Update (Disclaimer) 15 years later in 2025: This is an old post, written almost 15 years ago, but it links to another post which is of higher value to me, Are There Different Degrees of Sin? The Greater Sin of John 19:11 , so I chose to keep this post active. If you are coming here today, my posts now generally stay away from politics and almost completely concentrate on photography. For me this debate belongs in 2010 and I really have no interest in it today as I did back then.
Contrary to what the world says, views change and mature, and people do have the ability to evaluate their own heart. While I did write the post below in 2010, I would say looking back at my 2010 self, my heart has changed, in general, and a lot of what I wrote I would not write today (mainly because I loath politics and divisive topics now).
I have witnessed other people of faith be theologically correct while at the same time be very judgmental, harsh, and unloving, and that is not who I am or who I want to be today. Timothy calls for patience in 2 Timothy 4:2, and I think loving others through being very patient better describes what I write today.
2 Timothy 4:2 …be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (ESV)
The links below are almost all broken links now, but I have kept the links the way they were in 2010 just to preserve where they pointed at the time.
Original Text on Prop 8
California’s “Prop 8” proves that same-sex relationships are acceptable to Christians and compatible with scripture. Of course this is utter ridiculousness, but, that severely flawed logic seems to be what is prevailing in our culture today. This topic, which I usually just tend to leave alone, is overpowering the news, blogs, and culture lately (and is certainly nothing new under the sun, gay’s have been trying to justify their actions for millennia, see Why is Being Gay a Sin? for a civil discussion, Does Romans 1:26 Condemn Lesbians? for the absurd justification, and then an honest “Christian Perspective”, not forgetting to throw in Anne Rice who recently “quit” Christianity on Facebook [comments in pdf,] with Mark Driscoll’s response for the Washington Post, because she didn’t want to be “anti-gay anymore”, and the countless trash talk about Proposition 8 in California).
With Proposition 8 being overturned by the California courts, this seems destined for the Supreme Court (where they probably don’t want to deal with it either). The Boston Globe did a huge photo spread called Same Sex Marriage about a week ago and the responses to that article show why this, unfortunately, is THE topic of our day for Christians and the church. This discussion really wasn’t intended to launch into whether being gay is a sin or not, but to show the absurd arguments on both sides, which lack any careful thought.
This comment below is typical when reading trash talk on the news sites, and was made by someone who used the title “I Feel Drawn Towards Christianity, But I’m Gay”, which then received very complimentary responses, with little question for the lifestyle itself, or with sound argument for or against Christians and the homosexual lifestyle, and what scripture has to say about it’s effects and consequences.
I was surprised in a few ways, one by how openly acceptable the Christian responses were to this person. Not that they were accepting of the person, that’s great, but accepting of all aspects of the persons lifestyle, with not much need for contemplation (although some did suggest the person generically seek God’s direction). The other surprise was how utterly weak the reasoning and arguments were that were used on both sides.
I am certainly no expert on this topic whatsoever, and there are many who can soundly argue, on both sides, but those seem to be few and far between. No gay person I talk to (and many Christians for that matter) can give a sound theological argument, backed and based on scripture (since this person “feels drawn to Christianity”). The majority of the arguments put forth are emotional arguments, which are impossible to argue against in a rational manner. This is the argument that was given in this particular case:
The Bible also condemns divorce, the eating of pork and shrimp, and says that men shouldn’t sit on the same chairs as women who are menstruating.
The argument seems to lack even a surface level study of scripture, but most Christians responded with nothing other than an emotional response. As with much of Scripture in our culture today, these verses are taken so much out of context for the use of the argument for a homosexual lifestyle I am surprised they were made? I am not being mean or hateful in spirit here, but seriously, if you are gay, this is your argument?
- The Bible condemns the eating of pork.
- We eat pork today.
- Therefore, homosexuality is ok in the sight of the Lord.
There are so many things that could be addressed but at the basic level, in Mark 7:18-19 Jesus declared all foods to be clean, he didn’t declare all forms of sex to be clean. A better argument that perhaps shows a little more clearly why scripture says that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful in God’s eyes (and there are many things that are actually still seen as sinful in God’s eyes today, besides homosexuality), would be:
Point 1 on Sin:
- The Bible says sin is detestable in God’s eye’s.
- Therefore any continuous sinful act is not honoring to God.
Point 2 on Marriage:
- The Bible defines sex outside of marriage as sin.
- The Bible defines marriage as a monogamous union between a man and a woman.
- Therefore any nonrepentant sexual relationship of any kind outside marriage is sin in God’s eyes.
- Therefore a nonrepentant homosexual lifestyle is sin.
- Therefore a nonrepentant adulterous relationship is sin.
- Therefore any sexual relationship before marriage is sin.
I rarely see those “hateful” Christians everyone seems to refer to today that will acknowledge that the last three are equally sin, and equally condemned by scripture, but, that doesn’t mean that either is less or more acceptable to God as a way to live that honor’s God. I do not say that in a hateful manner but in an examination of scripture. I also recognize that many, or most, “gay Christians” will take issues with my argument above and defend it away in some manner. The statements above are all based on scripture and can all be backed theologically with sound argument.
Our culture as a whole is continually refusing to see objective truths in the Bible today. Whether we like to ignore them in our day or not, they still exist, there are still things that God says are good, and those things God says are bad, we just seem to have so much knowledge in everything that we have no knowledge in the actual truth anymore.
61 responses to “Examining Christianity’s Stance on Same-Sex Relationships”
the love of the 2nd commandment is godlove……..the love of the third commandment(love one another as i have loved you).
1john4:20 one cannot love god unless he is loving (godloving) his neighbor also. essence we god love god. he first loved us and thru grace we in turn love him back with the same love
therefore you cannot do the first commandment unless you are doing the second also.
godloving……..carrying anothers burdens, honoring their life experiences and sincerity of heart, up close and personnal as in 1john1 “that which we have heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched.”
whatever you have considered the least……………….”whatever you have done to the least of these you have done to me”
now give me your interpretation of romans 1, or maybe you have another scripture.
in lev god says that slavery is good”take slaveas from the surrounding countries for life and pass them onto to your children as inheritance
1kings “all the men that solomon could not kill in battle he conscripted into his slavelabor camps”
yet under new covenant of christ, slavery is an intolerable evil because of its violation of the 2nd commandment(love neighbor).
in num 15:32-36 god tells moses directly to stone a man for gathering firewood on the sabbath.
under the new covenant household chores and household chores on the sabbath are permissable.
yes scripture says the a man did evil in the sight of god, not necessarily because the thing of itself was a sin, but because god saw fit to tell them at that time not to do it.
consider that as a child is being raised the parent tells the child not to touch the stove or he will be punished, yet as the child becomes older the parent relies on him being able to discern when it is safe, and no longer threatens punishment.
yes. under the old covenant it was necessary for god to create a seperate people. but under the new we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation aS IN DEUT 28,(TORN CURTAIN),but instead it is directly to the spirit that lives in each believer, a relationship that i dont hear you including in your understanding of what is of the spirit of christ(given all authority and all judgement).
col1:15christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[f] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
@john
All you are doing is trying to justify an act the Bible calls wrong by saying it is an act of love, covered by the fruit of the spirit? You keep saying the same thing over and over but it still doesn’t make it correct. The fruit of the spirit no more applies to an unrepentant homosexual lifestyle than not eating pork does.
You are being deceived. “1 Corinthians 6:9-10 :: Do not be deceived:”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
1corr and 1tim paul, a highly learned man created a compound word (arsenkaitoi) rather than repeat the same word seperated phrase from lev.. compound words may or may not have the same meaning as the words that make them up….ladykiller paul never taught thru the law not even with the man who had his father’s wife. for paul to denote a physicality as a sin without any indication of violation of spirit would mean making a regulation. there are no regulations under the new covenant. believers do not have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28. but instead directly to the one who lives in each believer. (torn curtain) what paul is refering in 1cor and 1tim is a behavior of defilement (that violates the spirit thru which all were created…christ) similar to the shameful lust of romans.
where there is lust there can be no bonding relationship, because the persons involved are there to satiate the lust.
about 1tim and 1cor.
queen victoria head of both england and the church of england(no seperation of church and state)(victorian era) attempted to make homosexuality a sin, influenced by a 400 year old law being on the books enacted by another head of the church/state, henry the eighth, that made homosexual sex a hanging offense. she attempted to make it a sin by transposition of the word” homosexual” into scripture.
but the transposition does not support the translation of the wycliffe bible 1384
continued
1cor:9 Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do LECHERY with men,
1tim1:10
10 and lechers, to them that do LECHERY with men, lying-mongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching,
lecher………………someone who is obsessed with sexual gratification.
heterosexuals have been known for lechery also, but this in no way invalidates their orientation.
the kvj bible(1500’s) supports the wycliffe interpretation.
continued
1cor:6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ABUSERS(defilers) of themselves with mankind,
1tim1:10For whoremongers, for them that DEFILE themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1tim and 1cor is about defiling lust, of romans 1.
romans1:27 Also the men [the males, or men,] forsook the natural use of woman, and BURNED in their desires together
because they were given over to shameful lust they were given over to abandonment.
romans1:27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their LUST one toward another.
again where there is lust there is no bonding, no relationship, because the sole purpose of coming together is to satiate the lust.
again the kjv points to LECHERY as to what paul is referring to.
this in no way relates or refers to human bonding of homosexuals which is done out of mutual love, respect, devotion,affection,and trust for a shared committed life together, the same as heterosexuals.