreate together." But that's only because long ago the society started down the suicide path of blessing and encouraging non-procreative sex.

It is in the State's best interest to encourage fruitful, stable, procreating marriages. Sodomy is only one of many assaults on procreative marriages within society, but it does most assuredly undermine marriage and family, and thus the society's ability to reproduce itself. By providing another option for sex without responsibility (along with fornication, masturbation, adultery, divorce and abortion), it opposes the procreative marriage. Arguments of any personal situation aside, sodomy is rebellion against the State by jeopardizing the production of future taxpayers to perpetuate the State.

***And of course I'm not saying that the only right sex is sex that produces a baby. Please. I'm talking about the zeitgeist that encourages all of us--not just sodomites--to live selfish, fruitless, impulsive lives without a thought for the future. It will undo us, and sodomy is only one of the many ways it already is.***

[Max (David) Curell]

"And don't think those caricatures didn't have plenty of footnotes and citations."

Many of the footnotes i have provided are studies and observations done and made by homosexuals. You should read more carefully.

"...assume for a minute that gay people really are hyper-promiscuous"

No need to assume. They make that confession themselves in the above cited studies.

"Well, in a society that does everything it can to undermine stable gay relationships, what exactly would you expect."

You are the first homosexual I have ever read that blamed sodomite promiscuity on the straight people.

"With no spousal benefits in place, gay couples have to work twice as hard for financial security."

There are no gay couples. Also, I thought you said earlier that the goal of sodomite marriage was to take responsibility for their lives. Now your saying the goal is financial? In reality, the chief goal is the legitimization of the behavior.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

John Doe: "Bottom line, if you think God is telling you to be nasty to other people, there's ample historical precedent that you're probably wrong."

It's not nasty to uphold the Word of God which clearly declares that same-sex behavior is a sin.

To inform others that it's a sin is to speak truth-in-love.

[Rob Bedinghaus]

I want to add to the last comment I posted about Exodus International. These stories reflect issues in these individuals' lives that caused them to have homosexual attractions. And these stories are full of heartbreak and devastation in their lives. Then the interesting thing to note is, when they turned to Jesus and repented of their sin (repented being the key word, basically meaning "turn 180"), asked Him to forgive them and help them follow him and leave behind homosexuality, it happened. Does that mean they have never struggled with homosexuality feelings since? No. But isn't it the same with any addiction/sin? You try to quit smoking, being an alcoholic, looking at porn, being promiscuous (homo or heterosexually), etc... and you always have to fight the temptations/cravings of the flesh to honor God and leave that sin behind. And people do it, by the grace of God alone. Not by our own strength do we turn from our sin and follow Christ...but by His blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins are we saved and redeemed. The individuals in these first-hand accounts from Exodus International have amazing stories of being able to leave behind their homosexual attractions and turn 180 to be attracted heterosexually.

So before you come back to try to argue the "biological, unavoidable" nature of homosexuality, read 15-20 or so of these stories.

[Daniel Cole]

Dear John Doe,

I pray that you will repent of this sin and look to Christ in order to mortify it. This sin, like all sin, must be killed daily or it will kill you (John Owen). In resisting God's word you are resisting the Holy Spirit, and there is only eternal ruin for those resist the Holy Spirit.

By nature I am lecherous. But I am in Christ, and Christ in me, and I love God's law more than my nature. By God's grace, I realized a long time ago that I was stuck in a wicked cycle that I could not release myself from. Whereas before my joy was to sow to my flesh, now my joy is to walk in the Spirit, even though my walk is imperfect (read Pilgrim's Progress).

You think your sin is different from other sin, or you just don't think it sin. You are proud and deceived friend. Christ delights in redeeming people from the pit of their own making, and indeed He is glorified by it.

No laws passed by Congress, no acceptance by "tolerant" communities, no medication or affirmation by a psychiatrist will fill the void that we all too quickly fill with sin, whether it be fornication, homosexuality, sport idolatry, arts worship, etc (the whole world is blinded to sin and it is more pervasive than we can possibly imagine).

Friend, turn to Christ and be obedient to his word as revealed in the Scriptures. Your sin will gnaw, and gnaw, but if you are justified by the blood of Christ, then as you are sanctified and kill this sin in the power of Jesus Christ, that gnaw will diminish, and you will know the true joy of Christ. Your sin will have no power over you.

When God adopts us as his children, he no longer sees sinners deserving his wrath---God looks to his beautiful, sinless Son who pleads on our behalf, and we are then made righteous because of what Christ has done on our behalf.

Friend, is there any other possible good news that could even compare with this?

Yet, when we are presented with the gospel, we have to choose whether we will humble ourselves and be the prodigal son, or will we be the rich ruler, living a righteous life in our own eyes, yet unwilling to do what God requires to inherit eternal life.

On another note, if you ever are in Bloomington, you should go to Church of the Good Shepherd, and you will find a true Christian community. I am not sure that you have ever really heard the gospel, and I'd encourage you to do some looking around and find a church that preaches the gospel of true grace, as opposed to cheap grace.

I'd also encourage you to listen to a series of sermons on Romans at the following website. You'll have to backtrack a bit on the audio player to start at the beginning, but I think any of the sermons are a good starting point. I hope you will take the time to do this, particularly since so many of my brothers and sisters on this blog have taken the time to respond to you.

[Mark Chambers]

>So far as I can tell, no one has any real control over what they find sexually attractive.

Absolutely irrelevant.

[Michael McMillan]

"Practiced responsibly, homosexuality does no more harm than responsibly-practiced heterosexuality"

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any sex outside of marriage is fornication and sin. There is no such thing as responsibly-practiced fornication.

Homosexual advocates call God a liar. Not a good move in the long term.

[Kamilla]

John Doe,

Would you please answer just one question? And we'll leave Holy Scripture and the Christian religion out of it, just for the sake of this question. As the good Mr. Chesterton once cautioned - don't tear down a fence unless you know what it is there for. So my question is:

Why should we, as a society, normalize something which has never been normalized in any culture in the entire world during the entire history of human existence without an extraordinary amount of caution?

[John Doe the Email Guy]

Max, there are no gay couples? So all of those gay people standing in line to get married who've been together 20, 30, 40 years are figments of our collective imagination?

And just how well do you think heterosexual couples would do if their marriages had to endure the non-stop hostility that gay marriages do? One in three heterosexual marriages ends in divorce now, and that's with all the social support for heterosexual marriage that gay couples don't benefit from.

[Rob Bedinghaus]

>>And just how well do you think heterosexual couples would do if their marriages had to endure the non-stop hostility that gay marriages do?

I have to totally disagree with you on this. Heterosexual marriages are definitely enduring non-stop hostility and attack in this culture, but not in exactly the same way as homosexual marriages are. This is why so many heterosexual marriages fall apart (those that are not deeply rooted in Jesus Christ and the law of God). We live in a backwards world/culture that preaches "If you fall out of love, get a divorce and find someone else," "if things aren't going smoothly, there's always divorce," "if your spouse isn't sexually satisfying you, there's divorce and you can always find someone else younger, sexier." Our culture is the culture of quitting, giving up when things get tough in marriage, of promiscuity and lustful fleshly desires that lead to corruption and downfall. Hey! Marriage was never supposed to be perfect! We're imperfect people! Marriage, to the shame and disgrace of our country/world, is no longer considered a sacred, binding, life-long union between a man and a woman as it was clearly created by God, the omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of the entire universe. Marriage is being barraged day in and day out. This is a curse of our modern age. Divorce is a sin and blatant disobedience to God, except in the few Biblically allowed exceptions such as marital infidelity.

I want you to please explain something to me. If homosexuals want so badly to have marriage between a man/man, woman/woman, why do so many homosexuals have separate male and female roles in their relationship? Why does one dress masculinely and one femininely? Why does one take on masculine roles and one feminine roles? I have encountered multiple homosexual couples who do this. So if homosexuals are really so homosexual, why does there appear to be such a desire for male/female distinction in homosexual relationships? Hmm, could it possibly be because we were created to desire that and we can't really get away from that which was created in us? Could it possibly be because we were created with male and female differences so we can complement each other in a marriage? I would be interested to hear your argument on this.

Also, at some point I would still like to see your response to reading the stories of changed homosexuals on Exodus International's website.

[Matthew R Nikirk]

No, let's get back to the real matter, Is homosexuality a sin or not? We affirm God's word and say yes it is. And the Bible clearly says yes. We can throw around anecdotes all day, but the Bible gives a clear "No" throughout its entirety. Sin or not sin, male or female, obedience or rebellion, these are all binary questions. It is sin or it isn't, and not just sin for me or not for someone else. It is or it isn't. You love God or you hate God. You love God and you obey His word, or you hate Him and you reject it. You cannot love God and disregard when He Himself says homosexuality is an abomination. It does not compute. As a faithful brother reminded me this past week, we don't want to condemn the sins of others, because we don't want our own sins condemned. But I'll give you a freebie: I'm a fornicator and a drunkard. But I believe in Jesus Christ, that He died for my sins, and by His death I live and put to death my sins by the Holy Spirit. I plead with you, stop holding on to your sins, it will only lead to death, and you do know this. You throw up these arguments because you don't want to give up your own sin. But the blood of Christ is sufficient if you believe and repent. Repenting is a bloody mess, sure, like a baby being born is a bloody mess, but it is life! Turn from your sins and we will accept you as our brother. Am I condemning you as you are now? You already stand condemned before God, as my sins once condemned me. Repent now while there is time, stop hiding behind the homosexual/heterosexual/whateversexual arguments.

[Max (David) Curell]

"So all of those gay people standing in line to get married who've been together 20, 30, 40 years are figments of our collective imagination?"

>“Gay” monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. “Monogamous” seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., ” Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208.

This citation and many others expose the fallacy of the monogamous homosexual couple. I say there are no homosexual couples because coupling implies lifelong monogamy. If homosexuals are monogamous, apparently they only are so in increments of hours or days at a time.

John Doe,

Arguing with you about the truths surrounding the sodomite lifestyle is as fruitless a venture as trying to stop the iceberg denying passenger on the Titanic in his desperate attempts at keeping the ship's deck chairs in their proper positions.

Many on this string have lovingly and truthfully directed you to repent of your sin and place your faith in Jesus Christ. Rather than continuing in arguments, why not respond to God's invitation to you through the kindness of Tim, Dan and others?

Warmly,
Max

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Matthew R. Nikirk: "No, let's get back to the real matter, Is homosexuality a sin or not? We affirm God's word and say yes it is. And the Bible clearly says yes."

Sometimes I wonder whether pro-homosexualists even believe in the doctrine of sin. Does John Doe the E-mailer at least stipulate that there is such a thing as "sin"? And does He stipulate that God of the Bible defines what "sin" is? If he would at least agree to that, then we might have some basis to move the discussion forward.

[Josh Congrove]

Dear John Doe,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your forthrightness in expressing your unbelief, here. Second, thank you for calling adultery and greed by their true names, and not euphemising them, as so many of us Christians are tempted to do. Finally, Scripture is absolutely of one voice in opposing same-sex sexual intimacy, but since you do not accept this premise, I will initially be speaking to your other questions.

> With sins like adultery and greed, it's readily apparent from the harm they do why God says not to do them. It takes no intelligence whatsoever to see that a society in which murder or theft were acceptable would not long survive...That's not true of homosexuality...As far as reproduction is concerned, most of the population will continue to be heterosexual no matter what the laws say, so the small number of homosexuals aren't putting the human race in any danger of extinction.

Indeed, you're quite correct that murder and theft are quite deadly to a society. A society cannot long endure when it allows the devaluation of human life to destroy the social fabric, or when men have no compunctions about respecting private property. But in assuming that homosexuality (as you've described it) does not similarly threaten a society, you're quite mistaken. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the bedrock of every society, and homosexuality takes direct aim at it. It offers a counterfeit, a ruse, an illusion of intimacy without any of the self-sacrifice required to create it. It tells two men they can have all the pleasure of sex with none of the pain, and only later is the lie discovered after the fleeting pleasure is gone. It tells two women they can have the matchless intimacy of a marriage, without requiring either of them to die to themselves, learning to love and live with the man who's completely different. It takes the glorious, vibrant, colorful diversity that is man and woman and makes it pallid, all the while coercing society into respecting this monochromatic "diversity."

It is for these reasons, and others besides, that no society in the history of the world has ever granted what the homosexual lobby today clamors for. No society has ever understood that two men can be legitimate mates. No people has ever believed that their social fabric was well served by granting the privileges of marriage to those who cannot possibly perpetuate the people. Homosexual "sex" is nothing but a sterile exercise in futility, and the universal judgment of mankind shows that Christian belief is not necessary to condemn it as such. For the Darwinist, it's the mark of a species self-selected for extinction; for the Christian, it's the mark of a people given over to their depraved desires. And this is not even to mention the disease inherent to sodomy. Other commenters above have ably shown the relevant statistics; you may choose to deny their relevance, but it's completely telling when the CDC, time after time, lists "gay men" as those in the greatest risk for disease after disease. This is not a mirage, but the natural fruit of unfruitful, unnatural sex.

> Practiced responsibly, homosexuality does no more harm than responsibly-practiced heterosexuality...

"Practiced responsibly"? Much as you'd likely deny it, sir, the very phrase gives the lie to your argument here. By "practiced responsibly" I assume you refer to "safe" sex—sex accompanied by the steps that prevent its own natural consequences. But why should sex have to frustrate its own goal? Why would something so acceptable, so biologically natural (as you've implied) need "responsible practice" to prevent harm? If, as you've asserted, it does not cause disease, why not revel in it? If practicing it is harmless, why do we need "responsible practice"? The truth, of course, is that you have here related inherently incomparable terms. Heterosexual contact in marriage has no need of the "responsible practice" with which you've qualified homosexual contact. If, indeed, sodomy is good and healthy, it has no need of your qualification; if it is not, "responsible practice" will do nothing to make it so.

> If you take the Bible out of it, there is absolutely no reason why the tiny minority of men who are attracted to other men shouldn't seek the same happiness that comes from sexual relationships as do men who are attracted to women...And people know this. ...they can't for the life of them figure out why those gay people they know and love aren't entitled to the same pursuit of happiness as they themselves.

So, does the relative percentage of homosexually-inclined men determine how a society regards sexual behavior? You've just stated that we don't know "what percentage of the population is gay"—but here, you're sure it's "tiny." So, then, do we turn a blind eye to deviant sex only when the population is "tiny"? Or, if it continues to grow, would you only then become concerned about its dangers? Or, would we who are defenders of sexual order then become accused of oppressing the majority?

There's a bigger problem with your contention, however. You've repeatedly advocated that a "pursuit of happiness" requires the legitimization of homosexual sex, not noting, meanwhile, that such a pursuit is never unlimited. Whether you value Scripture, or simply the Declaration of Independence, any "pursuit of happiness" must proceed with the recognition that it is God who gives this right, God who circumscribes its bounds, and God who grants rights to men that they might use them for the betterment of their society. You've already told the man who wants to steal and murder that he may not do so, even if it would make him happy. You've already told the adulterer that his happiness is not allowed to wreck havoc on his society. You've already vastly limited the "pursuit of happiness," and now, you're claiming that to restrict a "tiny" group is more damnable than curtailing the larger one?

The biggest problem, though, is that you've assumed that happiness comes from sexual relationships in and of themselves, with no regard to the nature of the relationship. It does not. There are many, many men and women seeking happiness in sex that they will never find, just as government will never be able to grant homosexuals the happiness they blindly grope for in their sexual "relationships." Why? Because sex is a mystery and a mirror, not a self-help program. It's a mystery in that in reflects a reality far more profound than simply the joining of body parts—rather, it displays in physical form the unity God has designed for a husband and wife to share. It's a mirror in that it reflects the intimacy that exists between Christ and His Church. Sex cannot create happiness in the way you suggest, for it is not a creator but a creation. Within God's design for marriage, it becomes part of the wonderful happiness between husband and wife, but where its purpose, object, and very nature are perverted, all its great powers are turned to evil ends. It becomes unfruitful, vain, and futile, as do all those who practice it.

And at this point, you've noticed that Scripture has forced its way into the fray. So it must be. I could argue for the destructiveness of homosexual sex from any number of angles—and, indeed, I and others have done so on this post—but no marshalling of scientific evidence, no sound logical arguments, no appeals to the reason God's given you can convince a man determined to be unconvinced. I might employ science, logic, and argument to support and verify the truth God has revealed in Scripture, but none of these can make you see and love the truth you're committed to hating. The proof is in your own words. You assert that the number of open homosexuals has grown, and then claim it's but a "tiny minority" when you're confronted with the societal consequences of such fruitlessness. You doubt claims about the diseases sodomy brings, then refuse to accept the sober statistics provided—even attempting to dismiss them by a farcical comparison to blacks in the South. At every point, your calls for objective evidence are shown to be false by your out-of-hand rejection of such evidence when it's presented.

And so, in the end, what you require is not evidence, but faith. You need not more proof for the wickedness of sodomy, but eyes to see the truth that shouts everywhere around you. The sodomite doesn't need from society the freedom to find happiness in his sin, but rather the freedom from sin so that he may find happiness. The man who struggles with same-sex intimacy needs to be told not that he was born "a homosexual," or "gay," but that he was born in the image of God, that he has value in God's sight, that the sin of sodomy mars the glorious future he was created to share. He needs to know that he was made for God, and his heart will be restless until it rests in Him; that his mind will be darkened until he leaves the blinders of sodomy behind; and that his body will be unsatisfied until it finds satisfaction in the way God has ordained. And he needs to know that in Christ he can find not only the God who created him in His image, but the Man who was tempted in every way he is, yet without sin.

And so, dear friend, your quarrel here is not with Christians but with Christ, not with culture warriors but with the One who wars against culture's sin. You have heard the evidence, the arguments, and the Word of God. Believe the evidence, heed the arguments, and do not scoff at the truth God has mercifully shown you here. Christ came not for the righteous, but for sinners; not for the healthy, but for the sick; not for the heterosexual man proud in his righteousness, but for the sodomite humble in his contrition, and willing to cry out, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" For so He is to those who are lowly in heart, who seek rest for their soul. Come to Him, repent of your sin, for unlike the condemnatory men you fear, the Father will never cast you out. He's the God who bore the sins of sodomites on Himself, the God who suffered for their salvation, but also the God who will not be mocked by men that pervert His glorious creation into a miserable counterfeit—an abuse that brings, in the end, nothing but despair.

Under His great and severe mercy,

Josh Congrove

[Kimberly]

Beautiful post, Josh. I am praying!

[Mahoney]

Dear All,

John Doe illustrates what we're all saying really clearly. Those of us who know the power of Christ to change our lives testify clearly how our sin decreased as we turned, by God's grace, to Christ. Homosexuals don't change not because it's biological (which part of it may be) but because the problem is fundamentally spiritual, one of garden variety sin and rebellion.

John Doe, illustrates here for all to see that he has never truly tried to turn to Christ but instead continues to justify his rebellion and hatred of God and His word over and over and purposefully blind himself to all truth.

Thank you John, in love we call you to repent but we also thank God even if you are a vessel for destruction put in our lives to show us the path to destruction and call us to repent and turn to Christ.

-Clint

[Daniel Cole]

John Doe,
That email address I didn't post earlier.
http://www.firstprescolumbia.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=43244&PID=592686

[Tim Bayly]

John Doe wrote: "So take the worst wrecks of gay humanity you can find, and at least ask them how they ended up that way. In a significant number of cases, you'll find they didn't jump off the cliff; they were pushed. Often in the name of Jesus."

Dear John,

Actually, in a significant number of cases, these men have been pushed off the cliff by sodomite predators. Go back to childhood and very often men given to sodomy in their adulthood have themselves been the victims of sodomite abuse and rape when they were young. Sodomite pastors, sodomite camp counselors, sodomite choir directors, sodomite teachers, sodomite school counselors, sodomite coaches, sodomite band directors, sodomite older brothers, and sodomite uncles have preyed on boys and, by their crime, turned these boys' sexual identity to men so they spend the rest of their lives in bondage to twisted affections. So very evil. So very sad.

As a pastor, I ask the questions and hear the stories again and again and again. Heard another one this past week. In fact, a man I loved died by his own hand after being sodomized twice by men--the first time by a pastor at church camp. Was he pushed over the edge in the name of Jesus Christ?

No, dear sir: he was pushed over the edge by men such as yourself who deny God's truth about sodomy, claiming it is good and hurts no one; men who are wholly given over to wickedness and seduce boys to their shame, preying on younger bodies to satisfy their lust.

Across history, it's been normal for sodomites to prey on boys, thus destroying them. And there is no action more perfectly suited to Jesus' warning:

(Mark 9:42-48) Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.] If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.

So, John Doe, the enemy of the souls of young boys out seeking Johns is not godly and loving Christians who call them to repentance. It is men who seduce them into sodomy and tell them not to listen to their parents and not to flee the wrath to come by turning to Jesus.

In love,

* * *

As this thread comes to a close, I want to thank every person who helped in this work. How great it's been to have your godly support in warning and pleading with John (and undoubtedly others caught in sin and watching from the sidelines). May God bless you. And may He lead John Doe and all of us to the grace, mercy, and repentance of the Cross of Jesus Christ.

Praise His holy Name!

[Cliff Foreman]

How about this:
God created human beings and intended them to find happiness and fulfillment in committed heterosexual marriages. Then human beings fell and sin entered the world. This meant that people would be born with sinful desires and that through life experiences those desires would solidify into sinful patterns of behavior. But God set his son to offer us forgiveness and the opportunity for significant healing in this life. Our struggle against sin is difficult, but success is possible because of Jesus' sacrifice and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But of course, in order to be healed and to enjoy the blessings of health, we need to admit that we are sick. If we say that our sinfulness is normal, we won't seek healing. We may tell ourselves that our disease isn't contagious and that it hurts no one, but we will never, then, know what it is to be healthy.
If this scenario, which is what the Bible teaches, is true, then the people who are condemning your behavior are doing so because they think you are missing out on something that would be better for you. That's why I, personally, am opposed to homosexual behavior. I think that the people who are engaging in it are missing out on something better that is God's intention for us all. It may be that some of them will never in this life experience that better thing, but it is God's intention, as I read scripture, that they begin to seek it.

[Adam Spaetti]

Dear Professor Foreman,

So, if I understand you correctly, you, personally, just want homosexuals to have their best life now. Right?

[Cliff Foreman]

No.
Is there a name for the logical fallacy of assuming that because someone didn't say something they don't think it?

[Adam Spaetti]

Actually, I was just drawing conclusions based on what you did say.

[Cliff Foreman]

If the best life is a life in which they seek God and godliness, yes, I want them to have that. But where does your "just" come from? Where did you read "just" in what I said?

[Adam Spaetti]

Professor Foreman,

I see now why you think I misrepresented the thrust of your argument. I'm skeptical that it would be profitable for us to get into a long exchange about fallacies and the various meanings of the word "just." Instead, I will just ask you to prove my assumption incorrect. Do you, in fact, think there are other major reasons why you, personally, are opposed to homosexual behavior beyond the fact that it's always advisable to shoot for God's best for your life? If not, OK. If so, why did you leave those major reasons out of your post?

[Tim Bayly]

Just an FYI: I've asked a reader to spend time deconstructing Cliff Foreman's response, above. If he grants my request, it will be one more valuable contribution coming out of this long line of very helpful comments. So, keep watch for it.

Love,

[Josh Congrove]

Professor Foreman,

If you simply wanted to make the argument that original sin distorts the desires of all men from birth, I'd be in hearty agreement with you; more important, you'd be speaking Scripturally. But in fact, the actual connotations of your words are so far from the truth, I'd almost assume you tossed them off in a moment of unconsidered carelessness. But since you're a man capable of great nuance and exact expression, you'll understand if I fault some of your formulations:

> God created human beings...then human beings fell and sin entered the world.

Of course God created human beings, but is there a reason you seem incapable of speaking about mankind in the way that Scripture does? Scripture states plainly, and obviously, that God created "man in His own image," that "in the image of God He created him," and only lastly that "male and female He created them." The most obvious choice would have been for you to state "God created man," or "God created men," or "God created mankind," or even, "God created men and women." Any one of these would have been a more precise, historically-precedented, relevant usage than your pallid accommodation; more important, any one of those would have been both more Scriptural and more appropriate to the man whose sin you were, I assume, trying to point out.

> ...and intended them to find happiness and fulfillment in committed heterosexual marriages.

"Intended"? Your sentence sounds fine until one begins to imagine what you might have said. Reading your sentence, one might easily conceive that God was only distantly, tangentially, connected to the "heterosexual marriages" He "intended" men to make use of. How about, instead: "...ordained that they would only find sexual fulfillment and happiness in marriage, which He established between one man and woman." Seriously, "heterosexual marriages" is a highly troubling phrase. What other kind of marriage is there? Why must you qualify a term which can only be defined in heterosexual terms anyway?

> people would be born with sinful desires and that through life experiences those desires would solidify into sinful patterns of behavior.

So, are you attempting here to boldly proclaim the doctrine of original sin, or rather simply that same-sex desire is innate? If the former, I'm wondering why you either (1) didn't notice that Mr. Doe claimed no adherence to historic doctrine, or (2) didn't go the simpler, more accurate, and more direct route of quoting a six-word Scripture (or at least St. Augustine)? On the other hand, if here you're conniving at the culture's clinical lie that all same-sex desire is innate, we'd all find it immeasurably helpful if you'd just tell us plainly.

> But God set his son to offer us forgiveness and the opportunity for significant healing in this life.

I'd like to think you're here appropriating Augustine's favorite image of the sinner in need of profound healing. Alas, the rest of your words make that quite impossible, so pale and passionless they are. But, far more important, where is the omnipotent purpose of God in your words? "Sent his son to offer...the opportunity"? If this is the Reformed doctrine of definite redemption, then God is truly as impotent as He comes out to be in your language.

> Our struggle against sin is difficult, but success is possible because of Jesus' sacrifice and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, right on, thank you. I only wish the rest of your response looked like this sentence.

> But of course, in order to be healed and to enjoy the blessings of health, we need to admit that we are sick.

If the sickness of original sin is as shallow a matter as it sounds here, then you've preached repentance boldly. But since the truth of the matter is that our sickness is so radical that we're "dead in our trespasses and sins," merely stating it as you've done is intolerable. How about, "Repent and be baptized...in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." ?

> We may tell ourselves that our disease isn't contagious and that it hurts no one, but we will never, then, know what it is to be healthy.

I'm barely more than halfway through your comment, and the reality of what disease you have in view has already faded from view. I gather you mean the general disease that is sin in the lives of fallen men, but if so, why generalize when there is a particular sin at issue here and not simply man's general sinfulness? In other words, there's quite a difference between what you wrote and this: "We may tell ourselves that our deviant, sinful desires for sodomy aren't contagious and hurt no one, but we will never, then, know what it is to be healed of our unnatural desires."

Up to this point I've agreed with most of the content, if not language, of your comment. But, with all due respect, Dr. Foreman, the latter half of it reads much more like so much emergent-church drivel rather than the plain language of Scripture.

> If this scenario, which is what the Bible teaches, is true...

One might be excused here for doubting your confidence in the "scenario" you just described. If it's what Scripture teaches, isn't it, ipso facto, true? And if it's true, why begin it with a conditional?

> then the people who are condemning your behavior are doing so because they think you are missing out on something that would be better for you.

Forgive me if I'm reading you wrong, here, but your words don't convey a particular willingness to ally yourself with God's people when they carry His message. Rather, it seems you feel the need to explain others' poor, benighted, insufficiently nuanced choice of words in condemning homosexual intimacy. And how helpful it is that you can ensure their message is correctly understood: that it's mostly about a sodomite's not achieving his very best in life, rather than about suppressing the truth of God and becoming darkened in his foolish mind. Really, it's a shame the Apostle was deprived of a fine institution where he could shore up his educational deficiencies...

Far easier, and better, it had been for you to say "Those of us who are condemning your sinful embrace of sodomy are doing so because we love you and want you to see the destructiveness, sadness, and damnation that comes from your sin."

> That's why I, personally, am opposed to homosexual behavior.

Dr. Spaetti's question is a sound one: so, the fact that homosexuals are "missing out" explains why you, personally, of course, are opposed, positionally, of course, to homosexual behavior?

It's certainly gratifying that you understand qualifications better than the writers of Scripture. Where would we be if we thought you were willing to condemn homosexual intimacy outright? My sense, personally, is that we might end up actually being Scriptural. Where would we be if we weren't confident in your ability to so carefully parse homosexual "behavior" vs. the homosexual "orientation" that is so carefully left out of your condemnation...err, I meant "opposition"—wouldn't want to put you in the camp of the condemnatory, after all.

> I think that the people who are engaging in it are missing out on something better...

How about, "The men who are sodomizing each other are destroying their own happiness in this life, and heaping up judgment in the next."

> ...something better that is God's intention for us all.

Considering your reticence to speak in the words of Scripture, you're remarkably audacious in assuming His intention here.

> It may be that some of them will never in this life experience that better thing, but it is God's intention, as I read scripture, that they begin to seek it.

Professor Foreman, could you possibly have written a more lackluster defense of the creative ordinance of God? I mean, seriously: "it may be"? "...In this life"? So, are we to assume that practicing homosexuals will never see God's grace leading them to repentance in this life, but that somehow such men have hope of "that better thing" in the next life? Maybe this isn't what you meant, but if so, for the sake of readers' understanding, nuance needs to take a back seat to clarity, here. Is your qualification "as I read scripture" supposed to grant a pass for refusing to state what God so clearly has in His Word? God, who in your prose seems to have little more than "intentions," is far deadlier in His, for He has stated that those who consistently pervert His establishment (not simply "intention") of heterosexual intimacy have no hope of "that better thing" you so blithely offer them.

Finally, I'm glad you want those who practice sodomy to have a life "in which they seek God and godliness." I have little reason to doubt that. What I doubt is that the words you use to express your desires have much to do with the words God uses. And this I doubt not because I know you, but because I know this allure in my own life, and I know that "no temptation has seized you but what is common to man." Indeed, by nature I'm probably even more loathe than you to proclaim God's truth in these matters directly. But for those of us whose work is in the academy, our students (and readers) deserve more from us than simply a selection of divine truth with every corner rounded, every edge dulled, everything attenuated so as to put Scripture's best foot forward, as it were. Our students, and indeed, all who ask us to explain why we reject sodomy, deserve nothing less than the whole counsel of Scripture on this matter.

So here, to this one lost sheep wandering without a shepherd, it's neither sufficient nor loving to shrink back from speaking with Scripture's tones, to hide behind the culture's carefully (and, à la Chesterton, carefully wrong) sophisms about "sexual behavior" vs "sexual orientation," or to speak of sodomy as principally an obstacle to happiness. In short, we need to speak to sodomites not just of happiness lost, but of holiness offended. God's principal desire is not for our happiness, but for His holiness. Thankfully, His holiness is also our happiness, when we pursue it by embracing His holiness rather than the false assurances and academic accommodations of our age.

Sincerely,

[Tim Bayly]

Because it's so pertinent to the state of doctrine and preaching in the church, today--and particularly in Reformed and PCA circles, I'm promoting this comment by Josh to the main page and closing down the comments here. Thank you, Josh, for your godly work. May those professors so obviously ashamed of the Gospel become unashamed and bold in their proclamation of repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Love,