Google Announces Campaign to Legalize Gay Marriage - Page 42

On August 23 2012 08:21 Gangnam Style wrote:




It is becoming evident to me that the hinge of your focus is around the derogitorisation of homosexuals, and in terms of such discrimination I am in absolute agreement. As Christians we must not despise or be anything other than loving towards homosexuals. I think what happens is people are so vehemently opposed to and disgusted by homosexual behaviour that they revert to being derogatory towards the homosexual person as a way of expressing their feelings and beliefs. The Scriptural injunction is that we must be totally unaccepting of sin. Unfortunately, this sometimes makes us unaccepting of the person committing the sin.

Jesus still hated the sin, while loving the sinner. He clearly equated loving with admonishing for sin and requiring repentance. He recognised this problem of religious people being judgmental, but He still required repentance. The woman taken in adultery (John 8) is a good example. Jesus dealt with the religious men for condemning her as a person and in v.11 He said "Neither do I condemn thee:go and SIN NO MORE" (my emphasis). He didn't say ' Well I feel sorry for you because you were probably born sexually promiscuous. Just carry on and we'll hope people will accept what you are doing because they should do that'. No, He said, lovingly but authoritatively, "go and sin no more". He wanted the religious people to love her as He did, but the sin had to end - she had to repent.

I do feel compelled however, to look at scripture in the case of homosexuality, and a good place to start is always at the beginning! So, the beginning in relation to the individual, is the question: 'Is a person genetically "wired" to be homosexual or heterosexual?'. This is a popular argument used to support homosexuality. Research doesn't support this, however. For example, research with identical twins has found that despite being genetically absolutely identical, in half the cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is heterosexual. So while there may be a genetic predisposition at best, it is environmental influences that combine with any genetic predisposition to influence orientation. Research also suggests that heredity affects sexual orientation only indirectly by influencing personality factors which in turn may steer young people towards different socialisation experiences and it is those that essentially determine orientation. (The references are available from psycologists I know).

The thing is, we all have genetic predispositions, many of which may be socially unacceptable, immoral etc. I might have, for example, a genetic predisposition to kleptomania and I might even be brought up in, or have life experiences that support that predisposition. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing I can or should do about it and that I have the right to steal what I can.

Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?

So, the second beginning is to start at the beginning of the Scriptural record where we see from Genesis 2:18-24 that homosexuality violates the very nature of the sexual relationship that God put in place at creation, to be fulfilled only in the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.

A fundamental and defining doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of original sin. That is, any behaviour that violates or seeks to change God's plan and standards is a result of the introduction of sin into God's creation. Some even suggest that God creates homosexuals, but it would be contrary to God's nature to create a person in direct violation of His own blueprint and standards. Homosexuality is a consequence, therefore, of the fallen human nature/sin. We must, therefore, respond to it like any other temptation and sin. The Bible is replete with advice and instructions on how to deal with temptations and sinful behaviours in our lives.

Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of sin, not only because of the plan for human relationships God established at creation, but also because He then explicitly and decisively addressed the problem as it had arisen in Sodom (Genesis 19). Suggestions that this account can be read as not referring to homosexual behaviour are fanciful and contrived at best, but basically evidence a fundamentally unintelligent misunderstanding of both the Hebrew and English languages. The meaning of the Genesis 19 events in terms of homosexuality has been accepted by society in general throughout the ages and is indicated of course, by the etymology of the word "sodomy".

Not only did God deal decisively with the problem at Sodom but He then explicitly outlawed homosexual behaviour and recorded this in Scripture. First, it is recorded in Leviticus 18:22 where it is referred to as an "abomination" (KJV). Interestingly, the next verse condemns bestiality, referring to it as "confusion". Yet while the New Zealand criminal law continues to outlaw and provide severe penalties for the "confusion" of bestiality, it has legalised the "abomination" of homosexuality! It can be argued that the "laws" of Leviticus are not to be strictly observed as absolute law by us living in the Christian era. Certainly, one can point to some of them, such as the mixing of fibres in clothing, as being difficult to understand. My response to this view is that perhaps they are not absolute laws (although just because we don't understand them or think we have progressed beyond them as a society, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't know something that is good for us that we don't know. For example, science is now catching up by realising the dangers associated with eating shellfish! After all God's "laws" are actually for our benefit), but they do, at the very least, show us the mind of God.

In the case of homosexuality, God describes it as an abomination or detestable in Leviticus. Indeed, so serious is it in His eyes that in Leviticus 20:13 He said that both partners committing homosexual sex must be put to death. Even if we argue that this law is no longer applicable in terms of penalty, it shows clearly how seriously God views this behaviour. Remember too that God is unchanging. His view of homosexuality has not changed in the three or so millennia that have passed since the writing of Leviticus. He may have relaxed the penalty of death, since Christ has paid that penalty on our behalf (provided we accept that and repent), but He hasn't changed His view of the behaviour as being an abomination. Incidentally, there's a very plain statement in Deuteronomy 23:17 also: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" I trust no one would demonstrate their lack of Biblical exegesis by suggesting this applies only to Jewish people.

So, if we still decide to ignore God's views set out in the Old Testament because we think they are no longer applicable, has God dealt with the issue in New Testament times? Clearly, He has. Romans 1:24-27 clearly refers to homosexuality. Indeed, not only does it refer to homosexual acts but also to homosexual desire - "burned in their lust for one another". Interestingly, the last phrase of v.27 is likely a reference to Aids. Then in v.32 God's view of the gravity of this behaviour, along with others, mirrors the view contained in Leviticus 20:13. Note too that those who agree with or condone these behaviours are equally as disappointing to God.

Moving on, we are left totally without excuse when we read 1 Corinthians 6-10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1-10 as well.

I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.

Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil". When we make or support a law that legalises evil we are sending the message that the legalised behaviour is acceptable. Even if we are doing it out of some liberal type notion that laws restrict peoples' "rights", the psychological effect of laws that legalise a given behaviour is that they legitimise that behaviour and make it into a "good" behaviour in the eyes, particularly, of young and other vulnerable and impressionable people.

Please be careful when you claim that such beliefs cause me to discriminate against minorities, for this is leaning toward an accusation of intentional discrimination which although unfortunately can happen as a side affect of the way in which humans live out the bibles message, is by no means a 'true christian' approach to such matters. Of course I meet people with genuine beliefs that may differ from my own, that is not justification for discrimination, nor is it in my belief justification for judgment; be mindful that the above account is scriptual - if someone was doing wrong I would not say to them "that is wrong" but rather "that is wrong according to the bible". I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.

Thus I in closing wish to say sincerely that I have not offended any minority in what I have written.