you got something against people with ‘n’ in their name? or maybe it’s light coloured shoes that does it. or higher contrasting clothes when matching the partners…
Comment by Mike Gastin — December 12, 2007 @ 3:52 am
[...] …comes from “The Ongoing Adventures Of ASBO Jesus“, who is posting some very controversial, but very thought-provoking stuff. You don’t need to agree with Jonathon to be benefited by seeing his cartoons. Anyway, feel free to leave your opinion on this one here, or over at the original post. [...]
I am a great advocate of marriage, having been married for 26 years, myself. But I don’t think that makes me any better than those who have not notched up the years in ‘holy wedlock’ The fact is, we were 19 and 20 years when we walked down the aisle and had probably not considered what ’til death us do part really meant. There have been ups and downs and if we were a bit more single-minded we could have brought in the lawyers at points. I know that when we renewed our wedding vows in church last year, it meant more to us than the actual wedding day. We didn’t have the distraction of the dress, the flowers, the photos, etc. Most of all we knew what we were saying because we’d lived it. I’m reaching that stage in life where I fear not having my man at my side, so much are our lives intertwined – you do become like one person, strangely enough. For me, to have lived together for that length of time without having taken the solemn vow before God would not be the same.
But it suits some. Better that than to take vows that you might not be able to keep. Civil ceremonies? Well if two people love each other and want to commit in that way – why not? In practical terms, they should have the same pension and inheritance rights as other couples. A work friend who is gay came in one morning thrilled to announce to a select group (with whom he felt comfortable) that he and his partner of 10 years had agreed to have a civil ceremony the following year. It’s not really in the realms of my experience so it felt a bit odd to me, but his joy was plain for all to see. You can quote me any Bible verse you like but they clearly love each other, are committed to their relationship. Being a theological ignormamus I may have got this wrong but I believe that God is Love. I’m sure it says so in the Bible – somewhere near the back…
just to be clear, zefi… the cartoon is saying nothing but leaving the whole thing open for discussion.
my own views may be contraversial, but the cartoon is saying nothing one way or the other, except that this is what happens… so what do you think?
all sexuality is broken. that includes heterosexual church blessed christian marital sexuality. commitment and love are good things wherever you find them or however uncomfortable they make you feel personally. a problem arises when we stop seeing people as people and only define them by sexual orientation. love is good, god is love and carole is right.
nathan… i too have changed in my thinking… although i was never really comfortable with the dogma i grew up with. a dogma which incidently was never taught me by my parents.
hi geoff… i obviously knew this was a contraversial topic, but thanks for seeing beyond an immediate reaction and thinking some more.
btw all… i don’t expect everyone to share my view, but it’s cool to rethink and may even be liberating… if not for you then maybe for someone else. it is important to remember we live in a damaged world and things often are not clear cut. but one thing i find pretty clear, is that when i see commitment and love one to another, god is present. what i believe is horrendous is the abuse and exploitation of one another for any kind of sexual gratification, but this is not what this cartoon deals with.
Jon you sure know how to get people thinking! One thing I’ve noticed is that couples seem to decide to live together and express the intention for it to be monogamous and long-lasting – but don’t want a ceremony. Well! Come on guys – SURELY this a great thing in your lives, and why on earth don’t you want to share it with your friends and family and have a whopping celebration??? – I just think it’s sad that such a monumental cause for joy is not celebrated – somehow at least, even if formal stuff is declined; and it doesn’t have to cost a fortune to have some FUN!!
i agree chris. celebration of such a wonderful thing seems like the way to go. i would extend this principle to partnerships of whatever orientation. if it’s good, let’s rejoice with you. however, i can understand peoples fear of rejection or judgement and can understand why the formality of a ritual is something they avoid. shame on us for making people live in holes. yes, as christians we are to be down on exploitation and abuse of others, but when people display commitment and love if we’ve nothing positive to say we should be careful lest we judge ourselves.
It is true that God is Love. But is He ONLY love? Can we just put him in a box labeled “love” like that and then feel proud of ourselves for having taken care of the matter neatly?
And what kind of Love are we speaking of, anyway? My son, when he was a toddler, thought I was the meanest mommy in the neighborhood because I wouldn’t allow him to play in the street. He was devastated that he couldn’t do what he wanted. Now, of course, he knows that I loved him enough to give him rules and limits.
that’s not what i meant to say. although i see how my statement reads ambiguously.
what i meant was, people still hold on to rules even if they are not scriptural.
i should have said ‘how scriptural they might or might not be.’ that might have been clearer.
i was reading through the comments kinda just wondering what people said… it was interesting. I’m kinda impressed that there isn’t any extremely over-the-top anti-homosexuality stuff in here, which is good. (unless it wasn’t posted, but i doubt Jon would censor anyone)
I honestly, didn’t think of a homosexual relationship when i first looked at it. i thought they were just people who loved each other, not necessarily “gay.” That topic is polarizing churches so much it is scary. We’ve honestly forgot that we all are sinners and need the ultimate love and grace.
Watch “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry” and tell me it doesn’t break your heart when those people are “expressing God’s opinion” so un-lovingly to the homosexuals in the movie… it broke my heart. WWJD… uh, not that, and we do it all the time. And they’re the “sinners” sheeseh…
thanks scanartist. yes peoples comments have been very thoughtful… and yes, i wouldn’t censor someone for not agreeing or being unloving. i would give a warning if i thought someone was abusing someone else on this site, unless it’s me being got at i guess. i wouldn’t allow offensive name calling… but i would give a warning first.
“Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
Many sources have speculated about the meaning of “arsenokoitai:”
“Homosexual offenders:” The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).
Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew “quadesh” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to “arsenokoitai.” This passage referred to “male temple prostitutes” – people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers – a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.
Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word “arsenokoitai:” This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers “to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex).” 2 Probably “pimp” or “man living off of the avails of prostitution” would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that “Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai.” 3
Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, “arsenokoitai” was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.
For me, more than anything else, this cartoon and the discussion surrounding it (perhaps more than the cartoon itself) is a challenge to think beyond the simple black and white of traditional church dogma. reality and life are more complicated than that. Sin and sinners, morality, sexuality, love, marriage, judgement simply don’t fit into a rigid set off rules, dogmas and systematic theologies. Real life is messy, confusing and organic and the sooner we realise we don’t, can’t and won’t ever have all the answers the sooner we can just leave the judging to God and get on with living and loving as he called us.
i see what you’re saying, i think;
the marriage is not about having a wedding. it’s about love and eing together and…and…all the bits that people forget about, the important bits.
I’d disagree, I think the Bible is fairly firmly against homosexual relationships. They’re described as ‘an abomination’, and however much people try to explain away other verses I think that we’re just trying to bend the bile to what we want. Just because God loves people who are inclined to stealing doesn’t mean we should condone the stealing to please them, even if the rest of society accepted it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not one of the ‘God hates fags’ brigade, but I’m sure that the Bible says homosexual behaviour is a sin.
People can get joy through many things, people could find love with animals, – this doesn’t mean we should condone having sex with animals or drugs etc. Just because something ‘feels good’ or ‘promotes love’ doesn’t mean it’s holy.
I have to agree with Lewis here – you have to do some mighty exegetical acrobatics to argue that the bible supports homosexuality.
I’m not going to quote verses at anyone here since I assume you all know them. Here’s a few arguments, though.
1. The Bible does not explicitly support any form of homosexual relationship.
2. The Bible does not speak at all in favour of any form of homosexual relationship.
3. The Bible explicitly speaks of heterosexual relationships between a husband and wife as being sanctioned by God.
A word on the Old Testament. When we interpret the OT and its commands we need to remember that God does not change his mind about the morality of the sin, but changed his mind on how that sin is dealt with (”Changed his mind” is not a good phrase I know).
In other words, homosexuality is seen by God as sinful, but, under the new covenant, the punishment for it is no longer binding.
Think of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.1-11. According to the OT her punishment should have been stoning (Deut 22.24). Jesus does not minimise her sin (”go and sin no more” he tells her, which pretty much proves that she had been committing adultery) but he protects her from harm. The sin is still sin, but the way to deal with it under the New Covenant has changed.
God has not “changed his mind” about homosexuality, but he certainly commands us to treat all sinners gracefully.
If Jesus turned up at a meeting of Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates fag group), he would stand before those protesters and say “he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Then he would turn to the homosexuals and say “go and sin no more”.
Relationships involve sex. It’s not wrong to be homosexual, its acting on that that’s wrong. In reality, a passionate kiss is part of the road to sex, and that’s too far. The bible doesn’t say ‘don’t have sex before marriage – but you can do anything else you like’!
BTW – the Bible doesn’t have many commands (if any) about how and where people should get married.
If two people have a civil ceremony that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be in a church.
I know of one country (in Africa? Asia?) that has no wedding culture at all. The man and woman just move in together and once that happens they’re considered married. Sounds good to me.
I have some male friends that I love dearly. But that’s not homosexuality.
My wife has some female friends that she loves as well. Again, that’s not homosexuality because there is no sexual desire that goes with the relationship.
Yeah. God doesn’t judge a marriage on whether they had it done in church ‘good proper and middle class’ or not! Adam and Eve’s marriage was described as ‘becoming one flesh’.
I think however, It’s a good witness in this country to get an officially recognised traditional marriage, and it’s good to have those kind of vows.
interesting stuff.
some english translations are down on homosexuality… but the original text has been interpreted and not translated. other translations are not down on it. people bring politics and their own agenda to the business of translation. we need to be wiser than that. the bible and paul are emphatically against temple prostitution and sexual sin… but homesexual orientation, no, it’s not there. not in the original text.
“paiderasste” is the basis of the word “Pederast”. The “Ped” part of the word means child. Thus the word “paiderasste” refers to the Greek practice of men having sex with boys, not the practice of men having sex with other men.
Which is, I think, why Paul doesn’t use the word – he’s not talking about pederasty but homosexual sex (a broader definition that would include pederasty but is not limited by it)
I too have changed my view over time – (is this a getting older thing and discovering things are no longer so black and white)
i do think that Love is so completely different than Sex. If i lost the ability to have sexual intercourse with my wife I know my marriage would still be valid. We would still love each other (and probably be happier as we would have more sleep )
I dont see this cartoon as a “is sex good or bad in the context of a homosexual relationship” question but as a commitment issue and what we call marriage.
A couple my family knew very well (Kinda like grandparents to me) announced it was their golden wedding anniversary several years ago. We took them out for a slap up meal and had a great night. 2 days later we received a phone call from them in tears. They had phoned up to apologise because they suddenly realised that they were not actually married. They never had been – his previous wife never allowed the divorce to go through so they picked a date a celebrated it every year – to the point that with age they forgot they were not actually married.
Were they married – hell yeah and they were great friends and roll models too.
hey will… shame they felt the need to apologise. sounds like something really worth celebrating.
interesting to me that a cartoon on marriage, which can include sex (but for many, many it doesn’t) ends up with a conversation about gay sex. that says a lot about ourselves and our own preoccupations and worries.
“says a lot about ourselves and our own preoccupations and worries.”
Well, not really. You’ve got a Christian fanbase who enjoy your cartoons. Then you post a cartoon in which marriage is depicted as something that can occur between two men. Of course we’re going to talk about homosexuality and what the Bible says about it.
I truly believe that sex is an add on. Albeit a pleasant one, i would hate for that to define my existence with Esther. When we have had this very discussion we always remind ourselves where and what our relationship is based on. It is our love for each other that defines our marriage not an act of Sex.
“I truly believe that sex is an add on.” – as in an added extra?
I would argue that sex is a gift that God has given all men and women, to be enjoyed within the confines a married, heterosexual relationship.
I think you’re minimising the importance of sex to a marriage relationship, while at the same time implying that the opposing position to yours is somehow obsessed with sex.
i don’t think we would be suggesting that adulterers should be put to death which it says in the same passage lewis. so why is homosexuality an area of no budging. levticus endorses slavery… none of us would agree with slavery.
oso – please don’t get me wrong – i am only sharing with you my thoughts on the subject – in no way am i suggesting that you define marriage by sex. That was not my intention. I do think it is important in a relationship – but i have seen it also used in a relationship as a tool and as a weapon (excuse the puns).
So from watching friends marriages suffer with sex being used in this way we openly talk to each other about who we are and what we are defined as – this is not a conversation that happens regulary but it does happen.
I think i am looking at the cartoon and trying to look at what the cartoon is saying – i think sex can and should be discussed but i was just responding to what i saw. here
i don’t think we’re all obsessed with sex. sorry if my comment inferred that. my own position is more radical than the cartoon though, most definitely.
my own 10 year anniversary comes up next year… i am looking forward to a renewal of vows and a bit of a celebration. i love my wife… she’s beautiful.
your right oso, but not only does it see them as wrong but it also gives out penalties which we would never give out today. we would see the penalties as over the top even if we held to ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. so we all decide which bits of leviticus are relevant to us and which bits are not. in the new testament i see no mention of homosexual orientation as sin. in fact even the old testament says nothing regarding orientation, only sexual practise.
if somebody said god had told them to wipe out a nation today we’d be horrified… but that is apparently what god did in the old testament.
we’ll probarbly have to agree to differ on this one. i have been challenged and will continue to think on the subject, as i hope we all will. that’s why i did the cartoon in the first place. i was (believe it or not) genuinely surprised that the conversation became one about gay sex, as this was not the intention of the cartoon. thanks for the input. if you’re in the west country any time i’ll buy you a beer.
ok so i’m gonna chime in again… is it possible that the mention of “sex” (”laying with her”) doesn’t happen until AFTER the fall, isn’t it entirely possible that A: sex in itself is something that is different than God ever intended? B: that ANY sex outside of marriage(a monogamous relationship) is wrong? C: that because we are currently “separated from God” in this life that because God allowed us to engage in sex for his own infinite purposes? D: Will there be sex in “Heaven?” why would we need it when dwelling with God? hmmm…
Nah mate, sex is part of creation, it’s the way we were supposed to go forth and multiply, I think B is damaging because sex is so powerful,C, nah I know people might think this is weird but I feel God’s real joy around sex and D) we’ll live in the new earth after heaven…so, who knows then? Jesus said we’ll be like the angels in heaven but I don’t know if that’s forever…maybe unwritten?! I dunno!
As I’ve said before I want to concentrate on good sex and love here and now, I’ll leave the major philosophizing to you bright sparks!
Do you follow every single law and command listed in Leviticus?
Since this is a rhetorical question (How can anyone follow EVERY single law?) then how can you pick and choose what command shall be upheld and which ones should be overlooked?
again… all interesting stuff.
thanks everyone for keeping it polite. i appreciate we hold different views on this subject, but the quality of interaction here shows me there is hope.
oso… i definitely think that post fall sex is broken and i also think that the defintion of what are human beings changes.
sas… you definitely sound like a woman on a mission.
I did actually point out in #31 (above) the difference between the morality of the law, and how it is dealt with.
In short, God’s ethical standards have not changed. A sin back in the OT is still a sin today.
What has changed is the way that sin is dealt with. Since the people of God are no longer a geopolitical / historical / ethnic grouping (Ancient Israel) but have become the church, the way in which sin is dealt with is different. That’s why Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adulterous woman while still commanding her to no longer sin.
Moreover, much of the Levitical laws were hygienic and ceremonial. We can pretty much dispense with those, but we can’t ignore moral and ethical truths.
Moreover, a lot of the disagreement we are having over this issue has to do with what we understand to be authoritative. I have the view that the OT is as much the Bible as the NT, and the words of Paul are just as important as the words of Jesus.
i agree on your take regarding the tora for the most part. i don’t believe that homosexual orientation is an ethical issue… how we treat one another is. as in sodom… the issue isn’t one of sexual orientation, as i’ve heard preached, but it is an issue of the most terrible abusive acts and the respect of nothing… even angels. i believe the bible to be very strong on these issues, no one more so than jesus… and paul.
Where does the bible say that hygienic and ceremonial laws can be dispensed?
Of course the OT is a part of the NT but do we still cling to all of the laws commanded in the OT?
My point is that Christians seem to spend a lot of time focusing on a couple of laws from the OT and seem to easily write off everything else in the OT that was a law, whether hygienic or ceremonial.
You did write this, “It’s very hard to look at this passage, then pick out one verse and say “that doesn’t apply today, but the other ones around it do”.”, right?
You mentioned Leviticus 20:13. In the same chapter, verse 25, God states to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and birds. If verse 13 is still just as relevant as verse 25, then shouldn’t we still be figuring out the clean and unclean animals/birds?
“shouldn’t we still be figuring out the clean and unclean animals/birds?”
No. Because Jesus said that no animals are unclean any more – Mark 7.18-20.
“Where does the bible say that hygienic and ceremonial laws can be dispensed?”
Well, for starters, most of the ceremonial laws were about temple worship. Since Jesus is now the temple (John 2.19), we don’t have to worry about obeying Jewish religious practices.
You need to remember that there are four basic sorts of laws in the OT:
* Theological (pertaining to religious understanding of who God is)
* Ethical/Moral (pertaining to everyday behaviour)
* Ceremonial (pertaining to religious practices like temple worship and celebrating festivals)
* Hygenic (pertaining to personal cleanliness)
What we see in the NT is a continuation of the Theological and ethical truths, but a dispensing of ceremonial and hygenic ones. There are many ceremonial and hygiene laws that are explicitly dumped in the NT, such as the necessity of circumcision (1 Corinthians 7.18) and the following of Jewish festivals (Colossians 2.16). Moreover, while the Jews are still seen as “special”, it is clear that God’s people now dwell in the church body rather than in a nation (Galatians 3.7,29) which means that laws in the OT about the physical land of Israel just cannot apply any more.
The theology behind this is that God has two covenants. Under the Old Covenant, God’s people were found in the people of Israel. Under the new Covenant, God’s people are found in the visible church. There are differences and similarities between the two covenants. The differences, as I have mentioned, include the ceremonial and hygiene stuff. Yet Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfil it. The similarities are theological and moral.
Had homosexuality been sanctioned by Jesus and the Apostles, there would be explicit instructions about it in the NT. Instead we have Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10 which give an overwhelmingly negative about it.
The way to understand and interpret the OT is via the NT. Theological or moral laws found in the OT remain in place today, even though the NT explicitly removes the importance of ceremonial and hygienic ones.
this debate could roll on forever. or until christ returns and points out we were all wrong.
i do not believe corinthians and timothy to be about or anything to do with sexual orientation. rather they seem to be about specific abuses, which as i stated above the bible is clearly against throughout… that’s the one thing we can say is clear. also you’re mixing moral and ethical and interchanging their use as if they’re the same thing… they’re not.
I find some huge things implied in the different strands of teaching, for instance the kinds of challenges I come across reading the Bible myself are about mocking others, judging others, gossiping and lacking love, these seem to be a constant theme, yet they seem to have been glossed over and explained away through the various bible teaching groups I‘ve been to. if taken seriously, some people I know would have much less to say. (not that I’m judging)
yet when I tried to read the levit. and other texts regarding same gender relationships, I really struggled to see any clarity, and was left thinking these texts could be referring to anything, yet they are used as clear points of law!
I also feel God goes to great lengths to let us know who his is, his character, his plans for us and creation, his involvement with life, and I find much of this seems to be airbrushed out over the debates about different sexual relationships.
now I am confused, but have to accept I can’t go along with much of the teaching I’ve heard on this subject, because it seems to me to put God in a box he didn’t consent to.
oso – re about a thousand comments ago. no problem re the comments – i love the conversation and debate. such subjects do demand the conversation. The bible has so many layers to it and it is our responsibility to peal them off. Like Jon i do believe that if we discussed this until Jesus returned i think we may have all missed the point in one way or another.
i am off to Bath for the weekend catch up soon.
Wow – a massive topic. I’m afraid I haven’t read all the posts I skipped from about 30 to 60.
Surely we, and builders of God’s kingdom, are trying to fashion in our own lives and churches the kind of lifestyles we wil be adopting in heaven (we therefore ‘preach’ to the world by example not words, for the most part). So what should marriage look like in God’s kingdom?
Now obviously I don’t go around trying to offend people with different views, and I am very aware my theology is a ’spring’ not a ‘brick’ (Velvet Elvis anyone?),but… I’m afraid I can’t say same-sex relationships are ok. I have no doubt from friend I have they are just as loving as hetrosexual relationships, and for the sake of my friends I wish I could simply say ‘thats ok by God’, but to me it flies in the face of biblical teaching and millenia of judeo-christian tradition.
I think you can understand far more about what God wants from ‘marriage’ by reading song of songs rather than the Torah! It’s not about rules, its about the most powerful and intimate type of love and commitment that an be shared this side of heaven.
Comment by youthworkerpete — December 13, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Oh my goodness. Who would have thought that this thread would have got more response than any other when posted for debate by Christians?
I too have spent many a happy hour debating the meaning of the original Greek and it’s translation into English. I too have had discussions about the way Paul uses such practice to make a completely theological point. I have also read the Levitical laws – most of which we completely ignore – and yet I am often condemned for not clipping the hair on the sides of my head in church circles.
I have also spent many happy hours in lectures on Jesus teachings about the poor. I have read Jesus teachings on the marginalised. I have spotted that Jesus never mentions Homosexuality – explicit or implicitly.
For some reason we seem intent on spending 99% of our time debating 0.0001% of our scriptures. This seems to be a question dreamt up by modern commentators rather than biblical writers so why is everyone so intent on debating it?
If it wasn’t against OT laws, I’d bet a fiver that we don’t end up with 74 comments on this thread. http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/308/
Isn’t it time we started preaching the good news rather than the headlines from whichever ingroup we want to feel part of?
wise words robb.
i wonder whether part of the reason for the fascination is because we are such sexual beings… indeed my identity as ‘man’ leads me to assume and accept certain things about myself including sexual orientation.
i wouldn’t bet you a fiver, i’d lose it! the guantanamo bay cartoon i did ages ago had very few comments… i was a bit disappointed as i thought this one of my more pertenant offerings… shows what i know!
oso… i love the debate and i very much appreciate your input. i have the utmost respect for the way you express your views and am perfectly okay about the difference of views. a good wrestle is often a good thing. thank you for joining in the ride.
thank you ros.
i am in my second marriage. and it has been a very healing experience. i thank god for my wife and i thank god for his grace. isn’t that what it all comes down to at the end of the day?
robb… i agree. this subject perhaps gets more attention because we disagree and we spend a lot of time wanting to convince one another. most of us will agree on 308, the conversation there is how we go about our duty… which tends to evoke less passion. that in itself is a shame. but as i said to someone on 308, the regulars who comment on this site, such as your good self, do engage wholeheartedly on all manner of themes, and this gives me hope. thanks for your input.
I think we are on dodgy ground when we seek to find NT justifications for continuing OT prohibitions. It’s just not as clear as we’d love it to be.
I have to say, I agree with all that Jesus tauight on the subject, and wonder how much the cause of the kingdom of God would be furthered if we all limited ourselves to repeating just the teachings of Christ on the topic?
the teachings of christ really are the basis of our faith. maybe the discipline you suggest is a good way forward. thanks, jonathan… what a great name!
I agree that going back and forth on this wouldn’t be beneficial. I just wish that we, as Christians, could focus on the life and love of Jesus and mirror that (right on Jonathan!) rather than spending energy figuring out what everyone else may be doing wrong. I hate that my homosexual family member may have an issue with God because of the condemnation given her by His “representatives”.
“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any translation using a form of that word is wrong. Deal with the KJV’s “sexual immorality” or decide what sin is being condemned (hint – it’s idolatry. Straight men having sex with other men against their nature.) If God did not want men to have sex with men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD.” Jesus still defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships ? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who is the victim being sinned against?
But God did say “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD.”
Lev 18:22-24 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 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. 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.”
It’s listed along with other sexual ‘perversions’. Would you say sex with animals is okay!? Well it’s listed as the same kinda thing here.
What is unloving about having sex with an animal, if the animal enjoys it? I mean, honestly, that’s pretty disgusting. But the bible say it’s a sin. So it’s unloving to a God who told us not to.
I wish I’d been able to keep up with postings, but I’ve had school and stuff so I’ve gotten behind.
As for why people seem to ‘obsess’ over this topic – I think it’s because it’s such a big issue and point of disagreement for the church today.
I think people who say the bible says homosexual relationships are wrong are hugely misrepresented these days – packaged as gay-hating homophobes. In reality, for myself I’d love a gay person the same way I’d love anyone else. I’m just standing by what God’s word says.
Fred – I just want to pick up on your last comment.
Although your first part may have sound theoogical worth (I dont agree with it, but that doesn’t mean its not right – if you understand!?!?). But I’m afraid I don’t think we ever have the liberty to decide what is and isn’t sin based on whether we think there is a victim. If it’s not supposed to be part of God’s Kingdom, its a sin and shouldn’t be done. We are trying to bring the whole of creation back in line with God. There are many habits that need to do with our culture that could easily be named ‘victimless’ but need to change.
Comment by youthworkerpete — December 13, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
i don’t believe sexual orientation to be a habit. it’s an orientation, it’s part of who you are and there are many variations and subtleties in that orientation amongst all of us. judging people for what they are when they’ve done harm to no one is not part of the plan.
Thank you for this thought provoking cartoon, and for not closing comments when it all got so heavy.
I guess lots of us have shifted and changed our views at times – I know I have – and I feel a humble provisionality which recognises, as you suggest, that we live in a disordered (sin afflicted) world and cannot perfectly know the mind of God is healthy.
It saddens me that people die of preventable diseases or in poverty while Christians argue over who is, in their view, the bigger sinner. Sometimes I’m guilty of covetousness or unforgiveness, but thankfully no one obsesses over those… Interesting, if it wasn’t so sad.
Keep up the good work, and again, thank you for hosting these discussions.
Comment by Catriona — December 14, 2007 @ 10:22 am
thanks catriona. i agree with your thoughts. as regards hosting discussion, i feel honoured that people are wanting to discuss here. cheers!
hi cecilia… my comments hopefully reflect some of what i sincerely believe. i feel bad having this conversation, arguing theology and doctrine when for millions homosexuality is an everyday experience and at best a very positive one and at worst a very confusing one given the mixed messages society liberally dishes out. the church through the years has often been utterly unhelpful or even downright awful. the one place where people should be accepted for who they are often isn’t. i am sad and sometimes angry about this.
i like your blog by the way… beautiful.
I love the ambiguity of the cartoon,and I am really into it as a way of communicating, part of the reason why it takes me ages to get of a service if I am speaking and part of the rason why I rarely get invited back. Brilliant work Jon!!
why not all three? i guess there are as many ways of delivering a sermon as there are ways of communicating. sometimes simple bible exegesis is dull, sometimes inspiring. sometimes it’s good to shake people out of their comfort zones, sometimes it’s important to comfort. i do think one role of all teachers should be to enable, inspire and challenge people to do their own thinking. prescribing can be good, but even my doctor gave me a really bad prescription once… fortunately, being a thinking person, i could go back to him and sort it out.
Ironically, the printing press was supposed to “place scripture into the hands of the common man” and allow them to think their own theological thought.
The result of this “freedom of information” was the reformation and over prescriptive thought policing.
It is strange that free thought would be so restrictive. We now have a church where some believe that it is storing “correct doctrine” in your head that results in salvation.
This of course raises the question of salvation for those who are unable to understand doctrine because of disability.
Anyway, I could have sworn it was Jesus who sorted out the whole salvation thing.
Well this is certainly a far cry from the initial cartoon. Probably more appropriate with 314!
“We now have a church where some believe that it is storing “correct doctrine” in your head that results in salvation.”
Exactly Robb! and trying to store all the “correct doctrine” will do your head in if you’re any kind of thinking person at all. It only works if you stay strickly within the confines of your own church and country. Travel at all outside those confines, hear any new ideas, and “bam” your head explodes.
Jon, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed. To simply say that “some English translations say so, but we really don’t know what those words mean” is not honest. If “those words” were simply left blank- just place holders in the texts- the related words in the sentence would still make the statement abundantly clear; and the overall context leaves room for doubt only for those who have their minds made up that doubt is the preferred interpretation. Of all the rhetoric that has gone forth to advance this “cause” there have been two main arguments: One is from (willing) ignorance, and the other personal attacks on anyone who dares say the answer is know-able. This fits perfectly with the “progress” described in Romans 1, that the people chose not to know the Truth of God, so God “gave them up” to waste themselves in lusts one for another, women with women, men with men. Are we willing to hear the Truth, or only the parts that we expect to make us feel good? Is a half truth anything but a whole lie?
thanks for the comment robert. here’s my reply.
i’m more concerned with the people than the ’cause’. cause implies there is a deiberate attempt to undermine truth. i don’t believe i’ve witessed that here. as with many issues… cleverer people than you and i have wrestled with this and come to no agreement, which it seems we also haven’t.
the issue of sexual orientation is not one of ‘lust’. that’s an awful simplification of what is going on in people… the bible is clearly talking about lust, not about sexual orientation. no, the cartoon is about love and commitment… kingdom values… not lust.
christ loved the persecuted, and homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries. even worse, people have used the bible as a weapon for persecution. i’m with christ on this one. people first, dogma last.
Wow, 116 comments. Thanks, Jon, for encouraging the discussion. I’d take exception to your comment, though. You said,
christ loved the persecuted, and homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries. even worse, people have used the bible as a weapon for persecution. i’m with christ on this one. people first, dogma last.
Christ himself said that not the last bit of Scripture would pass away, presumably including injunctions against sinful behaviour. That’s the Christian dilemma – how to balance Christian love with the reality of sin and a sinful world.
I consider myself a recovering fundamentalist and reject the blanket condemnation sin and sinner, but at the same time reject the universalist notion that everyone goes to heaven and that our our personal behaviour is irrelevant. I’m still struggling with that.
thanks steve.
sinful behaviour is not the same as having a sexual orientation. ‘behaviour’ is just that… how you behave. people have used scripture horrendously against homosexuals in the past and still do. someone having a sexual orientation different to your own is not a sin…
Interesting article in the time this morning about the Archbishop of Canterbury about the Christmas story and things that get in the way of people finding out about God. but in it this was said:
“The Archbishop admitted that the Church’s present difficulties, with the dispute over sexuality taking the Anglican Communion to the brink of schism, were off-putting to outsiders. “They don’t want to know about the inside politics of the Church, they want to know if God’s real, if they can be forgiven, what sort of lifestyles matter more and they want to know, I suppose, if their prayers are heard.”
Great image. I notice that you offer these pictures free. We are hoping to use this one on some of our teaching material on ‘Relationships’. I assume that this is OK?
Sorry, you may be about to witness me jumping from one side of a discussion to the other to propogate the debate…
“someone having a sexual orientation different to your own is not a sin”
The question has now moved to orientation. Essentially this is about sexual attraction. Some people become aroused by looking at small breasts. Some become aroused whilst looking at large breasts. It is an inbuilt thing, hard wired with no rhyme or reason and no question of it being sinful to become aroused by one or the other is ever raised. However, if someone has the orientation towards farm animals it is considered sin.
This is why this debate will rage for centuries, because there is no easy possition to draw a line and yet society clearly draws one.
yes david… that’s fine… and brave of you. thanks for visiting and use away.
interesting points robb. to have sex with an animal is clearly an ‘impostion’ on said creature and thus i would venture what we call ‘a sin’. mutual love between two people, even when starting with sexual attraction is not a sin, at least i’ve not found it in the bible.
i sometimes wonder whether it is our own ‘hard wired’ sexual orientation which leads us to be condemning of others… our sexuality under threat, fear of the unknown, revulsion at difference. i think our very own sexuality can make clear thinking and christ’s call to be compassionate, merciful and gracious hard for many of us. it seems to me that under fire, some homosexuals are crushed (which is heart breaking), some fight back with equal strength (something we deserve) and others show love, mercy and grace… the very qualities the church should be built on. i dare say many have experienced all these at some time as they learn to live in a world of finger pointing and tongue wagging.
i think we should be careful that it is not just our sexuality that argues on our behalf.
But it is not the ‘impossition on said creature’ that is considered wrong by society – othewise the imposition of an abatoir would be equally frowned upon.
It is a difficult thing to discuss because there is obvious shock value in most comments that can be made about the topic. I changed my comment from my initial point as I thought it would be dragged completly off topic.
Having read OSO’s blog this morning and stumbled across his change in statistics on mixed race marriage in the US, it is clear that western society is going through a period of change with attitudes to the norms in society. The same can be seen with attitudes to sex. Pornography for example was a huge taboo. Now it is an accepted norm. A blind eye is now often turned to prostitution. But we are not “hard wired” to sell sex…
it’s about baggy pants isn’t it? i was wearing a pair the other day just like these where if i put my hands in my pockets i get a straight silhouette. does this mean my marriage will last?
I heard that people like me had started wearing baggy pants. No-one explained to me that Americans mean something completely different to the English. Imagine my embarrasment when I went to the pub in my baggy pants…
hahaha! what is it with young people and their pants showing? the other day i walked up the hill behind a guy in really low slung trousers and literally 3/4’s of his pants were on display… and they had a hole on one of the cheeks. i tried not to look, but it was entertaining me.
Quoting 1Cor 6.9 and Leviticus 20.13 in an english translation proves nothing. Paul read the Septuagint, not the NRSV.
Jon, whatever you think arsenokoites may mean, when Greeks read the LXX, when they read Leviticus, when they came to the passage we now refer to as 20.13, two Greek words appear side by side: arsenos and koiten.
At the very least, this should give you pause when arriving at a conclusion regarding the meaning of arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6.9, which will give you insight into Paul’s broader thought regarding sexual ethics, hopefully letting you read Rom 1, 1Cor 5 and Eph 5 the way a Hebrew would have understood these passages, and not the way a 21st Century Occidental would read them, living the other side of the 1960’s, raised by MTV and taking for granted both the indeterminacy of texts and the innateness of one’s behaviour.
It’s good to keep in mind that Paul was a celibate Jewish Rabbi who had probably memorized the Torah. He thought in Hebrew categories, not Greek ones.
For what it’s worth, I would reccomend to you Al Mohler’s sermon at the 04 DG conference. I’m not exactly his biggest fan, but I think he helpfully adds to the conversation.
P.S.: Marriages are not just bettween two people, they ideally include children – I say ideally because in this world, creation doesn’t work the way it ought to, i.e: infertility, etc.
cheers, tyler.
also, context is vital to understanding why paul says what he says. he doesn’t say this to everyone and it is not his main thread although sexual behaviour does crop up a fair bit… as you say, he’d have known the torah inside out. he is being specific to a specific problem he encounters with a specific group who behave in a specific way. i am not sure this is an issue of doctrine, more one of wisdom in a context of dipravity… unless we take all pauls words and apply them as doctrine whatever the context, which we don’t. pauls writings are letters… when we write letters we are specific to the intended reader… that does not mean that there is nothing to learn from them, but it does mean that paul would have had no intention of having them show up in a compilation some time later. he was dealing with the matter in hand.
i shall of course continue to think on the comments received and am very grateful for the spirit in which they have been presented.
when in doubt, i’ll always turn to jesus, specifically the sermon on the mount. where i see oppression i will attempt in my small way to counter it… and sadly i have seen alot of people oppressed for their orientation which certainly is not a sin.
What I think is so hot is how it is rarely argued, “Jesus preached the sermon on the mount to a specific people in a specific time with a specific group of problems who behaved in a specific way and he does not say this to everyone, so you can’t really apply the ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’ passage to all situations and in all times.” The only time I’ve heard someone ever argue in this fashion was when they were trying to accomodate the legitimization of the Iraq war. In other words, they were trying to domesticate scripture. I would commend to you an interview with N.T. Wright, and then another for more first-century context. Jon, I struggle with the same things you do. I want to be “open/affirming,” I don’t want to be called “close-minded,” but I can’t see it as an option if I really want to be a part of that Jesus thing I read about in the New Testament. Peace bro.
hi tyler. i don’t know why wordpress keeps trying to moderate you. very annoying, anyhow, sorry.
i take your point, but the sermon on the mount is preached to an open gathering… it’s not a letter. it also deals with the key themes on how we should be towards one another. paul is dealing with specific issues to do with people groups and cultural behaviours he’s in contact with… that’s what i meant. he’s dealing with all kinds of issues, such as temple prostitution. most churches would not adhere to the wearing of head garments for women these days, but paul says it… it is the context that makes all the difference.
peace to you too.
Please sir, which box am I in?
I’m straight and celibate and living with my best mate who is gay and celibate. We’re both girlies – if you can still be a girlie at 35!
We’ve bought a house together and lived in it five years. We eat together, laugh together, cry together etc. We support each other financially as and when life gets shaken up and we expect to grow old together. We’re both aware that God might have other plans although I think we’re both pretty sure he doesn’t!
I’m not married but if anyone wants to figure it out I’d love for someone to tell me what’s going on!
i’d hate to put you in any box. your relationship sounds excellent… long may it continue! why fathom it anymore than to say ‘it is what it is’?… and from what you’ve said, what it is… is wonderful.
the respectfull, thoughtfull and well to use a mclarenism generous nature of the pretty much all the comments here have filled me with so much hope and joy.
Thanks Jon for providing excellent stimulus and a comfortable habitat.
the respectfull, thoughtfull and well to use a mclarenism generous nature of the pretty much all the comments here have filled me with so much hope and joy.
Thanks Jon for providing excellent stimulus and a comfortable habitat.
Whew! tough subject but I’ll throw my thoughts in to the ring…
God has rules. Yes or No?
If He is God He must be powerful enough to give us a record of His desires that we can refer to and learn from. He’s not asking us to wing it on our own good feelings and opinions. So, either we can use scripture or not. Here is where I see the issue. We must love and accept all people but if we love them, we must help them to see the truths of God. We must be like God…He loves us as we are but loves us too much to let us stay that way. It is cool and post modern to be ultra tolerant but at what cost? Even nature teaches that
the physical means by which homosexuals express their feelings are unnatural because they don’t posses the proper equipment. The bottom line is this…Either the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong or it doesn’t. If it does (in the same way as adultery,
fornication, etc.) then we are unloving in accepting the behavior for the sake of accepting the person and it relieves us of having to lovingly confront the issue as we would with anything else. Also, in regard to another aspect of the discussion…Science is ‘discovering’ that certain behaviors are born into us. Like being a thief or a murderer. If we take this tack and apply it being a bigamist, a whore-monger or a homosexual it only shows that we are fallen creatures in a fallen world and that the fall was way more comprehensive than we can imagine. It can even lead us to justify things clearly taught in “the owners manual” as wrong or incorrect. It could even make people so open minded that their brains fall out. Yes, Love is the answer but what kind of love do we mean? What is different about Christian love?
I accepts the sinner but hates the sin (trite and old fashioned I know but so is our God) in Christ’s love so far as I have experienced it…mike
you got something against people with ‘n’ in their name? or maybe it’s light coloured shoes that does it. or higher contrasting clothes when matching the partners…
Comment by Pete C — December 12, 2007 @ 2:05 am
Are you saying that all are the same?
Comment by Nathan — December 12, 2007 @ 2:32 am
Ain’t love grand? Beautiful.
Comment by Rachel — December 12, 2007 @ 2:58 am
You’re kidding, right? Together? Sure. Love? Sure. Married? Nope.
Comment by Mike Gastin — December 12, 2007 @ 3:52 am
[...] …comes from “The Ongoing Adventures Of ASBO Jesus“, who is posting some very controversial, but very thought-provoking stuff. You don’t need to agree with Jonathon to be benefited by seeing his cartoons. Anyway, feel free to leave your opinion on this one here, or over at the original post. [...]
Pingback by your ponderance for today… : amateur theology — December 12, 2007 @ 4:06 am
Mike, what’s important to you about the word “married”? What is the important thing before a couple is “married”.
Jon, you’ve certainly got me thinking!
Comment by Geoff — December 12, 2007 @ 4:12 am
What, that certificate is not the binding factor in one’s relationship?
Well, rather than relying on my own interpretation, I rather know what you’re trying to convey.
So, what’s in this one?
Comment by zefi — December 12, 2007 @ 5:24 am
Very interesting… Once upon a time I would have disagreed with this quite strongly.
Time and thought changes things though.
I like this comic a lot!
Comment by Nathan — December 12, 2007 @ 8:49 am
This is an interesting topic which I guess a lot of people could disagree on.
What does God think married is?
Possibly 1 and 3?
Comment by Lewis — December 12, 2007 @ 9:03 am
I am a great advocate of marriage, having been married for 26 years, myself. But I don’t think that makes me any better than those who have not notched up the years in ‘holy wedlock’ The fact is, we were 19 and 20 years when we walked down the aisle and had probably not considered what ’til death us do part really meant. There have been ups and downs and if we were a bit more single-minded we could have brought in the lawyers at points. I know that when we renewed our wedding vows in church last year, it meant more to us than the actual wedding day. We didn’t have the distraction of the dress, the flowers, the photos, etc. Most of all we knew what we were saying because we’d lived it. I’m reaching that stage in life where I fear not having my man at my side, so much are our lives intertwined – you do become like one person, strangely enough. For me, to have lived together for that length of time without having taken the solemn vow before God would not be the same.
But it suits some. Better that than to take vows that you might not be able to keep. Civil ceremonies? Well if two people love each other and want to commit in that way – why not? In practical terms, they should have the same pension and inheritance rights as other couples. A work friend who is gay came in one morning thrilled to announce to a select group (with whom he felt comfortable) that he and his partner of 10 years had agreed to have a civil ceremony the following year. It’s not really in the realms of my experience so it felt a bit odd to me, but his joy was plain for all to see. You can quote me any Bible verse you like but they clearly love each other, are committed to their relationship. Being a theological ignormamus I may have got this wrong but I believe that God is Love. I’m sure it says so in the Bible – somewhere near the back…
Comment by Carole — December 12, 2007 @ 9:18 am
just to be clear, zefi… the cartoon is saying nothing but leaving the whole thing open for discussion.
my own views may be contraversial, but the cartoon is saying nothing one way or the other, except that this is what happens… so what do you think?
all sexuality is broken. that includes heterosexual church blessed christian marital sexuality. commitment and love are good things wherever you find them or however uncomfortable they make you feel personally. a problem arises when we stop seeing people as people and only define them by sexual orientation. love is good, god is love and carole is right.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:20 am
nathan… i too have changed in my thinking… although i was never really comfortable with the dogma i grew up with. a dogma which incidently was never taught me by my parents.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:23 am
hi geoff… i obviously knew this was a contraversial topic, but thanks for seeing beyond an immediate reaction and thinking some more.
btw all… i don’t expect everyone to share my view, but it’s cool to rethink and may even be liberating… if not for you then maybe for someone else. it is important to remember we live in a damaged world and things often are not clear cut. but one thing i find pretty clear, is that when i see commitment and love one to another, god is present. what i believe is horrendous is the abuse and exploitation of one another for any kind of sexual gratification, but this is not what this cartoon deals with.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Jon you sure know how to get people thinking! One thing I’ve noticed is that couples seem to decide to live together and express the intention for it to be monogamous and long-lasting – but don’t want a ceremony. Well! Come on guys – SURELY this a great thing in your lives, and why on earth don’t you want to share it with your friends and family and have a whopping celebration??? – I just think it’s sad that such a monumental cause for joy is not celebrated – somehow at least, even if formal stuff is declined; and it doesn’t have to cost a fortune to have some FUN!!
Comment by Chris F — December 12, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
i agree chris. celebration of such a wonderful thing seems like the way to go. i would extend this principle to partnerships of whatever orientation. if it’s good, let’s rejoice with you. however, i can understand peoples fear of rejection or judgement and can understand why the formality of a ritual is something they avoid. shame on us for making people live in holes. yes, as christians we are to be down on exploitation and abuse of others, but when people display commitment and love if we’ve nothing positive to say we should be careful lest we judge ourselves.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
It is true that God is Love. But is He ONLY love? Can we just put him in a box labeled “love” like that and then feel proud of ourselves for having taken care of the matter neatly?
And what kind of Love are we speaking of, anyway? My son, when he was a toddler, thought I was the meanest mommy in the neighborhood because I wouldn’t allow him to play in the street. He was devastated that he couldn’t do what he wanted. Now, of course, he knows that I loved him enough to give him rules and limits.
“No rules” feels loving… but is it?
Comment by Lori — December 12, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Well, you certainly capture the emerging/post-modern/new age church vote. If it feels good, it must be right, I suppose.
Comment by Steve — December 12, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
i don’t believe that if it feels right it must be good.
i also, like lori, believe that rules can be liberating.
i do question the rules that some people seem to hold to regardless of how scriptural they might be.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
ah … the old gay debate resurfaces
Comment by Wiggy — December 12, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
i do question the rules that some people seem to hold to regardless of how scriptural they might be.
That’s an interesting view. So, because an idea is Scriptural you don’t hold it to be important or relevant?
Comment by Steve — December 12, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
that’s not what i meant to say. although i see how my statement reads ambiguously.
what i meant was, people still hold on to rules even if they are not scriptural.
i should have said ‘how scriptural they might or might not be.’ that might have been clearer.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Ah, that makes more sense!
Comment by Steve — December 12, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
i was reading through the comments kinda just wondering what people said… it was interesting. I’m kinda impressed that there isn’t any extremely over-the-top anti-homosexuality stuff in here, which is good. (unless it wasn’t posted, but i doubt Jon would censor anyone)
I honestly, didn’t think of a homosexual relationship when i first looked at it. i thought they were just people who loved each other, not necessarily “gay.” That topic is polarizing churches so much it is scary. We’ve honestly forgot that we all are sinners and need the ultimate love and grace.
Watch “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry” and tell me it doesn’t break your heart when those people are “expressing God’s opinion” so un-lovingly to the homosexuals in the movie… it broke my heart. WWJD… uh, not that, and we do it all the time. And they’re the “sinners” sheeseh…
Comment by scanartist — December 12, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
thanks scanartist. yes peoples comments have been very thoughtful… and yes, i wouldn’t censor someone for not agreeing or being unloving. i would give a warning if i thought someone was abusing someone else on this site, unless it’s me being got at i guess. i wouldn’t allow offensive name calling… but i would give a warning first.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
this is interesting… from http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
regarding what paul is saying in corinthians… it’s long but an easy read….
What does “arsenokoitai” really mean?
Nobody knows for certain.
“Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
Many sources have speculated about the meaning of “arsenokoitai:”
“Homosexual offenders:” The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).
Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew “quadesh” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to “arsenokoitai.” This passage referred to “male temple prostitutes” – people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers – a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.
Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word “arsenokoitai:” This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers “to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex).” 2 Probably “pimp” or “man living off of the avails of prostitution” would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that “Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai.” 3
Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, “arsenokoitai” was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
For me, more than anything else, this cartoon and the discussion surrounding it (perhaps more than the cartoon itself) is a challenge to think beyond the simple black and white of traditional church dogma. reality and life are more complicated than that. Sin and sinners, morality, sexuality, love, marriage, judgement simply don’t fit into a rigid set off rules, dogmas and systematic theologies. Real life is messy, confusing and organic and the sooner we realise we don’t, can’t and won’t ever have all the answers the sooner we can just leave the judging to God and get on with living and loving as he called us.
even that’s more complicated than it seems…
Comment by Tom C — December 12, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
i see what you’re saying, i think;
the marriage is not about having a wedding. it’s about love and eing together and…and…all the bits that people forget about, the important bits.
Comment by Émie — December 12, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
yup.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
I’d disagree, I think the Bible is fairly firmly against homosexual relationships. They’re described as ‘an abomination’, and however much people try to explain away other verses I think that we’re just trying to bend the bile to what we want. Just because God loves people who are inclined to stealing doesn’t mean we should condone the stealing to please them, even if the rest of society accepted it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not one of the ‘God hates fags’ brigade, but I’m sure that the Bible says homosexual behaviour is a sin.
People can get joy through many things, people could find love with animals, – this doesn’t mean we should condone having sex with animals or drugs etc. Just because something ‘feels good’ or ‘promotes love’ doesn’t mean it’s holy.
Comment by Lewis — December 12, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
I have to agree with Lewis here – you have to do some mighty exegetical acrobatics to argue that the bible supports homosexuality.
I’m not going to quote verses at anyone here since I assume you all know them. Here’s a few arguments, though.
1. The Bible does not explicitly support any form of homosexual relationship.
2. The Bible does not speak at all in favour of any form of homosexual relationship.
3. The Bible explicitly speaks of heterosexual relationships between a husband and wife as being sanctioned by God.
A word on the Old Testament. When we interpret the OT and its commands we need to remember that God does not change his mind about the morality of the sin, but changed his mind on how that sin is dealt with (”Changed his mind” is not a good phrase I know).
In other words, homosexuality is seen by God as sinful, but, under the new covenant, the punishment for it is no longer binding.
Think of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.1-11. According to the OT her punishment should have been stoning (Deut 22.24). Jesus does not minimise her sin (”go and sin no more” he tells her, which pretty much proves that she had been committing adultery) but he protects her from harm. The sin is still sin, but the way to deal with it under the New Covenant has changed.
God has not “changed his mind” about homosexuality, but he certainly commands us to treat all sinners gracefully.
If Jesus turned up at a meeting of Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates fag group), he would stand before those protesters and say “he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Then he would turn to the homosexuals and say “go and sin no more”.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Lewis – it only says don’t have sex with someone of the same gender, not ‘don’t be in love with smoenoe of the same gender’
Comment by Émie — December 12, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
i figured you’d get some responses on this one… love to hear more about the thrust behind it.
Comment by Shawn — December 12, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Relationships involve sex. It’s not wrong to be homosexual, its acting on that that’s wrong. In reality, a passionate kiss is part of the road to sex, and that’s too far. The bible doesn’t say ‘don’t have sex before marriage – but you can do anything else you like’!
Comment by Lewis — December 12, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
BTW – the Bible doesn’t have many commands (if any) about how and where people should get married.
If two people have a civil ceremony that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be in a church.
I know of one country (in Africa? Asia?) that has no wedding culture at all. The man and woman just move in together and once that happens they’re considered married. Sounds good to me.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
I have some male friends that I love dearly. But that’s not homosexuality.
My wife has some female friends that she loves as well. Again, that’s not homosexuality because there is no sexual desire that goes with the relationship.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Yeah. God doesn’t judge a marriage on whether they had it done in church ‘good proper and middle class’ or not! Adam and Eve’s marriage was described as ‘becoming one flesh’.
I think however, It’s a good witness in this country to get an officially recognised traditional marriage, and it’s good to have those kind of vows.
Comment by Lewis — December 12, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
interesting stuff.
some english translations are down on homosexuality… but the original text has been interpreted and not translated. other translations are not down on it. people bring politics and their own agenda to the business of translation. we need to be wiser than that. the bible and paul are emphatically against temple prostitution and sexual sin… but homesexual orientation, no, it’s not there. not in the original text.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Jon
“paiderasste” is the basis of the word “Pederast”. The “Ped” part of the word means child. Thus the word “paiderasste” refers to the Greek practice of men having sex with boys, not the practice of men having sex with other men.
Which is, I think, why Paul doesn’t use the word – he’s not talking about pederasty but homosexual sex (a broader definition that would include pederasty but is not limited by it)
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
I think if you go looking for stuff you’ll find it. There’ll always be someone ready to argue why or why not the Bible says whatever.
To be honest, taking the Bible as a whole, at face value on the topic of homosexuality, it gives a clear ‘no’.
Comment by Lewis — December 12, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
the cartoon is not about sex. it is about love and commitment, which may or may not include sex.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
where does the bible give a clear no, lewis?
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Leviticus 20.13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&version=47&context=chapter
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
really good one Jon,
I too have changed my view over time – (is this a getting older thing and discovering things are no longer so black and white)
i do think that Love is so completely different than Sex. If i lost the ability to have sexual intercourse with my wife I know my marriage would still be valid. We would still love each other (and probably be happier as we would have more sleep
)
I dont see this cartoon as a “is sex good or bad in the context of a homosexual relationship” question but as a commitment issue and what we call marriage.
A couple my family knew very well (Kinda like grandparents to me) announced it was their golden wedding anniversary several years ago. We took them out for a slap up meal and had a great night. 2 days later we received a phone call from them in tears. They had phoned up to apologise because they suddenly realised that they were not actually married. They never had been – his previous wife never allowed the divorce to go through so they picked a date a celebrated it every year – to the point that with age they forgot they were not actually married.
Were they married – hell yeah and they were great friends and roll models too.
Bye for now – and see you on sunday Jon Boy.
Comment by will — December 12, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
But marriage includes sex. to what level do you say the bible allows same-sex eroticism to go?
Comment by Lewis — December 12, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
hey will… shame they felt the need to apologise. sounds like something really worth celebrating.
interesting to me that a cartoon on marriage, which can include sex (but for many, many it doesn’t) ends up with a conversation about gay sex. that says a lot about ourselves and our own preoccupations and worries.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
“says a lot about ourselves and our own preoccupations and worries.”
Well, not really. You’ve got a Christian fanbase who enjoy your cartoons. Then you post a cartoon in which marriage is depicted as something that can occur between two men. Of course we’re going to talk about homosexuality and what the Bible says about it.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
I truly believe that sex is an add on. Albeit a pleasant one, i would hate for that to define my existence with Esther. When we have had this very discussion we always remind ourselves where and what our relationship is based on. It is our love for each other that defines our marriage not an act of Sex.
Comment by will — December 12, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
“I truly believe that sex is an add on.” – as in an added extra?
I would argue that sex is a gift that God has given all men and women, to be enjoyed within the confines a married, heterosexual relationship.
I think you’re minimising the importance of sex to a marriage relationship, while at the same time implying that the opposing position to yours is somehow obsessed with sex.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
i don’t think we would be suggesting that adulterers should be put to death which it says in the same passage lewis. so why is homosexuality an area of no budging. levticus endorses slavery… none of us would agree with slavery.
fair enough oso, good point.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
oso, i was referring to your previous comment… we’re overlapping.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
oso – please don’t get me wrong – i am only sharing with you my thoughts on the subject – in no way am i suggesting that you define marriage by sex. That was not my intention. I do think it is important in a relationship – but i have seen it also used in a relationship as a tool and as a weapon (excuse the puns).
So from watching friends marriages suffer with sex being used in this way we openly talk to each other about who we are and what we are defined as – this is not a conversation that happens regulary but it does happen.
I think i am looking at the cartoon and trying to look at what the cartoon is saying – i think sex can and should be discussed but i was just responding to what i saw. here
Comment by will — December 12, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
i don’t think we’re all obsessed with sex. sorry if my comment inferred that. my own position is more radical than the cartoon though, most definitely.
my own 10 year anniversary comes up next year… i am looking forward to a renewal of vows and a bit of a celebration. i love my wife… she’s beautiful.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
yes she is!
Comment by will — December 12, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
If you check out the Leviticus passage I mentioned, you’ll find that the verses around it are replete with sexual prohibitions.
Not only does Leviticus 20 see homosexual sex as wrong, but also adultery, incest and bestiality.
It’s very hard to look at this passage, then pick out one verse and say “that doesn’t apply today, but the other ones around it do”.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
wil – thanks for qualifying yourself. Sorry if I came across too abruptly.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
your right oso, but not only does it see them as wrong but it also gives out penalties which we would never give out today. we would see the penalties as over the top even if we held to ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. so we all decide which bits of leviticus are relevant to us and which bits are not. in the new testament i see no mention of homosexual orientation as sin. in fact even the old testament says nothing regarding orientation, only sexual practise.
if somebody said god had told them to wipe out a nation today we’d be horrified… but that is apparently what god did in the old testament.
we’ll probarbly have to agree to differ on this one. i have been challenged and will continue to think on the subject, as i hope we all will. that’s why i did the cartoon in the first place. i was (believe it or not) genuinely surprised that the conversation became one about gay sex, as this was not the intention of the cartoon. thanks for the input. if you’re in the west country any time i’ll buy you a beer.
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
57 comments, this blog is getting busy………..(not Fat Boy Slim again?)
just to celebrate the gifts of Love, Joy, Hope, as genuine gifts from a generous, fun loving God.
P.S., how do Adam and Keith manage to look about 17? I’m defiantly past it.
Comment by su — December 12, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
hahaha! it’s cos they have no eyes and a complection consisting of one shade! in short, adam and keith are cheating!
Comment by jonbirch — December 12, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
So what’s your opinion of the OT Jon? Is it reliable? Is the God portrayed in the OT the same God in the NT?
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 12, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
When I found out my cousin was gay, I was sad for a few minutes. Then I knew there were far more important things for me to be worried about.
They’re lovely and I wish them all the best.
I want them to know God just like I want everyone to, everyone’s got a hole in their heart.
Sas x
Comment by Sarah — December 12, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
ok so i’m gonna chime in again… is it possible that the mention of “sex” (”laying with her”) doesn’t happen until AFTER the fall, isn’t it entirely possible that A: sex in itself is something that is different than God ever intended? B: that ANY sex outside of marriage(a monogamous relationship) is wrong? C: that because we are currently “separated from God” in this life that because God allowed us to engage in sex for his own infinite purposes? D: Will there be sex in “Heaven?” why would we need it when dwelling with God? hmmm…
Comment by scanartist — December 12, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Nah mate, sex is part of creation, it’s the way we were supposed to go forth and multiply, I think B is damaging because sex is so powerful,C, nah I know people might think this is weird but I feel God’s real joy around sex and D) we’ll live in the new earth after heaven…so, who knows then? Jesus said we’ll be like the angels in heaven but I don’t know if that’s forever…maybe unwritten?! I dunno!
As I’ve said before I want to concentrate on good sex and love here and now, I’ll leave the major philosophizing to you bright sparks!
Much Love,
Sas x
Comment by Sarah — December 12, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
One Salient Oversight,
Do you follow every single law and command listed in Leviticus?
Since this is a rhetorical question (How can anyone follow EVERY single law?) then how can you pick and choose what command shall be upheld and which ones should be overlooked?
Why not bring up some NT verses on homosexuality?
Comment by jen }i{ — December 12, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
again… all interesting stuff.
thanks everyone for keeping it polite. i appreciate we hold different views on this subject, but the quality of interaction here shows me there is hope.
oso… i definitely think that post fall sex is broken and i also think that the defintion of what are human beings changes.
sas… you definitely sound like a woman on a mission.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 12:45 am
oso… it’s the same god, but comprehension of god develops and with christ comes revelation. an eye for an eye becomes seventy times seven for example.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Jen,
I did actually point out in #31 (above) the difference between the morality of the law, and how it is dealt with.
In short, God’s ethical standards have not changed. A sin back in the OT is still a sin today.
What has changed is the way that sin is dealt with. Since the people of God are no longer a geopolitical / historical / ethnic grouping (Ancient Israel) but have become the church, the way in which sin is dealt with is different. That’s why Jesus prevented the mob from stoning the adulterous woman while still commanding her to no longer sin.
Moreover, much of the Levitical laws were hygienic and ceremonial. We can pretty much dispense with those, but we can’t ignore moral and ethical truths.
Moreover, a lot of the disagreement we are having over this issue has to do with what we understand to be authoritative. I have the view that the OT is as much the Bible as the NT, and the words of Paul are just as important as the words of Jesus.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 13, 2007 @ 1:15 am
i agree on your take regarding the tora for the most part. i don’t believe that homosexual orientation is an ethical issue… how we treat one another is. as in sodom… the issue isn’t one of sexual orientation, as i’ve heard preached, but it is an issue of the most terrible abusive acts and the respect of nothing… even angels. i believe the bible to be very strong on these issues, no one more so than jesus… and paul.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 2:43 am
OSO,
Thank you for your reply.
Where does the bible say that hygienic and ceremonial laws can be dispensed?
Of course the OT is a part of the NT but do we still cling to all of the laws commanded in the OT?
My point is that Christians seem to spend a lot of time focusing on a couple of laws from the OT and seem to easily write off everything else in the OT that was a law, whether hygienic or ceremonial.
You did write this, “It’s very hard to look at this passage, then pick out one verse and say “that doesn’t apply today, but the other ones around it do”.”, right?
You mentioned Leviticus 20:13. In the same chapter, verse 25, God states to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and birds. If verse 13 is still just as relevant as verse 25, then shouldn’t we still be figuring out the clean and unclean animals/birds?
Comment by jen }i{ — December 13, 2007 @ 3:05 am
“shouldn’t we still be figuring out the clean and unclean animals/birds?”
No. Because Jesus said that no animals are unclean any more – Mark 7.18-20.
“Where does the bible say that hygienic and ceremonial laws can be dispensed?”
Well, for starters, most of the ceremonial laws were about temple worship. Since Jesus is now the temple (John 2.19), we don’t have to worry about obeying Jewish religious practices.
You need to remember that there are four basic sorts of laws in the OT:
* Theological (pertaining to religious understanding of who God is)
* Ethical/Moral (pertaining to everyday behaviour)
* Ceremonial (pertaining to religious practices like temple worship and celebrating festivals)
* Hygenic (pertaining to personal cleanliness)
What we see in the NT is a continuation of the Theological and ethical truths, but a dispensing of ceremonial and hygenic ones. There are many ceremonial and hygiene laws that are explicitly dumped in the NT, such as the necessity of circumcision (1 Corinthians 7.18) and the following of Jewish festivals (Colossians 2.16). Moreover, while the Jews are still seen as “special”, it is clear that God’s people now dwell in the church body rather than in a nation (Galatians 3.7,29) which means that laws in the OT about the physical land of Israel just cannot apply any more.
The theology behind this is that God has two covenants. Under the Old Covenant, God’s people were found in the people of Israel. Under the new Covenant, God’s people are found in the visible church. There are differences and similarities between the two covenants. The differences, as I have mentioned, include the ceremonial and hygiene stuff. Yet Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfil it. The similarities are theological and moral.
Had homosexuality been sanctioned by Jesus and the Apostles, there would be explicit instructions about it in the NT. Instead we have Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10 which give an overwhelmingly negative about it.
The way to understand and interpret the OT is via the NT. Theological or moral laws found in the OT remain in place today, even though the NT explicitly removes the importance of ceremonial and hygienic ones.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 13, 2007 @ 6:32 am
this debate could roll on forever.
or until christ returns and points out we were all wrong. 
i do not believe corinthians and timothy to be about or anything to do with sexual orientation. rather they seem to be about specific abuses, which as i stated above the bible is clearly against throughout… that’s the one thing we can say is clear. also you’re mixing moral and ethical and interchanging their use as if they’re the same thing… they’re not.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 7:27 am
I find some huge things implied in the different strands of teaching, for instance the kinds of challenges I come across reading the Bible myself are about mocking others, judging others, gossiping and lacking love, these seem to be a constant theme, yet they seem to have been glossed over and explained away through the various bible teaching groups I‘ve been to. if taken seriously, some people I know would have much less to say. (not that I’m judging)
yet when I tried to read the levit. and other texts regarding same gender relationships, I really struggled to see any clarity, and was left thinking these texts could be referring to anything, yet they are used as clear points of law!
I also feel God goes to great lengths to let us know who his is, his character, his plans for us and creation, his involvement with life, and I find much of this seems to be airbrushed out over the debates about different sexual relationships.
now I am confused, but have to accept I can’t go along with much of the teaching I’ve heard on this subject, because it seems to me to put God in a box he didn’t consent to.
Comment by su — December 13, 2007 @ 9:28 am
oso – re about a thousand comments ago. no problem re the comments – i love the conversation and debate. such subjects do demand the conversation. The bible has so many layers to it and it is our responsibility to peal them off. Like Jon i do believe that if we discussed this until Jesus returned i think we may have all missed the point in one way or another.
i am off to Bath for the weekend catch up soon.
Comment by will — December 13, 2007 @ 9:45 am
This has all gotten a bit on the heavy side – which is OK, BUT time for a little light ‘relief’. This surely is what marriage is all about:
Comment by Carole — December 13, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Wow – a massive topic. I’m afraid I haven’t read all the posts
I skipped from about 30 to 60.
Surely we, and builders of God’s kingdom, are trying to fashion in our own lives and churches the kind of lifestyles we wil be adopting in heaven (we therefore ‘preach’ to the world by example not words, for the most part). So what should marriage look like in God’s kingdom?
Now obviously I don’t go around trying to offend people with different views, and I am very aware my theology is a ’spring’ not a ‘brick’ (Velvet Elvis anyone?),but… I’m afraid I can’t say same-sex relationships are ok. I have no doubt from friend I have they are just as loving as hetrosexual relationships, and for the sake of my friends I wish I could simply say ‘thats ok by God’, but to me it flies in the face of biblical teaching and millenia of judeo-christian tradition.
I think you can understand far more about what God wants from ‘marriage’ by reading song of songs rather than the Torah! It’s not about rules, its about the most powerful and intimate type of love and commitment that an be shared this side of heaven.
Comment by youthworkerpete — December 13, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Oh my goodness. Who would have thought that this thread would have got more response than any other when posted for debate by Christians?
I too have spent many a happy hour debating the meaning of the original Greek and it’s translation into English. I too have had discussions about the way Paul uses such practice to make a completely theological point. I have also read the Levitical laws – most of which we completely ignore – and yet I am often condemned for not clipping the hair on the sides of my head in church circles.
I have also spent many happy hours in lectures on Jesus teachings about the poor. I have read Jesus teachings on the marginalised. I have spotted that Jesus never mentions Homosexuality – explicit or implicitly.
For some reason we seem intent on spending 99% of our time debating 0.0001% of our scriptures. This seems to be a question dreamt up by modern commentators rather than biblical writers so why is everyone so intent on debating it?
If it wasn’t against OT laws, I’d bet a fiver that we don’t end up with 74 comments on this thread.
http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/308/
Isn’t it time we started preaching the good news rather than the headlines from whichever ingroup we want to feel part of?
Comment by Robb — December 13, 2007 @ 11:14 am
wise words robb.
i wonder whether part of the reason for the fascination is because we are such sexual beings… indeed my identity as ‘man’ leads me to assume and accept certain things about myself including sexual orientation.
i wouldn’t bet you a fiver, i’d lose it! the guantanamo bay cartoon i did ages ago had very few comments… i was a bit disappointed as i thought this one of my more pertenant offerings… shows what i know!
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Given everyone’s firm stance on both sides of the issue, I know that any further discussion may not be exactly beneficial – at this point.
Jon – feel free to continue to express your beliefs in artistic form. Just remember that you’ll always get people like me questioning you.
Comment by One Salient Oversight — December 13, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
oso… i love the debate and i very much appreciate your input. i have the utmost respect for the way you express your views and am perfectly okay about the difference of views. a good wrestle is often a good thing. thank you for joining in the ride.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
I agree, debate is healthy – I just wonder why we don’t debate more vociferously some of the issues Jesus talked about.
The problem with debate arises when battle lines are drawn and people demand amputations of the body.
Comment by Robb — December 13, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
That reminds me, my Granddad has been divorced twice and living with his current partner for over 25 years.
And, on the other side, my Uncle got divorced earlier this year after 37 years of marriage.
Shows that just because someone is married doesn’t mean they are permanently tied to each other.
Another good one, Jon.
Comment by Ros — December 13, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
thank you ros.
i am in my second marriage. and it has been a very healing experience. i thank god for my wife and i thank god for his grace. isn’t that what it all comes down to at the end of the day?
robb… i agree. this subject perhaps gets more attention because we disagree and we spend a lot of time wanting to convince one another. most of us will agree on 308, the conversation there is how we go about our duty… which tends to evoke less passion. that in itself is a shame. but as i said to someone on 308, the regulars who comment on this site, such as your good self, do engage wholeheartedly on all manner of themes, and this gives me hope. thanks for your input.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
I think we are on dodgy ground when we seek to find NT justifications for continuing OT prohibitions. It’s just not as clear as we’d love it to be.
I have to say, I agree with all that Jesus tauight on the subject, and wonder how much the cause of the kingdom of God would be furthered if we all limited ourselves to repeating just the teachings of Christ on the topic?
Comment by Jonathan — December 13, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
the teachings of christ really are the basis of our faith. maybe the discipline you suggest is a good way forward. thanks, jonathan… what a great name!
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Oso,
Thank you again for your response.
I agree that going back and forth on this wouldn’t be beneficial. I just wish that we, as Christians, could focus on the life and love of Jesus and mirror that (right on Jonathan!) rather than spending energy figuring out what everyone else may be doing wrong. I hate that my homosexual family member may have an issue with God because of the condemnation given her by His “representatives”.
Comment by jen }i{ — December 13, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any translation using a form of that word is wrong. Deal with the KJV’s “sexual immorality” or decide what sin is being condemned (hint – it’s idolatry. Straight men having sex with other men against their nature.) If God did not want men to have sex with men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD.” Jesus still defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships ? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who is the victim being sinned against?
Comment by Fred Conwell — December 13, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
thank you fred. concisely put.
Comment by jonbirch — December 13, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
But God did say “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD.”
Lev 18:22-24 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 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. 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.”
It’s listed along with other sexual ‘perversions’. Would you say sex with animals is okay!? Well it’s listed as the same kinda thing here.
What is unloving about having sex with an animal, if the animal enjoys it? I mean, honestly, that’s pretty disgusting. But the bible say it’s a sin. So it’s unloving to a God who told us not to.
I wish I’d been able to keep up with postings, but I’ve had school and stuff so I’ve gotten behind.
As for why people seem to ‘obsess’ over this topic – I think it’s because it’s such a big issue and point of disagreement for the church today.
I think people who say the bible says homosexual relationships are wrong are hugely misrepresented these days – packaged as gay-hating homophobes. In reality, for myself I’d love a gay person the same way I’d love anyone else. I’m just standing by what God’s word says.
Comment by Lewis — December 13, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Lewis – then I hope you’re not wearing mixed fibres, eating shellfish, shopping on Saturday. And i hope you never spoke back to your parents.
Because by the measure you use you’d be in deep trouble.
This issue is not as easy as “the Bible says” because the Bible isn’t as easy as we want or make it to be, unfortunately.
Comment by Jonathan — December 13, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Fred – I just want to pick up on your last comment.
Although your first part may have sound theoogical worth (I dont agree with it, but that doesn’t mean its not right – if you understand!?!?). But I’m afraid I don’t think we ever have the liberty to decide what is and isn’t sin based on whether we think there is a victim. If it’s not supposed to be part of God’s Kingdom, its a sin and shouldn’t be done. We are trying to bring the whole of creation back in line with God. There are many habits that need to do with our culture that could easily be named ‘victimless’ but need to change.
Comment by youthworkerpete — December 13, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
i don’t believe sexual orientation to be a habit. it’s an orientation, it’s part of who you are and there are many variations and subtleties in that orientation amongst all of us. judging people for what they are when they’ve done harm to no one is not part of the plan.
Comment by jonbirch — December 14, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Am so with you there Jon, I don’t think we can choose our orientation.
Comment by su — December 14, 2007 @ 8:02 am
thanks su… i’m glad it makes sense to someone else too.
Comment by jonbirch — December 14, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Thank you for this thought provoking cartoon, and for not closing comments when it all got so heavy.
I guess lots of us have shifted and changed our views at times – I know I have – and I feel a humble provisionality which recognises, as you suggest, that we live in a disordered (sin afflicted) world and cannot perfectly know the mind of God is healthy.
It saddens me that people die of preventable diseases or in poverty while Christians argue over who is, in their view, the bigger sinner. Sometimes I’m guilty of covetousness or unforgiveness, but thankfully no one obsesses over those… Interesting, if it wasn’t so sad.
Keep up the good work, and again, thank you for hosting these discussions.
Comment by Catriona — December 14, 2007 @ 10:22 am
thanks catriona. i agree with your thoughts. as regards hosting discussion, i feel honoured that people are wanting to discuss here. cheers!
Comment by jonbirch — December 14, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
In which translation does God use the word ‘PERIOD’?
Comment by Robb — December 14, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Thanks for this Jonathan.
Comment by Cecilia — December 14, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
I meant to say, jon. But thanks for Jonathan’s comments, too.
Comment by Cecilia — December 14, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
hi cecilia… my comments hopefully reflect some of what i sincerely believe. i feel bad having this conversation, arguing theology and doctrine when for millions homosexuality is an everyday experience and at best a very positive one and at worst a very confusing one given the mixed messages society liberally dishes out. the church through the years has often been utterly unhelpful or even downright awful. the one place where people should be accepted for who they are often isn’t. i am sad and sometimes angry about this.
i like your blog by the way… beautiful.
Comment by jonbirch — December 14, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Oh come on…someone has to step up and post something so this thread will have 100 comments instead of “just” 99 of them.
Comment by Laura — December 14, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
laura… you’re brilliant!
Comment by jonbirch — December 14, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
I just logged on. Now someone has stolen my “101 comments woo-hoo post”
My turn my turn. Post something else controvercial!!
Comment by Robb — December 15, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
I love the ambiguity of the cartoon,and I am really into it as a way of communicating, part of the reason why it takes me ages to get of a service if I am speaking and part of the rason why I rarely get invited back. Brilliant work Jon!!
Comment by Richard Passmore — December 16, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
thanks, richard. part of the reason i will never be invited i suspect.
Comment by jonbirch — December 17, 2007 @ 1:03 am
Interesting point Jon. Is a ’sermon’ there to make us ‘think the right thoughts’ or ‘think the wrong thoughts’ or ‘think’??
Comment by Robb — December 17, 2007 @ 9:38 am
why not all three? i guess there are as many ways of delivering a sermon as there are ways of communicating. sometimes simple bible exegesis is dull, sometimes inspiring. sometimes it’s good to shake people out of their comfort zones, sometimes it’s important to comfort. i do think one role of all teachers should be to enable, inspire and challenge people to do their own thinking. prescribing can be good, but even my doctor gave me a really bad prescription once… fortunately, being a thinking person, i could go back to him and sort it out.
Comment by jonbirch — December 17, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Ironically, the printing press was supposed to “place scripture into the hands of the common man” and allow them to think their own theological thought.
The result of this “freedom of information” was the reformation and over prescriptive thought policing.
It is strange that free thought would be so restrictive. We now have a church where some believe that it is storing “correct doctrine” in your head that results in salvation.
This of course raises the question of salvation for those who are unable to understand doctrine because of disability.
Anyway, I could have sworn it was Jesus who sorted out the whole salvation thing.
Well this is certainly a far cry from the initial cartoon. Probably more appropriate with 314!
Comment by Robb — December 17, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
“We now have a church where some believe that it is storing “correct doctrine” in your head that results in salvation.”
Exactly Robb! and trying to store all the “correct doctrine” will do your head in if you’re any kind of thinking person at all. It only works if you stay strickly within the confines of your own church and country. Travel at all outside those confines, hear any new ideas, and “bam” your head explodes.
Comment by Laura — December 17, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
it all comes down to grace in the end, eh.
Comment by jonbirch — December 17, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Sorry, my head is too full of “correct doctrine” and rule books. There’s no room for grace to fit.
Comment by Laura — December 17, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
haha!
Comment by jonbirch — December 17, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Laura, Alexi Sayle once said that the head was like a shed. It can only store so many boxes before they start being pushed out of the other side
Just be careful not to push the ‘walking’ or ‘talking’ box out of the other end
Comment by Robb — December 18, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Jon, I’ve got to say I’m disappointed. To simply say that “some English translations say so, but we really don’t know what those words mean” is not honest. If “those words” were simply left blank- just place holders in the texts- the related words in the sentence would still make the statement abundantly clear; and the overall context leaves room for doubt only for those who have their minds made up that doubt is the preferred interpretation. Of all the rhetoric that has gone forth to advance this “cause” there have been two main arguments: One is from (willing) ignorance, and the other personal attacks on anyone who dares say the answer is know-able. This fits perfectly with the “progress” described in Romans 1, that the people chose not to know the Truth of God, so God “gave them up” to waste themselves in lusts one for another, women with women, men with men. Are we willing to hear the Truth, or only the parts that we expect to make us feel good? Is a half truth anything but a whole lie?
Comment by Robert Easter — December 18, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
thanks for the comment robert. here’s my reply.
i’m more concerned with the people than the ’cause’. cause implies there is a deiberate attempt to undermine truth. i don’t believe i’ve witessed that here. as with many issues… cleverer people than you and i have wrestled with this and come to no agreement, which it seems we also haven’t.
the issue of sexual orientation is not one of ‘lust’. that’s an awful simplification of what is going on in people… the bible is clearly talking about lust, not about sexual orientation. no, the cartoon is about love and commitment… kingdom values… not lust.
christ loved the persecuted, and homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries. even worse, people have used the bible as a weapon for persecution. i’m with christ on this one. people first, dogma last.
Comment by jonbirch — December 18, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
I’ve looked at this for a long time, and think I finally get it: fat people don’t have relationships.
Comment by Kester — December 19, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
they do… they’re just bigger.
Comment by jonbirch — December 19, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Wow, 116 comments. Thanks, Jon, for encouraging the discussion. I’d take exception to your comment, though. You said,
christ loved the persecuted, and homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries. even worse, people have used the bible as a weapon for persecution. i’m with christ on this one. people first, dogma last.
Christ himself said that not the last bit of Scripture would pass away, presumably including injunctions against sinful behaviour. That’s the Christian dilemma – how to balance Christian love with the reality of sin and a sinful world.
I consider myself a recovering fundamentalist and reject the blanket condemnation sin and sinner, but at the same time reject the universalist notion that everyone goes to heaven and that our our personal behaviour is irrelevant. I’m still struggling with that.
Comment by Steve — December 19, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
thanks steve.
sinful behaviour is not the same as having a sexual orientation. ‘behaviour’ is just that… how you behave. people have used scripture horrendously against homosexuals in the past and still do. someone having a sexual orientation different to your own is not a sin…
Comment by jonbirch — December 19, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Interesting article in the time this morning about the Archbishop of Canterbury about the Christmas story and things that get in the way of people finding out about God. but in it this was said:
“The Archbishop admitted that the Church’s present difficulties, with the dispute over sexuality taking the Anglican Communion to the brink of schism, were off-putting to outsiders. “They don’t want to know about the inside politics of the Church, they want to know if God’s real, if they can be forgiven, what sort of lifestyles matter more and they want to know, I suppose, if their prayers are heard.”
Made me think so i posted it here.
Comment by will — December 20, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Great image. I notice that you offer these pictures free. We are hoping to use this one on some of our teaching material on ‘Relationships’. I assume that this is OK?
Comment by David Derbyshire — December 20, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Sorry, you may be about to witness me jumping from one side of a discussion to the other to propogate the debate…
“someone having a sexual orientation different to your own is not a sin”
The question has now moved to orientation. Essentially this is about sexual attraction. Some people become aroused by looking at small breasts. Some become aroused whilst looking at large breasts. It is an inbuilt thing, hard wired with no rhyme or reason and no question of it being sinful to become aroused by one or the other is ever raised. However, if someone has the orientation towards farm animals it is considered sin.
This is why this debate will rage for centuries, because there is no easy possition to draw a line and yet society clearly draws one.
Comment by Robb — December 20, 2007 @ 11:59 am
nice one will.
yes david… that’s fine… and brave of you. thanks for visiting and use away.
interesting points robb. to have sex with an animal is clearly an ‘impostion’ on said creature and thus i would venture what we call ‘a sin’. mutual love between two people, even when starting with sexual attraction is not a sin, at least i’ve not found it in the bible.
i sometimes wonder whether it is our own ‘hard wired’ sexual orientation which leads us to be condemning of others… our sexuality under threat, fear of the unknown, revulsion at difference. i think our very own sexuality can make clear thinking and christ’s call to be compassionate, merciful and gracious hard for many of us. it seems to me that under fire, some homosexuals are crushed (which is heart breaking), some fight back with equal strength (something we deserve) and others show love, mercy and grace… the very qualities the church should be built on. i dare say many have experienced all these at some time as they learn to live in a world of finger pointing and tongue wagging.
i think we should be careful that it is not just our sexuality that argues on our behalf.
Comment by jonbirch — December 20, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
But it is not the ‘impossition on said creature’ that is considered wrong by society – othewise the imposition of an abatoir would be equally frowned upon.
It is a difficult thing to discuss because there is obvious shock value in most comments that can be made about the topic. I changed my comment from my initial point as I thought it would be dragged completly off topic.
Having read OSO’s blog this morning and stumbled across his change in statistics on mixed race marriage in the US, it is clear that western society is going through a period of change with attitudes to the norms in society. The same can be seen with attitudes to sex. Pornography for example was a huge taboo. Now it is an accepted norm. A blind eye is now often turned to prostitution. But we are not “hard wired” to sell sex…
Comment by Robb — December 20, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
good point. hmmm. got me thinking.
Comment by jonbirch — December 20, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Glad to return the favour. I have to have a good think every day you stick another cartoon up
Comment by Robb — December 20, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Comment by jonbirch — December 20, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
it’s about baggy pants isn’t it? i was wearing a pair the other day just like these where if i put my hands in my pockets i get a straight silhouette. does this mean my marriage will last?
Comment by adrian — December 21, 2007 @ 12:49 am
haha! no guarantees, but if it worked for the above…
Comment by jonbirch — December 21, 2007 @ 3:11 am
I heard that people like me had started wearing baggy pants. No-one explained to me that Americans mean something completely different to the English. Imagine my embarrasment when I went to the pub in my baggy pants…
Comment by Robb — December 21, 2007 @ 11:25 am
hahaha! what is it with young people and their pants showing? the other day i walked up the hill behind a guy in really low slung trousers and literally 3/4’s of his pants were on display… and they had a hole on one of the cheeks. i tried not to look, but it was entertaining me.
Comment by jonbirch — December 21, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Ah, the moment of arrival at adulthood. Why and the young people today showing their pants?
LOL
Comment by Robb — December 21, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Wow, did I show up late for a party or what?
Quoting 1Cor 6.9 and Leviticus 20.13 in an english translation proves nothing. Paul read the Septuagint, not the NRSV.
Jon, whatever you think arsenokoites may mean, when Greeks read the LXX, when they read Leviticus, when they came to the passage we now refer to as 20.13, two Greek words appear side by side: arsenos and koiten.
Check it out. If you can’t read the Greek alphabet, there are some useful tools available online.
At the very least, this should give you pause when arriving at a conclusion regarding the meaning of arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6.9, which will give you insight into Paul’s broader thought regarding sexual ethics, hopefully letting you read Rom 1, 1Cor 5 and Eph 5 the way a Hebrew would have understood these passages, and not the way a 21st Century Occidental would read them, living the other side of the 1960’s, raised by MTV and taking for granted both the indeterminacy of texts and the innateness of one’s behaviour.
It’s good to keep in mind that Paul was a celibate Jewish Rabbi who had probably memorized the Torah. He thought in Hebrew categories, not Greek ones.
For what it’s worth, I would reccomend to you Al Mohler’s sermon at the 04 DG conference. I’m not exactly his biggest fan, but I think he helpfully adds to the conversation.
P.S.: Marriages are not just bettween two people, they ideally include children – I say ideally because in this world, creation doesn’t work the way it ought to, i.e: infertility, etc.
Comment by Tyler — January 4, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
cheers, tyler.
also, context is vital to understanding why paul says what he says. he doesn’t say this to everyone and it is not his main thread although sexual behaviour does crop up a fair bit… as you say, he’d have known the torah inside out. he is being specific to a specific problem he encounters with a specific group who behave in a specific way. i am not sure this is an issue of doctrine, more one of wisdom in a context of dipravity… unless we take all pauls words and apply them as doctrine whatever the context, which we don’t. pauls writings are letters… when we write letters we are specific to the intended reader… that does not mean that there is nothing to learn from them, but it does mean that paul would have had no intention of having them show up in a compilation some time later. he was dealing with the matter in hand.
i shall of course continue to think on the comments received and am very grateful for the spirit in which they have been presented.
when in doubt, i’ll always turn to jesus, specifically the sermon on the mount. where i see oppression i will attempt in my small way to counter it… and sadly i have seen alot of people oppressed for their orientation which certainly is not a sin.
Comment by jonbirch — January 4, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
What I think is so hot is how it is rarely argued, “Jesus preached the sermon on the mount to a specific people in a specific time with a specific group of problems who behaved in a specific way and he does not say this to everyone, so you can’t really apply the ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’ passage to all situations and in all times.” The only time I’ve heard someone ever argue in this fashion was when they were trying to accomodate the legitimization of the Iraq war. In other words, they were trying to domesticate scripture. I would commend to you an interview with N.T. Wright, and then another for more first-century context. Jon, I struggle with the same things you do. I want to be “open/affirming,” I don’t want to be called “close-minded,” but I can’t see it as an option if I really want to be a part of that Jesus thing I read about in the New Testament. Peace bro.
Comment by Tyler — January 5, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
hi tyler. i don’t know why wordpress keeps trying to moderate you. very annoying, anyhow, sorry.
i take your point, but the sermon on the mount is preached to an open gathering… it’s not a letter. it also deals with the key themes on how we should be towards one another. paul is dealing with specific issues to do with people groups and cultural behaviours he’s in contact with… that’s what i meant. he’s dealing with all kinds of issues, such as temple prostitution. most churches would not adhere to the wearing of head garments for women these days, but paul says it… it is the context that makes all the difference.
peace to you too.
Comment by jonbirch — January 5, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Please sir, which box am I in?
I’m straight and celibate and living with my best mate who is gay and celibate. We’re both girlies – if you can still be a girlie at 35!
We’ve bought a house together and lived in it five years. We eat together, laugh together, cry together etc. We support each other financially as and when life gets shaken up and we expect to grow old together. We’re both aware that God might have other plans although I think we’re both pretty sure he doesn’t!
I’m not married but if anyone wants to figure it out I’d love for someone to tell me what’s going on!
Comment by allatseawithabucketandspade — January 18, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
i’d hate to put you in any box. your relationship sounds excellent… long may it continue! why fathom it anymore than to say ‘it is what it is’?… and from what you’ve said, what it is… is wonderful.
Comment by jonbirch — January 18, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
“I say ideally because in this world, creation doesn’t work the way it ought to, i.e: infertility, etc.”
Oh no, tangent coming. When I was training they taught us that “the purpose of marriage is to have kids”
Erm…. I’ve been married 10 years and have non. Is my marriage a waste of time? Are you saying I’m not doing it right?? What if I was infertile?
Comment by Robb — January 18, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
i too have been married 10 years and have no kids. anyone else out there been married 10 years and have no kids?
Comment by jonbirch — January 19, 2008 @ 3:38 am
My wife
Comment by Robb — January 19, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Ha ha ha
Funny Robb x
Comment by allatseawithabucketandspade — January 19, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Comment by jonbirch — January 19, 2008 @ 11:27 am
the respectfull, thoughtfull and well to use a mclarenism generous nature of the pretty much all the comments here have filled me with so much hope and joy.
Thanks Jon for providing excellent stimulus and a comfortable habitat.
Comment by Matybigfro — January 20, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
the respectfull, thoughtfull and well to use a mclarenism generous nature of the pretty much all the comments here have filled me with so much hope and joy.
Thanks Jon for providing excellent stimulus and a comfortable habitat.
Comment by Matybigfro — January 20, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
opps sorry didn’t mean to double post
Comment by Matybigfro — January 20, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
hi mbf!… i like it when people accidently post twice… it makes the site look more popular!
thanks for the kind words.
Comment by jonbirch — January 20, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Whew! tough subject but I’ll throw my thoughts in to the ring…
God has rules. Yes or No?
If He is God He must be powerful enough to give us a record of His desires that we can refer to and learn from. He’s not asking us to wing it on our own good feelings and opinions. So, either we can use scripture or not. Here is where I see the issue. We must love and accept all people but if we love them, we must help them to see the truths of God. We must be like God…He loves us as we are but loves us too much to let us stay that way. It is cool and post modern to be ultra tolerant but at what cost? Even nature teaches that
the physical means by which homosexuals express their feelings are unnatural because they don’t posses the proper equipment. The bottom line is this…Either the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong or it doesn’t. If it does (in the same way as adultery,
fornication, etc.) then we are unloving in accepting the behavior for the sake of accepting the person and it relieves us of having to lovingly confront the issue as we would with anything else. Also, in regard to another aspect of the discussion…Science is ‘discovering’ that certain behaviors are born into us. Like being a thief or a murderer. If we take this tack and apply it being a bigamist, a whore-monger or a homosexual it only shows that we are fallen creatures in a fallen world and that the fall was way more comprehensive than we can imagine. It can even lead us to justify things clearly taught in “the owners manual” as wrong or incorrect. It could even make people so open minded that their brains fall out. Yes, Love is the answer but what kind of love do we mean? What is different about Christian love?
I accepts the sinner but hates the sin (trite and old fashioned I know but so is our God) in Christ’s love so far as I have experienced it…mike
Comment by mike kerlin — March 8, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
hi mike… thanks for the comment.
so… what’s the sin that’s been committed?
Comment by jonbirch — March 8, 2008 @ 6:07 pm