A Brief Note on Christians and Homosexuality
[UPDATE: I edited some of the below to clarify my own position, separating it from some of the Christians whom I am criticizing.]
Especially with a certain television show’s antics, there have been recent flare-ups again in the culture wars, with some atheists (and unfortunately, some Christians) saying that Jesus wants His followers to use violence against gay people. Let’s put aside the question of whether Jesus views homosexuality as a sin, not because this is irrelevant to the broader culture war, but because it’s irrelevant to the very specific issue I am discussing.
The most obvious evidence is Jesus declining to cast stones at an adulteress, despite the Mosaic Law. Yet some people argue that this never happened, and was added later to the Bible.
OK what about the entire ministry of Jesus, in which He allowed a woman of dubious moral standing in the community to wash His feet (and then He forgave her of her sins), He ate with tax collectors, and when hearing the scandalized “upstanding” members of the community remark on His company, He replied, “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” And finally, Jesus welcomes the repentant thief on the cross into paradise. This guy was a convicted criminal and admitted his guilt. Does that mean Jesus is OK with theft?
What’s particularly ironic to me in this culture war is that there are many Bible-believing Christian who think homosexuality is a (perverse) choice caused by difficult life events, and acting on this worldview they wag their fingers at gay people and say, “You are violating God’s laws, you’re going to hell.” But this is absurd, since according to their own perspective this will just make things worse, by amplifying feelings of guilt, shame, and fear of social condemnation.
No, the proper thing to do is point out that all of us are violating God’s laws; there is nothing special about gay people in this respect. We are all in desperate need of a Savior, who loves us just as we are and can offer us peace and feelings of acceptance and self-worth that no group of peers or neighbors can possibly provide.
Bob your last paragraph says it all, well. “No, the proper thing to do is point out that all of us are violating God’s laws; there is nothing special about gay people in this respect. We are all in desperate need of a Savior, who loves us just as we are and can offer us peace and feelings of acceptance and self-worth that no group of peers or neighbors can possibly provide.”
Problem is most “Christians” and most “churches’ are nothing more than the blind leading the blind, or worse, something nefarious.
One problem with the Bible is that the idea that we’re all sinners is presented more cryptically and allegorical, which is hard for your average yokel to seriously absorb, whereas specific sins are presented matter of factly and in your face.
I mean, if a person predisposed to bigotry reads
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
versus
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Which passage would be more obvious as to how a Christian should think? I know I am completely cherry picking passages here, but that is the whole point. It’s so easy to cherry pick Bible passages to justify one’s bigotry!
Good analysis MF. I am going to use that example when I teach hermeneutics at my Church.
Thanks
Couple that with the fact that Leviticus 20:13 (thou shalt murder gays) contradicts Exodus 20:13 (thou shall not murder), and you have a recipe for Bible readers to be unsure of what God wants, and since they will always have their bigotry, they would become sure of what to do after all.
Nowhere in the Bible says though shall murder gays. Represents my faith correctly. Common courtesy.
Perhaps you could give me some common courtesy and inform yourself of the subject matter before you accuse me of misrepresenting your faith.
Leviticus 20:13 is quite clear about the murder of gays:
“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.”
Sorry to break it to you but killing is not equal to murder.
Capital punishment is not murder.
Besides, the issue was not same gender attraction(gay), it was same gender sex even if a heterosexual would do it let say for money. So no, nothing on the Bible about murdering gays.
Not familiar with Christianity all that much, and don’t really care, but murder is murder, dude. Killing is just another word for murdering, and so is “capital punishment”. They are all morally unjustifiable. The only justification is self defense. When two consenting adults have sex, there is no self defense argument that a third person can make to kill them.
“Sorry to break it to you but killing is not equal to murder.”
“Capital punishment is not murder.”
Sorry to break it to you JNCU, but killing people for engaging in consensual sex is in fact murder.
Yes, I understand that when psychopaths murder people, a lot of them believe they’re not murdering people because they’re doing God’s will, but it is in fact murder, and nothing you can say will change that fact.
Murphy,
Hope you can see why I find Christianity, and religion in general, as mentally stultifying.
The stuff that creep JNCU is saying is what I see all too often from Bible thumpers. I am glad that psycho is nowhere near me nor my family.
@Major_Freedom:
I tend to agree. However I want neither JNCU nor you secular humanists near my children. I hope you are not offended. Or whatever, I don’t care either way.
Well Z, if you want to keep your children away from secular humanists, which would require you to keep them chained them to the toilet, then you live with the consequences.
‘When I use a word,’ MF said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean”.
Sorry MF, but a reasonable definition of murder is unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another. The “unlawful” part is important.
Peter,
I will try to answer your concern as soon as I have time.
Thanks
Peter,
Just an issue with your statement – if you kill someone in self-defense, it is not murder, and thus killing is not just another word for murder.
JCNU is correct, nowhere in the Bible does it say to murder gays. There is a difference between someone who “is gay” and “a man who has sexual relations with a man” (or a woman who has sexual relations with a woman). We will only be held responsible for our sinful decisions, not our temptations, which even Christ had.
Sean and JCNU: “No, you see, we’re not murdering gays, here. We’re simply murdering men who have had sexual relations with other men.”
Me: “So you’re murdering gays?”
Sean and JCNU: “No, none of these ga–…I mean sinners were attracted to each other; therefore, they aren’t gay, and thus we aren’t murdering gays. Just men who have sex with other men.”
Ben your comment is just silly. The point of differentiating between attraction and sex is that if some israelite had same gender atraction that would not merit capital punishment. But a heterosexual that would practice same gender sex for say money would merit capital punishment. Sexual preference was never the issue.
Anyway, Mosaic Law has no application in todays world. Christians are under the Abrahamic Covenant, and if someone would try to apply Mosaic Law today they would have to be stoned themselves.
And I would oppose any imposition of the Mosaic Law.
Thanks Sean
sean, that is the most ridiculous attempt at defending murder of gays in the Bible I have ever seen.
The word “gay” wasn’t even used to describe “men who have sex with other men” until at least the 20th century. Prior to that, the word “gay” meant “happy.”
Just because the word “gay” doesn’t appear in the bible, it does not mean that it is wrong to argue that the Bible calls for the murder of gay people.
For we can just change it up, and say the Bible calls for the murder of men who have sex with other men.
The point being made is still there. That the Bible calls for murdering people. Those who are criticizing the Bible on this point are saying that it is immoral to murder people based on their mutually consensual sexual activity.
“Those who are criticizing the Bible on this point are saying that it is immoral to murder people based on their mutually consensual sexual activity.”
And that the Bible teaches that that Law and its consequences are not binding on Christians and nonchristians in our daily life.
Making the criticism irrelevant ..
By the way that one was me.
JCNU:
“And that the Bible teaches that that Law and its consequences are not binding on Christians and nonchristians in our daily life.”
Does it?
Jesus said:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
Jesus did not come to abolish Mosaic Law. To Jesus, Mosaic Law still applied, and thus applies to anyone who worships him, such as Christians.
Just because Mosaic Law is horrific to most modern eyes, it doesn’t mean you can contradict at your leisuOH WHAT AM I SAYING. I again assumed Christianity is logically consistent. It’s in fact full of contradictions. So you’re right and I’m right and you’re wrong and I’m wrong.
Cherry pick away…
You just quoted the “law” which was pre Jesus.
There is an underlying conspiracy, spearheaded by The Jews, to deny Messiah…
It is a long topic but leveticus 18 is part of the natural law, not just the mosaic law, if you read the whole chapter it will be easier to see. Anyway, Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 covers the topic in the New Testament.
And yes same gender sex is sin in the Bible but not the only sin. Having sex outside of marriage also is a sin.
Same gender attraction is not a sin in the Bible just like attraction outside of marriage is not a sin. Christians just have to deny themselves. The consequence of Christ Lordship.
Anybody outside the Church, you guys can do as you wish in you personal life. I will fight for government to stay out of your life. See you in Judgement Day.
Romans 3:22-23
For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Excellent point, and so true. The use of Leviticus to condemn gays is particularly galling to me, since the Christians who do so are oblivious to their own hypocrisy. Christians do not obey the Holiness Code in Leviticus themselves, yet many will cherry pick that one verse and act as though it means that gays are especially offensive to God and deserving of Hell.
Out of over 31,000 verses in the Bible, only a handful can even be considered as applicable to homosexuality. There are many more verses condemning adultery, yet I don’t see those same “Christians” claiming that adulterers should be stoned to death.
“No, the proper thing to do is point out that all of us are violating God’s laws”
Yes, but in this time of pop-theology, no one wants to hear that. Politicians and Pastors compete as to how much they can pander to the masses by telling them how wonderful and great they are.
Wait a second Bob. If Jesus doesn’t want violence against gays, the violence specifically proscribed in the bible, does that mean he wishes to change the law? Jesus is specifically quoted as saying he did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law. And you yourself have in previous Sunday posts said that Jesus is consistent with Old Testament law.
So if Jesus is consistent with the law, and the law says gays should be put to death, how is Jesus not for that?
Different covenant.
Read Galatians 3 and the book if Hebrews in passing.
Different covenant, meaning that even under your reasoning, the Bible says it is morally acceptable for some people to perform violence against gays? It’s ok, for the people who are under that covenant?
Violence against anyone that breaks the Mosaic Law. Jesus suffered the violence we deserved. Thank you Chris
Nobody is under that covenant anymore thanks to Christ.
“The violence that we deserved”? Please, tell me about this violence that we deserved. Here I have been working under the mistake that no one deserves violence.
So, before Christ, it was morally right, under that covenant, to perform violence against gays?
”Here I have been working under the mistake that no one deserves violence.”
Yosef are you a Christian?
That depends. Does being a Christian mean that I have to accept that anyone deserves violence?
@Yosef:
Probably. Of course being a secular humanist means you have to accept that everyone deserves praise and celebration for every stupid petty human desire.
Any clear thinking person should reject both of these demented ideologies.
It means that you accept Christ lordship over you even when you do not like it. That you accept he is the only person with 2 natures human and divine, that he rose back from the dead. after dying in a Roman cross as punishment for your sins.
That summarize it.
Z, could you put me to the definitive document of secular humanism which backs that claim? I certainly don’t recall Christopher Hitchens, High Priest of Secular Humanism, praising and celebrating every petty stupid human desire.
JNCU, if Jesus is perfect and good, what do you mean by “even when you do not like it”? When would I not like it for a perfect and good being to be watching out for me?
when lying brings you benefits and comfort, when having sex outside of marriage seems desirable.
I will think of other circumstances.
Hitchens would never call anything he celebrated stupid or petty which is why you don’t recall any such thing.
Z, I think you underestimate Hitchens’ ironic disposition. I could locate some quotes or try and find the actual youtube clips, but Hitchens has certainly called his own desires petty, or similar language, at times.
But you said secular humanism involved the praise and celebration of *every* human desire, not just your own. So even if Hitchens considered his own desires other than petty, that doesn’t prove your point.
JNCU, How would lying bring benefits, or sex outside of marriage seem desirable if I accept that Jesus and his teachings are right?
@Yosef:
I wasn’t trying to prove a point as much as just making a statement. One cannot prove to another that certain desires are worthwhile while others are worthless and stupid. I cannot prove your desires are ridiculous to you and neither can you prove the contrary
Because what is morally good and human desires are not the same.
Z,
You said “being a secular humanist means you have to accept that everyone deserves praise and celebration for every stupid petty human desire.”
I pointed out at least one secular humanist that *didn’t* accept that everyone deserves praise and celebration for every stupid petty human desire. So that contradicts your statement about what being a secular humanist means. There is no requirement to prove what constitutes a petty or worthwhile desire, but your claimed that secular humanism means accepting every desire. What is the basis for that?
Sorry, didn’t understand your question the first time.
I was exaggerating when I said ‘every’, but not by much.
Yosef
So, do you believe Jesus resurrected to glory and immortality?
No. Or maybe ‘Not yet’. I can’t prove that I am not on the road to Damascus, only that I haven’t been stopped on the way yet.
Great, now I can appropriately address your questions. You seem like an honest seeker. I am glad for you.
1. YHWH/Trinity is the maker of everything created and so it deserves perfect obidience.
2. We have not given him perfect obidience in the natural law that most people recognize. We all have lie, stolen, look at someone with lust which is adultery already for God, and other sins that I do not have time to list. The wages of sin is death.
3. If you have not sin you do not have to worry, heaven at death and the new heavens and new earth at the end time are open for you.
4. If you have sin like me or other people I know, then we need a substitute to be punish instead of us. Christ is the only qualified because he did not sin and he is eternal.
5. God/Chrit does not want people that practice same gender sex to be stone, because then, we all that have sinned, at all, on anything, would also have to be punish with death. The wages of sin is death, regardless of the sin.
6. By accepting Christ as Lord your sins are forgiven because they would have been punish already in Christ 2000 years ago.
7. If you are concern with the Mosaic Law, read the book of Galatians, chapter 3 is the more specific. We live under the covenent of Abraham. The Mosaic covenant came later and it does not abolish the Abrahamic covenant. Christ is the seed of Abraham , if you are in Christ, you are the seed of Abraham.
8. Christians that want to use the Mosaic Law in todays world have bad theology and I would totally oppose them. They themselves would have to be stone.
Any questions?
A few questions.
1. I have a hard time understanding why the fact that God is the maker of all things means he automatically deserves obedience. I just don’t see how one is a consequence of the other. If I accept that God is good and all knowing, then I can see how a consequence of that is to obey him completely. But I don’t see how being the maker of means I have to obey.
2. Adam and Eve, which were made by God, disobeyed, and as a result death and suffering exits. But any child born to them, was immediately mortal and subject to death as well. What was that child’s sin, if death is the wage of sin? I have a hard time accepting responsibility for other people’s wrongdoing, and I am happy to live in a society whose laws do not punish groups collectively (My father’s/brother’s/neighbor’s crimes are his, not mine.) So why does God punish collectively?
3. If death is the wage of sin, and Jesus did not sin, then how did Jesus die (in order to be resurrected)? And I am confused as to why we need a substitute to punish, why not punish us if we sinned?
4. Assuming that Abraham made a covenant with God, why should that affect me, or you, or anyone else? I did not select Abraham as my representative, with contracting rights. Can I make a covenant to bind all mankind?
Great questions Yosef, as soon as I have time I wi adress them.
Everyone is equally capable of prayer and asking for forgiveness, no one needs to ask permission. All of us already have this option if we want it.
I think you will find that gay activists are not interested in talking with God and Jesus, they want actual human Christians to stand up in public and offer acceptance. They don’t want to be repentant, they want Christians to say that alternative lifestyles are perfectly OK.
From my personal point of view, homosexuality doesn’t bother me, neither does polygamy, but I’m not Christian, and I don’t take the Bible as seriously as many other people do. I think Christians have a right to state their opinion (like the Duck-man did) and such an opinion is not the opinion of God or Jesus, it’s just what one man believes is right or wrong.
“I think you will find that gay activists are not interested in talking with God and Jesus, they want actual human Christians to stand up in public and offer acceptance. ”
Not all gay activists want that. Some want that, and I feel sorry for those gay activists because it implies some sanction on their lives to be “approved” by those who currently disapprove, but other gay activists just want to no longer be harassed or picked on by Christians.
I don’t have the data, but I am willing to guess that most gay people don’t want to be given explicit approval, but rather to not be given explicit disapproval.
I am guessing this is the case, because for me, I don’t want gay people to explicitly approve of what I am doing, I just don’t want to be harassed or picked on by them because of it. I want it to be “normal” in the sense of being able to live my life and they live their lives, without it becoming an issue. For pro-gay rights advocacy activity, I get pretty uncomfortable but not because I think it’s wrong, but because I realize I am still living in a world where it is thought as as necessary to level the playing field. It just shouldn’t be a “thing”.
Very true, but you hear about the noisy people, not the people who just keep to themselves and life their own life.
True.
This is a good example of how easy it is to put too much importance on what we easily observe, and not enough on what is technically observable, but it’s easily observed.
Kind of explains the economics profession. Suddenly certain data becomes more explanatory of how the economy works, simply because it is more easily observed.
Explains a lot more than that.
For example, the medical profession have been measuring height and weight for a long time and they have a massive database of height and weight data. Since they are easy to measure, they must be very important, so every new researcher makes sure they make the most of height and weight data.
But there’s a lot more to someone’s health than two measurements. Searching under a lamp post makes sense for a while, but don’t get too attached to that lamp post.
One of the things that annoys me greatly is they measure cholesterol in the blood, but don’t measure other things that are very well know to interact with cholesterol such as bile acid, stress hormones, and metabolic indicators such as overall strength and fitness.
In the days when these things were genuinely difficult to measure there was an excuse, but with modern “lab on a chip” technology they should not be hard to measure. Sadly, most people don’t trust the government to collect the data (for good reason, i.e. lack of trust) and we don’t have convenient ways to privately collect the data (which governments would snatch when it suits them anyhow) so data doesn’t get collected at all.
Back to height and weight, searching under the same lamp post for hundreds of years.
“I don’t have the data, but I am willing to guess that most gay people don’t want to be given explicit approval, but rather to not be given explicit disapproval.”
It’s generally pretty easy to avoid being given explicit disapproval by simply living your life and not pressing the issue with those who you know disagree with you.
Example: My father is a huge liberal, bordering on socialist. If we debate politics, it’s quite likely that we’re both going to end up saying unkind things to each other we might later regret. So we both make an effort not to bring up politics around each other, because mainly, we both want to not be hassled about our beliefs (all bets are off when the wine starts flowing though).
If a gay person doesn’t want to hear the disapproval of some dude on a stupid reality show – that’s pretty easy. Don’t watch the show. If a “journalist” does’t want to hear Christians state they think homosexuality is a sin, that’s easy too – don’t ask them about it!
But no, the journalists (whom I would classify as gay activists, which is a separate category entirely from the average gay person) continue to ask the question, knowing what the answer will be, for the purpose of generating publicity and/or publicly shaming Christians. The average gay person who simply wants to live their life without being hassled should be just as angry at the guy who conducted the interview as they are the guy who answered the questions honestly.
Journalists get paid to come up with a story. I don’t blame the journalist for doing a job and making sales.
The upshot is that stories get beat up more than they are worth, way more than they are worth, but that’s the system.
Sorry, but “that’s just my job” doesn’t quite cut it for me. Someone at the NSA spying on your phone calls is “just doing their job” too.
It’s dishonest to ask a question for the sole purpose of either humiliating someone or attempting to destroy their career, and more and more often, I think questions about homosexuality when asked to obvious Christians are just that. The reporter didn’t give a damn what Phil thinks is a sin or not. It’s a dishonest question designed to destroy his livelihood (or cause him to lie and violate his own beliefs).
I believe that people working for the NSA swear an oath to the US Constitution, and they are the ones in more of a position to break the Constitution so (in theory at least) additional constraints apply.
Journalists have some internal code of ethics, but that’s a free association thing and pretty much anyone is a journalist if they write a story.
Not personally, obviously not, but the reporter knows what the readers are willing to pay for. Surely you can’t have a problem with people paying for the things they want? How can any economy operate if customers can’t buy stuff?
We are certainly to condemn sin, but we need remember, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
What everyone forgets is that after Jesus said, “Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone,” he turned toward the woman in question and said “Go forth and sin no more.” God does not give anyone a free ride on sin, “For the wages of sin is death.” There are very nasty consequences for a life of sin, in fact, for all sin. Yes God is love, but there is a price to be paid for our actions. God’s love is not unconditional.
I do not see anything wrong with what Phil Robertson said. He was a moron for doing the interview, especially with that author. He was stupid to respond to that type of question. I am certain, were you to ask him, “Are you a sinner?” he would reply and emphatic. “YES!” I am certain he does not condone violence against sinners, nor do I. It would be a very scary world indeed if we to go around physically harming those we believed to have sinned, and as we all have sinned, it would be a matter of time before we were a victim of some self-appointed avenging angel. “Use every man after his desert, and who shall escape whipping.” Of course, that is Billy Shaekespeare, but he had a fair working knowledge of the Bible.
JimS wrote:
God’s love is not unconditional.
Actually I think it is. I don’t think God stops loving a sinner. God can punish someone while still loving him; it’s something parents do all the time.
Bob, God’s law may be unconditional, but it is also unequal. God clearly had his favorites.
Like the time Abraham lied about his wife being his sister, and God punished those that believed the lie, rather than the man who told the lie. (Abraham in general had a very chummy relationship with God)
Love, not law. Sorry
I hear ya, but I am not so sure.
“For Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Of course, we are not told why he hated Esau.
Does God love Satan? Does God love those in hell? I suppose he could, though I am not convinced. I am not certain that God’s love matters to Satan or his minions. I do not believe I need to know the answer to be faithful.
Esau certainly was a recipient of God’s grace during his life, he propsered in this world. There is no indication of what may have happened to him after leaving this world. It is interesting to ponder why Satan and his ilk were not destroyed without a trace. Can souls not be destroyed? Must they occupy some existence, even if that existence be hell? I do not thnk there punishment exists merely as an example for us.
Perhaps I am wrong about God’s love being conditional, but I believe there are those He does not. He has told us so. If this is so, I think it is reasonable to assume there are conditions. God certainly has requirements of us, perhaps a synonym for conditions. The are definately consequences for not living up to these requirements.
C.S. Lewis’ book, “The Four Loves,” talks about this a bit. He thinks we confuse God’s love with our worldly understanding of love. This is the reason so many of your readers are angry and do not understand God’s seemingly harmful acts toward those who are good. If our love of worldly things, and , according to Lewis, that includes our family, is on an equal status as our love for God, or on a higher level than our love for God, then we are bound to be hurt. Lewis says we need to understand that our love for God needs to be over all things and we need to make this know frequently to those for whom we care. Remember, Abraham was going to sacrifice his son to God and God gave His only begotten Son to die for our sins; yet we are angry when God takes one of our loved ones or supposedly causes them pain.
I have no trouble accepting unquestionably God’s actions, mostly because I feel I am not deserving of anything good. You mentioned years ago, the only thing needed for salvation was faith (I disagree, slightly). Isn’t faith a sort of acceptance, and if it is acceptance why can we not accept that some things may seem harmful to us are God’s perfect will (I do not think they truly are harmful, though we may certanily harm ourselves) . “There are more things in Heaven and earth than are dreamnt of in our philosphies.” Why must we insist on all the answers? Isn’t that what faith is, accepting even were there is reasonable cause for doubt?
This is a great post that really strikes at the heart of the matter. The “go forth and sin no more” part is key, and is ignored by all of the LGBT agitators who like to believe that homosexuality is completely compatible with Christianity.
The vast majority of gay people don’t want to “have their sins forgiven” so to speak. They want someone to tell them that what they are doing isn’t a sin at all. That’s not what Christ did. Not once, not ever. He forgave sinners who repented and accepted him as Lord and agreed to live by his rules. He never simply walked up to a thief or an adulterer and said “Who am I to judge? Do whatever you want, just pray to me every so often and you can go to Heaven.”
If Phil Robertson or anyone else said “I’m willing to forgive and offer eternal salvation to any homosexual who repents of their behavior and promises never to engage in it ever again,” that would be considered just as “offensive” as anything else he may have said, because it implies that homosexuality is wrong, which is the REAL battle here…
Joe,
I did something very rare and deleted a comment. You made a statement about Ron Paul’s religious views that I think is false. If you want to provide a link to something he put out, I will let you do that, but I’m not letting you simply assert something about his views that I am 95% is false (and inflammatory).
Agree
Yes, Christ forgave thieves and adulterers and dined with sinners. But in the context of the Duck Dynasty comments, I don’t see how that’s relevant here. Duck Dynasty guy wasn’t addressing one specific homosexual and yelling at them, saying “You’re going to hell because of your wicked ways!”
Rather, someone else asked him, “What do you think of homosexuality” and he said “I think it’s a sin.” I fail to see the problem here, or even to see how Christ would respond differently. Just because he was willing to forgive individual thieves or adulterers does not change the fact that those things are sinful. Presumably, if some intrepid Jewish journalist asked Christ, “Is adultery a sin yes or no” he would say Yes, would he not?
Political correctness has inflicted so much insanity on our society that we’ve reached a point where saying “I believe homosexuality is a sin” is considered the functional equivalent of “Let’s round up all the gay people and stone them.” which is patently dishonest, and which does little to advance the debate for either side.
Matt M I’m not specifically talking about the DD guy’s comments. Rather, I’m talking about the commentary of libertarians I saw in the wake of it. A lot of atheist libertarians were saying things like, “Yep, this is why you Christian libertarians are holding us back; your own book says we should stone gays. You’re embarrassing us by having to embrace this idiot.” (Not an exact quote mind you.)
All this OT talk literally turns my tummy. You all need to take up your cross and come to the other side…
Matt 5: 17,18
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
John 19:30
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.