Responding to a common pro-gay theology argument

My post asking if the Bible was unclear on homosexuality brought this somewhat predictable comment. It never made reference to the Bible, it just repeated all sorts of un-biblical fallacies.  Sadly, this is no straw man comment.  Lots of people claiming the name of Christ repeat these arguments.

quite a few of my friends are gay. I am not. But knowing them, i know with all my heart they were born – created – gay. It is not something they chose to be.

I’ve had a lot of gay friends as well.  I don’t get in their face about it any more than I do that with the sins of heterosexual friends.  But I also don’t teach that any sins of my friends are acceptable to God.

You “know” that with your “heart?”  Emotions are nice, but not a good way to make decisions.  Please consider Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:9-11 —  And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Please note how he links love with knowledge and discernment.

I encourage you to read some research on the causes of homosexuality.  It is not genetic.

And even if they were “born that way,” it is a biblical concept that we are born with a sinful nature.  We don’t get an “ought” from an “is.”  Sadly, I’ve been really effective at coveting, pride and selfishness since I was little, but I don’t get a pass on those sins because I was “born that way.”

God is LOVE. God loves all of us. How could He not love people HE created gay?

I mean this in a most serious and kind way: How much of the Bible have you studied?  Do you not see how you could apply that to any sin?  Do you not see how seriously God treats sin?  My #1 recommendation to anyone debating any topic on Christianity is to read the Bible more.

God wants US to love one another. Treat one another with love and acceptance.

That argument assumes that homosexuality isn’t sinful, but it doesn’t explain why we should hold that view.  Can you show me in the Bible where we are taught to accept any sin?  How about 1 Corinthians 5?

I do not believe it is the right of any of us to judge any other person – only God.

But aren’t you judging me and others who hold the view that homosexual behavior is a sin (along with many other behaviors)?

I do not believe it’s about whether their behaviour is sinful or not. Who of us is without sin?

But it is about whether the behavior is sinful.  That’s the point of the discussion, and you’ve already claimed it isn’t sinful. But the burden of proof is on you to reason your case from the Bible.

The fact that we are all sinners doesn’t mean that we would encourage people to remain in sin.

The really Christian thing to do is love your neighbour. I love my gay friends, and they are beautiful and in some cases deeply Christian – more Christian than many so called Christians who have rejected them for their sexuality.

Your love for your friends isn’t the Biblical love of having their long-term best interests at heart.  If anyone teaches the opposite of the Bible then I don’t think it is correct to describe them as “deeply Christian.”

We don’t reject them for their sexuality, we love them enough to speak the truth.  I urge you to read the Bible thoroughly and reconsider your views.

60 thoughts on “Responding to a common pro-gay theology argument”

  1. “God wants US to love one another. Treat one another with love and acceptance.”

    This one always gets me. It always gets me because 1) the one who is saying it doesn’t get it, and 2) too often the one to whom it is said doesn’t get it. Yes, God wants us to love one another. And we know that sin is harmful, detrimental, “bad for you”. So does genuine love ignore someone who is harming himself? If you see someone about to take a swig of arsenic and you love him, do you speak up, or do you simply say, “Well, I love him so I need to be accepting”? Which response is love? I PRAY for people who would love me enough to warn me when I’m sinning. It happens FAR too rarely.

    And you did well on that whole “made that way” argument. Really, really stupid. I’m heterosexual. Natural urges in a heterosexual will make him want multiple women. I choose to limit that to one and classify the “natural urges” for others as sin. I do NOT say, “Well, I’m made that way, so it must be good (to cheat on my wife with as many women as I please).” Nonsense. I’ve never cared about the “made that way” argument because 1) it isn’t proven (or even hardly supported) and 2) it just doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t take a Bible-genius to see it.

    Like

  2. Interesting post. As a gay man I have struggled on how to have a relationship with my Christian knowing full well that they support a sinful life — then there’s how I can live my life. Still searching for answers by reading the Bible and prayer/thought.

    Peace.

    Like

    1. Hi Alex — thanks for visiting and commenting. I didn’t quite follow your second sentence. Please clarify if you can.

      I do encourage you to saturate yourself with the word of God. Pray and think all you like, of course, but if what you think disagrees with what God says then you should think some more. You may have to decide whether you want to worship God or your preferences.

      This may sound challenging, but find a church that teaches what the Bible says (i.e., homosexual behavior is a sin) but that will not reject you because you struggle with that temptation. I know people who struggle with it but they also know the truth that it is a sin. They have two specific requests for me: Pray for them and be their friend. I’m glad to do both.

      Be sure to check out http://www.gcmwatch.com/ — it is run by an ex-gay pastor who has a thriving ministry helping people overcome that lifestyle.

      Like

      1. Christian friends*

        I don’t think any Church has healthy relationships. They all read into the Bible with their cultural views in mind and get a skewed version of what the Bible says. As for my lifestyle, it will remain the same for the rest of my life but I will continue to talk to God about it.

        Peace.

        Like

      2. Alex,

        You can talk to God all you like but He won’t change his mind and re-write the Bible. That is his chosen way to communicate to you. Reject it at your peril.

        Peace,
        Neil

        Like

      3. “You’re preaching hate. How is this Biblical?”

        The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth.

        Alex, you have really disappointed me. I initially took you as someone who was trying to carefully consider the arguments, or was at least able to have an adult conversation. You have a choice: Refrain from playing the “hate card” that the Left has conditioned you to play when you are losing or don’t comment here.

        Here’s the problem with it: It is a pathetic trick designed to shut down conversation and act as an undefeatable trump card for you. But I see right through it.

        First, just consider what I said that you replied to. I simply stated that God won’t be changing his word regardless of what anyone says to him. So if you reject that, you are rejecting him. That isn’t hate, that is stating the obvious.

        Second, referring to God’s word is obviously biblical.

        Third, even in some bizarre hypothetical where the Bible actually supported homosexual behavior and Leviticus, Romans, all the verses on parenting and marriage, etc. stated the opposite of what they do, then the statement wouldn’t have been hateful. It would only be hate if I “knew” the Bible said homosexual behavior was acceptable and taught otherwise.

        By assuming my motives you are judging my heart — and incorrectly, I should add — so you are the one being un-biblical here.

        The real haters are those that know what the Bible really says yet value their own popularity over your physical, emotional and spiritual health. They would rather be politically correct than tell you the truth. Now that’s hate.

        Like

      4. “How can I consider your opinion viable when you yourself reject certain views?”

        To which I reply, how can I consider your opinion viable when you yourself reject certain views?

        Like

      5. BTW, I wasn’t just trying to be clever. I’m trying to point out that it is more productive to focus on facts and logic than the name-calling and ironic pre-emptive dismissals of the views of others.

        Like

  3. I find it interesting that the same defense – same questions – keep coming up no matter how many times they’ve been answered by theologians, as well as lay Christians. And yet the people defending homosexuality pretend they’ve never heard the answers. It’s as if they are saying, “No, that response is erroneous – I need another response” no matter how many times they get it. It’s like asking over and over how much 2+2 equals and never liking the answer.

    Like

    1. Do you think that it may be because the answer given is not actually lived out by the church? While the gay community says to accept their attraction as natural and who they are, the only answer the church gives is to repress it. They usually leave it as a Sunday School answer and rarely are they willing to walk with the person for the extent of their life and through the struggle. It is very easy for the church to say that they have the choice to not act on their desires… but where are these individuals suppose to find love, acceptance, and community?

      Like

      1. That’s a good question. Regardless of how well or poorly the church responds, homosexual behavior is still a sin. But it is also a sin if the church responds the wrong way in any direction. Saying it isn’t a sin = wrong. Rejecting people who are fighting the sin = wrong.

        I should blog on this more, but my challenge to authentic Christians would be this: Would you befriend a person who struggles with same-sex temptation but knows the truth of God’s word and just needs friendship and help on the way?

        My objection, as you can imagine, is with those who want to come into the church and deny that it is a sin and insist on having their own way. But rejecting people who agree with God’s word and just wrestle with that sin isn’t the right approach.

        Like

      2. Yes, I think that is true, and primarily because grace is not fully understood or applied. Legalism is the norm in for most believers even though they deny it, and it prevents them from getting involved with anyone who has a perceived outward sin issue. Alcoholism is similarly treated, and obesity to a certain extent too depending of course on who is obese….

        Like

      3. Just for the record, there is no such thing as “alcoholism.” That term was developed to take responsibility away from the drunk. The Bible calls it “drunkenness” and I think Christians should NEVER use the psychobabbler’s word. Drunkenness is the same as gluttony in that both are a lack of self-control. But alcohol is also addictive just like many drugs. So we could call them addicts but that isn’t politically correct for drunks.

        Can you imagine the success we would have helping drunks if we didn’t treat them like they had an illness? Yes, drunkenness and obesity should indeed be discussed from the pulpit.

        Like

  4. This morning I was watching an old episode of “Hoarding: Buried Alive”, and in this episode, as well as all the other shows about hoarders, the hoarders all say, “I can’t help it”, “This is the way I am”, “I hate it, but I can’t change”, and various other permutations of that. I recognize how difficult it is for them to change their actions and the thoughts that lead to the actions, and I believe that they think they can’t change… but the truth is, they *can* (and part of the show is devoted to showing how the hoarders do change and are changing, as they work with “professionals”, including organizers). But what struck me so forcibly this morning, is the identical language used by both hoarders and homosexuals to describe their proclivity either to hoard or to find members of the same sex attractive. And I wondered, if therapy (usually headed by psychologists, through “cognitive behavior therapy”, but also including concrete actions, such as working with a professional organizer to get rid of the clutter, which is the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself) can help hoarders, could not it help homosexuals? Many hoarders say they were “born that way” — that is, that they cannot remember a time when they did not struggle with messiness, clutter, and/or a desire to acquire or keep things that they didn’t really need; but they all can change. It also struck me, that with most and perhaps all hoarders, the act of hoarding itself is not the real problem, but is itself a symptom — they have an emptiness inside that they are trying to fill with stuff, much as a person addicted to food, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, shopping or any other thing or behavior, tries to fill the emptiness with their addiction. So, it is the emptiness that leads to the addictive behavior that is the real root cause, rather than the addiction itself that is the problem. This is why I think many psychologists fall short in their efforts to change people, or to help them change themselves — they are failing to recognize the real problem, and thus can’t fix it. And this is likely why Christian counselors who work with homosexuals, to get them to leave their sin, will be more successful than secular counselors — only God can fill that empty spot inside them, that is driving them to their behavior. And this is likely why therapy either succeeds or fails — the amount that the empty spot is filled with something else (preferably God, but I daresay that it might work to some extent to fill the empty spot with some good thing or action – for example, the hoarders are usually depressed, but as they work through their mess, the depression lifts, and they are able to get out with friends and do stuff, which helps fill the empty hole that the hoarding filled) — the degree to which the empty hole inside them is filled, is the degree to which they are freed from their wrong compulsion.

    And I totally agree with Stan above, in his analogy of heterosexual lust towards women — just because it’s natural for a man to lust after women, doesn’t mean it is acceptable nor Biblical for him to do so, much less to actually have sex with any woman he wants. “Christians” who think that just because something is “natural” it is proven to be “good”, are grossly misinformed of what the Bible teaches.

    Like

  5. I agree with homosexuals… they are born that way. But they still need to repent of their sin and embrace Christ for salvation. WE are all born into sin and it’s only by God’s grace that we are delivered from the slavery of sin. This is why it is utterly foolish to say that one can become a Christian and remain a homosexual and stuck in the lifestyle. You are made free a a new creation in Christ. The struggles still may exist, but as a new creation in Christ, we finally truly have a choice not to sin. Before we are saved, then we really don’t have a choice NOT to sin. We just shift from one sin to another. However if those who are gay and supposedly Christian, and they have no desire to leave that lifestyle, we have to ask: “are you really saved because your lifestyle isn’t bearing the fruit of repentance?”

    Like

    1. No, studies show the majority choose their “orientation,” while the verdict is out for the remainder as to how they got that way. “Born that way” would only be a genetic defect, if they were indeed born with the “orientation.” The point is that it matters not what inclinations one has; what matters is that they have the choice to not act on them!

      Like

  6. The main reason some Christians still have problems with homosexuality is because they don’t do responsible biblical exegesis with the biblical passages that they have been taught speak against homosexuality. Instead of “drawing out” from the biblical text what it originally meant to the author and to the original intended audience, they instead do what some theologians refer to as “frontloading”, i.e., they read their own personal, political and/or ideological beliefs back into the Bible. This process of reading one’s own ideas into interpretation of the Bible is called “eisegesis”. Exegesis and eisegesis are completely conflicting approaches to interpreting the Bible. The former is about reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. The latter is about reading one’s own ideas and prejudices back into the Bible.

    As Dr. Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, where I graduated, candidly stated on his blog: “For people like myself, now in middle age, dislike of homosexuality came with the territory; our reasons for opposing it were more to do with our own cultural backgrounds than with any biblical argumentation.”

    It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview.

    I would suggest you check out some of the posts on this site (link below) for exegetical treatments on the passages you seem to be convinced justify your own position.

    Like

    1. Alex, I see you are back trolling again with your Satanic pro-gay theology. I have lots of patience with people authentically seeking God and wrestling with whatever sins they have. I have zero patience with frauds like you posing as Christians and pretending that Jews and Christians just misunderstood God for thousands of years until a few fakes in the West — who just “happened” to deny many other essentials of the faith — decided to go along with the worldly view of sex. What a surprise!

      Your problem is that some people can see how crystal-clear passages like Lev. 18 and Romans 1 are, especially in their contexts.

      Wow, you opinion-shopped and found a professor who agrees with you?! Shocking.

      As you undoubtedly know in your heart, it is the pro-gay theologians who are guilty of eisegesis.

      Take your trolling elsewhere. I will not be used to promote your site, so I deleted your links. I’ve read all the pro-gay arguments and am glad to debunk them on my own posts or with references to other sources:

      Problems with pro-gay theology http://tinyurl.com/5sgoqvv

      Responding to Pro-Gay Theology http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html

      Heterophobia http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/heterophobia/

      Mel White & Soulforce — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/endless-errors-from-soulforce/

      Romans 1 and natural functions — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/romans-1-and-natural-desires-functions/

      I hope that you repent and believe and stop encouraging other people to sin. If you actually read the Bible you’ll find that there are serious consequences for that.

      Like

    2. eMatters, by ignoring Alex’s perspective you weaken your own perspective. Fact. I konw you’re trying to create a blog that says what you want it too but I think its sad that you are not open to new dialogue.

      Like

      1. Hi Alex,

        I’m not ignoring his perspective. I am well aware of it and offered rebuttals that I and others have written. Check out the Mel White post, for example. Alex H. offers nothing new. 2,000 years of church history, natural law and even two of the three types of pro-gay theologians are all on my side. The burden of proof is on him, and he fails to support it.

        Like

      2. To say that people have had different interpretations of the Bible over the years is to state the obvious. But the words have not changed and they always meant whatever they really mean. Yes, people have misunderstood them and still do. But that in no way means that you are automatically correct because people were wrong on some things before. Remember, it was Christians who properly understood the Bible who fought against the slave trade.

        The Bible has many warnings of false teachers, so it is to be expected that people will twist scripture to justify what they want to do. Sort of like how the pro-gay theologians are doing now. Or, more specifically, how one of the three types of pro-gay theologians is trying to do. The other two groups agree with my interpretation.

        Like

    3. Irony, much? You claim, without substantiation nor explanation, that the Bible permits homosexuality, and that any other reading is simply one’s own biases… but fail to consider the possibility that your own biases are influencing your interpretation of the Bible.

      Liberal: one whose irony metre broke at birth.

      Like

      1. Good point, Roxanne. I thought the same thing. And as I pointed out in the previous post, two of the three types of pro-gay theologians agree with me on what the Bible says. Apparently their biases are getting in the way.

        Like

      2. I haven’t read all the entries for this subject; way to much to plow through, but just to add a note. It seems that people can twist a proper exegesis of scripture to fit their own purpose, but underlying all that God presents truth in Types and Shadows both in Old and New Testaments. Even a casual reading for example of Ephesians 5 and we see the man (husband) as a figure of Christ and the woman (wife) as a figure of the church. Homosexuality directly attacks this picture and turns it in on itself, and moves us from God directed worship to self worship. It’s no longer man directed to God, but man to man and the woman (the church) no longer looks to her head (Christ) but to herself. Marriage is meant to be a testimony to an unsaved world that reflects our relationship with God. Anything less is unnatural and perverse to the entire message of the Bible.

        Like

  7. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” seems to be a pretty sensible solution to this “problem” of “not loving” gay people despite Christian admonitions to “love thy neighbour”.

    I don’t struggle with homosexuality, so it’s not something that I particularly want to crusade against – it just seems as if such battles are best fought by those who fight with it, not me. That said, if the Christian religion doesn’t accept you the way you are, and you’re gay and want to be gay and have gay lovers, then maybe the better solution is to find yourself a different religion, rather than changing one to suit your own needs. That idea, more than anything, is what grates on me – if you don’t like a tenet of a religion, find a different one, or be agnostic, atheist, “spiritual but not religious”, or whatever. No one is forcing you to be Christian, or Muslim, or whatever.

    From a sociological perspective, I will point out that gay relationships are essentially neutral, akin to friendships: no gay relationship has ever, or will ever, produce a child. Our government doesn’t have much of an interest in gay relationships, except isofar as gay men are almost fifty times as likely to have AIDS as their straight counterparts.

    Like

  8. When it comes to gay people, we love saying, “Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin!” This is a neat way of expressing doctrine, but how many of us really respond well to someone saying, “I love you but I just can’t stand what you do?” This is hardly a true portrayal of the gospel message.

    No matter how well intentioned some might be, “Love the sinner and hate the sin” is an artificial and pretended form of empathy and it rings hollow. It refuses to realistically understand that the being and the doing cannot be artificially separated and that some sort of expression of the core orientation is as natural for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. If every expression of homosexual affection is ruled out, the homosexual person is ruled out. And a heterosexual need look no further than his or her own core sexual orientation to understand that and to identify with the corresponding felt needs of his or her homosexual neighbors.

    As to your suggestion that gay Christian people find another religion: Did black people abandon the church and find another religion despite the fact that it shamefully took the church over 18 centuries to address the problem of racism? I should say not. Neither will gay people. The Scriptures are ours too. Sorry, but you can’t have them all to yourself.

    Need I remind you that over the years we Christians have found “proofs” in our Bibles that slavery is God-ordained, that women and blacks should not be allowed to vote, that interracial marriage is wrong, that women should neither preach not wear lipstick, and on and on. The Bible verses that once footnoted these notions are all still in the Bible.
    Whether it be on issues of science, ethics or doctrine, the church’s positions have often had to be drastically revised.

    Like

    1. Actually, the Bible still says that the role of pastor and elder is for men. You err in assuming that all changes are accurate.

      The scriptures are for everyone, but everyone doesn’t get their own version of them.

      The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians can see these truths:

      100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
      100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
      100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
      0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

      It is wrong for you to compare black people to homosexuals. Skin color is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not.

      Claims of “core orientation” prove nothing. Our core orientation is to sin. Jesus is the solution. I won’t apologize for not indulging someone’s “felt need” to sin.

      Like

    2. It refuses to realistically understand that the being and the doing cannot be artificially separated and that some sort of expression of the core orientation is as natural for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. If every expression of homosexual affection is ruled out, the homosexual person is ruled out. And a heterosexual need look no further than his or her own core sexual orientation to understand that and to identify with the corresponding felt needs of his or her homosexual neighbors.

      Other people may buy that argument, but not this 30-something waiting-for-marriage Single woman – a woman who has always had a deep intuitive feeling that she would never find anyone, but still wants to live her life with dignity.

      Not having sex is not the end of the world. Frankly, I think I have a lot more to fear from the normalisation of homosexual acts (which, in deference to Neil, I will not enumerate here) that are pushed on heterosexuals than I ever do from chastity. And I have too much respect for my gay friends to pretend that their identity is nothing more than what they do in the bedroom.

      Like

  9. I’m glad I found this blog. We are confronting the same questions posed on it right now with another attempt of the group who want to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine. They have collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November. This initiative was defeated in 2010 by the Maine voters.
    My 11 year old daughter read the article in the paper and told me that she is opposed to same-sex marriage because children need a mommy and a daddy and if everyone married someone of the same sex, we wouldn’t have any more babies! She couldn’t imagine just having 2 mommies because she would miss all the things her dad has taught her- Children see things so clearly.
    My feeling is, sex outside marriage is wrong and marriage by its definition is the blending of two unlike things-it’s not used to describe the combining of like things.

    Like

  10. Alex, do you really think I’m going to buy the “some people have made mistakes, so we can’t be sure of anything” nonsense you are peddling?

    The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians can see these truths:

    100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
    100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
    100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
    0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

    Yes, false teachers — like you — will teach the opposite of the Bible to advance their personal agenda to be more popular or wealthy or to justify their sins. But your logic is groundless. Just people have made mistakes doesn’t mean the majority view is always wrong.

    And you make the pathetic error of equating skin color or race (morally neutral) with sexual behavior (not morally neutral).

    I know the false teaching gay agenda advocates like to pretend that some people disagree so we just can’t be sure. But I’ve read the whole Bible many times and studied the verses in question in detail. This isn’t even close, and deep down I think you know it.

    Yes, we can all make mistakes, and you are a shining example of that. Your ministry of choice is to teach the opposite of what the Bible says.

    Like

  11. Alex H., bringing up women preaching is the same, or almost the same, as bringing up women pastors; I say it is a distinction without a difference, if you think they are separate spheres. And I say that the Bible is clear — women shouldn’t teach or have authority (in the church) over a man, and shouldn’t preach. If you would believe otherwise, you need to bring a positive text that supports your point. Same with your ideas about homosexual behavior — if you think it is acceptable to God and accepted by God just as much as heterosexual behavior, then you need to bring a positive text that demonstrates it, and not just say that the (very, many) verses that speak against it are being taken out of context, and don’t really mean what htey say.

    Like

    1. That right there (whether women can teach) is a point of contention between those who interpret Scripture literally and those who do so figuratively.

      – Literal believer: Paul says that women are not allowed to teach.
      – Figurative believer: Paul said that because women of his day often could not even read or write, much less speak with authority and knowledge about important subjects like being a good Christian.

      A lot of stuff in the Bible is like that. Not all. but a lot. Many of the splits that have occurred in the church over the years have been over whether to take some point figuratively or literally.

      Like

      1. Neil – quick question. If we believe that women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men, why do we distinguish between female pastors and, say, female Sunday school teachers / Bible study leaders?

        Another one: Doesn’t Paul also say that the women are not to speak in church at all? One explanation I heard for this was that in Paul’s day the women (as I noted before) were illiterate and unlearned compared to the men ( see the way that many Middle Eastern countries do not educate their girls very much even today) and were disrupting the service by asking questions of their husbands. It was getting to the point where the pastor couldn’t make himself heard over the racket. Supposedly the women and men sat on separate sides of the church in those days, making the cross-talk even worse.

        It’s also hard to reconcile these “anti-female” with the ways that Jesus, Paul himself, and other Biblical figures recognize and appreciate the gestures of various women in Biblical times, isn’t it?

        You’re a learned man; you know more about this stuff than I do, but I would like an explanation for this if we’re to insist that Paul’s mandate be taken literally today. At the very least, shouldn’t we be consistent?

        Like

      2. Hi Matt,

        I think the main distinction is that women aren’t to be pastors and elders. It isn’t about the value of men vs. the women, but roles. They do have equal value, as evidenced by the way Jesus and Paul dealt with them and spoke of them (as you noted). But for God’s good reasons He gave some different roles to each.

        This link has a lot of good answers to specific objections — http://carm.org/women-in-ministry . Some of the passages do hinge on whether a word is translated as “wife” or a female in general. Some people on the liberal side are too literal as well when they try to dismiss Paul. Do they seriously think that Paul expected women to go to these house churches and never say a word once they went through the door?

        Like

      3. How ’bout, “any believer should read the Bible and see if there is a reason given for Paul’s saying that women should not preach/teach”? Because it’s there in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 — man was made first in creation, and the woman was deceived by Satan. And what was that deception? It was, “Did God really say that?” Hmm, that sounds extremely familiar… where have I heard that recently….? Oh, yeah, that’s right — in many if not all of your comments on this post!

        This passage demonstrates, imo, that women are in general more easily deceived, or more likely to be deceived by Satan, and we are disqualified from preaching and teaching because of that — NOT because they were illiterate. [Further, I will say that if the *real* reason was illiteracy, it would have been far easier and more accurate to say, “Don’t allow illiterate people to teach the literate; only those who can read the Bible (Law and Prophets, apostolic letters, etc.) are eligible to teach. But it doesn’t say that, nor anything like it.] We women do tend to be more soft-hearted, and willing to go along with things that men don’t. I remember from (I think) 1989, the trial of the teenage Menendez brothers, who killed their rich parents to get their inheritance or their freedom. Some of the female jurors admitted that they thought that the brothers had indeed murdered their parents, but did not want to convict them to the fullest extent of the law, to sentence them justly, because they were now orphans. Uh, what?

        This is not to say that only women are or can be false teachers, nor that no man can be deceived; indeed, most of the false teachers of the world have been men, and many men have been deceived in one way or another. But, in general, women are more easily deceived than men (while men are more likely to willfully sin). Also, in the sections that list qualifications for bishops, preachers, and pastors, included in the list is that they must be the husband of one wife — something difficult for a homosexual man or any woman to be.

        Though you did not direct the question about Sunday school teachers toward me, I will answer it anyway. First, notice that there is no such thing as Sunday school in the Bible. There was family worship described; and all in a preaching or teaching role are delineated as men. The only exceptions that come to mind are 1) that Priscilla joined with her husband Aquilla in instructing Alexander (who knew only about John the Baptist) about Jesus Christ; yet this seems to have been a private meeting, and not including the entire church, or even any other than those three. 2) Older women are to instruct younger women (either corporately or individually).

        Jesus did not shrink back from making waves; He didn’t “go along to get along”; when He saw something that was not right, He taught against it, even though it went against the religious leaders of the day. He called the religious leaders of the day “Satan’s spawn” (“you are of your father, the Devil”), the offspring of snakes, and said and did many other things that angered them, including removing them by force from the Temple. Included in His closest circle of disciples was a hated tax collector, men from mostly menial occupations, uneducated men, some possibly illiterate, and none of the “best” and “most religious” people of the day. Nor any women. Why did He choose no women as teachers, preachers, and evangelists? It can’t be because “that would have been too extreme”, or “that wouldn’t have been accepted” — He was crucified for what He did preach, teach, and say — are we to believe that He was scared to “rock the boat” and ordain women as teachers and evangelists? He came to do His Father’s will, and at the end of His life declared that He had done all that the Father had told Him to do — yet He wouldn’t ordain women, even though that was what God wanted, because that wouldn’t have been acceptable in that day? Really?

        Like

      4. Right on. Women are by nature more emotional than men, and that is certainly why they are more easily led into cults and other false teachings. Just look at how women fawn all over Beth Moore’s emotionalism – and Joyce Meyer’s! But the empirical evidence demonstrates that every church which has put women in the pastoral role have gone liberal: Methodists, Episcopalians, ELCA, PCUSA, UCC, et al. It becomes the first indicator as to whether a particular assembly will be liberal.

        Oh, and in Roman Catholicism, notice it is virtually always women who see the “virgin Mary”! (I don’t know of men doing so, but I don’t rule that out)

        Like

      5. So your response is, “I’m a woman, and even I think women should not be teaching?”

        That’s perfectly fine with me, actually. I remember riding my bike one evening and passing a Methodist church in my neighborhood, and noting that the sign out front contained the word “Pastor:” followed by a female name. I remember thinking, “I’m really not comfortable with the idea of a female pastor, no matter how learned and mature she is. I can’t really put my finger on why, but for some reason I simply don’t like the idea.”

        Had I said this to the woman I am involved with (yes, she is a believer) I would certainly have been called “sexist.” My mother would say the same.

        At the time I chalked it up to having been raised a certain way, or that it must be one of those cultural mores that has stuck with me. But I never considered that it was really Biblical, having been taught up until now that Paul’s admonition was not to be taken literally in 21st century America.

        Like

      6. Matt, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

        Throwing labels around is a convenient way for people to shut down a conversation. :-/ But if this is correct, your girlfriend (?) is ultimately calling God (not just you) sexist, and essentially accusing Him of sin. She may just not understand, perhaps has never been taught that it could/should be understood literally, but I would hope that those who claim to believe the Bible, to believe in Jesus, would really take heed to what is written, and try to conform themselves to the Word, rather than to the world. I pray she comes around.

        Like

      7. [Btw, I just realized I made an error — I overlooked the name of the poster, and was thinking it was Alex who made the previous comment, and instead it was Matt. Sorry about that. Everything else stands; but I don’t think that Matt had made any previous comment, so my comment about his previous comments on the post would therefore make no sense.]

        Like

      8. The picture and testimony of the Biblical text is for man to be a type for Christ and the woman to be a type for the church (the bride of Christ). This is what Paul constantly has in view in determining the position of a woman vs. the man. The church never exercises authority or teaches Christ. Most of the problems in the church today and in families stem from a basic lack of understanding and vision for what God’s purpose really is. Paul brings this out in Eph. 5 and in 1 Tim 2.. When Paul says that women will be saved (preserved) through child bearing, he may have had in mind child care in the family but by extension he also has in mind the fruit of a union between Christ and His bride the church. Paul says as much in Eph. 5:32. When we begin to see the larger picture and calling for each one of us and catch a vision for how God can be glorified in the church and in the family it will relieve a lot of the selfish stress we impose on Christianity.

        Like

  12. Alex H., I’ve provided links that address all of your fallacious arguments. I checked out your site and it is the same bad reasoning that only one of the three types of pro-gay theologians bother to use. The others concede what the Bible really says.

    I’ve come across “orthodox pro-gay Christians” like you before. One liked to pose as an otherwise-orthodox guy on conservative blogs but on his own blog would describe his experiences with gay camping, what with the flexible sleeping arrangements, tubes of lube on the picnic tables and dozens of naked guys hanging out in the pool. Oh, and he was with his “husband.” Yeah, truly orthodox!

    I have no idea what your story is, but I am highly skeptical that you are as evangelical as you appear. You know, wolves in sheep’s clothing and all that.

    And no, I’m not going to feed a troll here who is marketing his false theology. I’ve provided plenty of links to my writings already. People have had ample opportunity to show me where I’ve erred without trying in vain to plug their sites.

    Like

    1. Oh, and we know all about exegesis, reading in context, what the writers intended, etc. I’ve done whole lesson series on how to read the Bible properly. It is a combination of irritating and amusing that you pretend we haven’t done that.

      You worship a god that put 31,173 verses in the Bible but forgot or was too politically correct to add a single line indicating that he was in favor of SSM.

      Like

    2. Final thought — I went to your blasphemous page again and laughed out loud. As I predicted when I saw your title about Sodom, you conveniently ignored the references in Jude and Peter but remembered to include Ezekiel. You false teachers are so predictable!

      And your bit on Lev. 18 — yeah, it is all about cult prostitution, except that it doesn’t mention cult prostitution, cults or prostitution. God inspired the writers to note it plainly and simply, just like in Romans 1 — almost as if He knew that false teachers would come thousands of years later and convince itching ears of what it “really” meant.

      You should really repent and believe. Dedicating your precious time on earth to calling evil good and good evil is unwise.

      Like

  13. Two things –
    Firstly, Kathy, your comment suggesting that Christian councillors have success with helping homosexuals abandon that orientation. The reality is that generally Christian councillors have very little success with changing the sexual attraction of anyone. You can find examples of people who claim to have gone from gay to straight, but generally you will find they are talking about their behaviour rather than their orientation. IE they begin behaving in a non-sexual or even in a heterosexual way, but they remain homosexually attracted. In other cases, they report their homosexual attractions are reduced. This can be the case, but note that libido does reduce with age, so it can be a matter of their sexual attraction reducing in intensity rather than changing direction. Also, some are walking in faith, believing they have already changed, and unfortunately, when they have a bad day, the reality of their unchanged orientation becomes apparent again. But whatever the case, it should be remembered that it’s not the orientation that is the sin, its the acting on it that is sinful.

    2nd thing. Recently a video by one Matthew Vines has been circulating. This video argues that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships, and it’s become quite popular. eMatters may like to provide some apologetics about that. The best refutation Im aware of at present, is found at http://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/homosexual-marriage/

    Like


    1. I said that Christian counselors have *more* success than their secular counterparts, because they can point to the real cure for addiction — being filled with God, whereas secular counselors cannot, and can only “chip away at the edges”. This does not mean that they will have great success — that most of their homosexual counselees will become heterosexual; I’m sure that there are a lot of contributing factors that affect the level of success, including the level of desire of the homosexual person to “put off the old man, and put on the new man”, and how actively he engages in so doing. Does this mean that he will ever reach 100% success? No, we are all sinners, and remain so until we die; even Paul, who was so filled with Christian fervor, bemoaned his own sin, but that didn’t mean he wallowed in it, nor called it righteousness, as so many “Christian” homosexuals and sympathizers do today.

      However, there are many homosexuals who have, mostly through the power of God, turned their back on that lifestyle, and become heterosexual. Some of them talk about it as if a switch were thrown — it was that immediate and complete; others describe a continuing, lengthy struggle. The problem that often arises, when talking about this situation, is that many people believe that homosexuals cannot change, so that when confronted with former homosexuals who have changed, (such as D.L. Foster), they usually say, “He wasn’t **really** homosexual to start with”. IOW, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy — if a homosexual changes, he wasn’t really homosexual to start with; and if a homosexual “tries to change” and can’t, it’s proof that homosexuality can’t be changed! I recently read an article (wish I’d saved it!), written by a former homosexual, who was so thoroughly homosexual, that he even contemplated marrying his long-time lover; but he became a Christian and a heterosexual. A complete change.

      In regards to that link you gave at the end of your comment, I haven’t read it all, but did read up to the part where he says that “being same-sex attracted isn’t the problem” (or something to that effect). Eh, yes and no; while I would say that it is worse to act on the attraction than to have the attraction, Jesus did say that whoever looks at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. So, I think this author goes too far, and essentially says that homosexual lust is okay, even implying that Jesus perhaps lusted (in that He was “tempted”), which I think is near-blasphemy. Yes, He was tempted in all points like as we are, so perhaps He had the opportunity to lust (which could be a temptation), but He could not have actually lusted, and indeed said lust is as bad as the physical sin; therefore, if He lusted, it would have been a sin, and He could no longer be God. What Jesus was teaching in that passage (and in other similar ones, such as that hating your brother without cause is tantamount to murdering him), is that what is in your heart is what drives your actions, so if you have lust or hatred in your heart, it means that if you could (and get away with it), then you would do the sin — you have sinned in your heart, even if not with your body. But it’s the same in God’s eyes.

      Like

    2. Here’s my view, “stasisonline.”

      Homosexual urges/inclinations are a mental disorder. (Incidentally, this is the view held by the American Psychiatric Association until the 1970s, when it was abandoned for political rather than scientific reasons.) Spiritually speaking, one could place it in a similar category to Down’s Syndrome, autism, or dyslexia. It’s a weakness, a flaw. Indeed, based on what I’ve read there is some brain structure which is smaller in gay men than in straight men. (I don’t know what the story is with lesbians.) Knowing the difficulties that gays have usually faced trying to get along with the rest of Western Civilization (to say nothing of others), I doubt very much that anyone voluntarily chooses to have such urges. Furthermore, there’s nothing whatsoever in the Bible which says that it’s sinful to be tempted in this way, any more than it’s sinful to be tempted to steal or covet. (The Bible does place a special emphasis on sexual sin in at least one place I’m aware of, but that verse doesn’t single out homosexual conduct, but all illicit sex.)

      Homosexual behavior, or acting on those urges, is conversely very much a choice. Giving in to temptation is always a willful decision on someone’s part. Unlike secular persons (especially those on the Left), Christians don’t believe that “you are what you do.” We draw a distinction between personal identity and behavior. And as Neil has pointed out, 100% of Bible verses concerning homosexual behavior condemn it.

      Failing to make this distinction is the source of most of our society’s hang-ups with gays, gay-ness, and gay sex. Being that many Christians even don’t seem to be mature enough to realize this, it accounts for how unwelcome that many gays feel in church, and why some have pointed out that we don’t do a good enough job of living out our faith. (Does anyone?)

      Now, as to whether homosexuality can be “cured” by counseling. Two key points need to be made:

      1) God ALWAYS has the power to cure anything or transform a person from the inside, down to the very deepest reaches of his heart and the marrow of his bones. As Jesus said, with God all things are possible.

      2) HOWEVER…God’s abilities not being in question, there remains the other question of His will – that is, what He DESIRES to do. I’m a bit critical of those who go around saying “pray the gay away.” It gives outsiders the wrong idea. It might work, it might not.

      It doesn’t always work, because God doesn’t always choose to respond to prayer in the way we think He ought to. Indeed, the Apostle Paul, quite possibly the greatest Christian who ever lived, suffered from an eye disease. (He referred to it as a “thorn in my flesh.”) Despite being a man of great faith and incredible works in the name of the Holy Spirit, and Paul’s many requests, God did not take away the thorn from Paul’s flesh, not in this life. (The next life is an entirely different matter.) My belief is that the Lord decided, for whatever reason, that this was simply Paul’s cross to bear as he walked on the Earth…perhaps as a lesson to the rest of us believers that we too would have crosses (discomforts, maladies, and problems) to bear. In some cases, God even chooses to leave our problems and weaknesses in place in order to draw us closer to Him (as we learn to rely on Him in our weakness, not our strength) or even to teach a lesson to someone else we come in contact with.

      The Lord may have done this to Paul in order to discourage us from thinking that He’s going to magically come riding in and rescue us from all our problems…whether they be medical, financial, emotional….or gay sex temptations.

      Hope this helps.

      Like

      1. Matt,
        The suggestion about the smaller “brain structure” was a bogus claim by a homosexual doing studies which were improperly done (with a bias, of course) and has been refuted by legitimate research. There has been no “defect” or genetic flaw yet found.

        What has been found is that the vast majority (and some say “all”) of those who practice homosexual behavior had problems in their growing up environment.

        Like

      2. Right, Glenn. The “brain structure” study was done on an area of the brain the size of snowflakes, it was a small study (I think fewer than a dozen in each group), and there was much overlap in the size of that particular structure, so while the straight men *generally* had a bigger (or was it smaller?) whatchamacallit than the homosexual men, it was by no means conclusive. Besides, it also assumes that brain structure cannot change, and we know that it can. I remember reading many years ago about London cabbies, and it was determined that the portion of the brain that stores mental maps was much larger in these people than in the average person… but of course, people aren’t “born cabbies” — it is the repeated exposure to, and necessity of learning/knowing the convoluted London streets, that makes these men have a well-developed mental map area.

        The idea that people are “born gay” is homosexual propaganda [see here]. It is quite successful, because nobody would want to be mean to redheads [or fill in the genetic characteristic] simply because of something they cannot change; in a similar way, because non-Christians (and far too many ignorant and/or non-thinking Christians), have swallowed the lie that homosexual desires are inborn, they don’t want to be mean or “discriminatory” against someone who was “born that way” or “can’t help it”.

        I am sure that there are many people who truly feel like they can’t help it; but we don’t know their background and motivation. In many cases, if you were to know the past of these people, you would find sexual deviancy in their lives — for instance, they were molested as children, so women may be scared of men (since it was a man who raped her as a little girl), or men may become molesters as a way to regain the power they lost as a molested child. These are just examples, and I’m sure that there are many other reasons, whether the person can remember them or not; but because these things may have happened very early in childhood, these people may feel like it was inborn, because they can’t remember a time before the molestation, or (as is often the case in homosexual men), never really identified with their fathers so are looking for that lost childhood male bond in their lovers.

        Like

      3. Not only that, but there were good questions as to whether the subjects were homosexual or heterosexual, since the evidence was not positive. But when you are a liberal pushing an agenda, you don’t let facts like that get in the way!

        Like

    3. I’ve now read the whole thing, and find it mostly good; other than the quibble I noted in the other comment (Jesus saying that lusting after a woman was the practically same as committing adultery with her), I would say that the author (is it you? it’s the same user name) doesn’t press home hard enough that “sexual orientation” is a modern term. He notes that the pro-homosexual lobby rightly shows that the Bible doesn’t recognize that people are “born gay”, but only ever talks about actions, rather than inherent, in-born, genetic characteristics. They then take this as some sort of proof that modern homosexuals are somehow different from ancient homosexuals — I suppose that nowadays, homosexuals are born that way, whereas in the past, it was a lifestyle choice. I would say that the Bible doesn’t talk about being “born gay” **because that’s a false idea**, and nobody is born gay but they become homosexually attracted due to sin (perhaps molestation, perhaps being taught that homosexuality is normal and inborn, so if they ever have any homo-erotic thoughts or ever question if they may be one of the 10% of homosexuals that they are taught exist, then that is proof that they must be homosexual, so they then act on those thoughts, and then become hardened in that lifestyle), and then act on it.

      Homosexual acts — male or female — are universally condemned in the Bible, with no mercy shown due to innate characteristics, and no thought nor mention given to any possibility of “can’t help it”-ism. The pro-homo lobby would have us believe that that is an oversight on God’s part, so at best they put forth an argument from silence, which the author of that post you linked to correctly showed is not enough. But I would go further and say that the reason no mention nor even hint of “sexual orientation” is given in the Bible, is because it simply doesn’t exist.

      Like

    1. We don’t, for sure.

      It’s a speculation by theologians, in light of the fact that Paul specifically says “See what large letters I make with my hand!” at one point. A person with poor eyesight would be more likely to write like that. If he were just old and had eye problems that were natural result of age, it seems less likely he’d be so distraught over it.

      Paper was expensive and hard-to-come by back then, and one is left to assume that Paul wouldn’t be wasting it if he had a choice in the matter. But he believed the Holy Spirit had inspired him to share some very important teachings with the early Christian church, and so he went ahead and used up some of that expensive paper to send his letters (which later became books of the Bible). That’s how it was explained to me, anyway.

      Even if it wasn’t an eye disease, however, something was clearly bothering him, something God didn’t heal him of or take away, for reasons that God never explains. That’s the important part. It all ties-in with faith; a very important recurring theme in the Bible. Faith that God has reasons for doing (or not doing) what He does, even if they aren’t immediately clear to us.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s