Saturday, March 28, 2009

Gay pride

I wrote most of this up some time ago, and my memory being what it is(n't), have unfortunately forgotten to whom and how much I'm indebted for many if not most of these points. My apologies in advance. But please feel free to give proper attribution if you recognize something.

Here are some (preliminary) thoughts on a few things pertaining to homosexuals such as the sin of engaging in homosexual sex:

1. To start with, this should probably be obvious but homosexuals are sinners, not just homosexuals. They're no different from other people with respect to being sinners and sinful. Quite apart from whether or not they've engaged in homosexual acts, they've sinned in other ways such as by lying, hating, stealing, coveting, etc. Homosexuals are by nature sinners like heterosexuals and all people.

2. At least from what I understand, few homosexuals -- particularly male homosexuals -- are monogamous. In fact, many are quite promiscuous. This is itself sinful. That is, let's put aside whether homosexuals are having sex with other homosexuals. And let's simply ask whether they're having sex outside of marriage. If they are, then they're sinning.

However, for some this might raise the related question of whether homosexuals who are in a committed, monogamous relationship would be sinning if they were legally allowed to marry and were married. My immediate response is that I'm not talking about what's legal but rather what's moral. Sin is still sin even if it's legal. In other words, this would be sinful on the grounds that engaging in homosexual acts are in and of themselves sinful, or that homosexual "marriage" perverts the God-established creation ordinance of marriage between a man and a woman.

3. Some people argue that homosexuality is genetic.
  1. First off, even if homosexuality is genetic, does this then make it acceptable to engage in homosexual acts? No. Anger or perhaps the predisposition toward anger might be genetic, for example, but it doesn't make it right to murder someone.

  2. Some people have argued that there is a significant difference in the size of a particular region of a homosexual's brain relative to a heterosexual's brain. Even if this is true, how do we know that this is the cause of homosexuality rather than its result?

  3. Even if homosexuality is genetic, why should homosexuality be considered permissible on these grounds? Or even considered "normal"? There are many diseases such as certain forms of cancer which are genetic. But these diseases are not therefore "normal." In fact, that's why they are "diseases," because they are not normal; they are not markers of health.

  4. Even if homosexuality is genetic, it's not as if everyone with a gay gene is necessarily controlled by it. Even if there is a gay gene, it doesn't then follow that one is therefore compelled into homosexuality.

  5. At best, the existence of a gay gene might mitigate sin in some sense, but it would never excuse let alone condone sin.

  6. Now, if homosexuality is genetic, and if this in some way excuses homosexuality, then wouldn't the "inheritance" of our sinful nature from Adam excuse all sin -- which would be patently false?

  7. We've been talking about genetic factors (nature), but let's not forget about environmental factors (nurture). If we were raised in a home with physically and emotionally abusive parents, would this excuse our being physically and emotionally abusive towards our own children? No.
4. Homosexuality goes against the order of creation, of how God created us "male and female."
  1. Male-on-male and female-on-female sex is blatantly against how we were physically created. It overturns our sexuality. As John MacArthur once asked, with a touch of humor, "Do I need to draw you a picture of how a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot possibly physically 'fit' together?"

  2. Homosexuality cuts against God's purpose for humanity as "male and female," as part of a family, as part of society. Men and women were created with distinctive roles. This is not a sexist statement; this is how God created us. This recognizes who we are as males and females, as husbands and wives, etc. And the family is the most fundamental building block of society. Note, for instance, that Eve was given her name because she was "the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20). Her name is tied to her role as mother. Homosexuality does away with our God-given roles as men and women and as families.

    There's also the related danger of homosexual couples adopting children. Imagine the possible affect on little Johnny or Jane growing up with two dads but no mom or two moms but no dad, to say nothing of the affect on others. I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion but from what I've read and seen there does seem to be a high degree of deleterious effects in exposing and raising children within the context of a homosexual lifestyle.

  3. According to the Bible, there's a sense in which homosexuality demonstrates the height of sinful, rebellious man (à la Romans 1).
5. What then shall we do as Christians?
  1. We ought to reach out and love homosexuals (as we do others) by telling them the truth about their sins and their need for the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, just as Christ reached out to us and loved us. Homosexuals are no better or worse than other sinners in regard to the need for redemption. And we were once sinners like them, without hope and without God in this world.

  2. Also, some of us might want to keep in mind how emotionally and psychologically difficult it must be for the struggling homosexual (to say nothing of other difficulties). Is the homosexual destined to lead a life of unrequited love? Is he or she called to lifelong celibacy? And so on.

  3. Of course, there's much more to say. So I'd highly recommend reading stuff by someone like Robert Gagnon. There are some very good websites and weblogs under our "Culture Wars" category on the right sidebar too.

48 comments:

  1. BTW, for those using IE, I realize IE doesn't recognize lower-latin, so list letters (a, b, c, etc.) still appear as numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.). The only advice I have is to use a browser besides IE like Firefox or Safari! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for this post. I really enjoyed and I think it summed up the accurate Christian perspective well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?

    What is the Christian position on divorce?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you think it's immoral to spread ignorant, irresponsible lies about other people, such as stating, falsely, that children raised by gay parents do not fare as well as those raised by straight parents? Unless you're relying on liars like Paul Cameron, there is scientific consensus about the truth: children of gay parents fare just as well as children of straight parents.
    What is the Christian position on lying?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rene Rosechild writes:

    ”Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?”

    See Robert Gagnon’s discussion here.

    You write:

    ”What is the Christian position on divorce?”

    The Christian position on divorce is that advocates of lesbianism who bring up the subject in an attempt to show Christian hypocrisy or the unclear nature of scripture are often themselves hypocrites and incompetent exegetes.

    You write:

    ”Unless you're relying on liars like Paul Cameron, there is scientific consensus about the truth: children of gay parents fare just as well as children of straight parents.”

    Which scientific studies take factors like the general spiritual health of the children into account and their adherence to sound doctrine and Christian moral standards iu particular, for example?

    You write:

    ”What is the Christian position on lying?”

    The Christian position is that lesbians should stop lying to themselves and others by suggesting that lesbianism is acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rene Rosechild: "Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?"

    Can you please tell me whether you are a Bible-believing Christian, a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ?

    Can you please tell us whether you are a lesbian?

    Suppose you are a lesbian. God loves you Rene and His Word declares that same-sex behavior (including lesbianianism) is sin. Would you repent and forsake of the sin of lesbian sexual behavior to follow Jesus Christ as your Lord?

    ReplyDelete
  7. First of all, even though some of what you say does make sense consider the following:

    1) God never wrote the Bible. People did and when people do things they have a way of contorting things to fit the rules of their society.

    2) The Bible says a lot of things which no one follows anymore-such as: woman are inferior to men, left-handed people are the devil's minions and pre-martial sex is a sin.

    3) You yourself are admitting that homosexuality is a biological thing; wouldn't that then mean that gays are born gay and if God created all life on Earth wouldn't that then mean that God also created gays and by calling gays sinners, wouldn't you also be calling God a sinner as God was the one who created gays in the first place?

    The simple fact is that the only reason that you discriminate against gays is because it's the easiest thing in the Bible to do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rene Rosechild said:

    Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?

    See Rom. 1:26 for starters.

    What is the Christian position on divorce?

    Not sure what this has to do with homosexuality.

    Anyway, it's complicated. But generally speaking I think the Bible teaches that adultery and desertion are legitimate grounds for divorce, although we'd definitely need to elaborate on what we mean by this, etc.

    Do you think it's immoral to spread ignorant, irresponsible lies about other people, such as stating, falsely, that children raised by gay parents do not fare as well as those raised by straight parents?

    You're asking a loaded question.

    Also, this begs the question of whether it's false in the first place.

    What is the Christian position on lying?

    Again, it's complicated, but generally speaking the Bible frowns upon deception. There are possible exceptions though (e.g. some duties are higher than other duties, cf. Exo. 1:15-21).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rene Rosechild: ”What is the Christian position on lying?”

    It may be useful to apply it to false statements like this one, "The simple fact is that the only reason that you discriminate against gays is because it's the easiest thing in the Bible to do."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yash said:

    1) God never wrote the Bible. People did...

    This is an assertion in search of an argument.

    You might want to read some literature on how we got the Bible, the development of the canon, etc. A lot of posts have been done on these and related topics here on Triablogue. But there are other good resources available too. For example, you might be interested in checking out Reinventing Jesus by Ed Komoszewski et al for starters.

    2) The Bible says a lot of things which no one follows anymore-such as: woman are inferior to men, left-handed people are the devil's minions and pre-martial sex is a sin.

    Where does the Bible teach that women are inferior to men, or that left-handed people are the devil's minions?

    If no one follows the speed limit and speeds, does that make the speed limit less true?

    3) You yourself are admitting that homosexuality is a biological thing; wouldn't that then mean that gays are born gay and if God created all life on Earth wouldn't that then mean that God also created gays and by calling gays sinners, wouldn't you also be calling God a sinner as God was the one who created gays in the first place?

    You're making a lot of statements which need to be untangled. But the short answer is that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are both biblical.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Patrick,

    Thanks for writing and posting on this topic. Unfortunately, there are downside consequences that are attendant to this subject.

    I'm done. Pax.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As Luke Timothy Johnson candidly admits, this is not about the interpretation of Scripture, but about the authority of Scripture:

    “The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? We must state our grounds for standing in tension with the clear commands of Scripture, and include in those grounds some basis in Scripture itself…I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.”

    http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957

    ReplyDelete
  13. RENE ROSECHILD SAID:

    “Do you think it's immoral to spread ignorant, irresponsible lies about other people, such as stating, falsely, that children raised by gay parents do not fare as well as those raised by straight parents?”

    I think it's immoral for you to spread ignorant, irresponsible lies about other people, such as stating, falsely, that children raised by gay "parents" fare just as well as those raised by straight parents.

    http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=711636269

    ReplyDelete
  14. "children of gay parents"

    Someone must have missed basic biology. How can gay parents have children?

    You mean "children adopted by gay parents" or "children (sometimes artificially) conceived by one person who lives with another person that is in no way biologically related to the offspring of the first person" right?

    ReplyDelete
  15. So you don't consider adoptive parents to be parents? You think that parenting means conceiving?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rene Rosechild writes:

    ”Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?”

    See Robert Gagnon’s discussion here.

    No thanks. If you want to make an assertion, make it. Where in the Bible does it prohibit lesbianism? Cite a verse.

    You write:

    ”What is the Christian position on divorce?”

    The Christian position on divorce is that advocates of lesbianism who bring up the subject in an attempt to show Christian hypocrisy or the unclear nature of scripture are often themselves hypocrites and incompetent exegetes.

    Apparently you are skilled at evasion. What is the Christian position on divorce? Some reason you don't want to admit your hypocrisy?
    You write:

    ”Unless you're relying on liars like Paul Cameron, there is scientific consensus about the truth: children of gay parents fare just as well as children of straight parents.”

    Which scientific studies take factors like the general spiritual health of the children into account and their adherence to sound doctrine and Christian moral standards iu particular, for example?

    No, is that what you meant by children's welfare? Adherence to Christianity? If so, you should say so, because your readers probably thought you meant mental health, emotional well-being, and so forth.

    You write:

    ”What is the Christian position on lying?”

    The Christian position is that lesbians should stop lying to themselves and others by suggesting that lesbianism is acceptable.

    I'm not the one's telling lies here. Did I say that lesbianism was acceptable? I merely asked some questions that you can't answer.
    3/29/2009 9:18 AM
    Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said:

    Rene Rosechild: "Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?"

    Can you please tell me whether you are a Bible-believing Christian, a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ?

    No, I'm not. So I gather that you can't answer the question then?
    Can you please tell us whether you are a lesbian?

    Yes, I am.
    Suppose you are a lesbian. God loves you Rene and His Word declares that same-sex behavior (including lesbianianism) is sin.

    Really? Where does His Word declare that?

    Would you repent and forsake of the sin of lesbian sexual behavior to follow Jesus Christ as your Lord?

    No, of course not, since I don't believe any such thing, that would be silly.
    3/29/2009 9:19 AM

    Rene Rosechild said:

    Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?

    See Rom. 1:26 for starters.

    Actually, Rom 1:26 isn't the starters, it's the start middle and end, isn't it, since it's the only mention of the subject anywhere in the Bible.

    And it's not a prohibition, is it? This is a God who knows how to prohibit, don't you agree? And that's now what this is--it's a story of God punishing some people, isn't it?
    What is the Christian position on divorce?

    Not sure what this has to do with homosexuality.

    Because unlike lesbianism, it's clearly prohbited, isn't it? Yet you don't see Christians advocating against that. Could it be because so many of them are divorced? Always easier to look at the speck in someone else's eye, isn't it?
    Anyway, it's complicated. But generally speaking I think the Bible teaches that adultery and desertion are legitimate grounds for divorce, although we'd definitely need to elaborate on what we mean by this, etc.

    You're mistaken. Only adultery, not desertion.

    Do you think it's immoral to spread ignorant, irresponsible lies about other people, such as stating, falsely, that children raised by gay parents do not fare as well as those raised by straight parents?

    You're asking a loaded question.

    But the assumptions in the question are all correct.
    Also, this begs the question of whether it's false in the first place.

    Yup. And it is. It's a lie. The actual consensus of the research is the exact opposite.
    What is the Christian position on lying?

    Again, it's complicated, but generally speaking the Bible frowns upon deception. There are possible exceptions though (e.g. some duties are higher than other duties, cf. Exo. 1:15-21).

    Then this Blogger should probably stop doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. YASH SAID:

    “God never wrote the Bible. People did.”

    What we have, now, is an argument between two homosexuals. Rene is apparently arguing that the Bible doesn’t even condemn homosexuality. You, by contrast, are admitting that it does–but you say that doesn’t matter since “people” wrote the Bible.

    BTW, God is a person. Indeed, three persons!

    “And when people do things they have a way of contorting things to fit the rules of their society.”

    You mean, the way unbelievers like you contort things to fit the rules of the liberal establishment?

    “The Bible says a lot of things which no one follows anymore-such as: woman are inferior to men.”

    Where does the Bible say that?

    “Left-handed people are the devil's minions.”

    “Pre-martial sex is a sin.”

    If you’re actually ignorant enough to think that no one follows that Biblical injunction anymore, then you’re as prejudiced as a Klansman. You know nothing about the people you presume to describe.

    “You yourself are admitting that homosexuality is a biological thing; wouldn't that then mean that gays are born gay and if God created all life on Earth wouldn't that then mean that God also created gays and by calling gays sinners, wouldn't you also be calling God a sinner as God was the one who created gays in the first place?”

    The Bible has a doctrine of the fall as well as a doctrine of creation. Try to bone up on some rudimentary theology before you pop off the next time.

    “The simple fact is that the only reason that you discriminate against gays is because it's the easiest thing in the Bible to do.”

    The simple fact is that the only reason that you attack the Bible is to rationalize your immoral lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not arguing anything about homosexuality. Read my comments. I'm just asking where in the Bible lesbianism is prohibited. Can't any of the Christians here find me the passage that prohibits lesbianism?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rene Rosechild said...

    “What is the Christian position on divorce?”

    Given the divorce rate among homosexuals, your wagging finger points back at you:

    http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

    BTW, I’m not divorced. Patrick Chan is not divorced. Jason Engwer is not divorced. And Peter Pike is not divorced. So you’re barking up the wrong tree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'll make my arguments clear:

    1. On the one hand you have lesbianism, which is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible, which you decry and oppose, and on the other hand you have divorce, which is clearly prohibited by Jesus himself, which you not only do not oppose, but which millions of so-called Christians practice.

    2. It is a lie that children of gay parents do not do as well as children of straight parents, as hundreds of studies have shown, which is why every major child welfare agency, including the one your pediatrician belongs to, has spoken out against restricting it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. steve: I'm not Christian, so I'm not concerned about it. I'm concerned about YOUR hypocrisy. NARTH are liars, completley discredited by actual scientists. Their statistics are lies.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So you devote a lot of political activism to restricting the right of divorced people to remarry, do you? If I search this blog, will I find posts opposing second marriage, which Jesus so hated and prohibited?

    ReplyDelete
  23. RENE ROSECHILD SAID:

    “Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?”

    That’s a rhetorical ploy in which you frame an artificially narrow question to rig the answer. The Bible doesn’t need to prohibit lesbianism. It only needs to condemn lesbianism.

    Moreover, even if the Bible never explicitly condemned lesbianism in particular or homosexuality in general, that would still run counter to the Biblical doctrine of creation.

    “No thanks. If you want to make an assertion, make it. Where in the Bible does it prohibit lesbianism? Cite a verse.”

    You’re being evasive since you’d lose the exegetical debate. For someone who feigns disapproval of dishonest conduct, you’re diversionary tactics are ironic.

    “Apparently you are skilled at evasion. What is the Christian position on divorce? Some reason you don't want to admit your hypocrisy?”

    Since Jason is not divorced, he has no hypocrisy to admit.

    Or are you attempting a guilty-by-association smear according to which Christians who are not divorced are supposedly culpable for the divorce rate among other professing Christians?

    If so, should we apply guilt-by-association to all homosexuals for the misconduct of some?

    “Did I say that lesbianism was acceptable? I merely asked some questions that you can't answer.”

    Now you’re being duplicitous, which is ironic from someone who feigns disapproval of dishonest conduct.

    You aren’t merely asking questions. Rather, you using “questions” to mount an ad hominem attack on Christians and thereby disqualify us from criticizing the homosexual lifestyle. So it’s a roundabout defense of the homosexual lifestyle. Don’t think you can play us with your transparent tactics.

    “Because unlike lesbianism, it's clearly prohbited, isn't it?”

    To the contrary, homosexuality is uniformly condemned in Scripture whereas there are at least two scriptural grounds for divorce.

    “You're mistaken. Only adultery, not desertion.”

    You’re mistaken. Try reading a few good commentaries on 1 Cor.

    “I'm not arguing anything about homosexuality. Read my comments. I'm just asking where in the Bible lesbianism is prohibited.”

    Once again, you’re being duplicitous, which is very funny coming from someone who feigns indignation at dishonest conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, I read some of Gagnon. He seems fundamentally mistaken, since he's under the impression that the Bible also prohibits polygamy, which it clearly does not One wonders whether he--or you--have actually read it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. “Can you please tell me where in the Bible it prohibits lesbianism?”

    That’s a rhetorical ploy in which you frame an artificially narrow question to rig the answer. The Bible doesn’t need to prohibit lesbianism. It only needs to condemn lesbianism.

    Oh, I thought you opposed it because your religion prohibits it--apparently not. Now you've moved your goalposts to something called "condemn," which you claim the Bible does. But the opening post said it was a sin. Doesn't a sin mean doing what God prohibits?

    Because if we're going to oppose everything that Jesus condemned, you're going to open to door to things like keeping your money or rebelling against slavery. I dont' think you want to go there.

    As for even condemning it, and remember the subject is mentioned a grand total of once (1) times in those thousands of pages, I think if you read the passage clearly it doesn't even do that. What it says is that God punished these women, who had turned against them, by causing them to engage in unnatural acts, including sex that was unnatural for them. The sin they were punished for was not lesbianism, it was turning against God.

    Moreover, even if the Bible never explicitly condemned lesbianism in particular or homosexuality in general, that would still run counter to the Biblical doctrine of creation.


    Getting a bit wild with your theology, aren't you? I mean, that's your personal, rather bizarre intepretation of the Bible. You could as well argue that asking people to turn away from how God made them is against Biblical doctrine.

    No thanks. If you want to make an assertion, make it. Where in the Bible does it prohibit lesbianism? Cite a verse.”

    You’re being evasive since you’d lose the exegetical debate. For someone who feigns disapproval of dishonest conduct, you’re diversionary tactics are ironic.

    Excuse me? By asking you to cite the passage on which you base your argument I'm being evasive? Why don't you own up and answer it: It doesn't. There, doesn't it feel better to be honest?
    “Apparently you are skilled at evasion. What is the Christian position on divorce? Some reason you don't want to admit your hypocrisy?”

    Since Jason is not divorced, he has no hypocrisy to admit.

    I disagree. My guess is that neither you nor Jason has donated any money or time to opposing second marriage, although it's a sinful practice. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Or are you attempting a guilty-by-association smear according to which Christians who are not divorced are supposedly culpable for the divorce rate among other professing Christians?

    Not at all. I'm saying that if you were really worried about fighting sin, and not just a bigot, you would devote your activisim to persuading Christians like yourselves not to remarry and divorce, not to fight against something that doesn't concern or involve you.

    If so, should we apply guilt-by-association to all homosexuals for the misconduct of some?

    “Did I say that lesbianism was acceptable? I merely asked some questions that you can't answer.”

    Now you’re being duplicitous, which is ironic from someone who feigns disapproval of dishonest conduct.

    Please quote me saying lesbianism is acceptable. I just stated the fact: It's not prohibited. If you say it is, then you're lying. Unless you can produce that passage?

    You aren’t merely asking questions. Rather, you using “questions” to mount an ad hominem attack on Christians and thereby disqualify us from criticizing the homosexual lifestyle. So it’s a roundabout defense of the homosexual lifestyle. Don’t think you can play us with your transparent tactics.

    I don't think you would know an ad hominem attack if it introduced itself. I realize you don't like the points I'm raising, but that doesn't make it ad hominem . Of course I'm defending lesbianism, isn't that obvious? I see you've given up on trying to attack it.

    “Because unlike lesbianism, it's clearly prohbited, isn't it?”

    To the contrary, homosexuality is uniformly condemned in Scripture whereas there are at least two scriptural grounds for divorce.

    That passage again? The one that prohibits lesbianism? Uniformly?
    “You're mistaken. Only adultery, not desertion.”
    But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
    Matthew 5:32

    1 Corinthians only says allow the unbelieving spouse to leave; it does not mention divorce or remarriage, and certainly not desertion. Where did you get that?
    You’re mistaken. Try reading a few good commentaries on 1 Cor.

    “I'm not arguing anything about homosexuality. Read my comments. I'm just asking where in the Bible lesbianism is prohibited.”

    Once again, you’re being duplicitous, which is very funny coming from someone who feigns indignation at dishonest conduct.

    Read more carefully. I haven't even gotten into the subject of homosexuality yet, only lesbianism. If you see me saying a word about homosexuality, I will retract and apologize. If not, I expect you to do the same. No, actually, I don't; I doubt that you have the integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rene,

    You haven't demonstrated that Gagnon is wrong about polygamy. And if he's wrong on that subject, it doesn't follow that he's also wrong about lesbianism. Why don't you interact with what he's written about lesbianism?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well he clearly is, as a cursory reading of the bible makes clear, but you're right, that would take us off the subject.

    No thanks, why don't you? If YOU have a point to make, why don't YOU make it?

    All that I found him saying was that Paul condemns it. Well we knew that, so what? I'm waiting for you to either show me where God prohibits it, or admit that He does not, one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Although it is funny when proponents of an Abrahamic religion condemn polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rene,

    Telling us what a "cursory" reading of the Bible "makes clear", followed by a reference to Abraham's polygamy, doesn't establish your view of what the Bible says about polygamy. I've discussed this issue at length elsewhere, and your treatment of the subject is grossly inadequate.

    You write:

    "No thanks, why don't you? If YOU have a point to make, why don't YOU make it? All that I found him saying was that Paul condemns it. Well we knew that, so what? I'm waiting for you to either show me where God prohibits it, or admit that He does not, one or the other."

    Gagnon discusses more than the Pauline texts. And even if he had only discussed the Pauline texts, Paul was an apostle commissioned by Christ and an author of scripture. You initially asked about the Biblical view of lesbianism. Paul's letters are part of the Bible. And Paul's references to the sinful nature of lesbianism imply that lesbian sexual activity is to be avoided. Adding qualifiers that Paul doesn't mention, such as that lesbian sex is sinful only if those practicing it are acting against their sexual orientation, is a less natural way of reading the text and, thus, less likely. And, as Gagnon mentions, the Jewish and early post-apostolic Christian contexts suggest that the ancient Jews and the earliest Christians opposed lesbianism. They could have been wrong. All of the early Christians may have misinterpreted Romans 1, for example. But that, again, is a less likely option. The fact that such a position is possible doesn't make it the most reasonable explanation of the data.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm sorry, I don't know how to quote other people's posts, please excuse my format.
    We'll leave off polygamy to avoid de-rail.
    Instead of telling me what Gagnon says, why don't you tell me what you say? It was your post.

    "You initially asked about the Biblical view of lesbianism."

    No, I didn't, I asked you to quote me the verse where lesbianism is prohibited. Found it yet? Would it hurt you to admit it's not there?

    Of course I disagree with your reading, I really think it's tortured. Just read it plainly: These people did these awful things, and God punished them in these ways. That's what it says. Including in the punishment is lesbian sex, which obviously Paul thinks would be awful to suffer, but we wouldn't expect him to know, would we? The point is simple:

    At any point, God could have said:
    Thou shalt not have lesbian sex. He certainly specified a long list of people that men should not have sex with in Leviticus. He doesn't seem to be shy about laying it out. He left that out. Therefore, it's permitted. Obviously. You don't get to call yourself Christian and make up what you think God really meant to prohibit, that's not how it works. You're stuck with what He actually did. And He didn't. Therefore, it's not up to you to decry it as a sin, is it?

    Now please apologize for telling those mean lies about us lesbian parents who are doing our best to take care of the children abandoned and mistreated by heterosexuals. Thank you. And I would appreciate it if you would stop spreading lies that, it's a sin. And it's mean. It's immoral. Stop doing it.

    Oh, and your long history of anti-divorce activism and posts? What is it? Jesus was right; it's easier to look at the speck in someone else's eye.

    Now you're going to base your religion on the early Jews?!? Wouldn't that take some major dietary changes for you?

    All I'm saying is this: lesbianism is not actually a sin, in your religon, so leave us poor lesbians alone and stop telling lies about us. 'kay? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wow. I see the steamroller is out in full force now. At least I can rest assured that no one thinks Rene is interested in actual answers to her questions, and instead our responses are for any rational people who decide to read through the diatribe Rene spouts seeking an honest response.

    Rene says:
    ---
    So you don't consider adoptive parents to be parents?
    ---

    They are parents in the legal sense, but not in the scientific, biological sense. In other words, those who adopt children co-opt the term so as to avoid the stigma of "orphan" or "bastard" or "illegitimate" to be applied to their child. But stealing the term doesn't make it true.

    And this isn't just the case with adopted children. Consider the families of those who grow up half-brothers or -sisters. Generally, if your mother marries another person than your father, you will be closer to your mother than you will to her spouse--indeed, psychologically there is often great friction caused because your mother's spouse is NOT your father. Likewise, if your father marries a different woman, you will be closer to your biological father than you will be to your non-biological mother. This is just simple reality.

    It is only because of the delusion of the homosexual agenda that you would consider these types of families to be on par with a traditional nuclear family.

    Now none of that is to say that adoptions shouldn't happen; but it is to say that adoptions are nowhere near the best form of a family, even if they are much better than having a child grow up in an orphanage.

    In other words, you have at the highest pinnacle of familial success, the traditional nuclear family. After that would come adoption into a traditional nuclear family, as well as mixed marriages (i.e. step-brothers and -sisters). After that would come single parent families. After that would come orphanages. And then, after that, would come homosexual adoptions, adoptions into alcoholic families, adoptions into promiscuous families, etc. Because yes, those living in active sin and promoting it to children are far worse than those children having no parents at all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You mean like Jesus' adoptive father, Joseph? How odd that God would choose an inferior form of family for His son.

    Anyway, please present the research that shows that children in two-parent, intact, heterosexual families do any better than children in two-parent, intact, heterosexual families.

    Because I'm sure you agree that comparing children of intact heterosexual families to children of divorced heterosexual mothers would be a terrible way to find out how children in gay families do, right? Like that liar, Paul Cameron, NARTH and the Family Research Council do. Don't you hate it when people tell bigoted lies about other people? It really chaps my thighs.

    I see that you address the legal issue, Peter, and the biological issue, but what about the emotional issue? In short, what about the importance of love? And why do you think that's so unimportant to so many Christians that they don't even find it worthy of mention?

    ReplyDelete
  33. btw, Peter, thanks for putting your bigotry on display for all to see like that. If I ever, in my wildest dreams, considered accepting Jesus as my personal savior, you put me right off it. Thank you.

    Speaking of sin, why do you consider lesbianism a sin? Your God doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rene Rosechild writes:

    NARTH are liars, completley discredited by actual scientists. Their statistics are lies.

    Where's the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  35. RENE ROSECHILD SAID:

    “Oh, I thought you opposed it because your religion prohibits it--apparently not. Now you've moved your goalposts to something called ‘condemn,’ which you claim the Bible does.”

    Feel free to quote where I planted a goalpost in the ground labeled “biblical prohibition.” I never did that. Therefore, I never moved *my* goalpost.

    “But the opening post said it was a sin. Doesn't a sin mean doing what God prohibits?”

    Non sequitur. You’re indulging in another one of your diversionary tactics.

    “Because if we're going to oppose everything that Jesus condemned, you're going to open to door to things like keeping your money or rebelling against slavery. I dont' think you want to go there.”

    Where did Jesus state that no Christian can ever keep his own money?

    And I’ve discussed biblical “slavery” on many different occasions.

    You have a set of prepared talking points that you’re used to throwing at unprepared Christians. Well, you’ve wandered into the wrong blog. There are precious few issues I haven’t discussed at one time or another.

    “As for even condemning it, and remember the subject is mentioned a grand total of once (1) times in those thousands of pages, I think if you read the passage clearly it doesn't even do that.”

    I already anticipated that objection when I said: “even if the Bible never explicitly condemned lesbianism in particular or homosexuality in general, that would still run counter to the Biblical doctrine of creation.”

    You’re behind the curve. You’re problem is that you have some formulaic tactics that you’re used to unfurling at unsophisticated opponents. When you run into an opponent who doesn’t conform to your stereotype, you’re unable to adapt to the challenge.

    “The sin they were punished for was not lesbianism, it was turning against God.”

    False dichotomy since lesbianism was the way in which they turned against God. Try again.

    “Getting a bit wild with your theology, aren't you? I mean, that's your personal, rather bizarre intepretation of the Bible.”

    Not at all. It goes to the way in which God designed human beings as man and woman, to pair off as man and woman.

    “You could as well argue that asking people to turn away from how God made them is against Biblical doctrine.”

    The Bible also has a doctrine of the fall, which represents a declension from the created order. Indeed, both events are in play in Roman 1. Try again.

    “No thanks. If you want to make an assertion, make it. Where in the Bible does it prohibit lesbianism? Cite a verse.”

    You seem to think you can get away with the same chicanery even after it’s been exposed. All your doing here is to repeat the same little ruse you tried once before. I already called you on it: “That’s a rhetorical ploy in which you frame an artificially narrow question to rig the answer. The Bible doesn’t need to prohibit lesbianism. It only needs to condemn lesbianism. Moreover, even if the Bible never explicitly condemned lesbianism in particular or homosexuality in general, that would still run counter to the Biblical doctrine of creation.”

    Since your efforts to rebut that statement have failed, the statement stands. Try again.

    “Excuse me? By asking you to cite the passage on which you base your argument I'm being evasive? Why don't you own up and answer it: It doesn't. There, doesn't it feel better to be honest?”

    Now you’re playing coy, which you’ve been doing throughout this exchange. You evade the exegesis of the very prooftext you demand.

    “I disagree. My guess is that neither you nor Jason has donated any money or time to opposing second marriage, although it's a sinful practice. Please correct me if I'm wrong.”

    i) I haven’t donated any money to opposing sodomite marriage, either. Try again.

    ii) As to time, we’re all selective with where we put our time. There’s nothing hypocritical about that, unless you wish to tar yourself with the same label for your failure to invest time and money in everything you disapprove of. There are only 24 hours in a day.

    iii) There’s a distinction between corporate responsibilities and individual responsibilities. The church is a body with many members. Each individual member is not responsible for everything. There’s a division of labor.

    iv) In addition, it’s liberals, not conservatives, who liberalized the divorce laws. It wasn’t conservative Christians who lobbied for no-fault divorce. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, it’s twofaced for liberals like you to liberalize our divorce laws, then point an accusatory finger at divorce rates in the church. (And I’d add that divorce rates among conservative Christians are lower than among unbelievers.)

    v) Moreover, a divorce doesn’t mean that both parties are guilty. Only one party may be guilty. Do your stats reflect that differential?

    vi) Finally, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I’m a hypocrite. So what? Suppose my automechanic is a hypocrite. Do I care? Not as long as he knows how to fix my car.

    When you have nothing but ad hominem arguments to use against us (“Christians are hypocrites!”), that’s a tacit admission that you already lost the argument on the merits of the case, and can only deflect objections by trying to shame Christians into silence.

    “Not at all. I'm saying that if you were really worried about fighting sin, and not just a bigot, you would devote your activisim to persuading Christians like yourselves not to remarry and divorce, not to fight against something that doesn't concern or involve you.”

    i) I have no problem with condemning the practice of unbiblical divorce–although the Bible allows divorce and remarriage on at least two different grounds (infidelity and desertion).

    ii) I’m not exactly a single-issue blogger. Check the archives.

    iii) There’s nothing wrong with a Christian specializing in certain issues. That’s often the only way to be adequately informed or make headway on an issue.

    iv) For someone who bandies the charge of hypocrisy so freely, you don’t bother to define your terms. There’s nothing wrong with not wasting time on issues over which we have little influence. In this country we have a little thing called the democratic process. It ultimately requires electoral majorities to change the divorce laws. If the majority of voters like liberal divorce laws, you can’t change the law.

    There are, however, other moral issues which are politically feasible to work on.

    v) I’m concerned about the fact that homosexuals seduce underage youth at a disproportionate rate. Not to mention kiddy porn, and the attempt to lower or abolish the age of consent. It would be morally negligent of me not to be concerned with that.

    vi) And the issue of sodomite rights does involve Christians like me, since sodomites are trying to criminalize Christian expression as hate speech.

    “That passage again? The one that prohibits lesbianism? Uniformly?”

    i) I have news for you: lesbianism is a type of homosexuality, just as matricide is a type of murder. I don’t need a specific “prohibition” against matricide if I have a general prohibition against homicide.

    ii) And you keep thinking that you can restrict this debate to a biblical “prohibition.” What’s your problem? Are you a slow learner? Is that why you keep reverting to the same failed tactics?

    “1 Corinthians only says allow the unbelieving spouse to leave; it does not mention divorce or remarriage, and certainly not desertion. Where did you get that?”

    Once again, read a good commentary or two.

    “Read more carefully. I haven't even gotten into the subject of homosexuality yet, only lesbianism.”

    Think more carefully. Lesbianism is a type of homosexuality–just as matricide is a type of homicide.

    “NARTH are liars, completley discredited by actual scientists. Their statistics are lies.”

    A denial is not a disproof. Try again.

    “It is a lie that children of gay parents do not do as well as children of straight parents, as hundreds of studies have shown, which is why every major child welfare agency, including the one your pediatrician belongs to, has spoken out against restricting it.”

    Of course, the homosexual lobby uses pressure tactics to intimidate dissent–including legal coercion.

    “I'm concerned about YOUR hypocrisy.”

    You know, dear, you really need to load more than one bullet in your gun. Maybe there are people out there who drop dead as soon as you fire the “hypocrisy” bullet. I’m not one of them. I’m not even bleeding. What do you do when your only bullet doesn’t make a dent? Time to try some new ammo for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rene Rosechild wrote:

    "These people did these awful things, and God punished them in these ways. That's what it says. Including in the punishment is lesbian sex, which obviously Paul thinks would be awful to suffer, but we wouldn't expect him to know, would we?"

    If Paul was an inspired writer of scripture, we would expect him to be correct. And he doesn't just say that lesbianism is "awful to suffer". He says that lesbianism involves degrading passions, describing it as he describes sexual immorality elsewhere (1 Thessalonians 4:5). He goes on to refer to the behavior as unnatural. The context refers to God's created order, so the implication is that lesbianism is a violation of what God intended in creation. The next verse, Romans 1:27, parallels male homosexuality with lesbianism ("in the same way"), and that activity is described similarly. Verse 28 characterizes such people as those who don't "see fit to acknowledge God any longer" and are doing what's "not proper". I could go on. The surrounding verses make other comments of a similar nature. Paul isn't discussing personal preferences that other people are free to disagree with. He's discussing sinful behavior.

    You write:

    At any point, God could have said: Thou shalt not have lesbian sex....You don't get to call yourself Christian and make up what you think God really meant to prohibit, that's not how it works. You're stuck with what He actually did.

    Law codes, like other forms of human communication, have implications. Not every detail has to be spelled out. A passage like Romans 1 doesn't have to say "thou shalt not have lesbian sex" in order to imply that lesbian sex is unacceptable.

    You write:

    "Oh, and your long history of anti-divorce activism and posts?"

    People have different levels of knowledge about different subjects. One person has skills that another person doesn't have. People live in different contexts. The fact that two activities are sinful doesn't imply that everybody should spend an equal amount of time criticizing each sin. Do you spend as much time criticizing every other activity you disapprove of as you spend criticizing Christians who oppose lesbianism? If a lesbian web site doesn't have a "long history of activism" against bestiality or lying on your tax returns, for example, do you accuse them of hypocrisy?

    Where does the Bible say "thou shalt not criticize lesbianism without criticizing improper forms of divorce in a similar manner"? Or are you relying on an alleged implication of Biblical principles? If the latter, then why can't we do the same with Romans 1 and lesbianism?

    You write:

    "Now you're going to base your religion on the early Jews?!? Wouldn't that take some major dietary changes for you?"

    I was addressing ancient interpretations of scripture and the contexts in which the authors of scripture lived. Are you denying that ancient Jews and Christians are part of the context in which the Bible is interpreted? How do we know what Hebrew and Greek terms meant, for example, if we don't take into consideration how the ancient sources used those terms? Do you deny that if the early Christians interpreted Romans 1 as a condemnation of lesbianism, then that interpretation adds weight to the view that the passage was meant to condemn lesbianism? Do you deny that early interpretations of a document are part of the evidence we take into account when judging what a document meant?

    The dietary laws have been fulfilled in Christ (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, 11:9, Romans 14:2-16, Colossians 2:16-17). The Biblical principles that imply the sinfulness of lesbianism haven't been fulfilled in a comparable manner. They haven't been rescinded. Why would I treat ancient views of the dietary laws in the same manner in which I treat ancient views of lesbianism, then?

    ReplyDelete
  37. RENE ROSECHILD SAID:

    “I'm saying that if you were really worried about fighting sin, and not just a bigot…”

    “btw, Peter, thanks for putting your bigotry on display for all to see like that.”

    You seem to think you can back us down with scary words like “bigotry”.

    Mommy, mommy. Rene called me a bad name! Ouch! Ouch! Kiss it, mommy, and make it better.

    Liberals are afraid of those words, conservatives are not. We’re not going to curl up into a little ball because you resort to stock epithets after you lost the argument.

    “If I ever, in my wildest dreams, considered accepting Jesus as my personal savior, you put me right off it. Thank you.”

    Then you top it off with emotional blackmail. Do you also cry on cue?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rene

    The bible forbids/condemns sex outside of marriage. And the Bible explicitly says marriage is between a man and woman. Hence, one can logically deduce that sex between two women is forbidden since two women cannot be married according to biblical standards.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's so interesting. Another passage I missed. Where does the Bible state that two women may not marry?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'll put your own question to you. Where does the Bible say two women can marry?

    ReplyDelete
  41. In regard to the question of lesbianism, the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality (female or male) as an orientation, i.e. women being attracted to women or men being attracted to men.

    There is no prohibition of women having sex with women in the Bible. There is one, and only one, criticism of such sex and that is in Romans 1:26. This criticism is part of a sermon illustration and Paul does not say “Don’t do it”. It is just a criticism, not a prohibition.

    Also, women having sex with women is not sinful because it passes the “no-harm test” (based on Romans 13:9-10). That is, such sex is not sinful in circumstances where no physical or emotional harm is caused to the participants. Further information about this test and its application to male homosexuality is given on the “Gay and Christian” site at www.gaysandslaves.com.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rene said:
    ---
    You mean like Jesus' adoptive father, Joseph? How odd that God would choose an inferior form of family for His son.
    ---

    How is that any less odd than the Second Person of the Trinity emptying Himself of His Divine attributes which were, by His very nature, His rights and taking on the form of a human being, to suffer indignities at the hands of those He created, and to die for our sins?

    But since you don't believe any of that anyway, why bother asking? You're not interested in the answers. You're just emoting.

    You said:
    ---
    Anyway, please present the research that shows that children in two-parent, intact, heterosexual families do any better than children in two-parent, intact, heterosexual families.
    ---

    Obviously you don't read before you post either. How am I supposed to demonstrate that intact nuclear families do better than intact nuclear families when THESE ARE THE SAME THING?

    You said:
    ---
    Because I'm sure you agree that comparing children of intact heterosexual families to children of divorced heterosexual mothers would be a terrible way to find out how children in gay families do, right?
    ---

    Yeah. As I said, I would compare them to children adopted by alcoholic families. That's a closer correlation.

    You said:
    ---
    Don't you hate it when people tell bigoted lies about other people?
    ---

    I have no emotional reaction whatsoever to anything you spout out, so can't really say I hate it.

    You said:
    ---
    It really chaps my thighs.
    ---

    I'm fairly sure there's an antibiotic cream for that.

    You said:
    ---
    I see that you address the legal issue, Peter, and the biological issue, but what about the emotional issue?
    ---

    I grant that you are extremely emotional. And I wouldn't trust you with any child.

    You said:
    ---
    In short, what about the importance of love?
    ---

    There was a young boy who loved birds with all his heart. One day, after a spring storm, he was walking with his father when they came across a baby bird crying from a snowbank. The little fellow had obviously fallen out of his nest.

    The boy's heart was grieved. He was even further alarmed when his father cruelly told him to leave the poor baby bird there to die in the snowbank! So when dad wasn't looking, the boy picked the bird up and put it in his pocket.

    That night, he put the bird in a shoebox. His heart swelled with love for the bird, and he gave it everything that he loved. This boy loved to eat candy bars, so he fed the bird his best Butterfingers and Hershey's bars. He also loved to drink Dr Pepper, and he carefully gave that to the bird too.

    He went to sleep with love swelling in his heart. When he awoke, the baby bird was dead.

    This devastated the young boy. Crying, he took the bird downstairs. His father saw it and said, "Why did you take the bird out of the snow bank?! His mother would have rescued it after we were gone!"

    "But I loved the bird and didn't want it to suffer! I gave him everything that I loved, I shared with him!"

    "And that's what killed the bird," his father responded. "Son, you have to understand that love without wisdom is DANGEROUS. If you don't know what you're doing, it doesn't matter how much compassion you feel."

    And that's where the story ends. I doubt Rene will wish to comprehend this, so allow me to put it bluntly.

    Homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't matter how much a couple loves their children, they are exposing their children to a harmful lifestyle. They can deny it as much as they want, but their ignorance is no excuse. Love without knowledge is dangerous, and our culture is condemning generations of children because of the selfish desire of a few hacks, such as yourself.

    You said:
    ---
    And why do you think that's so unimportant to so many Christians that they don't even find it worthy of mention?
    ---

    Because there is more to reality than just emotion. There is more to the story than satisfying your feelings of love.

    Rene said:
    ---
    btw, Peter, thanks for putting your bigotry on display for all to see like that.
    ---

    Oh yes. PC labeling. The first refuge of the Leftist who has lost.

    But thank you for showing your ignorance and irrationality for all to see.

    You said:
    ---
    If I ever, in my wildest dreams, considered accepting Jesus as my personal savior, you put me right off it. Thank you.
    ---

    Have you considered that maybe it wouldn't be heaven if you were there? I'm just saying....

    You said:
    ---
    Speaking of sin, why do you consider lesbianism a sin? Your God doesn't.
    ---

    I checked, and He does.

    But while we're at it, why do you consider bigotry to be a sin? I mean, it's not like God exists for you or anything. What gives you the right to determine my morality for me? At least I have God who I can reference. What do you have? Your PMS mood swings?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Raycol said:
    ---
    That is, such sex is not sinful in circumstances where no physical or emotional harm is caused to the participants.
    ---

    I disagree. It's obviously caused great emotional harm to Rene.

    Be that as it may, nowhere does Paul say that there's a "no harm" clause in Romans 13. And indeed I find it convenient you leave off verse 13:

    ---
    Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy.
    ---

    Seriously, if he included "sensuality" in there with "sexual immorality" as things we are not to walk in, how in the world can you maintain this "no harm clause" you invented?

    ReplyDelete
  44. For that matter, how would an orgy be harmful in your universe? I mean, these are consenting adults, aren't they? Engaged in a "victimless crime" so to speak? Yet, uh-oh, Paul condemns that.

    Just because you contradict yourself every other sentence doesn't mean Paul did. He was consistent, and your abuse of Scripture is obvious to all.

    ReplyDelete
  45. RENE ROSECHILD SAID:

    “NARTH are liars, completley discredited by actual scientists. Their statistics are lies.”

    btw, Rene, thanks for putting your bigotry on display for all to see–as you defame all of the medical professionals at NARTH.

    ReplyDelete
  46. raycol said...

    “In regard to the question of lesbianism, the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality (female or male) as an orientation, i.e. women being attracted to women or men being attracted to men.”

    i) Rom 1 condemns both homosexual conduct and homosexual desire.

    ii) Moreover, homosexuals have sex with each other because they’re attracted to each other, right? That’s the motivation. Therefore, condemnation of the “orientation” is implicit in condemnation of the practice.

    Or do you deny that lesbians are attracted to each other? If they’re not even attracted to each other, then–by your own admission–they are thwarting their natural sex drive.

    iii) By analogy, the Bible condemns murderous emotions as well as murderous acts.

    “There is no prohibition of women having sex with women in the Bible.”

    A distinction without a difference. But even if we accept your arbitrary restriction for the sake of argument:

    i) Major premise: The Bible prohibits homosexuality
    ii) Minor premise: Lesbianism is a type of homosexuality
    iii) Conclusion: The Bible prohibits lesbianism

    “There is one, and only one, criticism of such sex and that is in Romans 1:26. This criticism is part of a sermon illustration and Paul does not say ‘Don’t do it’. It is just a criticism, not a prohibition.”

    You’re driving an illogical wedge between what the Bible condemns and what the Bible forbids. That’s special pleading. Something is prohibitive because it’s sinful.

    Why not have the honesty to admit you reject Biblical authority?

    “Also, women having sex with women is not sinful because it passes the ‘no-harm test’ (based on Romans 13:9-10).”

    i) Since Paul explicitly says lesbianism is sinful in Rom 1, your appeal to Rom 13 is moot.

    ii) Moreover, you’d have to show that Paul regards lesbianism as a morally harmless transaction. All you’ve done is to say that *you* think it’s morally harmless. That’s not exegesis.

    “That is, such sex is not sinful in circumstances where no physical or emotional harm is caused to the participants. Further information about this test and its application to male homosexuality.”

    i) It’s emotionally harmful because it frustrates a woman’s natural sex drive. Ditto: men.

    ii) And if you’re going to use physical harm as a criterion, then you’ll have to condemn male homosexuality since homosexual men suffer many medical conditions as a result of their sexual behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Gold Medal Clap for the Triabloguers!!!

    IMHO, well over 90% of Christians would've been cowed into submission by the slick rhetorical tactics of a Liberal Lesbian Lawyer. Her bullets didn't even make a dent into the Kevlar armor of the Triabloguers. Totally impervious to the emotional blackmail, epithets, dishonesty, misdirection ploys, assertions masquerading as arguments, name-calling, guilt-trips, etc... that were used to silence Christians who provide the biblical argument that homosexual behavior is a sin.

    My guess is that Rene has pulverized and shamed other Christians in the past with her liberal lawyer tactics, and thought that she merely had to whip out the same tried-and-true lib playbook to bulldoze Triabloguers into sniveling, grief-stricken morons shocked at how their Christian worldview paradigm has just been mangled by lib logic.

    It didn't work. Not even close. Now she's P.O.'d because her Lib playbook got dismissed because it was exposed as cheap and empty rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Gay Pride"

    Now on display from the recent ruling by the Iowa State Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete