My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality

[yota691]

March 3rd, 2011

01:25 PM ET

 

My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality

By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Special to CNN

Editor’s Note: Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics and (with Dan Via)Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.

In her recent CNN Belief Blog post “The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality,” Jennifer Wright Knust claims that Christians can’t appeal to the Bible to justify opposition to homosexual practice because the Bible provides no clear witness on the subject and is too flawed to serve as a moral guide.

As a scholar who has written books and articles on the Bible and homosexual practice, I can say that the reality is the opposite of her claim. It’s shocking that in her editorial and even her book, "Unprotected Texts," Knust ignores a mountain of evidence against her positions.

It raises a serious question: does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-*** interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them?

Owing to space limitations I will focus on her two key arguments: the ideal of gender-neutral humanity and slavery arguments.

Knust's lead argument is that sexual differentiation in Genesis, Jesus and Paul is nothing more than an "afterthought" because "God's original intention for humanity was androgyny."

It’s true that Genesis presents the first human (Hebrew adam, from adamah,ground: “earthling”) as originally sexually undifferentiated. But what Knust misses is that once something is “taken from” the human to form a woman, the human, now differentiated as a man, finds his sexual other half in that missing element, a woman.

That’s why Genesis speaks of the woman as a “counterpart” or “complement,” using a Hebrew expression neged, which means both “corresponding to” and “opposite.” She is similar as regards humanity but different in terms of gender. If sexual relations are to be had, they are to be had with a sexual counterpart or complement.

Knust cites the apostle Paul’s remark about “no ‘male and female’” in Galatians. Yet Paul applies this dictum to establishing the equal worth of men and women before God, not to eliminating a male-female prerequisite for sex.

Applied to sexual relations, the phrase means “no sex,” not “acceptance of homosexual practice,” as is evident both from the consensus of the earliest interpreters of this phrase and from Jesus' own sayings about marriage in this age and the next.

All the earliest interpreters agreed that "no 'male and female,'" applied to sexual relations, meant "no sex."

That included Paul and the ascetic believers at Corinth in the mid-first century; and the church fathers and gnostics of the second to fourth centuries. Where they disagreed is over whether to postpone mandatory celibacy until the resurrection (the orthodox view) or to begin insisting on it now (the heretical view).

Jesus’ view

According to Jesus, “when (people) rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels” (Mark 12:25). Sexual relations and differentiation had only penultimate significance. The unmediated access to God that resurrection bodies bring would make sex look dull by comparison.

At the same time Jesus regarded the male-female paradigm as essential if sexual relations were to be had in this present age.

In rejecting a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage and, implicitly, polygamy Jesus cited Genesis: “From the beginning of creation, ‘male and female he made them.’ ‘For this reason a man …will be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12).

Jesus’ point was that God’s limiting of persons in a sexual union to two is evident in his creation of two (and only two) primary sexes: male and female, man and woman. The union of male and female completes the sexual spectrum, rendering a third partner both unnecessary and undesirable.

The sectarian Jewish group known as the Essenes similarly rejected polygamy on the grounds that God made us “male and female,” two sexual complements designed for a union consisting only of two.

Knust insinuates that Jesus wouldn’t have opposed homosexual relationships. Yet Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that he regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage as the foundation on which other sexual standards could be predicated, including monogamy. Obviously the foundation is more important than anything predicated on it.

Jesus developed a principle of interpretation that Knust ignores: God’s “from the beginning” creation of “male and female” trumps some sexual behaviors permitted in the Old Testament. So there’s nothing unorthodox about recognizing change in Scripture’s sexual ethics. But note the direction of the change: toward less sexual license and greater conformity to the logic of the male-female requirement in Genesis. Knust is traveling in the opposite direction.

Knust’s slavery analogy and avoidance of closer analogies

Knust argues that an appeal to the Bible for opposing homosexual practice is as morally unjustifiable as pre-Civil War appeals to the Bible for supporting slavery. The analogy is a bad one.

The best analogy will be the comparison that shares the most points of substantive correspondence with the item being compared. How much does the Bible’s treatment of slavery resemble its treatment of homosexual practice? Very little.

Scripture shows no vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery but it does show a strong vested interest from Genesis to Revelation in preserving a male-female prerequisite. Unlike its treatment of the institution of slavery, Scripture treats a male-female prerequisite for sex as a pre-Fall structure.

The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement. But it clearly shows a critical edge by specifying mandatory release dates and the right of kinship buyback; requiring that Israelites not be treated as slaves; and reminding Israelites that God had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.

Paul urged enslaved believers to use an opportunity for freedom to maximize service to God and encouraged a Christian master (Philemon) to free his slave (Onesimus).

How can changing up on the Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sex be analogous to the church’s revision of the slavery issue if the Bible encourages critique of slavery but discourages critique of a male-female paradigm for sex?

Much closer analogies to the Bible’s rejection of homosexual practice are the Bible’s rejection of incest and the New Testament’s rejection of polyamory (polygamy).

Homosexual practice, incest, and polyamory are all (1) forms of sexual behavior (2) able to be conducted as adult-committed relationships but (3) strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law.

Like same-sex intercourse, incest is sex between persons too much structurally alike, here as regards kinship rather than gender. Polyamory is a violation of the foundational “twoness” of the sexes.

The fact that Knust chooses a distant analogue (slavery) over more proximate analogues (incest, polyamory) shows that her analogical reasoning is driven more by ideological biases than by fair use of analogies.

Knust’s other arguments are riddled with holes.

In claiming that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship she confuses kinship affection with erotic love. Her claim that “from the perspective of the New Testament” the Sodom story was about “the near rape of angels, not sex between men” makes an "either-or" out of Jude 7’s "both-and."

Her canard that only a few Bible texts reject homosexual practice overlooks other relevant texts and the fact that infrequent mention is often a sign of significance. It is disturbing to read what passes nowadays for expert “liberal” reflections on what the Bible says about homosexual practice.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert A. J. Gagnon.

 

 

The Editors - CNN Belief Blog

Edited December 25, 2013 by yota691

[rcrge]

God made Adam amd Eve not Adam and Steve

[captl1]

Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!

[chess]

......do the "happies" have their own Scripture.....as do the Allah-ites??

[Neapolitan]

Same Sex Marriage, *** Priest and the Great Red Herring

By Scott Denard

Lately the secular government and courts have demanded the world accept same sex marriage as a “right,” and this being the case, the arguments have begun about why the church “hates gays” and why God would allow homosexuals to marry.This is the latest of a long line of attacks on Christians in the form of great red herring argumentation.

Homosexual priests and *** marriage is a red herring simply because the question is way past any reasonable question that a Christian should have to deal with. In the following paragraphs one shall find the reasoning behind this statement and hopefully adopt this position and realize where some Christians have lost their way and why a compromised position, on the sin of homosexuality, should never take a foothold in any Christian’s mind.

In order to obtain a proper view on the subject, of same sex marriage, a Christian has to ask: “What is the basic issue here?”Now, there is no question, same sex marriages is the marriage of two persons of the same sex and very seldom are homosexual relations not the goal of the two parties. This alone makes the subject of marriage of the two parties a red herring in that the issue is not really marriage, but the joining of two people who are identified as homosexuals. If one wants to define a God ordained marriage one has to go to the following verses:

1. “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, ‘for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh”(Genesis 2:22-24 NIV).

2. “Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).

3.“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith”(Hebrews 13:4-7).

Now one finds in these verses there is no “wiggle room” about the purpose of a God ordained marriage. God ordained marriage between a man and a woman. This is a “God-given” right and no matter what rights men claim exists between two same sex persons, God will never recognize a sin as a right. This is because God cannot look on sin, much less ordain it (Hab.1:13). This must lead one to the conclusion that regardless of the government marriages of same sex couples, this is an empty, meaningless motion for man, but it holds a much deeper meaning with God. As Christians, one must first define homosexuality and in consulting Merriam-Webster on-line dictionaries at http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/homosexual?show=0&t=1377291020 one finds the following definitions:

Homosexuality

1: Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

2: Of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

Homosexual:

1: Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

2: Of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

NOUN FORM: A homosexual person and especially a male.

One must realize there are two meanings assigned to these words a noun and a verb usage. The verb usage is an act of sin according to the Bible and the noun form is the person that performs the sin. God hates the sin (Ephesians 2:1-10) and this is problematic in the usage of these terms, which shall be discussed momentarily. First one must look at the facts about this particular sin that God has disclosed for man to know.One must also understand these definitions DO NOT point to the way an individual is born, but to an emotional state of being and to a perverse state of lust and rebellion (Romans 1:18-32). God has told us the following about homosexual beings and homosexual acts:

1.“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing” (Genesis 19:4-7).

“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7).

2. “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18: 22-25).

3. “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13).

4. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, [a] nor sodomites,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV).

5. “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me” (1 Timothy 1:8-11).

6.“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1: 22-32).

One must not get into the favorite argument of atheists at this point, that all immoral sexual acts are condemned, because one is not talking all sexual acts, but a specific act God called an abomination, which is demanding a special treatment of turning one’s back to this sin, as if it does not matter. In fact, a properly operating church representing the Body of Christ would treat an adulterer much the same way, if it is known and there is a refusal to quit sinning.

Next one has to understand the word repentance. Repentance is based on a conception of not just remorse of sin, which repentance does include, but also a second part, which is a turning of 180 degrees from sin to God. “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord” (Acts. 3:19).

The concept here is that when one receives the Holy Spirit, one repents of one’s sins (stops the sinful, rebellious, intentional sinning that separates one from God) and turns to God and ask for the forgiveness and acceptance to the Body of Christ, with an intention to fight the sinful lust, before that lust becomes sin (1 James 1:13-15).No one is perfect and sin does happen, but a planned continuance of sinful acts does not fit God’s definition of repentance.

Now all these terms have been clearly defined one can clearly see the logic of the following statements of this argument. God is a God of reason and logic and in fact created reason and logic as a natural flow from God’s being (Isaiah 1:18; 41:21; 43:26). Being a God of reason and logic the only thing God cannot do is the illogical or things contradictory to logic. Understand this is not to say God cannot do things that seem illogical to man, because only God knows all the facts and if a thing is truly logical. In all the previous verses God has set forth guidelines so one can know the logical and illogical conclusion when discussing homosexuality (so that man would know).

Homosexuality has intentionally been altered by its proponents to humanize it. The homosexual act of sex has been intertwined with the individuals involved in committing these acts. This makes hating the sin and acceptance of the sinner an impossible chore, if one lets this intentional deception fog one’s perception.

In true fact, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, there is only a person who loves and practices the perversion of homosexual lust. One does not have to do anything but turn on a television and hear the “homosexual community” proclaim the declaration of being *** and being proud of it.

Now sin is the rebellion of man against God. (Deut. 9:7; Jos. 1:18) So here are the premises of this argument laid out:

1. God hates sin and cannot look upon it.

2. God offers redemption through repentance of sins and belief on Jesus Christ (John 3:16)

3. Homosexual acts are a sin and therefore hated by God.

4. The person, who claims to be homosexual, is proudly proclaiming a sinful behavior, which has been determined to be a rebellion against God.

5. Repentance requires a turning from sin to God, which is declaring an end to intentional rebellion against God and a deep regret for the sin one commits.

6. Conclusion: Repentance and rebellion are incompatible and one cannot be repentant and intentionally rebellious to God at the same time, therefore it is impossible for one openly proclaiming and practicing homosexuality to claim a place in the Body of Christ, unless there is a surrender of sinful behavior. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV). In fact, Paul revealed this is part of the behavior of one with a “depraved mind” which God turned rebellious men over to (Romans 1:28).

7.Any argumentation that carries this basic argument to an extreme in sinful behavior is a Great Red Herring and should not even need to be considered by a Christian.

A favorite argument of many is that Jesus Christ never dealt with homosexuality during His life and therefore Jesus did not endorse the teaching of the Bible. Now this might be a tad offensive to some, but the “What Would Jesus Do” movement is fine, IF one does what Jesus would do and commanded. Too often this is used as an excuse though, not to condemn sinful activities and confuse exactly what the Bible says Christians should do.

Jesus dealt with homosexuality, when in a theophany; Jesus met with Abraham and proceeded on to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus dealt with this teaching when He affirmed Moses teachings during His life. Jesus dealt with this, when He revealed to Paul the things Christ wanted Paul to know. Jesus and God have never been quiet about homosexuality and if one needs more said, that would be a useless gesture, because the message is falling on deaf ears.

As for homosexual clergy, there are two lines of thought on this. First, the blind cannot lead the blind and a man entangled in practicing sin cannot show a sinner the way to salvation by example. (Luke 6:39) Jesus, Himself revealed that a house divided cannot stand and that is what a clergy member practicing homosexuality is (Mark 3:25). Second, these men are like the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus’ day and He proclaimed that, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matthew 23:1-12).

The only problem is can one depend on what is preached as the truth God intended to reveal? To tell one they are saved while they are practicing homosexual relationships with others is doing the man no favors and God will hold the clergyman or Christian, and the man hearing this, accountable for this (James 3:1-12).

Remember if Satan was given a choice of building a mega-church, in every town, built on a false or faulty theology and doctrine, which would lead people away from salvation and God, or building a strip bar on every corner, the choice would be a mega-church. Satan knows strip bars are known places of sin and evil to a Christian, but Satan also knows church is the last place Christians look for evil and expect to be tricked into a loss of salvation and acts of rebellion. The strip bars and acts of perversion in the community will soon follow, but that really makes no difference when one has already made rebellion against God a part of one’s life, whether it is known or unknown. Scientology and Islam are great examples of this type of preference by Satan.

The short argument here is that a man practicing rebellion against God has no place in the pulpit leading anyone, anywhere, especially to salvation. Do not get this wrong— Jesus said to love your fellow man and everyone should, but that does not mean to have sex with that man. One who practices homosexuality should be helped and witnessed to, but as Paul said one who refuses to stop immoral actions should not be allowed in the Body of Christ, until there is repentance (1 Corinthians 5:4). Do not hate anyone, but do not coddle the sinner to ultimate destruction— as that is not following the commandment of Jesus Christ to love one’s fellow man and witness so one might be saved.

May Christians all follow the example of Jesus Christ, who when confronted by the rich man and asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). Jesus looked into the heart of this man and saw what was loved more than God and said, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Mark 10:21).

At a time when churches are trying to attract members, this is especially hard because Christ let men go if there was a refusal to give up sin. At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth (Mark 10: 22). Place the act of homosexuality and the one who practices it in the subject of that story, and one will find that God demands one stops intentional sin in order to follow Him (John 8:11, 5:14). The great lesson in this article is that as a Christian, one must stop chasing red herrings and deal with the basics of God’s Word and the red herrings will take care of themselves.

May God bless the readers’ life, and there is a sincere hope that this article helps clarify what position Jesus has taken, and the position the Christian of today should take on the arguments that dominate the world today.

LSDsr@windstream.net

[DiveDeepSix]

Yep if it weren't so, they would be able to reproduce, and they can't there is a reason for that!  Call em like ya see em Phil!

Edited December 25, 2013 by DiveDeepSix