IS HOMOSEXUALITY A
SIN FOR NEW TESTAMENT BELIEVERS?
[Does Jesus condemn or condone homosexuality?]
BY L. RAY SMITH
It may seem strange and even foolish that I should
even ask such questions. Aren't the Scriptures clear on this subject?
Apparently not, if you listen to the many voices now embracing this life
style. There are scholars and theologians who adamantly try to defend
their homosexual life style based on the Scriptures.
While some do not believe that homosexual sex is
even mentioned or described in Scripture, others freely admit that it is
mentioned and was a capital crime under Moses, and strongly condemned by
the Apostle Paul as being worthy of death. But among the latter it is
argued that neither of these condemnations in the Old or the New
Testaments applies to homosexual Believers in Christ. That is a twist we
will examine carefully, as most have probably never heard of such a
defense.
The purpose of this paper is not to single out or
come down upon homosexuals. I have never written a paper entitled:
"Is Stealing a Sin for New Testament Believers?" or, "Is
Bearing False Witness a Sin?" or, "Is Murder a Sin?" So why
"homosexuality? Because more and more, the media, entertainment, the
government, the Church, the general population of America and much of the
world, no longer believes it is a sin to be discriminated against, whereas
even the basest of nations have laws against stealing, false witness, and
murder.
So, my purpose here is not to judge, but to
specifically establish whether homosexuality is a sin or not a sin for
Believers in Christ under the New Covenant.
If it is not a sin, and these practices are normal
and virtuous, then we should not be speaking or discriminating against
them. But if it is a sin, then we should certainly speak out against it
just as we should against adultery, idolatry, lying, stealing, etc. Let's
try and look at the Scriptural facts with unbiased, open minds. If we are
interested in obedience to Jesus Christ then we should be eager to know
the truth one way or the other.
Most homosexuals do not argue with Lev. 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies
with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
They concede that this verse is speaking of
homosexuality-sex between members of the same gender. Their argument is
that it no longer applies to them as Believers in Christ under the New
Covenant, stating that they are no longer under the law of Moses.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into what
is meant by no longer being "under the law." But I will give
just a few comments concerning whether Lev. 20:13 is still binding on
Christian Believers.
A SILLY ARGUMENT
Over the years I have received some bizarre reasons
from the gay community regarding why they don't think homosexuality is a
sin. Here is an example I received this week from a self-professed
lesbian:
"Also, don't you find it interesting that
when Jesus walked the earth, he never once brought up the subject? If it
was such a sin, it would be one of the Ten Commandments, don't you
think?"
No, I don't think so at all. Lev. 20:13 does not
need to be one of the Ten Commandments before it has any jurisdiction over
Christian Believers.
Jesus did not address child-molestation either;
neither is it one of the Ten Commandments. Neither did Jesus address drug
abuse, nor pornography, smoking, spousal abuse, or torture. Does this fact
therefore condone such sins and atrocities? Are we to assume therefore
that none of these are wrong or sinful? I hope we are not foolish enough
to believe that if something is not mentioned in the Bible, then it
shouldn't be considered a sin.
Listen: One of the Ten Commandments was against
"stealing." But stealing did not carry the death sentence. Yet
witchcraft (not one of the Ten Commandments) did carry the death sentence (Lev.
20:27). Having sexual intercourse with an animal carried the death
sentence for both men and women (Lev. 20:15-16).
Who among us would deign to suggest to their
children that having sex with farm yard animals is now okay since it is
not condemned in the New Testament by Jesus, neither is one of the Ten
Commandments? When all else fails, try a little common sense and basic
morality.
WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY?
The actual words "homosexual" and
"lesbian" are not found in the Scriptures. The word
"homosexual" is reported to be a German invention to euphemize
and take the place of the distasteful word "sodomite." Although
the word "sodomy" as used today may not even have a direct
connection with the sexual sins of historical Sodom.
While the Scriptures do not speak to us in crude
street language, describing the actual mechanics of homosexual acts,
nonetheless, the practice of same sex lust assuredly is mentioned and
condemned in Scripture as a sin that needs to be repented of just as
idolatry, adultery, stealing, murder, and all sins.
The word homosexual is applied to both men and women
whose sexual preference is with one of the same gender. Male homosexuals
are generally called "gay" or "gay men," while female
homosexuals are generally called "gay women" or
"lesbians."
Most gay men will acknowledge that male
homosexuality is mentioned in Scripture. What may be alarming to many of
my readers is that while they concede that it is mentioned and talked
about, they deny that it is categorically a sin. On the other hand, many
argue that gay women or lesbianism are not mentioned in Scripture at all.
I will briefly comment on the one main Old Testament Scripture forbidding
homosexuality. Below is an excerpt from the gaychurch.org web site
regarding Lev. 18:22 & 20:13.
Professor Soards tells us:
"Old Testament experts view the regulations
of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of
community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's
identity in relation to God." This is
because God was so determined that His people who were being formed into
a new nation would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in
Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship...
Even if we consider that morality was a factor
in this rule, it is part of the Code, and when the Code became obsolete,
as it is under Christ, that rule, as part of the Code, became obsolete.
These verses in Leviticus have nothing to say to us today beyond the
eternal principle of the need for purity in the worship of God. If the
immorality expressed in them happens to be a principle for all time,
then it will be found elsewhere in the Bible. (For heterosexuals it is
found in Roman 1 which clearly condemns same-gender sex by
heterosexuals. There is nothing in the Bible to support any finding
about homosexuals.)" By Bruce
Lowe Appendix B: Bible Passages on Same-Gender Sex (Underline
emphasis is mine)
Just a couple of comments: Clearly it is admitted
that same gender sex was condemned under Moses (being punishable by
death), and that it was a practice of "Baal worship." And so it
suggested that homosexuality was not inherently wrong, but rather it was
wrong because it was practiced in the worship of Baal.
Apparently, had not the pagans used homosexuality in
their worship of Baal, God would have allowed it. I think not.
It is then suggested that since homosexuality was a
part of the things forbidden under the law of Moses (which they call
"the Code"), but Christian Believers are not under the Code, but
under Christ, therefore, "the Code became obsolete."
Well I have already commented on the absurdity of
this with regarding things like bestiality, which I seriously doubt they
would condone under this same "became obsolete" argument.
So what is the argument for not following the
admonition of Paul regarding same gender sex in Rom. 1:26-27? Well you
just read it:
(For heterosexuals it is found in Romans 1 which
clearly condemns same-gender sex by heterosexuals. There is
nothing in the Bible to support any finding about homosexuals.)"
Now I must admit that statement overwhelms me. Since
it cannot be denied that Paul is speaking of same gender sex in Rom.
1:26-27, what are they to do? Well, they dogmatically state that Paul is
not condemning homosexuality sex between homosexuals, but rather they
state that Paul is CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUAL SEX BETWEEN HETEROSEXUALS!
Is that not akin to suggesting that it is not wrong for alcoholics to get
drunk, but rather it is wrong for NON-ALCOHOLICS to get drunk?
We will now see whether the Scriptures substantiate
the above assertion that:
"There is nothing in the Bible to support
any finding about homosexuals."
We will first look at three sexual perversions
closely allied with homosexuality.
THREE CATEGORIES OF PERVERTED SEX
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk:
paramours], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [Gk:
catamites], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk:
sodomites] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I
Cor. 6:9-10).
What are paramours, catamites, and
sodomites?
paramours (King
James, 'fornicators')-Strong's #4205 pornos "to sell, a
male prostitute (as venal), a debauchee (libertine): fornicator,
whoremonger."
prostitute: "one
who solicits and accepts payment for sex" (American Heritage
College Dictionary).
venal: "capable
of betraying honor, duty, or scruples for a price, corruptible" (AHCD).
debauchee/debauchery: "to
corrupt morally, to lead away from excellence or virtue, indulge in
dissipation [lacking moral restraint, indulgence in sensual pleasure],
orgies [unrestrained sexual activities],"
libertine: "one
without moral restraint" (AHCD)
catamites (King
James, 'effeminate')-Strong's #3120 malakos "soft, fine
clothing, a catamite, effeminate."
catamite: "a
boy who has a sexual relationship with a man" (AHCD).
effeminate: "having
characteristics more often associated with women than a man" (AHCD).
sodomites (King
James, 'abusers of themselves with mankind'-Strong's #733 arsenokoites
"a sodomite, defile self with mankind."
The elements of the Greek word arsenokoites
are "male-lier"-A male who lies with a male. "Male
bed partners"--Wycliffe Bible
Dictionary.
THESE PERVERSIONS ARE CONDEMNED IN
SCRIPTURE
"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to
keep company with fornicators [Gk:
'pornos'-paramour/male prostitutes] ...with such an one not to
eat" (I Cor. 5:9-11).
"For this you know, that no whoremonger
[Gk: pornos-paramour/male
prostitute] ...has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of
God" (Eph. 5:5).
"Knowing this, that the law is not made
for a righteous man, but for ...whoremongers [Gk:
pornos-paramour/male prostitute] ...and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" (I Tim. 1:9-10).
"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed
undefiled, but whoremongers [Gk: pornos-paramour/male
prostitute] and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4).
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers [Gk:
pornos-paramour/male prostitute], and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns
with fire and brimstone which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).
"Blessed are they that do His
commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs and
sorcerers, and whoremongers [Gk: parnos-paramour/male
prostitute], and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and
makes [practices] a lie" (Rev. 22:14-15).
"Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate
[Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man
sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).
"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of
themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male
bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I
Cor. 6:9-10).
Paul states that none who continue to commit the
sins listed above "shall inherit the kingdom of God." These
sins need to be repented of and put in the past. And that is what the
chosen Few in these Gentiles churches were doing.
Notice Paul's consolation to those who repented of
these sinful deeds of the flesh:
"And such [unrighteous,
fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers
of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers,
extortioners] WERE [past tense, but not now] some of you but
you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1
Cor. 6:11).
Next we will see whether the Scriptures actually and
specifically speak of both male and female homosexuality. Here are a
couple more statements from http://gaychurch.org:
"Clearly the passage [Rom. 1:26-27] is
talking about people for whom sex with the opposite gender is
"natural." We call them "heterosexual." There is
nothing in this passage that relates to homosexual people."
Conservative theologian Richard Hays says:
"No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of
rules about sexual conduct is possible."
We shall see.
MEN WITH MEN AND WOMEN WITH WOMEN
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even [1] their women
did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And
likewise also [2] 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 recompense [penalty]
of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27).
There is a lot more contained in this verse than
perceived in the eye of English.
First of all, all that is to follow in this
dissertation by Paul comes under the general category of "vile
affections." The word vile in this verse is Strong's #819 atimia,
which means, "infamy, indignity, disgrace, dishonor,
reproach, shame, vile." And so the things of which Paul is
going to speak, are things that are: infamous, indignant, disgraceful,
dishonorable, reproachable, shameful, and vile. Not a pretty picture; not
a dissertation on godly virtue and morality.
WHAT WAS "AGAINST NATURE?"
First Paul mentions:
"...their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature..."
Some foolishly bury their heads in the sand and
suggest that nothing immoral is actually mentioned here. Does it sound to
you that leaving the natural use of something and using it in a way that
is against nature burning in their lust, is a good thing? No, I
think not. Okay, but can we determine exactly what it is that was being
misused and against nature? Yes, we certainly can.
We just saw that it has to do with affections
that women have that are against nature. That is, against the
nature of the proper use of something ('did change the natural USE').
But what? Just what is that certain something that women change from the
natural use of into something that is vile, disgraceful, and shameful?
What is it that they are using disgracefully because of unnatural
vile affections? I'll now show you maybe more precisely than you
really want to know, what it was that "...their women did change
the natural use [of] into that which is
against nature..."
Do we think Paul is referring to the improper use of
their ears? Did they change the natural use of their eyes? Maybe it was
their hands? Did these men and women in question here start using their
feet in an unnatural way?
Whatever it was that the women were doing against
nature, the men were likewise also doing the very same thing:
"And likewise also the men leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;
men with men..." (Verse 27).
What does Paul mean by "likewise also?"
Simple, the Greek for "likewise" is homoios, and
it means "similar," "likewise." The Greek for
"also" is kai and it means "and, also, even,
too, both indeed, likewise."
Interestingly, we have another verse of
Scripture which also uses these same two Greek words and translates them
the same:
"And as ye would that men should do to
you, do ye also [Gk: kai] to
them likewise [Gk: homoios]" (Luke 6:31).
We are to treat others in a similar way, as we would
want others to treat us. That is how these two words are used in Luke
6:31, and that is how they are used in Rom. 1:27. What the women were
doing against nature, the men "likewise also" were
doing "against nature." Now then, what was it that they
were doing?
The men who were doing likewise also as the
women "burned in their lust one [man] toward another [man],
MEN WITH MEN..." Okay, lest someone suggest that this is merely
human companionship and doesn't involve SEX, let's continue and see just
what parts of the human anatomy is being referenced here.
WHAT DID PAUL MEAN BY
"UNSEEMLY?"
"...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..."
It is so easy when reading Scripture to not pay
close attention to all the words. These five words "working that
which is unseemly" are translated from only one Greek word, aschemosune,
and this word is used only one other time in Scripture, which I
will now show you so as to remove all doubt as to its meaning:
"Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is
he that watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and
they SEE his shame [aschemosune]"
(Rev. 16:15).
Here Jesus is using figurative language. In the same
way someone is shamed by taking off all their clothing in public (so will
those who do not spiritually watch for Jesus be spiritually shamed).
So what is it that people see when someone is naked?
Why, for example, are there many topless beaches around the world where
total nudity is not allowed? What shame [aschemosune] is
made visible in Rev. 15:16 by walking naked? And what is it
that is "working that which is unseemly [aschemosune]"
in Rom. 1:27? Some of you are already way ahead of me.
The King James translators have often chosen words
of modesty, so as to not offend the sensitive reader.
Strong's Greek Dictionary: "unseemly/shame"
#808, aschemosune, "an indecency; by implication
the pudenda: shame, which is unseemly."
And just what is the "pudenda?"
The American Heritage College Dictionary: pudendum/
pl. pudenda n. "The human external genital
organs, especially of a woman" (p. 1127). There it is.
It was the genital organs of the female that:
"...women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature [women with
women]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman [and her genital organs], burned in their lust one
toward another; men with men working [with each other's genital
organs] that which is unseemly" (Rom. 1:26-27).
I will not get anymore graphic than that.
Romans 1:26-27 is a very strong condemnation of the
list of vile affections starting with sex between women with women,
and men with men. And professing faith in the love and Sacrifice of
Jesus Christ does not turn this perversion into a virtue.
When Isaiah tells us to:
"Cry aloud, spare not, lift up your voice
like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of
Jacob their sins" (Isa. 58:1).
Should I just keep my mouth shut on this subject?
Few Christians believe that those who practice
adultery, stealing, and lying will enter God's Kingdom without repenting.
But this is not the case with practicing homosexuals.
Speaking against homosexuality may soon become a
hate crime law in which offenders will be prosecuted as criminals. Let's
take a closer Scriptural look at this subject while the law still allows
it.
THE REST OF PAUL'S PROCLAMATION
AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS
Let's look at these verses on homosexuality by the
Apostle Paul, in the context of this section of Scripture:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold [back]
the truth in unrighteousness... Wherefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their
own bodies between themselves... 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:
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
recompense of their error which is meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy,
murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without
understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit
such things are WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them" (Rom.
1:18, 24, 26-32).
This is the largest single list of ungodliness,
unrighteousness, sins, crimes, and corruption found anywhere in the
entirety of the Scriptures, and notice that heading the list are:
"to dishonor
their own bodies between themselves"
"women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature"
"men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"
Paul concludes this list of carnal sins by stating: "they
which commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH" (as is every other
sin mentioned). Now the very fact that the perpetrators of such
sexual perversions deny they are sins, and large segments of society and
government condone these sins, shows how morally decayed our nation is
becoming.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN AMERICA
In Politics and Government: Most Democratic
presidential candidates recently spoke at a gay forum in which they
unanimously gave approval to the homosexuals in America. There was a split
over whether gays can legally marry partners of the same sex, but as for
gay relationships and gay rights they received overwhelming support from
these wanna-be presidents of the USA. Likewise it is reported that up to
three-quarters of Americans support gay rights and civil unions, but half
do not support gay marriage.
In Entertainment: TV dramas, situation comedies, and
major films are now glamorizing the gay life. A recent film about two gay
cowboys, entitled BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, received rave reviews, such as the
following:
"This is simply one of the greatest love
stories in film history." (Film Focus)
"Brokeback Mountain is about as close to
perfection as it's possible to come in modern Hollywood." (St.
Louis Post-Dispatch)
In The Church: Chicago-"Flouting what they call
a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, more than 80 gay, lesbian,
bisexual or transgendered Lutheran ministers declared their sexuality on
Tuesday in hopes of changing a church rule that excludes gay and lesbian
clergy who do not live chastely." Is such protesting effective:
Lutherans Vote To Allow Gay Clergy
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Saturday voted to refrain from disciplining clergy in committed same-sex
relationships. (The Post Chronicle)
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama - The largest U.S.
Presbyterian Church body approved a measure on Tuesday that would open
the way for the ordination of gays and lesbians under certain
circumstances. (Reuters)
After Paul states "For this cause God gave
them up unto vile affections," he gives us the following list of
sins:
"...women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature: men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly... unrighteous, fornication, wicked, covetous, malicious,
envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters
of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things,
disobedient to parents, covenant-breakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful..." (Rom.
1:27-31).
What justification, pray tell, is there in lifting
out the first two sins: "...women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature: men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly...," as being perfectly virtuous (if done out of what
gays would call true love) while the rest of the sins remain sins?
By whose authority are the government, the media,
and the Church rendering these sins as defendable and virtuous?
It is now both politically incorrect and socially
incorrect to speak of these perversions as sin, and now (according to
polls) the majority of Americans also either feels pressured, or just
cannot see any immorality in homosexuality.
When immorality is condoned and even lauded, it
spills over into every aspect of society. Even child rapists are getting
off with little more than a slap on the hand and a few months probation.
Such behavior in our judicial system forty or fifty years ago would have
been outrageous, but few are showing much alarm over such judicial
travesties today.
I am not condemning the sinners, but I am condemning
the sin and the lax attitudes toward this sin. As Paul clearly states:
"...and such were some of YOU."
How is it that Paul can state: "such were"
some of you?
"For ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the
Glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
God will pardon all of our sins, but they must be
put in our past.
If I condoned my own past sins, I never would have
repented of them.
"Wherein in time past you walked
according to the course of this world... Among whom also we all had our
conduct in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh..." (Eph.
2:2-3).
Continuing:
"For ALL have sinned... Being justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom
God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins that are PAST, through the forbearance
of God; To declare, I say, at this
time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus. (Rom. 3:24-26).
Now back up to the beginning of Romans 6:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in
sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein?" (Rom.
6:1-2).
There is salvation available, and it is by grace,
not our own personal works of righteousness, but we must first repent.
This repentance is also by grace. It is a gift from God just like
salvation itself. Once again, we are ALL in the same boat for we have ALL
sinned.
Notice next what Paul says after his declaration
against a list of 27 major sins. Paul's statement that "...they
which commit such things are worthy of DEATH," does not end his
declarations on this subject. We must continue into chapter 2:
"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man,
whosoever thou art that judges: for wherein you judge another, thou
condemn yourself; for thou that judge do the same things. But we are
sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which
commit such things.
And think you this, O man, that judge them
which do such things, and do the same, that thou shall escape the
judgment of God? Or despise you the riches of His goodness and
forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God
leads thee to REPENTANCE?" (Rom.
2:1-4).
While "Christ died for our sins" (I
Cor. 15:3), all sins that Jesus died for must be repented of or that
person will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but will rather be raised up
in Judgment. Christ dying for the sins of the world is not the final step
with the issue of sin and sinners. The final step is to GET THE SIN OUT OF
THE SINNER, and that is precisely what will happen, Christ "will
judge the world in righteousness" (Acts 17:31) and the ungodly "will
learn righteousness" (Isa. 26:9). Then and only then will "God
be ALL in All" (I Cor. 15:28).
Here is one of the most sobering Scriptures in the
entire New Testament:
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not
the things which I say? (Luke 6:46).
Jesus Christ personally commissioned Paul to be the
Apostle to the Gentiles. What Paul wrote to the churches was under divine
inspiration of Jesus Christ. All of these profound life and death
declarations of Paul are just as valid as if Jesus Himself declared them.
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE
It has been foolishly stated that virtually anything
is permissible including deviant sex, "As long as it doesn't hurt
anyone."
But what some can't seem to realize is that it hurts
them. Having sex with animals doesn't hurt anyone else, but it sure hurts
the one doing it. It is both a perversion of the body and a perversion of
the mind.
DOESN'T NATURE TEACH US THE PROPER
USE OF SEX?
Numerous species of animals have been seen
performing sex on the same gender. Therefore, if this is a part of God's
own nature of things among some animals, then surely it is permissible
among humans? Oh really? And since when are we to look to the beasts of
the field for the proper interpretation of human morality?
Since animals kill and eat each other, does this set
a moral standard for people to do the same?
Since numerous species kill and eat their own young,
does this justify people killing and eating their own babies?
I WAS BORN THIS WAY
[In search of the elusive homosexual gene]
Numerous homosexuals have written me
stating that God made them homosexuals, seeing that they were "born
this way."
Much of this research has been done by
gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. Hence much of their
research is in fact biased, as is admitted by those who favor
homosexuality. Is there a homosexual gene which causes homosexuality, and
has any such thing ever been scientifically proven?
There are hundreds and hundreds of web
sites on this one aspect of homosexuality alone. Here are some quotations
from the NARTH web site:
Volunteers from gay groups may only
participate if they have a gay brother or sister. Even gay advocates
such as J. Michael Bailey (in Bailey & Dawood, 1998) admit:
"If, for example, a gay twin who sees an advertisement for a [twin]
study may be less likely to call if his twin is heterosexual, this would
cause concordance-dependent bias" (p. 10).
The "genetic and
unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists
and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal
variant of human nature? No. There is no evidence that shows that
homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research
claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when
speaking in sound bites to the public.
Occasionally you may read about a
scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited
tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful
scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredble
genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and
homosexuals - at least none that is replicable.While the absence of such
a discovery doesn't prove an inherited sexual tendencies aren't
possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists
What the majority of respected
scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a
combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.
From the American Psychological
Association:
"[M]any scientists share the
view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age
through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social
factors."
From "Gay Brain" Researcher
Simon LeVay:
"At this point, the most widely
held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors
play a role."
From Dennis McFadden, University of
Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to
be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment.
It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg:
"I know of no one in the
field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference
to environmental factors."
[Above quotations from NARTH web site
(National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) All bold
emphasis are theirs, not mine]
Here are a few quotations from THE
NATIONAL VALUES COALITION:
Homosexual researchers Bailey and
Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by
homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being
"gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins
studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both
twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among
non-twins.
This was hailed by homosexual
activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that
homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As
Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for
environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of
the identical twins would have been homosexual."
In short, the three most famous
studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that
homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the
authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic
basis to homosexuality. [bold is
emphasis of The National Values Coalition-traditional values.org,
Article: "Homosexual Urban Legends-BORN GAY"]
The Catholic Medical Association web
site is helping to debunk the notion that individuals are "born
gay."
"There is no verifiable
evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex
attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always
have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have
shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies
documenting change of sexual attraction patterns." (bold
emphasis is by 'Homosexuality and Hope,' available at cathmed.org.
Although there are some agencies that
still adhere to the "born gay" theory, some of their own
advocates are not admitting error--there is no known gay gene. Even the
Catholic Church who has had to deal with an un-surmountable plethora of
sexual sins within their priesthood of recent years, cannot and do not
attempt to blame such sexual perversion on genes or heredity which would
lighten their burden in this matter enormously.
Interestingly I could find no web-page
which discussed whether or not there is a reported gene for child
molesters. Not one. And yet some of them also contend that they were
"born pedophiles," and at a very young age fantasized over
having sex with little children. Homosexuality is not even in the same
ball park with the gross perversion of pedophilia, yet both claim to be
"born that way." Should we lighten the burden; lighten the
sentence; lighten the moral perspective of pedophiles because they CLAIM
to be "born that way?" Nonsense. It is not a defense for the
pedophile, and neither it is a defense for the homosexual.
GOD IS THE LAW-GIVER AND
DETERMINES WHAT IS SIN
When David acknowledged his sins of
adultery and murder by having Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed so he could
then take Uriah's beautiful wife Bathsheba in adultery, he didn't repent
toward Bathsheba, or Uriah, or even the nation of Israel, but rather said:
"Against thee, thee only,
have I sinned, and done this evil in
thy sight" (Psalm 51:4).
Although David was not a spiritually
converted man (he died with murder in his heart, I Kings 2:1-9), he
nonetheless, had the sense to know that it is God and not man who
determines what is sin and what is righteousness. Any king of any nation
has the right to send any soldier to the front line where he may well be
killed, and then steal the man's wife back home. But that doesn't make it
right in God's eyes.
James informs us that:
"There is one Lawgiver Who is
able to save and to destroy" (James
4:12).
God also inspired Isaiah to write:
"WOE unto them that call evil
good and good evil... Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and
prudent in their own sight! ...Which justify the wicked [Heb:
rasha, 'morally wrong] for reward..." (Isa. 5:20-21
& 23).
Did the Apostle Paul have totally
different criteria than that of Isaiah? Was Paul's condemnation of "women
with women and men with men" an example of "rasha"
(morally wrong), but somehow this same sin to Isaiah would be
"good" and not "evil?" Nonsense.
GOD CONDEMNS ALL LUST FOR SEX
The seventh commandment states: "You
shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). It is generally thought
that adultery means one partner of a marriage having sex with a third
person. This is a narrow view of the commandment, however. Jesus plainly
taught us the spiritual meaning of this commandment:
"You have heard that it was
said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery: But I say unto
you, That whosoever looks on a woman [Gk: gune,
'a woman; a wife'] to lust after her hath committed adultery with
her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28).
The word gune can mean a
wife, but it is also used many times to represent unmarried women.
So notice the profound implications of
Jesus declaration: He quotes the Old Testament commandment against
adultery and states that it applies to lusting after a women (not just
physically intercourse). And not just someone's wife, but any woman.
Now under Moses, the law against
adultery applied equally to women who committed adultery against their
husbands. And so, likewise, if a woman just "looks upon a man
to lust after him," she has committed adultery with him in her heart.
But does this include women
lusting after women, and men lusting after men?"
Of course. Do we think that a man is
not allowed to "lust" after a women (which can be legally
married together), but it is perfectly okay for a man to "lust"
after another man (which can not be legally married together)? And if you
think the 7th commandment does not cover this sin, then I assure you that
the 10th one does.
THE 7th and 10th COMMANDMENTS
BOOKEND HOMOSEXUALITY
If you think that homosexuals don't
"LUST" for sex with the same gender, then I believe there is
still some cheap swampland available in Florida.
THE 7th COMMANDMENT: Jesus said:
"Ye have heard that it was
said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto
you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust [Gk:
epithumeo, Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after'] after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt.
5:27-28).
Likewise, one breaks the 7th
commandment if a woman lusts after a man, or a woman lusts after a woman,
or a women lusts after a little boy, or a man lusts after a man, or a man
lusts after a little boy, or a little girl. If the "lust" itself
BREAKS the commandment, what in the world do we think the actual
"act" BREAKS?
THE 10th COMMANDMENT: Paul said:
"What shall we say then? Is
the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I
had not known lust [Gk: epithumia, 'a
longing (for what is forbidden), concupiscence {a strong sexual lust},
desire, lust'] except the law had said, You shall not covet [Gk: epithumeo,
Neg. 'covet, desire, lust after']" (Rom. 7:7).
Okay then, if we can all walk and chew
gum at the same time, we should not have a problem in putting these two
Greek words together. Jesus said that "epithumeo-covet,
desire, lust after" breaks the 7th commandment against adultery. And
Paul said that the reason that "epithumia-a longing for
what is forbidden, concupiscence {a strong sexual lust}, desire, and
lust" is wrong is because the 10th commandment states "You
shall not covet"-"epithumeo, covet,
desire, lust after." But wait, there's more.
The 10th commandment goes on to say:
"You shall not covet your
neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor
anything that is your neighbor's" (Ex.20:17).
Now then, let me spell it out for you:
Believers in Christ Jesus are NOT to covet [epithumeo-"covet,
desire, lust after"] his neighbor's:
WIFE-neither
men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's wife.
MANSERVANT-neither
men nor women are to covet their neighbor's manservant, whether they be 9
years old or 29 years old.
MAIDSERVANT-neither
men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's maidservant, whether they are
9 years old or 29 years old.
OX OR ASS-neither
men nor women are to covet one's neighbor's ox or ass whether for
production of meat or to have sex with them.
The teaching of the Old Testament, the
New Testament, the 7th commandment, the 10th commandment, the teachings of
the Apostle Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ, all condemn homosexuality as
SIN. This subject is completely book-ended-there is no wiggle room left
for justifying the practice of homosexuality in any form.
Does the Bible speak of "illegal
sex" and "legal sex?" Yes, it does:
GOD'S REMEDY FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION
How are we to be sexually gratified?
Here's the Scriptural teaching.
"For I would that all men
were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one
after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the
unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But
if they cannot contain [remain sexually
pure and virtuous], let them marry: for it is better to marry than
to burn [Gk: puroo-'inflamed with lust']" (I
Cor. 7:7-9).
So what would the homosexual say to
this? Well at least some of them would totally agree. Why do you think
that they are trying to get same-sex marriage legalized? Yes, they would
agree with Paul-let's get MARRIED.
Back up a few verses for God's answer
as to who should be married to whom:
"Nevertheless, to
avoid fornication [Gk: porneia],
let every man have his own wife, and let every woman
have her own husband" (I Cor. 7:2).
Paul gives only one answer to the
problem of fornication, and it is for each man to have his wife and
each woman to have her own husband. Does anyone see Paul suggesting an
"alternative life style" in which fornication can be
avoided? Does Paul suggest that porneia can be avoided by
every man having his own husband, and every woman her own wife?
Paul knew about "women with
women and men with men" when he wrote his epistle to the Romans
(Rom. 1:26-27). Such unions against nature are clearly not
acceptable solutions to burning with inflamed sexual emotions, and a way
to "avoid fornication/porneia." Peter warns against being
willingly ignorant, and Paul sternly warns against
"Believers" who "willfully
sin?"
"For if we sin willfully
after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no
more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment
and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb.
10:26-27).
Paul could not have been more clear. To
avoid the sin of porneia, we are to [1] MARRY, [2] MEN marry
a WIFE, and [3] WOMEN marry a HUSBAND. Men marrying men and women marrying
women are not legal options. Men and women who have vile affections, and
BURN in their lust, women with women and men with men... are worthy of
DEATH (Rom. 1:26-27 & 32).
How many homosexuals would dare
insinuate that their passion for one another of the same gender is not
"coveting/lust?" Are Believers to think that they can continue
living in such sin and somehow be covered by the "the grace of
God?"
Long after Christ's resurrection and
the introduction of faith, grace, and justification, Paul is still
teaching that such burning affections for the same sex are VILE, and
worthy of DEATH. And if you can't contain, then get married-MEN
TO WIVES AND WOMEN TO HUSBANDS.
Does anyone in their right mind believe
that Paul would tell us: "To avoid sexual perversion,
you should enter into a union of sexual
perversion?"
The ONLY way to avoid the sins of porneia
if one cannot contain one's inflamed desires, is to marry a mate of
the opposite sex. When our Creator God Almighty inaugurated holy
matrimony, He joined together Adam and Eve, not Kevin & Steve or Alice
& Marie!
I know that some homosexuals are
arrogant and try to justify their sin. Others hate their sin and wish to
stop but can't. We all make choices, and a choice is what we prefer. One
may hate the fact that he is a smoker, yet, he "prefers" the
feeling he gets from smoking over the feeling he doesn't get when he runs
out of cigarettes or tries to quit. To quit you must have a stronger
reason for not doing something than you have for doing something. It's all
about motivation.
Sometimes just knowing that something
is a sin is reason to quit. That is why I quit smoking. I knew it was not
good for my health, it was dirty, it was annoying to others, and it was
costly, etc. But I did not quit until I became convinced that is was
sinning against God.
I enjoyed smoking a LOT when I quit.
But sometimes it takes a doctor telling you that you will die if you don't
quit a particular life style. But the bottom line is, you won't stop
committing the sin unless and until God Almighty has determined that you
will quit. And that is equally true for atheists, although they don't know
or won't acknowledge that as yet.
Heterosexual men are just as weak when
it comes to lusting after women, as homosexuals are when it comes to
lusting after members of the same gender. The ONLY way that I know of to
break these sins and have victory over them is for God to empower you with
a greater motivation to live righteously than to live un-righteously. If
what you desire to be is "good," then there is only One Source:
"And also that every man
should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labor, It is the
gift of God" (Ecc. 3:13).
"EVERY good gift and EVERY
perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James
1:17).
We will continue to pray for all those
who desire to come out of the bondage and slavery of "...the sin
which does so easily beset us...." (Heb. 12:1).
[ENTER TEXT OF WRITING / SCRIERE HERE] |