A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality

[cnorman18]

Bruce W. Lowe wrote “A Letter to Louise� in 2002, at the age of 94. I heard about this, and when I looked at it, I thought it the most remarkable document I have read on the subject of Christianity vis-à-vis homosexuality. It’s an eloquent and scholarly treatise, from a conservative Baptist minister, and is widely circulated on the Internet among gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.

A Letter to Louise; A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality

From my own perspective as a former Methodist minister, I think that this is an important document that ought to be required reading for Christians who are concerned with homosexual issues. I think that one day, it will be regarded as a foundational document, the beginning of a sea change in the Christian faith analogous to eventual Christian opposition to slavery and segregation.

Let's all hope so.

[FinalEnigma]

Aha. so sins have been made sins becasue God feels like it? I see then. you wish to claim that he forbids things becasue he doesn't like them, rather than to protect us?


See, The law was made to serve man. Man was not made to serve the law. The laws God has given to us are there for our own benefit. Adultery is wrong becasue it harms people. Lieing is wrong because it harms. Murder is wrong because it harms. and Homosexuality is wrong because it's wrong.

This is what your argument amounts to.

No, my argument amounts to this:
Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Hebrews 13:4).
Marriage is defined by Jesus Christ Himself as between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-5).

Personally, I think this is blowing his statement way out of proportion. He wasn't defining marriage, he was answering a question about divorce. He wasn't even talking about homosexuality, and they, so far as we know, were not even aware of homosexuality as a state of being at the time.

Homosexuals, by definition, cannot be married, and therefore homosexual relations are condemned.

Actually, there is nothing in the definition of homosexuals that says they cannot be married(which is what, grammatically, you said) - only in your definition of marriage (well, that's actually still wrong. You just don't believe people can marry people of the same gender. and even that depends on what state you are in).

God's silence doesn't give us authority for a practice.

Really? Better get off that computer then, because God didn't say you could use it.

And I wouldn't cook with a stove either, or drive, or ride a bike, or read books, or eat popsicles...

Did God ever command us to eat?

In Genesis 6, when God told Noah to make the ark out of gopherwood, he didn't have to specifically give a "thou shalt not" for every other possible kind of wood Noah could have used for the ark.

And this is a false analogy. using gopherwood excludes using any other kind of wood automatically. saying that men and women are supposed to get married does not exclude men and men or women and women from getting married any more than saying 'dogs make great pets' means that pet chinchillas are horrible. They are not mutually exclusive.


by the way, what does this even mean?

It must be hard for you to kick against the goads.

[Amos]

Personally, I think this is blowing his statement way out of proportion. He wasn't defining marriage, he was answering a question about divorce. He wasn't even talking about homosexuality, and they, so far as we know, were not even aware of homosexuality as a state of being at the time.

If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing?

Homosexuals, by definition, cannot be married, and therefore homosexual relations are condemned.

Actually, there is nothing in the definition of homosexuals that says they cannot be married(which is what, grammatically, you said) - only in your definition of marriage (well, that's actually still wrong. You just don't believe people can marry people of the same gender. and even that depends on what state you are in).

Thank you, grammar police. You knew what my point was. You can't deal with it, so you resort to grammar criticism. I gave you Jesus' definition of marriage. If you don't like that, your argument is with Him, not me. And it really doesn't matter to me what the state says when it contradicts what God says (Acts 5:29).

God's silence doesn't give us authority for a practice.

Really? Better get off that computer then, because God didn't say you could use it.

And I wouldn't cook with a stove either, or drive, or ride a bike, or read books, or eat popsicles...

Did God ever command us to eat?

The computer, at the present time, is an expedient to help me "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I have generic authority from the command to "contend earnestly," meaning I can keep that commandment in any number of ways. I could write letters, print booklets, preach sermons, etc. If God had said, "only discuss religious topics in face to face conversations," then I would have specific authority for that, and all other forms of religious debate would be precluded.

You have erected a straw man, but flail away.

In Genesis 6, when God told Noah to make the ark out of gopherwood, he didn't have to specifically give a "thou shalt not" for every other possible kind of wood Noah could have used for the ark.

And this is a false analogy. using gopherwood excludes using any other kind of wood automatically. saying that men and women are supposed to get married does not exclude men and men or women and women from getting married any more than saying 'dogs make great pets' means that pet chinchillas are horrible. They are not mutually exclusive.

No, you are the one using a false analogy. In Matthew 19, Jesus argues against divorce for any cause by showing that God had created male and female in the beginning, that the man was supposed to cling to his wife, and that man was not supposed to separate what God has joined together. What would Jesus have had to have said to convince you that marriage was established by God to be between a man and a woman for a lifetime? Jesus is not making some sort of a value judgment in Matthew 19. He's stating the historical facts regarding marriage to show the Pharisees that they were wrong about divorce for any cause.

by the way, what does this even mean?

It must be hard for you to kick against the goads.

Look it up.

[Amos]

Bruce W. Lowe wrote “A Letter to Louise� in 2002, at the age of 94. I heard about this, and when I looked at it, I thought it the most remarkable document I have read on the subject of Christianity vis-à-vis homosexuality. It’s an eloquent and scholarly treatise, from a conservative Baptist minister, and is widely circulated on the Internet among gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.

A Letter to Louise; A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality

From my own perspective as a former Methodist minister, I think that this is an important document that ought to be required reading for Christians who are concerned with homosexual issues. I think that one day, it will be regarded as a foundational document, the beginning of a sea change in the Christian faith analogous to eventual Christian opposition to slavery and segregation.

Let's all hope so.

I was going to print up the letter to Louise and answer it point by point, but I don't have 10 years and 96 pages of printer paper to spare. I went ahead and dealt with his first point, though.

One. Homosexuality is an unchangeable nature; it is not a lifestyle choice.
Louise, this is an essential basis for understanding homosexuality. There may still be a few knowledgeable people who do not believe this, but practically all behavioral scientists now accept this statement as a fact. Down through history same-gender sex was universally considered to be acts by (heterosexual) people who had chosen to engage in perverted sex. Advances in the sciences, particularly psychology, in the last 100 years have shown that not all people are heterosexual; some are homosexual, and their homosexuality is an unchangeable nature, not a choice.
The concept of a homosexual nature first appeared in print in Europe in 1869 and in the United States in 1889. Acceptance of it spread slowly over the next 100 years. Freud accepted it and discussed homosexuality rather extensively in the first half of the twentieth century. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) officially recognized it in 1973 when it declassified homosexuality as being a mental illness. The American Psychological Association followed with similar action two years later.

Regarding the 1973 declassification of homosexuality as being a mental illness, Mark Alexander wrote in "Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and the Christian Response," located at http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2006/12 ... -response/ :
In 1952, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the official catalogue of mental disorders used by mental health professionals, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the revised DSM II reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. But in the midst of the sexual revolution, homosexual protestors began picketing the APA's annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality not be identified as pathology. In 1973, under enormous pressure from homosexual activists, the APA removed homosexuality from its the DSM III edition to the dismay of about 40 percent of psychiatrists -- particularly those who specialized in treating homosexuals.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry," writes: "The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."
But the APA is not likely to reverse their position.

Helmut Thielicke, a theologian conservatives respect highly and quote often, recognized in his work, The Ethics of Sex, written some forty years ago, that at least some gays and lesbians have "constitutional homosexuality," and therefore we must "accept" the fact that it is "incurable," that "our attitude toward [it] changes" [his italics]. and that it is "a divine dispensation" and "a talent that is to be invested (Luke 19:13f.)."1-1

John Calvin, a theologian conservatives respect highly and quote often, recognized in his work that babies are born depraved sinners. And should the poor, unelected little devils die, their souls will bust hell wide open.
I say this to point out the fact that conservative theologians can be, and often are, full of baloney.

Evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable includes: (a) ten thousand suicides each year of young homosexuals unwilling to face life with that orientation; (b) the high percentage of homosexuals who go to psychotherapists desperately wanting to change their orientation, and then (c) the very small percentage of them reportedly being changed after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars being spent in psychotherapy; (d) the millions of homosexuals who remain "in the closet," not acting like homosexuals and not wanting anyone to learn of their orientation; (e) the thousands who are reported as coming to pastors and counselors devastated to have to recognize their unchangeable orientation and wanting assistance in dealing with it.

Someone please explain to me how the points above labeled a through e constitute evidence that homosexuality is unchangeable. (a) Thousands of young heterosexuals kill themselves every year because they are unwilling to face whatever problems they have in life. That doesn’t mean the problems they had were not solvable or were unchangeable. (b) and (c) The fact that even a small percentage of homosexuals are “changed after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars being spent in psychotherapy� proves his proposition to be false. (d) Prove there are millions of homosexuals “who remain “in the closet.�� They’re “in the closet.� How do you know they are homosexuals? And how does this prove homosexuality is unchangeable? (e) Homosexuality is unchangeable because thousands are reported coming to pastors devastated because of their unchangeable orientation? What a grand circular argument!

A few, after psychotherapy, report successful change. It is believed that most of these are not true homosexuals, but because of some trauma in childhood they adopted homosexual traits; with these, psychotherapy can often do away with the results of the trauma and lead the person back to his or her natural heterosexuality. The results of extensive psychotherapy with homosexuals who desperately wanted to change their orientation have been studied, and several books document the disheartening lack of success of their time, money and efforts. In 1998 the APA adopted a position opposing any therapy designed to change a person's sexual orientation. The APA President stated, "There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy is effective in changing a person's sexual orientation. There is, however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive."1-2

A few report successful change. Therefore, homosexuality is not unchangeable. That second sentence sounds like the person that believes in once saved always saved when they claim that if someone falls away, they were never really a true Christian. Their argument is not very good, either. And he begins the sentence with “It is believed…� Really? How convincing.
Regarding whether or not homosexuals should be treated for their homosexuality, Mark Alexander writes in "Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response":
Indeed, there is hope for readjustment of sexual orientation, despite assertions to the contrary by homosexual advocacy groups, whose clear social and political agendas risk being undermined by such hope. Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, writes, "The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal."
"This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation -- not only in his sexual behavior ... and to enjoy heterosexuality," notes Dr. Spitzer. "Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. ... Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda."

Scientists and sociologists do not know what causes homosexuality, just as they don't know what causes heterosexuality, but virtually all are convinced that whatever the cause, it is unchangeable. Homosexuals are homosexual by nature; it is never something they choose.

The assertion is made but unproven.

[FinalEnigma]

Personally, I think this is blowing his statement way out of proportion. He wasn't defining marriage, he was answering a question about divorce. He wasn't even talking about homosexuality, and they, so far as we know, were not even aware of homosexuality as a state of being at the time.

If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing?

Homosexuals, by definition, cannot be married, and therefore homosexual relations are condemned.

Actually, there is nothing in the definition of homosexuals that says they cannot be married(which is what, grammatically, you said) - only in your definition of marriage (well, that's actually still wrong. You just don't believe people can marry people of the same gender. and even that depends on what state you are in).

Thank you, grammar police. You knew what my point was. You can't deal with it, so you resort to grammar criticism. I gave you Jesus' definition of marriage. If you don't like that, your argument is with Him, not me. And it really doesn't matter to me what the state says when it contradicts what God says (Acts 5:29).

Actually, I was playing with your grammar becasue it was funny.

besides, your point has been addressed repeatedly - read the article linked in the OP, for an example.

Further, telling people that they should cling to their wife and not get a divorce has nothing to do with homosexuality.

God's silence doesn't give us authority for a practice.

Really? Better get off that computer then, because God didn't say you could use it.

And I wouldn't cook with a stove either, or drive, or ride a bike, or read books, or eat popsicles...

Did God ever command us to eat?

The computer, at the present time, is an expedient to help me "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I have generic authority from the command to "contend earnestly," meaning I can keep that commandment in any number of ways. I could write letters, print booklets, preach sermons, etc. If God had said, "only discuss religious topics in face to face conversations," then I would have specific authority for that, and all other forms of religious debate would be precluded.

You have erected a straw man, but flail away.

A straw man? you're the one who said that God's silence doesn't give us permission for a practice.

is anything we do in pursuit of fulfilling a command of God acceptable, and anything done for any reason other than fulfilling a command of God which is not expressly permitted in the bible a sin?

by the way, what does this even mean?

It must be hard for you to kick against the goads.

Look it up.

as you wish. Having looked it up, I find it to be a personal attack and condescending:

Ultimately, "kick against the goads" is a metaphor. Goads were used to prod cattle and livestock forward, and they would frequently kick back at them, only causing themselves more injury. The thought is that Paul has been kicking against God's "goading," and God has been trying to urge him to go in a certain direction.

The relation in modern day is that Paul is telling us that people still "kick against the goads" today. There is a way of right life & right belief but we fight it. And in doing so, we aren't hurting God... we are only hurting ourselves.

Can we avoid such?

[Polygamist]

With better scientific understanding of DNA/genetics, we'll be able to genetically engineer humans in our likeness and then implant women or mature them through lab control conditions. I believe scientists have already started on small scales by tampering with embryos to facilitate certain biological outcomes, eye color, and maybe up to or including even the sex of the infant. Then there's also cloning. I don't see why it's inconceivable that we also can't isolate the "sexuality (esp. gay) gene" and modify it, that is, assuming that genetics dominant cause for sexuality to begin with.

I don’t see that any of that has any relation or relevance to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is not a question for me going by my understanding of the Bible. The relevancy of my comment is if or what can we do to help those who struggle with a sexuality that may drive them to those abominable acts that God mentions so that way they won't be "sinning" anymore. I'm positing genetic modification as one potential option. I also wonder why couldn't an omnipotent God who does miracles, change the sexuality of these people Himself.

Going off of personal accounts, I wouldn't say that homosexuality is unchangeable, because some people have gone to gay to bi, which I believe is possible rather than going from gay to straight.

As someone once said, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence."

There are different types of evidence, and anecdotal evidence is one type. That is, unless these anecdotals are all proven false. My theory is that these so called ex-gays are not really straight have transitioned themselves to being bi.

Also, even if you're gay, that doesn't mean you have to act on it, and we do have the ability to control our actions to that extent, although not perfectly.

If you read the article, then you read the bit about how abstinence can be harmful. More below.

I do remember those were covered in points #4 and #8, I believe. While celibacy may cause harm "psychologically", but it is God you should be telling that to since He still doesn't allow same-sex acts but calls it a sin. My comment was about how to avoid sinning, which is the only factor that the Bible considers as being good with God, NOT psychological health.

And will God bring all of those people who committed same-sex acts back to life, like the ones who were killed or cut off by the community who were following instructions that God revealed to Moses?

Do you know what "cut off" means in the context of Jewish law? That would be amazing, since no one else claims to. It certainly wasn’t a death penalty; it seems to have something to do with a permanent loss of ritual purity. Some think it may mean that one will not inherit the Next Life; others that one’s heritage as a Jew was forfeit and one would be banished from the community - though that seems not to have happened. No one knows for sure.

In any case, that question makes no sense. We aren’t talking about what God did or does or might do - we’re talking about how humans judge homosexuality in relation to the topics of sin and redemption TODAY.

Your point is fine except that Leviticus 20:13 mentions that a person who commits same-sex acts is to be put to death. Cutting off someone means discontinuing relations with them, and banning them from the group is one way, but of course as Leviticus 20:13 suggests, ending their physical existence is another way.

Two. All people are created in the image of God. The homosexuality of gays and lesbians, created by God, is good and not evil.

This is vague. If I'm created in the image of God, then why couldn't ALL sinful acts be justified as being Godly rather than just the sinful act of of same-sex behavior? There are diseases that are genetic, people born with missing limbs among other handicaps, why would a god who has the "nature" of being loving and all-good produce humans in this way if being "created" in the image of God means that how humans would be is just a reflection of what or how God is?

This is the kind of remark that makes me doubt whether you actually read the article. In context, it isn’t vague at all; the concept is discussed in detail, and at great length. I fail to see why I should repeat it here if you've read it, as you claim.

The explanation provided in the article was insufficient in reconciling how an act being called a sin in the Bible equates to being created in God's image. God is PERFECT makes NO mistake, He is loving, and all-good. I fail to see how this is manifested in humans who make mistakes, sin, and in a world full of NATURAL evils, including hereditary diseases, handicaps, and I suppose if being "created" in the image of God means what you say, then all of these issues that causes SUFFERING in people is a reflection on a PERFECT, LOVING, and ALL-GOOD God. I highly doubt that.

Four. Several passages in the Bible speak of same-gender sex. In every instance, the Bible is talking about heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts. The Bible says nothing about innate homosexuality as we know it today or about people who are homosexuals.

Actually, this is an assumption because the Bible doesn't specify if it's referring to "inborn" homosexuality (sexuality has not even been conclusively proven to be inborn, but to be a product of many factors and some of these factors don't and can't take place until AFTER birth). It may be referring to BOTH homosexuals and bisexuals, or people who are just curious or all three - banning the behavior altogether. Besides, I have to ask, why would God treat "inborn" homosexuals one way, and "inborn" bisexuals or even anyone who wants to engage in same-sex acts, another way?

Once more; the essay makes this very clear, and you don't appear to be familiar with the argument. The existence of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and/or a sexual orientation was unknown at the time the Bible was written. There could be no references to such things, because there is no indication whatever that any consciousness of homosexuality, as we understand it today, even existed back then. The fact that only homosexual ACTS are referred to in Scripture is an enormous clue.

Unknown to who? Didn't an OMNISCIENT GOD reveal the commandments, including the very one that speaks about homosexuality, to Moses? Have you ever considered that homosexuality is NOT inborn and if it was that an all-knowing God would've factored that into his moral constructs? Going by the Bible, I believe that God and the Israelites of that time believed that homosexuality was a CHOICE, and if so that wouldn't be the first time that God (according to the Bible) disagrees with the current scientific understanding. As far as the same-sex "acts" goes, that just goes to show that God doesn't want you to act on all feelings regardless of if it's bad for you psychologically or not. But then again, all gay men can have sex with women though, so it's not like they can't have sex at all but that's an issue for gays to take up with God and bible-believers.

I agree. Part of this is homophobia and to call it like it is, part of the reason is also RELIGION like the Bible. IN the OT, God mentioned that people who engage in same-sex acts were to be cut off and that the act was an abomination. Call the behavior an abomination. In Romans 1, same-sex behavior at least among males was referred to in the context as "unnatural" and a "VILE passion". I guess feminists can cheer that God was not as hard on lesbians!

As I pointed out to rsvp, Romans 1 was discussed in the article. That passage doesn’t seem to be about sexual practices that are cursed by God, but about people who turn away from God; unnatural sex was given as an example of that. The issue was lust, not gender.

It clearly talks about sexual practices in the context of being "vile" passions, which if you factor in the OT you know that these sexual relations are wrong.

Romans 3: 20 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The LAW of God in the OT clearly states that homosexuality is detestable, an abomination, or a sin for short. Having that knowledge, then I would say those same-sex acts talked about in Romans 1 are a SiN, whether they are brought up in the context of not mentioning them as a sin per se (although notice they are not talked about as being good acts neither) but for other reasons.

Otherwise, I don't necessarily see the real issue as being what they believe is right and wrong because I have no rational proof for a biblical god or what it revealed, but rather I'd focus on how they express that it's wrong, and even if it is, that doesn't mean they should treat them like dirt, just as they wouldn't a heterosexual who commits adultery, and all of these generation of people who engage in pre-marital sex or fornication.

Oops. The article makes it quite clear that, in the author’s opinion (and mine), the Bible doesn’t support the idea that homosexuality is itself sinful, or even that loving homosexual acts between committed same-sex couples are sinful. It simply has nothing to say about either. That's rather the point of the essay.

Just for the record, the article also explains that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids premarital sex, aka "fornication." That is a later Christian innovation, and it is not Scriptural. The surprise of some who have looked into that question is mentioned in the essay.

The author of the article makes a distinction between same-sex acts based on "lust" compared to same-sex acts out of love. Hmmm, the Bible doesn't make that distinction in any of those commandments. It just simply says if you sleep with a man as you do with a woman, it's detestable and you should die. I also wonder how would the Israelites have been able to judge the difference between sex out of love and sex out of lust? The Bible mentions NO ONE can know the heart but God but yet God entrusts fellow humans with making that distinction?
It's pointless even asking this because the Bible does NOT specify or give an exception to same-sex acts being okay if it's done without "lust".

You probably mean live without sex from the gender they want, otherwise, they can have sex with women. There are obviously women out there who are willing to marry gay men - just ask all of these "ex-gay" Christians out there who tout their heterosexual marriage as being one evidence for their sexuality change.

Even if you didn’t agree with the argument in the article, it would be nice if you’d respond to it instead of ignoring it. Why would you say "You probably mean..." if you'd actually read it, anyway? Don't you know what the author meant? He certainly made it clear enough.

I’d hate to repeat a charge you’ve denied, but so far I’ve seen no evidence that you’ve read this article at all, in spite of what you said. You haven’t even acknowledged the good reverend’s arguments, let alone refuted them.

True, I shouldn't send you to debate with an article; but I fail to see why I should repeat the points made there if you've already read them, either.

You and the article. Because you and the article did not factor in that these gay guys don't have to refrain from sex altogether just because they're gay. They can have sex with women. Address that, rather than trying to defend your newfound Baptist hero, at all costs.

Legally-speaking, you're probably correct. The only thing against that is probably considering the voters and their vote on the issue, and in some states, the majority vote has been against same-sex marriage.

Rights aren’t determined by the majority. If that were true, we’d still have slavery here. Segregation was legal, but it wasn’t right either.

In some cases they are through the voting process. Prop 8 is one example.

[FinalEnigma]

You and the article. Because you and the article did not factor in that these gay guys don't have to refrain from sex altogether just because they're gay. They can have sex with women. Address that, rather than trying to defend your newfound Baptist hero, at all costs.

First of all, this is absurd. This would be exactly akin to telling you that you may only have sex with members of the same gender. You're disgusted by the thought, am I right?

Homosexuals are going be somewhere between disgusted and bored by sex with women. For a homosexual, Having sex with women would absolutely not help with the psychological issue presented by complete chastity.


Further, I would like to lay to rest all this gay-men-being-converted-to-bi baloney.

It is generally accepted among the psychological profession that there is something to the Kinsey scale.

Kinsey believed that homosexuality was not an either/or.
you do not have gay men, straight men, and bisexual men. EVERYONE is somewhere on the scale, from zero to six. 0 being exclusively heterosexual, and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Virtually nobody is either a zero or a six. Yes, I'm talking about everyone.
So these people who went from being gay to being bi? they were probably a 4 or 5. Mostly homosexual, but still able to be attracted to the opposite gender.

[Amos]

Personally, I think this is blowing his statement way out of proportion. He wasn't defining marriage, he was answering a question about divorce. He wasn't even talking about homosexuality, and they, so far as we know, were not even aware of homosexuality as a state of being at the time.

You didn't answer this: If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing? Are you going to seriously contend that Jesus did not define marriage in Matthew 19 in order to show the Pharisees that divorce for any cause is not allowed?

Homosexuals, by definition, cannot be married, and therefore homosexual relations are condemned.

Actually, there is nothing in the definition of homosexuals that says they cannot be married(which is what, grammatically, you said) - only in your definition of marriage (well, that's actually still wrong. You just don't believe people can marry people of the same gender. and even that depends on what state you are in).

Thank you, grammar police. You knew what my point was. You can't deal with it, so you resort to grammar criticism. I gave you Jesus' definition of marriage. If you don't like that, your argument is with Him, not me. And it really doesn't matter to me what the state says when it contradicts what God says (Acts 5:29).

Actually, I was playing with your grammar becasue it was funny.

besides, your point has been addressed repeatedly - read the article linked in the OP, for an example.

Further, telling people that they should cling to their wife and not get a divorce has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Becasue? That's funny, too. You must be wrong because you spelled "because" incorrectly. Isn't that the implication?

Maybe you ought to make some allowance for the time factor involved in typing up these responses.

God's silence doesn't give us authority for a practice.

Really? Better get off that computer then, because God didn't say you could use it.

And I wouldn't cook with a stove either, or drive, or ride a bike, or read books, or eat popsicles...

Did God ever command us to eat?

The computer, at the present time, is an expedient to help me "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I have generic authority from the command to "contend earnestly," meaning I can keep that commandment in any number of ways. I could write letters, print booklets, preach sermons, etc. If God had said, "only discuss religious topics in face to face conversations," then I would have specific authority for that, and all other forms of religious debate would be precluded.

You have erected a straw man, but flail away.

A straw man? you're the one who said that God's silence doesn't give us permission for a practice.

is anything we do in pursuit of fulfilling a command of God acceptable, and anything done for any reason other than fulfilling a command of God which is not expressly permitted in the bible a sin?

My comment was made regarding an area where God has legislated. We are obviously dealing with matters of religious import. You have expanded the argument ridiculously so you can deal with that argument instead of the one under consideration.

by the way, what does this even mean?

It must be hard for you to kick against the goads.

Look it up.

as you wish. Having looked it up, I find it to be a personal attack and condescending:

Ultimately, "kick against the goads" is a metaphor. Goads were used to prod cattle and livestock forward, and they would frequently kick back at them, only causing themselves more injury. The thought is that Paul has been kicking against God's "goading," and God has been trying to urge him to go in a certain direction.

The relation in modern day is that Paul is telling us that people still "kick against the goads" today. There is a way of right life & right belief but we fight it. And in doing so, we aren't hurting God... we are only hurting ourselves.

Can we avoid such?

You consider this ad hominem? I didn't intend it as such, but please accept my apologies.

Please deal with this from my last post:

Amos wrote:
In Genesis 6, when God told Noah to make the ark out of gopherwood, he didn't have to specifically give a "thou shalt not" for every other possible kind of wood Noah could have used for the ark.

Final Enigma wrote:
And this is a false analogy. using gopherwood excludes using any other kind of wood automatically. saying that men and women are supposed to get married does not exclude men and men or women and women from getting married any more than saying 'dogs make great pets' means that pet chinchillas are horrible. They are not mutually exclusive.

Amos wrote:
No, you are the one using a false analogy. In Matthew 19, Jesus argues against divorce for any cause by showing that God had created male and female in the beginning, that the man was supposed to cling to his wife, and that man was not supposed to separate what God has joined together. What would Jesus have had to have said to convince you that marriage was established by God to be between a man and a woman for a lifetime? Jesus is not making some sort of a value judgment in Matthew 19. He's stating the historical facts regarding marriage to show the Pharisees that they were wrong about divorce for any cause.

[Polygamist]

You and the article. Because you and the article did not factor in that these gay guys don't have to refrain from sex altogether just because they're gay. They can have sex with women. Address that, rather than trying to defend your newfound Baptist hero, at all costs.

First of all, this is absurd. This would be exactly akin to telling you that you may only have sex with members of the same gender. You're disgusted by the thought, am I right?

Homosexuals are going be somewhere between disgusted and bored by sex with women. For a homosexual, Having sex with women would absolutely not help with the psychological issue presented by complete chastity.

I'm not advocating to do that, but what I'm saying is that it is NOT celibacy and it's better than no sex. I doubt you've talked to any ex-gays like I have for you to be making blanket statements like that. What those in relationships with women don't have is lonliness but an avenue of intimacy, SUPPORT if they're honest with their wives, and someone to have sex with. That's a hek of a lot better than NO sex, no support, love, and encouragement, and no intimacy at all.

Further, I would like to lay to rest all this gay-men-being-converted-to-bi baloney.

I haven't seen it disproven per se, but I'm at least open to the possibility or would at least say more experiments need to be done on the issue of all sexuality, not just gays and straights.

It is generally accepted among the psychological profession that there is something to the Kinsey scale.

Kinsey believed that homosexuality was not an either/or.
you do not have gay men, straight men, and bisexual men. EVERYONE is somewhere on the scale, from zero to six. 0 being exclusively heterosexual, and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Virtually nobody is either a zero or a six. Yes, I'm talking about everyone.
So these people who went from being gay to being bi? they were probably a 4 or 5. Mostly homosexual, but still able to be attracted to the opposite gender.

From personal accounts, some were were just into men, so I'd say they were high on the scale towards the side of gay. Then because of "religion", they started to restrict themselves to just women and I suppose some of them were okay with it. I guess it's also possible that some of them may be in the middle or near it on the scale.

Despite, all of your comments here though, I don't see how it answers for how same-gender sex was or was not accepted by the God of the Bible. If you're not a bible-believer then you don't have to answer since those aren't your beliefs.

[FinalEnigma]

Personally, I think this is blowing his statement way out of proportion. He wasn't defining marriage, he was answering a question about divorce. He wasn't even talking about homosexuality, and they, so far as we know, were not even aware of homosexuality as a state of being at the time.

You didn't answer this: If he wasn't defining marriage for them, then what was he doing? Are you going to seriously contend that Jesus did not define marriage in Matthew 19 in order to show the Pharisees that divorce for any cause is not allowed?

Let me rephrase my statement. Jesus was not formally defining marriage in a way which would be intended for verbatim use for all eternity.

He was asked whether divorce was acceptable, no? He responded that God created men and women and that men were supposed to cling to their wives and not separate what God has joined.

Alright now, in that time period, so far as we know, they had no conception of homosexuality as an entity, only as an action. he did not condemn them, or even address them, since they did not, as a concept, exist at the time.

Thus, God not specifically endorsing homosexual marriage no more rules it out than God not specifically endorsing the use of computers rules out internet debates.

God's silence doesn't give us authority for a practice.

Really? Better get off that computer then, because God didn't say you could use it.

And I wouldn't cook with a stove either, or drive, or ride a bike, or read books, or eat popsicles...

Did God ever command us to eat?

The computer, at the present time, is an expedient to help me "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). I have generic authority from the command to "contend earnestly," meaning I can keep that commandment in any number of ways. I could write letters, print booklets, preach sermons, etc. If God had said, "only discuss religious topics in face to face conversations," then I would have specific authority for that, and all other forms of religious debate would be precluded.

You have erected a straw man, but flail away.

A straw man? you're the one who said that God's silence doesn't give us permission for a practice.

is anything we do in pursuit of fulfilling a command of God acceptable, and anything done for any reason other than fulfilling a command of God which is not expressly permitted in the bible a sin?

My comment was made regarding an area where God has legislated. We are obviously dealing with matters of religious import. You have expanded the argument ridiculously so you can deal with that argument instead of the one under consideration.

God has also legislated which foods we may eat.
He never did approve tangelos - they didn't exist yet. Does that mean we can't eat them?

by the way, what does this even mean?

It must be hard for you to kick against the goads.

Look it up.

as you wish. Having looked it up, I find it to be a personal attack and condescending:

Ultimately, "kick against the goads" is a metaphor. Goads were used to prod cattle and livestock forward, and they would frequently kick back at them, only causing themselves more injury. The thought is that Paul has been kicking against God's "goading," and God has been trying to urge him to go in a certain direction.

The relation in modern day is that Paul is telling us that people still "kick against the goads" today. There is a way of right life & right belief but we fight it. And in doing so, we aren't hurting God... we are only hurting ourselves.

Can we avoid such?

You consider this ad hominem? I didn't intend it as such, but please accept my apologies.

I read this, speaking of me in the sense of 'kicking against the goads', as analogizing me to cattle. That may not have been your intent, whatever, I'm perfectly happy to drop it.

Please deal with this from my last post:

Amos wrote:
In Genesis 6, when God told Noah to make the ark out of gopherwood, he didn't have to specifically give a "thou shalt not" for every other possible kind of wood Noah could have used for the ark.

I already addressed this. to instruct someone to build something out of gopher wood automatically rules out building it out of anything else. To say that God created oranges and apples for food does not mean that he did not create anything else for food.

Had Jesus said 'marriage is to be between a man and a woman only, and is to last a lifetime.' then I would agree with you(probably). But that isn't what he said.

[FinalEnigma]

You and the article. Because you and the article did not factor in that these gay guys don't have to refrain from sex altogether just because they're gay. They can have sex with women. Address that, rather than trying to defend your newfound Baptist hero, at all costs.

First of all, this is absurd. This would be exactly akin to telling you that you may only have sex with members of the same gender. You're disgusted by the thought, am I right?

Homosexuals are going be somewhere between disgusted and bored by sex with women. For a homosexual, Having sex with women would absolutely not help with the psychological issue presented by complete chastity.

I'm not advocating to do that, but what I'm saying is that it is NOT celibacy and it's better than no sex. I doubt you've talked to any ex-gays like I have for you to be making blanket statements like that. What those in relationships with women don't have is lonliness but an avenue of intimacy, SUPPORT if they're honest with their wives, and someone to have sex with. That's a hek of a lot better than NO sex, no support, love, and encouragement, and no intimacy at all.

I don't understand. you seem to say you are not advocating that they have sex with women, but then go on to say how sex and relationships with women are beneficial.

Further, I would like to lay to rest all this gay-men-being-converted-to-bi baloney.

I haven't seen it disproven per se, but I'm at least open to the possibility or would at least say more experiments need to be done on the issue of all sexuality, not just gays and straights.

It is generally accepted among the psychological profession that there is something to the Kinsey scale.

Kinsey believed that homosexuality was not an either/or.
you do not have gay men, straight men, and bisexual men. EVERYONE is somewhere on the scale, from zero to six. 0 being exclusively heterosexual, and 6 being exclusively homosexual. Virtually nobody is either a zero or a six. Yes, I'm talking about everyone.
So these people who went from being gay to being bi? they were probably a 4 or 5. Mostly homosexual, but still able to be attracted to the opposite gender.

From personal accounts, some were were just into men, so I'd say they were high on the scale towards the side of gay. Then because of "religion", they started to restrict themselves to just women and I suppose some of them were okay with it. I guess it's also possible that some of them may be in the middle or near it on the scale.

Despite, all of your comments here though, I don't see how it answers for how same-gender sex was or was not accepted by the God of the Bible. If you're not a bible-believer then you don't have to answer since those aren't your beliefs.

I admit it's a bit of an odd approach, but I believe it logically sound.

Personally, I've not seen convincing evidence that the bible condemns homosexuality. I rather agree with the reverends position as stated in the article in the OP. Since we disagree, I'll assume its a question mark. From there, I'm attempting to find a way to push it out of question mark status.

All of God's rules are for our own good. There are significant, tangible benefits to them. If we are unsure of a rule that he may or may not have given, and we find that it is harmful to us to follow, then he probably didn't proscribe it.