From all around Christendom every biblically-thinking believer is horrified by the rise of the acceptance and indulgence of homosexual behavior. It's marching on our streets. It's in our neighborhoods. It's on our TVs. It is even infiltrating churches. An act that was, merely a half century ago, universally recognized as sin by even unbelievers is becoming "accepted" and "normalized" in society today. Even though hardly 2% of society self-identifies as "gay", our culture is ready to call it "normal". (Do the math. That doesn't add up.) So we have the loose cannons (read "crazies") like the Westboro Baptist Church people who are toting signs at the funerals of American military assuring us that God hates us and these deaths are a direct result of this evil. Right. (Not.) And we have people like me, a bit farther away from that radical fringe, still stumping to hold the line that homosexual behavior is a sin and marriage has a definition that does not include "same-sex".
It would be easy, then, to assume that to ... what was my term ... "every biblically-thinking believer" perhaps the most offensive sin is the sin of homosexuality. That is the ultimate evil. That's where it's at. That's where evil has come to. I would like to stand up as a biblically-thinking believer and suggest that this just isn't true. Homosexual behavior is not the ultimate sin. Not even close.
Recently the folks at Stand to Reason did a noteworthy piece on "Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All?" I appreciated the tone and the content. Now I'm going to offer some reasons to conclude that it is not.
If I'm going to make this argument, calling myself a "biblically-thinking believer", I'll have to do it biblically. But first, I'd like to do it, briefly, with reason. Then the Bible. I think that the truly evil sins are the insidious ones, the ones that are "acceptable", the ones that we don't even pay attention to. They're the ones that sneak into our kitchens (like "gluttony") or our bedrooms (I'm sure you can figure that one out). They're the ones that we indulge without giving them a second thought, the "normal" sins that we don't even consider repenting from because we don't even think about them. To me, those are the ultimate sins. The "easy listening" music that encourages fornication rather than the "evil" music that does the same only louder. The "family-friendly" television show that inverts God's family structures and glorifies teenage pregnancy rather than the pornography that we all recognize as bad. These kinds of things that we just let in. We recognize homosexual behavior as a sin and we're aware of it. That makes it not nearly as dangerous as our acceptable sins.
I believe, however, that the Bible agrees; it isn't the ultimate sin. Jesus spoke of one sin that was unpardonable, and it wasn't homosexual behavior. Thus, we can be sure that there is something worse than that behavior. The unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and homosexual behavior is not that sin. John wrote, "If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life" (1 John 5:16). Regardless of what sin John was talking about, there is a sin that leads to death and there is sin that does not. "There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that" (1 John 5:16). Whatever that sin is, it is not homosexual behavior. Thus, there is sin that is worse than that particular behavior.
There is another biblical reference that suggests that, while the behavior is pretty bad, it is not the ultimate sin. Romans 1 has a sequence of depravity. It starts with the suppression of truth and the exchange of the glory of God for created things (Rom 1:21-23). From there, God "gave them up" to impurity. At this step, they "served the creature rather than the Creator (Rom 1:24-25). So God "gave them up" again, this time to "dishonorable passions" which includes the sin of homosexual behavior -- the exchange of the "natural" for the "unnatural". Please note that this is not the end of the chain. Since, at this point, they refused to acknowledge God, He "gave them up" one more time. This is the bottom of the ladder, the lowest point, the "worst sins", so to speak.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Rom 1:28-32).Notice, then, what is at the bottom of the barrel, the "worst sins". More importantly, compare your ideas of "worst sins" to this list. How about murder? "Yeah, yeah, that one is really up there." Haters of God? "Oh, yeah, really bad." Gossip? "Yeah ... oh, wait ... hold on." How about disobedient to parents? "Oh, come on, now, really?"
Look, I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. No doubt. But it is not the ultimate sin. It isn't even the worst sin. The reason that it is so "in the news" right now is that it is a battleground sin, a place where sin is being suggested as normal. But it is only one. We glorify disobedience to parents in our society, as an example. And that's just one on the list. Homosexual behavior is one sin on the "sexual immorality" hit parade. It is a bad one, classified by God as an "abomination". But, Christians, let's not lose sight here. Gossips need the Gospel just as much as gays. Liars need to repent just as much as lesbians. Let's not lose sight of the goal here. We need to share with everyone their need for Christ and the answers that are found in Him. An extreme focus on a particular sinful behavior might be momentarily necessary when it tries to become "normal" and "acceptable", but in the end, it is just another sin for which Christ died and for which His blood is payment.
31 comments:
My main problem with homosexuality is that state-sanctioning of it forces us to either accept it as normal or be punished for not doing so.
As for the sin issue, some sins are worse than others due to the consequences caused. In 1st Cor. 6:18 Paul points out that sexual sins are against one's own body, while all other sins are outside the body.
Homosexual behavior is just another sexual sin, right up there with adultery and fornication.
By they way, I'd say Westboro is not a Christian church - there is nothing about Christ in their teachings; they are a cult, with a majority of members being related!
Yes, the reason we're so vocal on this particular sin right now is because it is a current hotbed, a current battleground. If we can prevent it from becoming the law ("You're going to jail if you say it's a sin."), good.
I am convinced that some sins are worse than others. Of that, in fact, I have no doubt. As you said, this one is no worse than adultery or fornication ... and no better.
I'm with you on the Westboro "church". That's why I classified them as "crazies". Not Christian. Whacko.
Glenn...
My main problem with homosexuality is that state-sanctioning of it forces us to either accept it as normal or be punished for not doing so.
Would it not be more fair to say that you don't have to accept it as normal, BUT that you can't discriminate based on this one factor and you can be punished for discrimination?
I mean, just like with racial issues - our laws don't make anyone "like" or hang out with people of opposite races, but it does criminalize and punish those who discriminate based on race.
That seems a reasonable compromise to me: You all are still free to not associate with gay folk or to call homosexuality "sin" if you want, but you can't discriminate based on your presumptions.
That seems an appropriate dividing line for gov't intervention: They can punish behavior that causes harm, but not an attitude.
One Christian's opinion.
Being of a different race is not a moral issue. That makes the situation different.
Back in 2008 a wedding photographer was sued (and she lost) because she refused to photograph a "lesbian wedding". She was not free to refuse to provide the service.
A 15-year-old in Wisconsin was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. One student wrote the "Yes" side; he wrote the "No" side. As a result, he was threatened and reprimanded by school officials for the piece.
In 2008, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was sued because their ministry didn't allow a lesbian couple to use their property for their wedding.
How long before churches are sued for not allowing homosexuals as staff members or private Christians schools for not allowing homosexuals teachers? It's already happening. The government will punish people like me who believe that such behavior is a sin if we actually hold to that principle.
No Dan, it is not about "discrimination."
There is a big difference between discriminating against one's skin color and discriminating against one's behavior.
The law has already punished many, many people for doing nothing more than refusing to sanction homosexuality.
Just one example is the wedding photographer who was punished for not doing a homophile wedding. It didn't matter that she also refuses to photograph a whole list of immoral activities, she was sued and lost and even had to undergo "diversity" classes just because she didn't want to sanction the "wedding" by being there.
As of now I live in a state that won't do that to me if I refuse to play for a same-sex union ceremony. I have already turned down a request to play for a "hand-fasting ceremony" of uniting a polygamous group. They stated up front that they would not be offended if I didn't feel comfortable, yet the homosexual community can't give the same courtesy.
If I am required to do something which gives tacit approval to a same-sex union, I should be allowed not to do it without worrying about lawsuits and jail time.
My children should not be force-fed the homosexual agenda in the school system. There should be no laws placing sexual behavior on the level of skin color. PERIOD!
Homosexual behavior DOES cause harm, both to the participating parties and to society as a whole.
Are there laws now telling churches who they can hire? No, I don't think we need to worry about that. Freedom of religion and all that.
Like I said, it seems to me: Harm seems to be a reasonable dividing line. You are free to think what you want about gay folk (who, like black folk or white folk, can't help their orientation), but you can't discriminate in ways that cause harm.
Do you think that wedding photographer should be able to say, "No, I won't photograph your wedding because you're white (or black or whatever)" or do you think discrimination is rightfully criminalized?
I think there are hard/blurry lines to draw sometimes and sometimes mistakes are/will be made, but being opposed to discrimination that causes harm is rightfully criminalized, from a moral point of view, it seems to me.
Where do you draw the line? Do you think landlords should be able to refuse to rent to people because of their skin color or religion or orientation? Do you think that employers should be able to fire based on race or religion or orientation?
I think that the majority of people here have decided we don't want that sort of harmful discrimination to be legal, and I think that is a morally reasonable position to take.
Stan,
As to the post topic I would just like to voice my agreement with your final words:
"Let's not lose sight of the goal here. We need to share with everyone their need for Christ and the answers that are found in Him. An extreme focus on a particular sinful behavior might be momentarily necessary when it tries to become "normal" and "acceptable", but in the end, it is just another sin for which Christ died and for which His blood is payment."
Thank God for the shed blood of Christ, which is the basis on which any of us will stand acceptable in His sight.
As to the detour from the original post, I have no doubt that laws will be passed in this country for the sake of keeping harm from her citizens. For Christians, however, these laws have little value unless they are written with the first concern for harm being directed toward the One who gave them their inalienable rights of life, liberty and property.
Where do you draw the line? You say that a church can refuse to hire a homosexual based on "religious freedom". Can a church refuse to hire a black person based on "religious freedom"?
The photographer did not harm the couple for whom she chose not to provide service. She lost.
And that same old stupid suggestion that race is the same as orientation has got to go. No one ... no one ever to the best of my knowledge has ever suggested that it is "evil" to be black (or whatever other race is in view). Racists don't want them around, but it's not that they're sinning for being whatever race they are. Being any particular race is not a moral issue; never has been.
Orientation, true or not (because the science isn't yet convincing), is also a nonsense position. "Is" does not mean "ought". Because I might be drawn to multiple women as a heterosexual does not mean that it would be morally good for me to act on that. "Orientation" and race are not the same.
But clearly you see these as essentially identical. As such, my (using me as an example) moral concerns and views are irrelevant and if I own a business or property or some such I am not -- should not be -- free to hold my moral views and concerns. That would be "discrimination" (speaking there of the bad type). In this position, we've already moved past "freedom of religion", haven't we. (Not a question.)
Jeremy, I'm pretty sure that we're not long off from laws that will prevent us from practicing what we believe God requires of us. Sounds ominous, even paranoid, I know, but I don't think it's as far off as most Americans would like to think. My lifetime, I'm pretty sure. This decade wouldn't surprise me.
My prayer is that I will be like the disciples when they were mistreated. Not "We need a recall election" or "Where's my lawyer?!", but "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name" (Acts 5:41). I know. That's unAmerican when America is all about my rights. I think, though, that it's biblical.
Stan...
Where do you draw the line? You say that a church can refuse to hire a homosexual based on "religious freedom". Can a church refuse to hire a black person based on "religious freedom"?
I draw the line at harm, as I have stated. If a gay couple were not allowed housing anywhere, that IS harm, as housing is an essential need. If a purple couple were denied housing because of their color, that would be harm.
Should churches be allowed to discriminate against race? My opinion is that I'd be opposed to letting churches operate like that, but I also give some latitude with religious groups, as we as a nation have traditionally done.
I don't know how the laws play out exactly, but IF it were a church refusing to hire someone solely based upon race or orientation (regardless of whether they were gay folk who were "sinning," but merely on the fact that a person was gay), I would have no problem criminalizing that.
On the other hand, I support religious freedom to choose staff that reflect their values so if a person were gay AND supportive of marriage equity, for instance, I'd support the church refusing to hire based upon a difference of theology, but NOT based upon their orientation. Same for race.
Now, how about you all? Should a neighborhood be legally able to not allow a gay or Christian or a caucasian person to live in their neighborhood? Should an employer be legally able to say, "I don't like gay/purple/Jewish folk!" and fire them on the spot based on that alone?
I agree with the American people who have decided, no, that sort of discrimination is immoral.
Also, a question I always have for those who'd like to be able to discriminate based upon what they perceive to be a sin: Does it really make sense to want to refuse service to "sinners..."? Who will be your customer base if you do that?
And perhaps most important of all: do you see ANY biblical justification for refusing to associate with/sell stuff/rent to sinners?
I would posit that there is no biblical justification for this sort of discrimination.
Dan T., please stop comparing skin color to orientation. It's different. Like others have said, behavior and race are two radically different things. Thanks.
Dan Trabue: "If a gay couple were not allowed housing anywhere ..."
Wow, that's quite a leap. 1) I cannot imagine a world in which people of any stripe whatsoever cannot find housing anywhere. 2) Beyond that, you assume that "gay couple" = "a right" of some sort to be housed together. Prior to the demise of sexual mores in the 1970's, a heterosexual couple who was not married wouldn't have had a lot of options for housing. "But, it's their right, right?" Um, okay, they do need housing, but who said they had to live in the same house? 3) But, back a step again. We live nowhere near a society that will prevent sinners from living where they choose. I do not see the harm of Mr. and Mrs. Christian who own a duplex and won't rent to gays when 99.9% of the rest of the rental market is available.
Dan Trabue: "IF it were a church refusing to hire someone solely based upon race or orientation ... I would have no problem criminalizing that."
Ah, then you don't believe in "Freedom of Religion." If my Bible says (I don't know what yours says) that elders must be the husband of one wife and I believe I have to follow my Bible and Bill calls himself "gay", I would be required to prevent Bill from taking that position on the basis of his "orientation". You would happily call that "criminal".
Dan Trabue: "Should a neighborhood be legally able to not allow a gay or Christian or a caucasian person to live in their neighborhood?"
Problems here, Dan. 1) No one is talking about "neighborhood". We're talking about the convictions of believers. 2) As I said (and Glenn and Starflyer), race and "orientation" are not the same thing. If you ask about a Christian or a church, should they legally be allowed to exclude from their private property what they deem sinful? (Again ... and again ... race is not a moral issue.)
Dan Trabue: "Does it really make sense to want to refuse service to 'sinners'?"
It's not a case of refusing service to sinners. It's a case of encouraging sin. Should a Christian who owns a motel be required to rent rooms to adulterers? You see, he/she would rent rooms to people knowing that they're sinners, but it's not the same thing when his service or product encourages the sin. The photographer in question was required to "celebrate" the sin. Or, let me take it to a more personal and less controversial place. You have a room you'd like to rent out. Ted shows up eager to rent from you. He has the means. You'd get your rent. But, as it turns out, Ted is a child molester. "No, no," he assures you, "I never molest the kids in the home in which I live." "Oh," you say, "well, then, that makes it all okay. Come on in. Please use my house as your base of operations to molest to your heart's content. I see no biblical basis to discriminate against you just because you molest children."
SF...
please stop comparing skin color to orientation. It's different. Like others have said, behavior and race are two radically different things.
Well, it depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it? I mean, look at the examples I gave: If a church (or anyone) refused to hire someone based SOLELY ON THEIR ORIENTATION - something they were born with, like skin color or eye color - then that is NOT discrimination based on behavior but on the TYPE of person they are, the GROUP they belong to. In THAT case, the comparison is entirely apt.
Agreed?
If, on the other hand, an entity was FINE with hiring a gay guy or a purple person in theory, BUT, they objected to the fact that there was "sin" in their life (or, in the case of the church, because the person didn't ascribe to their theology), then they would be discriminating based upon a behavior.
On yet other hand, if they refuse to hire someone because they were a sinner, well, they're going to go wanting for employees, aren't they?
Stan...
then you don't believe in "Freedom of Religion." If my Bible says (I don't know what yours says) that elders must be the husband of one wife and I believe I have to follow my Bible and Bill calls himself "gay", I would be required to prevent Bill from taking that position on the basis of his "orientation".
Well I clearly stipulated that I thought churches have the option of hiring someone who agreed with their theology (within reason) and, IF the church's theology is to hire only married men, then I would be supportive of that church's freedom of religion.
Point clarified. No apology necessary.
Stan...
(Again ... and again ... race is not a moral issue.)
Again... and AGAIN... orientation is not a moral issue. Right? You aren't going to say that just because someone is GAY (gay and celibate, say) that they are sinners any more than the straight and celibate person is, are you?
Orientation is NOT a moral issue.
Two questions I'm still wondering about...
1. Should an employer be legally able to say, "I don't like gay/purple/Jewish folk!" and fire them on the spot based on that alone?
2. perhaps most important of all: do you see ANY biblical justification for refusing to associate with/sell stuff/rent to sinners?
Stan...
It's a case of encouraging sin. Should a Christian who owns a motel be required to rent rooms to adulterers? You see, he/she would rent rooms to people knowing that they're sinners, but it's not the same thing when his service or product encourages the sin.
People COULD do all manner of sin in someone's hotel room. They could turn on the Nat'l Geographic channel and hope to see naked natives and lust. They could think greedy thoughts or plan how to swindle their grandmother. AND, they could engage in illicit sex.
Do we really want businesses that go about adjudging everyone's motives and possible sins that might occur while on their property?
Or, it could be just two platonic gay guys sharing a hotel room for the night to save expenses (you know, be frugal, simple-living, saving money to give to charity... good stuff, all).
Do we want to legally let hotels require a signed affidavit that the renter will do no sinning on their property? OR, is that beyond the bounds of good taste and proper business ethics? I'd posit the latter.
Can I assume that you all AGREE that hotels ought not be legally allowed to refuse to rent to purple people or Amish people? If so, then we are agreed on the principle: That there are limits to what sort of discrimination is legal in our nation.
This, "Well, I'll rent to sinners, but NOT to this particular subset of sinners..." seems to point out the very problem with this approach: It IS discriminatory in ways that most of us think should be illegal.
There's another thing, too. Dan keeps talking about "orientation" being discriminated against, yet I have yet to know anyone who has discriminated against someone for their "orientation."
BEHAVIOR is what we discriminate against, and I don't care if I was a non-believer without the concept of sin; I have a right not to be a part of any celebration of perversion in which it would appear that I was giving tacit approval. It isn't because homosexual behavior is a "sin" that people don't want their children indoctrinated - it's because it is perverse and unnatural.
BEHAVIOR, Dan, is not the same as "orientation." We are ALL oriented towards sin, but we don't have to choose to act on that orientation.
As Stan pointed out, if I am renting a room in MY house or in MY motel, and my policy is not to rent to an unmarried man and woman, then that should be my right - I should not be forced to participate in their immoral conduct. In the same manner, I should not be forced to rent to a homosexual couple.
As mentioned yesterday (but not posted), orientation is not a sin, it's just something one is born with. In that regards, they are the same kind of thing.
Dan Trabue: "Should an employer be legally able to say, "I don't like gay/purple/Jewish folk!" and fire them on the spot based on that alone?"
So ... you figure I've been pounding and pounding on the simple and salient fact that race is not a moral issue and homosexual behavior is because I think they're the same thing? No. The answer is no. I've never said (or thought) anything that would suggest otherwise. The only reason you ask that is because of your prior dedication to an unproven notion that "they're born that way". Science says otherwise. Psychology says otherwise. Logic says otherwise. I suppose Lady Gaga agrees with you as well as "public opinion", but it just ain't the case. Race and "sexual orientation" are not the same. STOP ASKING QUESTIONS THAT EQUATE THEM.
Race is not a moral issue. Orientation is not the same thing. The Church does not discriminate on "inclination", because all humans are inclined to sin and the function of salvation and the role of the Church is to change that inclination. Inclination is not a sin. Action is. I know of no one that discriminates against someone who does not embrace homosexual activities even if he or she may suffer from such temptations. We aren't judged for our temptations. (But I'd like to say, again, that "orientation" is not a proven concept. Take, for instance, the recent statement from Cynthia Nixon who announced that she had "chosen to be gay". Not a state of being, as "orientation" would suggest.)
Dan Trabue: "do you see ANY biblical justification for refusing to associate with/sell stuff/rent to sinners?"
Funny. We had this discussion before. In fact, I almost thought it was a rare place of agreement. I was wrong ... again.
"I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler -- not even to eat with such a one" (1 Cor 5:11).
"If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame" (2 Thess 3:14).
"If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" (Matt 18:17).
I believe there is also some encouragement by Paul to "cast out the unrepentant sinner" and "flee from sexual immorality", but I could be mistaken because in the realm of human sexuality the Bible is muddy and uncertain and mysterious and incomprehensible and I'd be prideful and lacking in humility and grace to dare suggest I'm in any way certain about what Scripture says.
In just the last couple of weeks or so, the Obama admin lost a court case that would have forced churches to alter their hiring practices in a manner more favorable to sinners. Working an average of 60 hours per week these days gives little time to absorb the news, but anyone interested should be able to find this story as it is so very recent.
I had male roommates all the way through my twenties at least. None of us were homosexuals (or admitted to it) and the sinning that went on was not a short list. For any number of them we likely could have been either evicted or not had our rental agreement renewed. Landlords cross their fingers regarding all sorts of things if they even think about the possibilities. The effort required to determine who is doing what in which apartment would really make the rental business more of hassle than it currently is. But as we were "oriented" toward doing whatever the hell we wanted to do, I seriously doubt that Johnny Law would have made any exceptions, should the landlord have called upon him, nor would the landlord himself, had he learned of our lifestyle. Our ability to not join the homeless was based partly on the perception that we were not craven, law-breaking young men of an immoral "orientation" fully certain that our lives were not evil.
If a man wanted to rent a room or apartment from me and he stated clearly that he was a homosexual, I could not monitor his private life to make certain he did not act on his sinful desires. But if two men wanted to rent from me and THEY stated they were "married", no way would I rent to them because, and here is the main point, they are stating their intention to engage in sinful behavior under my roof, especially if it was a one-bedroom or studio apartment. But then, I would feel exactly the same regarding an unmarried hetero couple and their "orientation" would not excuse their sinful lifestyle, either.
There has been a long standing "don't ask, don't tell" policy in housing for years. But far worse than depriving the gentle and angelic homosexual community housing would be to deny the right of the private citizen to run a business the way he chooses. If an applicant for employment was to admit he harbored an attraction to men, had no interest in dating women, but dressed and comported himself in a manner I felt was conducive to the success of my business, I wouldn't necessarily deny him a job. All employees are a reflection of the company and its owner(s). Only the owner(s) have the right to dictate how the company should be represented. If that includes a Christian sensibility, no government should interfere. Only the market will determine if the policy is worthy of patronage and success.
But the true evil of homosexuality is, as has been stated, the push to legitimize the behavior (not the abnormal desires) that typifies homosexuality. Dan is a part of that and shows he has been given over by his constant attempts to equate them to blacks or women or purple Jews. He asks where we should draw the line, but the line was quite clear to most before people like him helped to render it hard to see. Now, new generations are not even aware it exists or should, and he dares talk about harm.
It's funny. No one (that I've heard) complains when Disney won't hire people with piercings and tattoos. These things are permanent. Should Disney be allowed to discriminate? I've been to several restaurants that either wouldn't hire people with tattoos or required them to be covered. How do they get away with such discrimination? I don't know. There oughta be a law!
Good points. A job I have my eye on would require me to be clean shaven and sport a business length haircut, both in opposition to my personal preferences, or, contrary to my "orientation". No problem for me, as the benefits of switching jobs is of far more importance than the length of my hair. I can totally "be me" when I retire, if I so choose.
Dan,
I suppose, if we use your line of reasoning, that if a person is born with an orientation towards murder, that we should not call it a sin. You do not think that homosexual behavior is a sin. Why do you think murder is? Someone can easily say "I'm oriented towards that". On what basis could you possibly call that a sin? Don't say the Bible condemns it...you don't use that as your basis (because the Bible condemns sins you defend).
So I think it'd be best if you stopped playing your "orientation" card here.
I'm not in the business of making people agree with homosexuality. I want people to have the right to their opinion as I have the right to mine. I will say this, just because only 2% of Americans identify as homosexuality, does not mean that America only houses 2% of a homosexual population, further when are people taking these polls to identify? The number doesn't include those who are in the closet or those who simply choose not to identify.
Homosexuality is a reality. It doesn't not represent the norm, but it also does not need to be demonized because it doesn't represent the norm either.
Just a thought.
Yes, being "oriented towards violence" is NOT a sin itself. Being oriented towards lust, towards power, towards greed... the ORIENTATION is not a sin.
Are you saying that someone being merely born homosexual (OR heterosexual) is a SINNER because of that orientation?? The orientation is neutral, it's what you do with it that can become sin or beauty. By your reasoning, the heterosexual is a sinner, too, because he HAS an orientation.
You're not being rational, SF.
Orientation - whatever you may think of gay or straight sexual behavior - orientation itself is NOT a sin, any more than ANY natural condition you might be born with. You know, like skin color.
I'd be willing to bet that Stan could agree with me on this point, so you might ask Stan his opinion, as well...
C.L. Jones,
Numerous studies have been done throughout the world over a period of decades and the result has been consistent that 2-3% of the population are homosexual.
"Demonizing" is a great buzz word, but it isn't reality. To say a behavior is immoral and perverse is not saying it is demonic. To say it is wrong is not saying it is demonic.
Do we "demonize" murder? theft? rape? or any other sin or immoral behavior? We don't "demonize" any thing - we just call it what it is.
C.L. Jones, thanks for visiting.
I'm glad you're not be in the business of making people agree that homosexual behavior is a good thing. You should also recognize that some people are. I've never encouraged anyone to outlaw the activity. I will, however, continue to hold that the activity is contrary to God's instructions. (And when I write that I see once again that there is a deep confusion over "homosexuality" and "the activity". I am not speaking here about "homosexuality as a condition" that is contrary to God's instructions, but the behavior. Lots of people -- me included -- have lots of things they might be inclined to do and stop themselves from doing it because they recognize that it's wrong. I applaud them.)
The 2% is irrelevant. Is it 3%? More? 10%? Not the point. It is only relevant when the card is played that says it is "normal". Anyone who knows the bell curve will see that ultra one-end-on-the-graph and ultra other-end-on-the-graph are both defined as "not normal". "Normal" is that peak in the middle, the largest number of people.
And, of course, since I'm writing from a Christian perspective, not a statistical perspective, I'm not "demonizing" the behavior (again, not the "condition") on the basis of statistics. I'm saying that the activity is sin because the Bible tells me that the activity is sin. Now, I could choose to say, "Well, yeah, that's what God said, but I don't really care what God has to say about it." I don't consider that a safe thing to do.
I find it hard to believe, Dan, that you so badly missed Starflyer's point here. The inclination is not the sin; the act is. The inclination (murder or homosexual behavior) is not the sin. The behavior is. We have continually tried to talk about the behavior. You have continually tried to talk about the "orientation". These are not the same thing. The "orientation" is irrelevant without the action.
You keep beating on the "orientation is like race" idea which it isn't, and this is the easiest way to see it. A person who might be inclined to murder can choose not to murder. Thus inclination and action are distinct. A person who is attracted sexually to the same gender can choose not to act on that attraction. Thus, "orientation" and action are distinct. A black person cannot choose not to be a black person. Nor do the ramifications of being a black (or white or whatever other race you'd care to list) entail sin. An inclination to murder or fornicate can lead to sin or can be stopped. A person's race does not lead to sin. Not the same thing.
I think it would be best if you stopped playing your "orientation" card here as well. NOT THE POINT. That you didn't get that from Starflyer is amazing to me.
And Stan, I am thinking that you all are truly missing the point I'm making. But I'll let it go and write it off as an inability on my part to communicate the point that you are still missing.
My apologies.
I've never thought that homosexuality was any "worse" than any other sexual sin, but from what I can see of history, when it becomes accepted as normal in a society, that society is not long for this world.
I would agree with you there, David (based on history), but we don't have a "cause and effect" certainty. I would guess that it is undoubtedly an indicator.
Certainly not a cause, but more an indicator of the limit to which God will allow the depravity of a nation to go before ending that nation.
Post a Comment