Tuesday 4 July 2017

Does the Bible condone homosexuality? A response to Dr Mona West

On the 1st of July 2017, I was in Bournemouth with a couple of friends and noticed in the day that there were individuals in LGBT capes and other clothing, admitted I didn't know that there was a festival called Bourne Free being held until I looked it up.

During a round of mini golf, I caught sight of the MCC or the Metropolitan Community Church who had their stand present in the festival. After me and my friends finished the round of mini golf, I went to speak to two of the individuals at the stand, one of whom was Reverend himself spoke to me as well. The conversation did not end or begin in hostility and admittedly I could have articulated what I was saying better (I prefer writing my points down). They gave me two leaflets, one of which was a leaflet containing an article by Dr Mona West. 

Let's take a look at the points.

"Lesbians and gay men face discrimination because of societal attitudes. Unfortunately, these
attitudes are often taught by churches and, sadly, the Bible is frequently used as a weapon to
“bash” lesbians and gays. It is important to remember that such hurtful things are not a reflection of Christ, or the way God wants the church to be, or even what the Bible really says."

I will not deny that there has been genuine hatred towards the homosexual community and there is a way to disagree or address a point without being spiteful. That being said, does the Bible really condone homosexual practice even if in the context of the two people loving each other? But what is persecution? what is hate? what is unnecessarily offensive and not biblically offensive? Is it hate, persecution and being unnecessarily offensive to speak biblical truth in love? It is important to realize that to speak the truth doesn't involve attacking homosexuals or any other sinner on a personal level, such as ad homenim attacks, but what it does mean is that you speak out against an evil practice, no compromise and while the person may hate you or mock you for the truth, it's better to give the truth biblically rather than hide it.

"Only a small number of passages in the entire Bible reference same-sex sexual activity (six out of
sixty-six books of the entire Bible). Obviously this topic was not of great concern to the biblical
writers. Yet these verses have been used to justify hatred, condemnation and exclusion of God’s
lesbian and gay children."

Again, I agree that there is hatred towards the homosexuals that is unnecessary. However, the argument that the topic was not of great concern because of the few references to said topic isn't a strong against contesting whether homosexuality or any other practice is condoned or allowed. Even if there were only six, marriage is highlighted to be between a man and a woman. Considering the fact that many marriages in Israel (and putting aside problems with polygamy which are another topic) the marriages that are praised or engaged in are often if not always heterosexual marriage. Deviations in their sexual relationship was a result of rebellion against God, including having sex with Gentiles, forbidden among Jews (The Christian equivalent today and in Paul's day, Christians are forbidden to marry unbelievers).

James White has an interesting comment on the list of 6 verses in a talk that he did. After giving the list he proceeds to say the following:
"So there's your six and you can see when people say "so what does it matter" but hopefully what you're hearing me say this evening is they're there because of the massive positive teaching of scripture as to God's creative purpose and the positive teaching that Jesus gave regarding the nature of the created order itself and that will be very important when we look at all the revisionist stories, all the revisionist ways around dealing with this."

I recommend taking a look at White's talk, it's a too parter but is enlightening and certainly has been very helpful:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCCArXCfNDU&t=3390s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wi4-QX5KZc

"The word ‘homosexuality’ is a modern term and did not exist during biblical times. Biblical writers had no concept of sexual orientation or sexual development as we understand those today. Therefore, passages that reference same-sex sexual activity should not been seen as comprehensive statements concerning homosexuality, but instead should be viewed in the context of what the ancient world that produced the Bible understood about sexual activity."

Homosexuality as a term may have only existed for at least the past 100 years, but the usage or creation of a word describing a practice doesn't nullify the usage of said word. Also, to understand what marriage is, we need to back to the earliest period of human history, namely the Garden of Eden. What did God set up as the rule for marriage? We read the following in Genesis 2:23-25:

"23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
    for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

This was the marriage that God created and blessed from the beginning and is carried over throughout the scripture. Here's what we have:

1. Man and Woman are united
2. The union is permanent

The passage is later quoted by Jesus with respect to divorce and remarriage and while homosexuality isn't brought up in the context of the passage, you still get a clear idea of how Jesus viewed marriage and there are other passages in the article to get to later to address.

"Biblical scholars have employed the social sciences to study the relational and gender patterns of the ancient Mediterranean world—the world that produced the Bible. Professor Mary Tolbert summarizes that research with the following words:

The single most important concept that defines sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean
world, whether we are talking about the kingdoms of Egypt or of Assyria or whether we are
talking about the later kingdoms of Greece and Rome, is that approved sexual acts never
occurred between social equals. Sexuality, by definition, in ancient Mediterranean
societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and
political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested
upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who
was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male—not
surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the Mediterranean.

In these societies sexual acts between men did happen, but they happened in order to show
dominance of one group of men or a man over another, especially during times of war. It was not uncommon for men who had conquered a foreign army to rape them in order to show they were dominant and of a higher status."

This I would need to comment on this in another article Lord Willing but a sexual practice to assert dominance over a foreign army or individual is not to be commended biblically speaking.

"The Story of Sodom in Genesis 19

This understanding is helpful when we read the story of the city of Sodom, Lot, and the visitors (or angels). The men of Sodom want to ‘know’ (yadah - a Hebrew word that can mean sexual
intercourse) the foreigners who have come to Lot’s house. In essence they want to rape them in
order to show their social and cultural dominance over them.

This story is not a condemnation of homosexuality, but is a story about rape and inhospitality. In other biblical texts (Ezekiel 16:49, Luke 17:28-29) Sodom’s ‘sin’ is not identified as homosexuality, rather, their sins were pride, failure to help the poor, and lack of hospitality to foreigners."

There is no denying the people who attacked Lot that there was inhospitality or lack helping the poor but this doesn't deal with the contention of what marriage is to be. I also on the subject of the word know direct you to the following article: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=614

Yadah can be used of to know someone, to choose, to have sex with or to know what someone has done and said. In Genesis 19, it is the sexual kind of yadah but it is not just a condemnation of rape.

"4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door."

It is interesting that when despite Lot trying to hand his daughters over to the men, rather than going for Lot's daughters and thus avoiding having the men sleep with the angels, the men respond in anger and try to break into the house.

Regarding what the men from Sodom and Gomorrah would have done, would they do it to the women to assert their dominance? Possible, but how does the asserting of one's dominance a refutation of the opposition of homosexuality present in Sodom and Gomorrah?

I am not saying all homosexuals act this way, but if it was just inhospitality and rape alone, why would Lot place an emphasis on his daughters and tell the men with respect to the angels not to act wickedly? It is reprehensible yes what Lot tried to do with his daughters but why wouldn't the men respond to his comment except be outraged by him telling them not to do evil to the angels? 

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (18:22)
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they
shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (20:13)

These verses are part of the Holiness Code in the Old Testament book of Leviticus (chapters 17-
26) that attempted to spell out ways the people of Israel would act differently than their
Mediterranean neighbors. In light of the previously mentioned sexual practices of Israel’s
neighbors, it becomes clear that this prohibition in Leviticus was an attempt to preserve the internal harmony of Jewish male society by not allowing them to participate in anal intercourse as a form of expressing or gaining social and political dominance. These verses in no way prohibit, nor do they even speak, to loving, caring sexual relationships between people of the same gender."

Using Genesis 2 as the starting point, Leviticus doesn't just prohibit anal intercourse as a form of expressing or gaining social and political dominance, it also doesn't recognize a loving caring sexual relationship between people the people of the same gender. 

It's an argument from silence to suggest that God would allow a same sex relationship where the two love each other because it is impossible. The people of the same gender whether it be two men or two women cannot unite each other biblically and to quote the words of James White "You don't fall in love with a mirror image". You cannot put 2 positives and 2 negatives of either a battery to each other because no electricity can be transferred and in the case of a magnet, the two same sides will repel each other, not bind together. There is no fulfillment of uniting each other in marriage in a homosexual relationship.

The Holiness Code doesn't just prohibit that, it does prohibit other sins, especially when it comes to sexual practice.

"The Writings of the Apostle Paul
“So do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!
Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

“The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,
fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound
teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

There are two major issues to consider when one approaches these passages: translation and
sexual practices of Greek culture. A comparison of these verses in several translations of the Bible indicates that there is some confusion about how to translate two Greek words in these lists of vices Paul has enumerated. The two words are arsenokoitai which is rendered in various
translations as “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” “child molesters,” or “perverts” and malakoi which is rendered in various translations as “catamites,” “the effeminate,” or “boy prostitutes.”
These Greek words are difficult to translate in the context of these passages. Malakoi is a
common term and means “soft.” It can refer to clothing (Matthew 11:8) or moral matters, meaning “undisciplined.” Arsenokoitai is a rare word and is made up of arseno meaning “man,” and koitai meaning “bed, lying, or having sex with.” When put together the word may mean “male prostitutes.” "

malakoi refers to one who is soft or effeminate which is correct. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, a reference to one who takes the passive role whereas arsenokoitai is the one who is taking the active role. The text does refer to two men who are engaging in same sex acts but it is not talking about a man and a boy engaging in homosexual practice.

The subject of arsenokoitai is addressed by Dr Johnathan Safarti. Not only does he mention what it means but all addresses where Paul got the term from.

"In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul actually used a most unusual word, ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs, meaning ‘male who has coitus with a male’ (Greekἄρσην arsēn = male). This was not the normal term from the Greek culture. But the Levitical law explains where Paul obtained his binding New Testament prohibition. In English, Leviticus 18:22 reads:
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
In the Greek Septuagint from which Paul often quoted, it reads:
καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν (kai meta arsenos ou koimēthēsē koitēn gunaikos bdelugma gar estin)" Dr Johnathan Safarti: http://creation.com/response-to-gay-marriage-article-objections-cmi-shows-questioner-that-christian-faith-is-logical

As Safarti noted, the word arsenokoites means "male having sex with men". Paul coined the term from Leviticus 18:22:

"18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”"

Within the confines of the chapter, verse 22 means that you cannot engage in homosexual activity nor a relationship of that kind. Yes we are not under the Law of Moses but are under the Law of Christ and I have already made the point on Genesis 2 earlier so I needn't repeat it too much.

The issue of sexuality isn't like whether Christians can eat pork or shellfish, mixed material and shaving of the beard which were meant to distinguish Israel from the other nations, this is referring to proper moral conduct and code and it lists other sins too.

I have written other papers on which laws apply to Christians and which do not so feel free to check some of those out:

"When these words are placed in the context of Greek culture in which Paul was writing, the
passages have very specific meanings. As we have seen earlier, the Mediterranean world had a
definition of sexuality that was based on dominance/submission and unequal status. Greek culture fine tuned that definition with regard to status. Proper sexual relations occurred between people whose status was unequal. In addition there was a practice in ancient Greek culture known as pederasty in which younger men were socialized and educated through a close relationship with an older man. These older men were the boys’ (age 12 or 13) patrons and, often, their lovers. 

These relationships were seen as the key to raising up the next generation of city leaders and there were strict rules about how long the relationship should last and the roles of families within these relationships. Evidently there was some abuse happening in these relationships and young boys were being exploited and kept by the patron well after the boy had grown into adulthood (which would have made him an equal, hence violating the code of sex only among unequals). These abusive relationships are what the apostle Paul is referencing, not mutually loving and caring relationships between people of the same sex."

Mutually loving and caring relationships between people of the same sex is not an excuse to violate what God had established back in the Garden of Eden. Pederasty, even when done in Greek society is without any biblical foundation, again going back to Genesis 2.

The argument of loving and caring relationships can be used to justify what the scripture calls evil. If homosexuals can have loving and caring relationships, why can't (according to this point) pedophiles have a relationship children if it is loving and not abusive? Or zoophiles with their animals? Or what about incestuous relationships if it is mutually loving? Do you not see the problems? This is a slippery slope as well as inconsistent argumentation and inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.

Using the argument of culture is something to be very careful with. In terms of neutral things not discussed in scripture such as media can be disputed among Christians and whether or not women had to wear the veil depends on the culture. Women had to find the principle that Paul was applying, especially if they are unable to grow long hair.

That being said, culture shouldn't be used to address biblical morality, it must be the other way round. The subject of women wearing trousers I don't think is a problem so long they acknowledge outwardly and inwardly that they are women and don't dress in a way that confuses their gender. See the article on roles on women and scroll down to the section "Submission to the Husbands and Loving of the Wives" and read the quotation from Paul Washer (In fact I'd encourage reading that entire article of his) specifically pertaining to hairstyles and cultural connotations that hair may have: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/roles-of-women-in-church-what-can-they.html

See also the article on women wearing trousers as also: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/deuteronomy-225-comments.html

Men should not be engaging in a relationship with boys or girls in that kind of intimacy to put it politely and Women are also prohibited from such relationships as those with boys and girls. Abusive or not, you cannot justify relationships of a sexual kind between the same sex.

Jesus doesn't leave open the possibility even culturally of a homosexual love (or any illicit relationship that is against God), even if it is done under the banner of love.

"Romans 1:26‐27
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with
women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men
and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

By now it should be clear that these verses must be read in the cultural context of the
Mediterranean world that understood socially acceptable sexual behavior to happen only one way: among unequals with the dominant partner always an adult male.
It is also important to read these verses in Romans within their larger context. At the beginning of his letter to the church in Rome (where he had not yet visited) Paul was attempting to lay out for the Roman church his theology of grace (all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; but are justified by the gift of grace in Christ Jesus, 3:23). He is writing to a Jewish and Gentile audience. In chapter one he tries to demonstrate the Gentiles’ need for God by pointing out behaviors that keep them alienated from God. In chapter two he does the same thing for his Jewish audience.

Paul’s reference to natural and unnatural sexual acts must be taken in light of Mediterranean
sexuality. He is not attempting to give an ethical teaching concerning homosexuality. He is trying to meet his Gentile audience on their own terms; using the example of some people who are not upholding the dominant/submissive model as an opportunity to talk about all persons’ need for the saving grace of Jesus Christ."

What? Are we reading the same scripture? Let's look at Romans 1:
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Human beings know in their heart of hearts that God exists, he has written his existence into their conscience and they know that he is there, but refuse to acknowledge it. As a result of their unwillingness to turn from their iniquity and this ties in with the Old Testament with how God treated the Israelites when they rebelled against him in the Prophets, He handed them over to their sinful desires because of their stubborn refusal to repent and of course, he will treat unrepentant Christians in exactly the same manner. Anyone who refuses to bow to God will invariably worship something else, an idol, whether it be a false god or a neutral item (A neutral thing isn't bad but if you serve that as a God or spend all your energy on it, then that can become an idol. But whether or not Christians can have hobbies or whatever is another subject). It is a present reality, all men who rebel are trying to suppress the the truth in unrighteousness.

Furthermore, Some specific sins are listed, including "men committing indecent acts with other men and women with women" which is not simply talking sexual acts connected with idols but it lists homosexuality and other sins as well. But notice what is said in Romans 1:24-27:
"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

There is no positive affirmation of homosexual practice here, even in the context of "love". It's simply not there.

Sins are referred to as degrading passions, which is not a positive thing to say regarding sin at all. Can someone explain where there is a healthy, committed same sex relationship that exists biblically and can it be justified and be fulfilling? Sexually transmitted diseases are rife especially in a relationship between two men in the same sex marriage. Paul isn't even talking about older men sleeping with boys, he is talking about the relationships between two men.

"Issues of Biblical Authority
When dealing with matters of biblical interpretation one always needs to keep in mind the role of the authority of the Bible in matters of faith and practice. While the Bible is an important witness to the relationship between God and humanity, it is not the ultimate revelation of God—Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is. We must guard against what some scholars have called bibliolatry— making an idol out of scripture.

One way to guard against bibliolatry is to realize that while the Bible may be at the center of
matters of faith, it must also be in ‘conversation’ with tradition, experience and reason. These four sources of faith have become known as the Wesleyan quadrilateral, so named after their originator John Wesley, founder of the Methodist heritage.

We must read and interpret scripture with the aid of the history and tradition of the Christian
church. We must also bring reason—philosophical and rational thought--to bear on applications of scripture to real life situations. And last and most importantly, scripture must be weighed alongside human experience—especially the experience of God’s grace.
It is time we stopped making an idol out of the Bible. It is time we bring philosophical and rational thought—especially what the sciences have told us about sexual orientation and identity development—into conversation with the Bible. It is time we listen to the experiences of God’s gay and lesbian children who know with all their hearts that God has created them just as they are."

Sola Scriptura doesn't allow for bibliolatry. It makes the scripture the sole infallible rule of faith for the church and does allow for other authorities to be used, but those authorities have to be tested against the word. The biggest question is, did God create man, yes. Did he create sexual orientations that do not involve what is found in Genesis 2? no. In one sense God did create the homosexual as a human being but he did NOT create the homosexuality itself.

Do the homosexual's feelings exist and can they be real, yes, but that doesn't excuse those desires in any way.

Our personal experience, if that is what is being referred to in the article is not a measure of truth, the scriptures are that and if we let our feelings dictate and be the deciding factor, we will not end up submitting to the word that the Holy Trinity revealed.

Homosexuality itself robs a person of many wonderful things. They cannot embrace the joy of having children, they cannot have a person in that relationship say "This is the baby I have birthed" and rejoice in that. Oh sure a homosexual couple might adopt children, but they haven't produced that child have they? Furthermore, the twisting of God's created order that a homosexual (and others in sexual sin) impact the child in a negative manner. I don't say this to be spiteful or hurtful but this is the fact of the matter, there is no room for any illicit relationship in the Bible.

If the Lord Wills I may add more to this article but I suggest looking at the James White lecture I posted earlier and I also recommend Michael L Brown's book "A Queer Thing Happened to America" which is the most gracious book that speaks on the subject of homosexuality.

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment