Defending Gay Christianity

Theo1689

Well-known member
So we've had the "Metropolitan Community Church" (a "gay" church") for awhile now. And unfortunately, other "mainstream" denominations are becoming "PRIDE-friendly" (I'm not saying "unfortunately" because I dislike any individuals, but only because eternal doctrine cannot be changed by culture).

Back in the day, there was a teenager from a Christian family, "Matthew Vines", who came out as gay, and after "studying" the Bible concluded that Jesus was "A-OK" with it. He gave a lengthy testimony, to which James White responded to in podcasts lasting over 5 hours.

While Matthew is still doing gay apologetics, a newer TikTok personality who considers himself a "gay pastor", Brandan Robertson is becoming more popular, and is being interviewed by the likes of Trent Horn.

I recently listened to a Dividing Line of James White responding to one of Brandan's sermons (I think it was), and it was very revealing....

1) One of the big things is that they refer to the 6 clearest passages teaching against homosexual behaviour as "the clobber passages". This is a label designed to stigmatize and disarm the passages without having to actually deal with them. Apparently if you apply a derogatory label to some passages, those passages magically go away. We can only hope that JW's don't learn about the term, "clobber passages" to refer to the "Jesus is God" passages, or Mormons learn and apply the term to the "only one God" passages.

2) Since 3 of the 6 passages come from the hand of Paul, they need a way to demonize Paul. And they've developed a number of such ways. Brandan points out that Paul refers to the gospel as "my gospel", and claims that Paul's gospel is a different gospel than Jesus. And when you pit Jesus against Paul, then Jesus must win, and Paul loses out, right? So it must not matter what Paul wrote.

3) Brandan comments about how Paul's disagreements with Peter were frequent and vitriolic (or words to that effect). Funny, I only remember only one disagreement between them, and in that one case, Paul was in the right. But if Paul is frequently at odds with Peter, and Peter was in Jesus' inner circle, and knew him well, then Paul must be ultimately going against Jesus, and therefore Paul must be wrong.

4) Brandan also "points out" (although he is wrong) that Paul wrote against James. There is no evidence of this, of course, but he is likely referring to the common tactic of pitting Rom. 4 against James 2. But there is no conflict between them, when properly understood. White refers to a whole chapter he wrote on this issue in "The God Who Justifies" (which I highly recommend). But of course, James was with Peter and John in Jesus' inner circle, and must have known Jesus better than Paul did, and therefore Paul must be wrong, and we can ignore his writings. Brandan also claimed James grew up with Jesus, being his brother, indicating that he was confusing the son of Zebedee with Christ's brother.

Very shallow and weak arguments indeed.
 
There is no teaching in the christian canon that comprehensively deals with the subject of human sexuality. There is a paucity of brief passing references to it in the context of an entirely different, often figurative, spiritually oriented topic. What you have erroneously done is made brief passing references in scripture an absolute dogma.

My very informal take on it is that homosexuality is like heterosexuality in that there are both bad and good uses of it. In Roman times, it was famously abused by rich aristocrats owning young slave boys for sexual services. Apparently, in their culture sex acts between old, rich men and young slave boys was more acceptable than sex with a young slave girl who might get pregnant creating confusion about the status of unwanted, mixed children.

Of course, we do not see this form of homosexuality today because there are laws against 1) slavery, and 2) underage sex with older partners. But it was common in Roman times because it is mentioned and criticized in various sources from that time.

Therefore, in that historical context homosexuality could be and was derided for its abuse of young, slave boys. In that context Paul’s passing references to homosexuality could be taken (there is another explanation that its reference in Romans 1 refers to angels lusting for the female nature or bodily nature of humans, iow, wanting to experience human lust—but it is complicated).

It is my opinion that the same exhortation Paul gives to heterosexuals could also be given to homosexuals, if we were to have Paul sitting in front of us today who could then elaborate on the topic, specifically the topic of human sexuality in a comprehensive manner. He would say that it is better for everyone to remain single, unmarried, abstinent but because he knows few can follow his exhortation and his example, he then recommends getting married to satisfy the itch or passion we all have for sex (1 cor. 7:7-9). In this case, it would apply to homosexuals as well, presuming the homosexual has an itch or physical passion for the same sex. Rather than burn for one another and either buy a bunch of slave boys to gratify your desire or meet at dingy, dark bars for the occasional hookup, then choose a suitable life partner and make them honest in marriage, which is the exact same advice he gave to heterosexuals.

It is my general opinion that by the church refusing to acknowledge homosexuals having the same itch or passion as heterosexuals then we have harmed homosexuals more than helped them. Consequently, we have condemned them to a life of casual sex, and hookups in dark, dingy bars, if they are unable to remain celibate because if the church had its way homosexuals would be denied a life long commitment in marriage. Fortunately, more rational people to include the current Pope are perceiving a better way.

Jordan Peterson made a good point that the main reason christians are against marriage for gays is because they fear it will undermine the marriage between heterosexuals. It is not because the christians are ALL narrow minded (some are) as the media now characterizes them but because they fear for the family unit. But the reality is that the institution of marriage is attacked on more fronts than from gay rights. Pornography in media, hollywood movies promoting sexual freedom, extreme egalitarianism, politics, a culture promoting pleasure over responsibility, etc. etc. The family unit is unraveling in front of our eyes not because a fraction of the people have an itch for the same sex but because of the sin nature in all of us, deceiving us, leading us into sin. Unless we address the sin nature in a rational way and guide it, regulate it, integrate it for good according to wisdom, right reason, and truth, then the family and culture will continue to unravel, whether or not gays can marry or not, whether or not the church gives its blessing to gay marriage or not. The problems we face as a nation, as a culture, are much bigger than our opinions of a few passing references to homosexuality in the Paul’s letters.
 
Last edited:
There is no teaching in the christian canon that comprehensively deals with the subject of human sexuality. There is a paucity of brief passing references to it in the context of an entirely different, often figurative, spiritually oriented topic. What you have erroneously done is made brief passing references in scripture an absolute dogma.

My very informal take on it is that homosexuality is like heterosexuality in that there are both bad and good uses of it. In Roman times, it was famously abused by rich aristocrats owning young slave boys for sexual services. Apparently, in their culture sex acts between old, rich men and young slave boys was more acceptable than sex with a young slave girl who might get pregnant creating confusion about the status of unwanted, mixed children.

Of course, we do not see this form of homosexuality today because there are laws against 1) slavery, and 2) underage sex with older partners. But it was common in Roman times because it is mentioned and criticized in various sources from that time.

Therefore, in that historical context homosexuality could be and was derided for its abuse of young, slave boys. In that context Paul’s passing references to homosexuality could be taken (there is another explanation that its reference in Romans 1 refers to angels lusting for the female nature or bodily nature of humans, iow, wanting to experience human lust—but it is complicated).

It is my opinion that the same exhortation Paul gives to heterosexuals could also be given to homosexuals, if we were to have Paul sitting in front of us today who could then elaborate on the topic, specifically the topic of human sexuality in a comprehensive manner. He would say that it is better for everyone to remain single, unmarried, abstinent but because he knows few can follow his exhortation and his example, he then recommends getting married to satisfy the itch or passion we all have for sex (1 cor. 7:7-8). In this case, it would apply to homosexuals as well, presuming the homosexual has an itch or physical passion for the same sex. Rather than burn for one another and either buy a bunch of slave boys to gratify your desire or meet at dingy, dark bars for the occasional hookup, then choose a suitable life partner and make them honest in marriage, which is the exact same advice he gave to heterosexuals.

It is my general opinion that by the church refusing to acknowledge homosexuals having the same itch or passion as heterosexuals then we have harmed homosexuals more than helped them. Consequently, we have condemned them to a life of casual sex, and hookups in dark, dingy bars, if they are unable to remain celibate because if the church had its way homosexuals would be denied a life long commitment in marriage. Fortunately, more rational people to include the current Pope are perceiving a better way.
As I have pointed out previously, you are a syncretist, and here you are seeking to identify the heretical wing, the fifth column (Jude 1:4) with the church of God, even Christ. There is nothing that supports your contention that those who advocate toleration of practising homosexuals within the church are in any sense Christian, and certainly not practising homosexuals themselves (I use the term "practising homosexual" by way of explaining exactly what I mean). The apostolic commands are clear: 1 Cor 5:5 "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord," 1 Cor 5:12 "Expel the wicked person from among you." 1 Cor 5:5 "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people." etc.

Neither practising homosexuals nor those who condone such of them as refer to themselves as "Christians" (Rom 1:32) are in God's church, whatever worldly church they may belong to. Some churches do actively engage with homosexuals with the specific intention of inducing them to repent. But apart from this one purpose: No way Jose!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
As I have pointed out previously, you are a syncretist, and here you are seeking to identify the heretical wing, the fifth column (Jude 1:4) with the church of God, even Christ. There is nothing that supports your contention that those who advocate toleration of practising homosexuals within the church are in any sense Christian, and certainly not practising homosexuals themselves (I use the term "practising homosexual" only by way of explaining exactly what I mean without connotations). The apostolic commands are clear: 1 Cor 5:5 "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord," 1 Cor 5:12 "Expel the wicked person from among you." 1 Cor 5:5 "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people." etc.

Neither practising homosexuals nor those who associate with, or condone (Rom 1:32), such of them as refer to themselves as "Christians" are any part of God's church. All these remain always the enemies of God unless they choose to, or show a will to repent. Some churches do actively engage with homosexuals with the specific intention of inducing them to repent. But apart from this one purpose: No way Jose!
So your whole position is based on 1) ad hominem (in your opinion, I am the “fifth column”, and a “syncretist”, maybe the illuminati, the liberal left, and a materialistic, or atheist, etc.—just more labels attached to people to dehumanize them and undermine their argument) and 2) a dogmatic interpretation of a few passing references to homosexuality in the Bible.

Therefore, nothing you said changes anything I said, the reasons I gave. You just stated the party line. Nothing of your own, from your own synthesis of the issue. Just parroting what you were taught.
 
So your whole position is based on 1) ad hominem (in your opinion, I am the “fifth column”, and a “syncretist”, maybe the illuminati, the liberal left, and a materialistic, or atheist, etc.—just more labels attached to people to dehumanize them and undermine their argument) and 2) a dogmatic interpretation of a few passing references to homosexuality in the Bible.
Not "dehumanize them" but "despiritualize" them in order to re-spiritualize them. Spirit is truth and therefore they must be clear than such sins entail the loss of their spirituality. Their spirits belong to the devil. That much must be made clear, so that they have incentive to repent. They remain human beings; and the law of Jesus has a lot to say about them just because they are human beings.

Therefore, nothing you said changes anything I said, the reasons I gave. You just stated the party line. Nothing of your own, from your own synthesis of the issue. Just parroting what you were taught.
What I was taught is the spiritual truth. You however are playing at politics, seeking to impose humanist secular ideals on the church of God, which so many "churches" accept to their own spiritual destruction. Your motives are secular and fundamentally reject the Old Testament law that is Christ's own law. You are opposed to the religion of Christ and his enterprise. Why won't you admit it?
 
Last edited:
Not "dehumanize them" but "despiritualize" them in order to re-spiritualize them. Spirit is truth and therefore they must be clear than such sins entail the loss of their spirituality. Their spirits belong to the devil. That much must be made clear, so that they have incentive to repent. They remain human beings; and the law of Jesus has a lot to say about them just because they are human beings.
You would not know the truth if it slapped you upside the head. You think truth is what you define it to be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Your opinions are a dime-a-dozen on this forum and are easily refuted by evidence and reason. But you would not know what evidence and reason are because your whole position is based on personal interpretation of the Bible, most likely a literal one.

What I was taught is the spiritual truth. You however are playing at politics, seeking to impose humanist secular ideals on the church of God, which so many of "churches" accept to their own spiritual destruction. Your motives are secular and fundamentally reject the Old Testament law that is Christ's own law. You are opposed to the religion of Christ and his enterprise. Why won't you admit it?
The Old testament commands homosexuals be stoned. So am I to assume that is what you would do if given the opportunity? ….merely to fulfill the old testament law? Or is this when you parrot the party line that all that changed with the appearance of superman in the first century? Of course, this response only confuses you because you don’t believe in a “superman”, —you cannot find it in your apologetics course literature. How do you respond to a “superman”? Just retort with more ad hominem about the fifth column, secular humanism, blah, blah, blah. Just more labels to stick on things. Just ignore the real issue of passion, lust, in each of us, to include the homosexual, and how to mitigate its harm to the individual, the community, and the nation.
 
You would not know the truth if it slapped you upside the head. You think truth is what you define it to be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Your opinions are a dime-a-dozen on this forum and are easily refuted by evidence and reason. But you would not know what evidence and reason are because your whole position is based on personal interpretation of the Bible, most likely a literal one.
Mine is an apostolic interpretation, yours is biblical denial.

The Old testament commands homosexuals be stoned. So am I to assume that is what you would do if given the opportunity? ….merely to fulfill the old testament law?
I don't need to answer hypothetical questions.

Or is this when you parrot the party line that all that changed with the appearance of superman in the first century? Of course, this response only confuses you because you don’t believe in a “superman”, —you cannot find it in your apologetics course literature.
I don't believe in a "superman." You'd be looking at either (Hyper-)Trinitarianism or (Hyper-)Unitarianism for Jesus construed as a "superman." He was just an ordinary guy, but one who came down from heaven and had God as his Father.

How do you respond to a “superman”? Just retort with more ad hominem about the fifth column, secular humanism, blah, blah, blah. Just more labels to stick on things. Just ignore the real issue of passion, lust, in each of us, to include the homosexual, and how to mitigate its harm to the individual, the community, and the nation.
The homosexual is no part of God's church. That's my main point. I don't allow the word "we" when talking about homosexuals or their condoners. Language must devolve to "them" (who are not in or of God's church) and "us" (who are). But you are not in my "us" category.

The sinful desires of the flesh are to be crucified by anyone who desires to be a Christian. Refusal to obey is missing out on the promise of eternal life. Seems a bad error on your part to make out that fleshly desires are more important than eternal life.
 
There is no teaching in the christian canon that comprehensively deals with the subject of human sexuality. There is a paucity of brief passing references to it in the context of an entirely different, often figurative, spiritually oriented topic. What you have erroneously done is made brief passing references in scripture an absolute dogma.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are looking for an excuse to justify sin.

My very informal take on it is that homosexuality is like heterosexuality in that there are both bad and good uses of it.

And that woudld be incorrect.
There is no "good use" for homosexuality, except for selfish personal pleasure. Homosexual acts cannot produce life, as heterosexual sex does (and is in fact DESIGNED for).

And homosexual lifestyle is anti-Biological, as the rectum was never intended to receive a male phallus. And before you come up with the lame retort, "But straight couples engage in anal sex too!", that still doesn't change the fact the rectum was not designed to receive the male phallus.

In Roman times, it was famously abused by rich aristocrats owning young slave boys for sexual services. Apparently, in their culture sex acts between old, rich men and young slave boys was more acceptable than sex with a young slave girl who might get pregnant creating confusion about the status of unwanted, mixed children.

Yes, this is the standard bankrupt argument, "The Bible only condemns "evil" homosexuality, and not consentual sex." But that argument doesn't hold water.

Of course, we do not see this form of homosexuality today because there are laws against 1) slavery, and 2) underage sex with older partners.

And NOWHERE is the proscription against homosexual acts in the Bible limited to the above

But it was common in Roman times because it is mentioned and criticized in various sources from that time.

Let me ask you a simple (rhetorical) question to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument:

"If it were true that the Bible is condemning all acts of homosexuality, it would also be condeming underage homosexuality and master/slave homosexuality, correct?"

Of course that's correct.

Therefore, in that historical context homosexuality could be and was derided for its abuse of young, slave boys.

It was not LIMITED to only that.

In that context Paul’s passing references to homosexuality could be taken (there is another explanation that its reference in Romans 1 refers to angels lusting for the female nature or bodily nature of humans, iow, wanting to experience human lust—but it is complicated).

The Bible proscription includes the following:

"A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman."

There is NOTHING there that limits the "man" to a "master/slave" relationship, or whether minors are included or not.

It is my opinion that the same exhortation Paul gives to heterosexuals could also be given to homosexuals, if we were to have Paul sitting in front of us today who could then elaborate on the topic, specifically the topic of human sexuality in a comprehensive manner.

Yes, I agree.
It is a sin for heterosexuals to engage in homosexual sex.

He would say that it is better for everyone to remain single, unmarried, abstinent but because he knows few can follow his exhortation and his example, he then recommends getting married to satisfy the itch or passion we all have for sex (1 cor. 7:7-9).

But he recognizes heterosexual union as perefectly fine.
He does NOT recognize homosexual union as perfectly fine.

In this case, it would apply to homosexuals as well, presuming the homosexual has an itch or physical passion for the same sex.

I guess you've never read the chapter you're citing.
It starts out as follows:

"Every woman should have her own HUSBAND,
and every man should have his own WIFE."

I'm not sure how (or why) you would think this allows for homosexual unions.

Can you please point me to the Bible verse that allegedly reads:

"Every woman should have her own WIFE,
and every man should have his own HUSBAND."

Rather than burn for one another and either buy a bunch of slave boys to gratify your desire or meet at dingy, dark bars for the occasional hookup, then choose a suitable life partner and make them honest in marriage,

I'm sorry, but I can't find that "advice" for homosexuals anywhere in the Bible.

which is the exact same advice he gave to heterosexuals.

Your error is in ASSUMING (contrary to the Bible) that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are comparable, that what applies to one applies to another.

Paul praised heterosexual unions.
Paul condemned homosexual unions.

It is my general opinion that by the church refusing to acknowledge homosexuals having the same itch or passion as heterosexuals then we have harmed homosexuals more than helped them.

We don't "refuse to acknowledge" any such thing.

Being a kleptomaniac does NOT give you a right to steal.
Being a pyromaniac does NOT give you a right to commit arson.
Being an alcoholic does NOT give you a right to constantly be drunk.
Being a sexual obsessive does NOT give you a right to commit adultery.
Being a homosexual dose NOT give you a right to engage in homosexual sex.

There are MANY "itches" that people have, that Christians are not allowed to "scratch".

You are confusing Christianity with a philosophy of sexual gratification (I think there's a name for it, but I can't think of it).


(to be continued...)
 
(continuing...)


Consequently, we have condemned them to a life of casual sex, and hookups in dark, dingy bars, if they are unable to remain celibate because if the church had its way homosexuals would be denied a life long commitment in marriage.

Well, first of all, you demonstrate that you have no clue what Christianity teaches. We believe gays are free to have all the gay sex they want. It's a free country. They just can't be Christian if they want to live a life of sin. And I don't know why they would WANT to be a Christian if they want to live a life of sin.

And I really detest your argument, which is the same argument used for abortion, and can be used to justify ANY sin or crime:

"If you make drug use illegal, then people will simply do it in dark alleys, and risk death from filthy needles".

"If you make murder illegal, then people will simply do it in dark alleys, and risk death from their victim trying to defend himself."

And there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, with a prime purpose to have children and raise a family.

If gays want to exchange vows in front of a judge in order to get government benefits, that's up to them, but getting "married" is INCREDIBLY offensive to those of us from whom they are culturally appropriating and insulting our beliefs.

Fortunately, more rational people to include the current Pope are perceiving a better way.

<Chuckle>
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is not "rational".
So you have no valid argument, only childish insult.
Good to know.

Jordan Peterson made a good point that the main reason christians are against marriage for gays is because they fear it will undermine the marriage between heterosexuals.

I doubt those were his exact words, and I'm sure that there was a context that you're not sharing with us.

But even so, Christians live their lives devoted to God, not to others' opinions of "Jordan Peterson".

It is not because the christians are ALL narrow minded (some are)

So the correct philosophy is "anarchism"?
Good to know.

But the reality is that the institution of marriage is attacked on more fronts than from gay rights. Pornography in media, hollywood movies promoting sexual freedom, extreme egalitarianism, politics, a culture promoting pleasure over responsibility, etc. etc. The family unit is unraveling in front of our eyes not because a fraction of the people have an itch for the same sex but because of the sin nature in all of us,

I agree with you that there are many things in society attacking the institution of marriage.

Where I disagree with you is your "either/or" assumption. The presence of other attacks on marriage doesn't negate homosexual sex as an attack on marrriage.

Your bankrupt argument reminds me of the drunk driver pulled over by a cop for going 130 mph in 30 mph zone, arguing, "Why are you pulling me over, aren't there murderers you should be looking for?!?!?!"

Unless we address the sin nature in a rational way and guide it, regulate it, integrate it for good according to wisdom, right reason, and truth, then the family and culture will continue to unravel,

And that will be impossible as long as peiople like you refuse to accept that homosexuality is PART of the "sin nature", and should not be defended.

People mistakenly think that that Christians believe homosexuality is the worst sin on the planet. Of course we don't believe any such thing. Ther are plenty of other sins which are just as bad. The difference is that people are DENYING that homosexual sex is a sin, where they are less likely to deny that murder or stealing are sins (although our culture is moving more in that direction, with abortion, and looting, etc. etc.)

whether or not gays can marry or not, whether or not the church gives its blessing to gay marriage or not. The problems we face as a nation, as a culture, are much bigger than our opinions of a few passing references to homosexuality in the Paul’s letters.

And that's why you are (hopefully) not a Christian.
Because true Christians do not dismiss the word of God as "a few passing references", simply because society rejects God's truth.
 
There is no teaching in the christian canon that comprehensively deals with the subject of human sexuality.

I'm going to try to use my willpower to ignore further posts by you, since you seem to be missing the point.

The point is NOT whether you want to defend gay sex or gay lifestyle or not. If you want to be a "gay Christian", then there are Metropolitan Community Churches all over the world, and more and more churches are becoming polluted our culture and beginning to worship the Pride Flag instead of worshipping God.

That's not the point.

The point is refusing to accept what the Biblical text ACTUALLY says, and instead trying to TWIST it to make it conform to your sinful principles. And this has ramifications for one's entire life, since if they are willing to twist the text of the Bible, they are willing to twist the text of ANY piece of written work. And it's no longer listening to what an author wrote and meant, but only a narcissistic exercise in trying to twist a text into something YOU like.

My brother is gay.
My brother used to be a Christian.
For a while he was both.
He used to go to a MCC church.

But he found conflict in the two concepts, and as afar as I was aware, he read EVERY book he could get his hands on regarding an attempt at "reconciling" Christianity with a homosexual lifestyle.

My brother has integrity. As much as he loved the church, he was able to accept the inevitable conclusion that God and the Bible does not allow homosexual sin. But he chose his lifestyle over God.
 
So we've had the "Metropolitan Community Church" (a "gay" church") for awhile now. And unfortunately, other "mainstream" denominations are becoming "PRIDE-friendly" (I'm not saying "unfortunately" because I dislike any individuals, but only because eternal doctrine cannot be changed by culture).

Back in the day, there was a teenager from a Christian family, "Matthew Vines", who came out as gay, and after "studying" the Bible concluded that Jesus was "A-OK" with it. He gave a lengthy testimony, to which James White responded to in podcasts lasting over 5 hours.

While Matthew is still doing gay apologetics, a newer TikTok personality who considers himself a "gay pastor", Brandan Robertson is becoming more popular, and is being interviewed by the likes of Trent Horn.

I recently listened to a Dividing Line of James White responding to one of Brandan's sermons (I think it was), and it was very revealing....

1) One of the big things is that they refer to the 6 clearest passages teaching against homosexual behaviour as "the clobber passages". This is a label designed to stigmatize and disarm the passages without having to actually deal with them. Apparently if you apply a derogatory label to some passages, those passages magically go away. We can only hope that JW's don't learn about the term, "clobber passages" to refer to the "Jesus is God" passages, or Mormons learn and apply the term to the "only one God" passages.

2) Since 3 of the 6 passages come from the hand of Paul, they need a way to demonize Paul. And they've developed a number of such ways. Brandan points out that Paul refers to the gospel as "my gospel", and claims that Paul's gospel is a different gospel than Jesus. And when you pit Jesus against Paul, then Jesus must win, and Paul loses out, right? So it must not matter what Paul wrote.

3) Brandan comments about how Paul's disagreements with Peter were frequent and vitriolic (or words to that effect). Funny, I only remember only one disagreement between them, and in that one case, Paul was in the right. But if Paul is frequently at odds with Peter, and Peter was in Jesus' inner circle, and knew him well, then Paul must be ultimately going against Jesus, and therefore Paul must be wrong.

4) Brandan also "points out" (although he is wrong) that Paul wrote against James. There is no evidence of this, of course, but he is likely referring to the common tactic of pitting Rom. 4 against James 2. But there is no conflict between them, when properly understood. White refers to a whole chapter he wrote on this issue in "The God Who Justifies" (which I highly recommend). But of course, James was with Peter and John in Jesus' inner circle, and must have known Jesus better than Paul did, and therefore Paul must be wrong, and we can ignore his writings. Brandan also claimed James grew up with Jesus, being his brother, indicating that he was confusing the son of Zebedee with Christ's brother.

Very shallow and weak arguments indeed.
Yes, I've heard the term "clobber passages" and even that sounds "gay."

Oh how the false teachers twist God's word. It is and will be to no avail. 1 Corinthians 6:19-21, as the rest of Scripture, stands.
 
There is no teaching in the christian canon that comprehensively deals with the subject of human sexuality. There is a paucity of brief passing references to it in the context of an entirely different, often figurative, spiritually oriented topic. What you have erroneously done is made brief passing references in scripture an absolute dogma.

My very informal take on it is that homosexuality is like heterosexuality in that there are both bad and good uses of it. In Roman times, it was famously abused by rich aristocrats owning young slave boys for sexual services. Apparently, in their culture sex acts between old, rich men and young slave boys was more acceptable than sex with a young slave girl who might get pregnant creating confusion about the status of unwanted, mixed children.

Of course, we do not see this form of homosexuality today because there are laws against 1) slavery, and 2) underage sex with older partners. But it was common in Roman times because it is mentioned and criticized in various sources from that time.

Therefore, in that historical context homosexuality could be and was derided for its abuse of young, slave boys. In that context Paul’s passing references to homosexuality could be taken (there is another explanation that its reference in Romans 1 refers to angels lusting for the female nature or bodily nature of humans, iow, wanting to experience human lust—but it is complicated).

It is my opinion that the same exhortation Paul gives to heterosexuals could also be given to homosexuals, if we were to have Paul sitting in front of us today who could then elaborate on the topic, specifically the topic of human sexuality in a comprehensive manner. He would say that it is better for everyone to remain single, unmarried, abstinent but because he knows few can follow his exhortation and his example, he then recommends getting married to satisfy the itch or passion we all have for sex (1 cor. 7:7-9). In this case, it would apply to homosexuals as well, presuming the homosexual has an itch or physical passion for the same sex. Rather than burn for one another and either buy a bunch of slave boys to gratify your desire or meet at dingy, dark bars for the occasional hookup, then choose a suitable life partner and make them honest in marriage, which is the exact same advice he gave to heterosexuals.

It is my general opinion that by the church refusing to acknowledge homosexuals having the same itch or passion as heterosexuals then we have harmed homosexuals more than helped them. Consequently, we have condemned them to a life of casual sex, and hookups in dark, dingy bars, if they are unable to remain celibate because if the church had its way homosexuals would be denied a life long commitment in marriage. Fortunately, more rational people to include the current Pope are perceiving a better way.

Jordan Peterson made a good point that the main reason christians are against marriage for gays is because they fear it will undermine the marriage between heterosexuals. It is not because the christians are ALL narrow minded (some are) as the media now characterizes them but because they fear for the family unit. But the reality is that the institution of marriage is attacked on more fronts than from gay rights. Pornography in media, hollywood movies promoting sexual freedom, extreme egalitarianism, politics, a culture promoting pleasure over responsibility, etc. etc. The family unit is unraveling in front of our eyes not because a fraction of the people have an itch for the same sex but because of the sin nature in all of us, deceiving us, leading us into sin. Unless we address the sin nature in a rational way and guide it, regulate it, integrate it for good according to wisdom, right reason, and truth, then the family and culture will continue to unravel, whether or not gays can marry or not, whether or not the church gives its blessing to gay marriage or not. The problems we face as a nation, as a culture, are much bigger than our opinions of a few passing references to homosexuality in the Paul’s letters.
Jesus in Matthew 19 states that only one man and one wife in the covenant of marriage is biblical. Romans 1 speaks to the evil of same sex attraction. That’s just for starters.
 
Jesus in Matthew 19 states that only one man and one wife in the covenant of marriage is biblical. Romans 1 speaks to the evil of same sex attraction. That’s just for starters.
Matthew 19 is dealing with the topic of divorce, not homosexuality. The point being marriage is intended by God to be for life. There is nothing in there about preventing two humans of the same sex forming a sexual union for life. Based on context of Matthew 19 we should presume two gay people would also be expected to remain married for life.

your response is a perfect example of dogmatists ignoring the point of the passage, its context, and reading into it what you want to find.

The Gospels do not deal with every practical detail of life so we are left to work out some things for ourselves. The few references to it are brief mentions out of context lacking any real explanation to the specific issue. We cannot build a systematic understanding of the real, life issue from a few glancing references to it.

Romans 1 is dealing with fallen angels (aka the Watchers) becoming flesh. The idea is that they gave up their divine nature to become human. Consequently the feminine nature (absent the male divine nature) lusted for itself only. The meaning will not be found in your bible commentaries but in the speculative theology concerning cosmogenesis that early jewish-christian held. but keep telling yourself he was blaming homosexuals for evil in the World (rather than fallen angels) because I know you will.

I don’t care to argue the christian pov in support of gay marriage to dogmatic, bible literalists. I know that you will never change your mind. My purpose was to present a pov that nobody else would present.
 
Matthew 19 is dealing with the topic of divorce, not homosexuality. The point being marriage is intended by God to be for life. There is nothing in there about preventing two humans of the same sex forming a sexual union for life. Based on context of Matthew 19 we should presume two gay people would also be expected to remain married for life.

your response is a perfect example of dogmatists ignoring the point of the passage, its context, and reading into it what you want to find.

The Gospels do not deal with every practical detail of life so we are left to work out some things for ourselves. The few references to it are brief mentions out of context lacking any real explanation to the specific issue. We cannot build a systematic understanding of the real, life issue from a few glancing references to it.

Romans 1 is dealing with fallen angels (aka the Watchers) becoming flesh. The idea is that they gave up their divine nature to become human. Consequently the feminine nature (absent the male divine nature) lusted for itself only. The meaning will not be found in your bible commentaries but in the speculative theology concerning cosmogenesis that early jewish-christian held. but keep telling yourself he was blaming homosexuals for evil in the World (rather than fallen angels) because I know you will.

I don’t care to argue the christian pov in support of gay marriage to dogmatic, bible literalists. I know that you will never change your mind. My purpose was to present a pov that nobody else would present.
Not hardly.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[Matthew 19:3-9]

Nowhere in all of holy writ can you find where two men or two women are considered one in His sight. Jesus took them back to the creation account and showed that marriage is solely between one man and one woman. Not two (or more) men and a woman, not two women (or more) and one man. Not two men or two women. Marriage is solely between one man and one woman.
 
Matthew 19 is dealing with the topic of divorce, not homosexuality. The point being marriage is intended by God to be for life. There is nothing in there about preventing two humans of the same sex forming a sexual union for life. Based on context of Matthew 19 we should presume two gay people would also be expected to remain married for life.

your response is a perfect example of dogmatists ignoring the point of the passage, its context, and reading into it what you want to find.

The Gospels do not deal with every practical detail of life so we are left to work out some things for ourselves. The few references to it are brief mentions out of context lacking any real explanation to the specific issue. We cannot build a systematic understanding of the real, life issue from a few glancing references to it.

Romans 1 is dealing with fallen angels (aka the Watchers) becoming flesh. The idea is that they gave up their divine nature to become human. Consequently the feminine nature (absent the male divine nature) lusted for itself only. The meaning will not be found in your bible commentaries but in the speculative theology concerning cosmogenesis that early jewish-christian held. but keep telling yourself he was blaming homosexuals for evil in the World (rather than fallen angels) because I know you will.

I don’t care to argue the christian pov in support of gay marriage to dogmatic, bible literalists. I know that you will never change your mind. My purpose was to present a pov that nobody else would present.
And yes the topic is divorce and only men and women can biblically marry, and therefore divorce, so my point remains. Show me one verse that God approves of same sex marriage. Just one.
 
And yes the topic is divorce and only men and women can biblically marry, and therefore divorce, so my point remains. Show me one verse that God approves of same sex marriage. Just one.
The new testament canon gives us precepts by which to regulate our lives based on virtuous living. It does not prescribe exact actions for any possible situation of life, otherwise, we would have ended up with a huge book like the Jewish Talmud filled with obsolete and contradictory explanations. There is no verse where God approves of nuclear energy so in your logic, it must be disapproved. That is how silly your argument is.

Whereas if we were to only apply the Golden Rule to the situation we could see nothing inherently wrong with two same-sex people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. But that would require using your brain rather than searching the Bible for every answer to every situation on earth.

Tell me what virtue two life long committed homosexuals have abandoned. None. And that is what moral Christianity is about, ie., doing what is best for others.
 
Tell me what virtue two life long committed homosexuals have abandoned.
The truth.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
 
The truth.

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
This is not what you think its saying. He is talking about fallen angels giving up their divine nature and becoming humans. It is based on the Genesis 6 myth about fallen angels, aka, the Watchers, having subsumed human nature. Their downfall led to the evils before the great flood. So he is making the point that spirits absent a divine nature have an unseemly lust.

You guys really need to expand your reading materials because you are all in an echo chamber repeating the same misinformation. The clementine homilies has the same exact description about the cause of evil but it is explicitly about fallen angels.

1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Nothing about homosexuality. It is about avoiding fornication by being married. IOW, satisfy your lusts within the guidelines of a monogamous relationship. It prevents STDS and unwanted pregnancies. Logically, the same advice could be given to homosexuals. Get married and avoid contracting an STD. Adopt a child maybe and provide care for them. I mean there can be good produced from gay marriage just like in heterosexual marriage. That is the moral code of Christians: do no harm!
 
This is not what you think its saying. He is talking about fallen angels giving up their divine nature and becoming humans. It is based on the Genesis 6 myth about fallen angels, aka, the Watchers, having subsumed human nature. Their downfall led to the evils before the great flood. So he is making the point that spirits absent a divine nature have an unseemly lust.
I disagree. It's talking about human men.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

If it was about the angels of Genesis 6, verse 26 makes no sense:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


You guys really need to expand your reading materials because you are all in an echo chamber repeating the same misinformation. The clementine homilies has the same exact description about the cause of evil but it is explicitly about fallen angels.
I will stick with the Bible.

Nothing about homosexuality. It is about avoiding fornication by being married. IOW, satisfy your lusts within the guidelines of a monogamous relationship.
Right. A man with a woman.

It prevents STDS and unwanted pregnancies. Logically, the same advice could be given to homosexuals.
No it can't.

Get married and avoid contracting an STD.
Men are to marry women.

Adopt a child maybe and provide care for them.
The child won't know right from wrong.

I mean there can be good produced from gay marriage
No there can't. It's an abomination to God.

just like in heterosexual marriage. That is the moral code of Christians: do no harm!
Christians are to do no harm, but we're also supposed to stand for the truth.

If you're a homosexual, it won't be easy, but deliverance is possible.
 
Back
Top