The Young Man's Guide to Curing Homosexuality

If there’s one thing you can be assured of from the Holy Scriptures, it is that God hates fags. In both Old and New Testaments, homos have judgment coming to them straight from the throne of God (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; I Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:18-22)! You don’t want to be a homo because you don’t want to burn in Hell, but you’re having sexual feelings for people of the same sex. What do you do?

Did God make you a homosexual? No sir, he did not, anymore than he made a town drunk a town drunk. You have a thirst for the erotic emissions from those of the same sex, but trust the word of the Lord when he assures you that the names you’ll be calling out in the darkness of Gehenna will not belong to some strapping young dude you met at The Man Hole. And the claw marks on your back? Those won’t be from him either!

Below are seven surefire principles on how to beat homosexuality and stroll right through the golden gates of heaven with Jesus and the godly gang! Take heart, young man! You’ve pulled yourself away from watching Brokeback Mountain long enough to read this, so there’s hope for you yet!

First, realize that you are sick: Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Your parents were right and their parents before them were right; homosexuals are ill. You are sicker than a needle-sharing transient on a San Francisco elementary school playground, and Hell’s mouth is wide-open, just waiting to receive you—not unlike your mouth is open when you go to slurp on the ricardos of strangers with military cuts and washboard abs whom you meet answering ads in the “Anything Goes” section of the Village Voice Newspaper! That old devil got a hold of you when you were growing up and gave you an identity crisis, which made you attracted to members of the same sex. So isn’t it about time you get the prescription medicine from Jesus to cure your illness! Amen?!

Thank God for his mercy: The Almighty has cooled off since the Old Testament. It used to be that Jesus’ daddy was in power way back when. If it were up to him, he’d have killed your sorry, gay ass and been done with it already. But thanks be to God for Jesus Christ his son, who is more merciful and has convinced his papa to give queer-baits like you another shot at heaven.

Pray to Jesus and ask him for strength: This is an important step. Go to Jesus in prayer and ask for the conviction to overcome the raging demon inside you that causes you to lust for strange flesh. But I must warn you; just because Jesus was portrayed as a sissy-looking man in paintings of him in the middle ages doesn’t mean he looked that way! We now have it on good authority that Jesus was a big, hunky man, and so there may be the temptation for gay-wads like yourself to lust after him; he did, after all, rub saliva and mud on the body of another man to give him back his sight (John 9:6), but Jesus is not a mud-wrestling sex object! Jesus is no kink! He is tough and will damn you to Hell if you so much as think of lusting upon him!

Stay away from homosexual temptations: The Lord warned us to remind him not to lead us in the way of temptation, but that means we’ve got to do our part not to walk in it! So stay away from liberals and sexual perverts, especially modern hippies and eurotrash, and anyone who spends a lot of time using cell phone cameras and wears black turtleneck shirts—like the Starbucks crowd, for instance. They are the most abominable faggots around. Be sure and stay away from gyms. Sweat glistening off big, bulging biceps is not what you need to see. Don’t watch TV shows like Will & Grace that glorify nanny-boyism. Also, don’t dare get involved in the fashion industry! To safeguard your soul, learn to detect lisps and anyone who seems to be trying to cover them up. Don’t forget that men who have an excessive number of female friends might be trying to slip under your “gaydar” and right into your bed, and before you know it, you’ll be swimming in satin sheets with a well-endowed piece of man-meat behind you.

Before I get off (No, I don’t mean that, you queer! It’s just a play on words!) this point, it should go without saying that every converting homosexual is required by God (and preferably, their own consciences!) to discard old items that led or might lead to sinful acts…naughty toys, same-sex posters of hotties on your walls, posters of the gay comedian Ant, rainbow coalition bracelets, anything in the color pink, jars of Vaseline, etc. Hot dogs and sausages are off limits to you, as are bananas and enchiladas (and I know I don't have to explain to you why).

Spend more time around grandma and grandpa and the church crowd: Grandma and grandpa new best! That’s why their generation was so lovely and yours is going to Hell in a hand basket. Preacher Hank and churchmen are the best influence you could have. Hang out with them long enough and it’s a darn-near certainty that you’ll find it easier to hate the homo crowd you once ran with. And when trying to find anti-gay friends in your neighborhood, it is a good idea to be looking for someone with a gun rack in their truck.

And of course, I would be doing you a great disservice by not mentioning how necessary it is to remember great Bible characters who fought homosexuality and are thus excellent examples for you to follow; there was righteous Lot (Genesis 19; 2 Peter 2:7-8) who resisted successfully the flaming influences from the gay community of his time, and there was King Josiah, who tore down the houses of the sodomites and vanquished them from the land (II Kings 23:7).

One more thing; it is a common ploy for sissies and sissy sympathizers to scream discrimination and accuse God-fearing Christians of harassing them. Don’t be deterred by this; when these whining wussies find out what Jesus is going to do to them in Hell, they’ll be BEGGING to be back here on earth, getting mocked by us again, with our usual assortment of hot mayonnaise jokes!

Challenge yourself to become straight and actively anti-gay (emphasis on the word “actively!”): March in an anti-gay rally and protest. Wear “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” t-shirts (loose-fitting only, you fruit!), and put anti-gay bumper stickers on your car. When you do see a gay couple in public, go up to them and call them out: “You are an abomination to the Lord, queer! Repent while there is still time!” After rebuking them in the name of the Lord, get away from them so that you won’t be tempted to apologize and exchange phone numbers.

As an ex-queer, remember all the wrong that you have done and the hurt you caused your parents for making them put up with your gay indecency for so long. It’s time to make reconciliation! Get married (to some girl, any girl) as quickly as possible and have kids. You owe your parents that much. Bring a girl home, and even if you aren’t attracted to her, marry her just for appearance’s sake. That’s the least you can do to make mom and dad proud. Having the commitment of being married will be just one more safeguard against your ever falling back into sodomy. The good Lord would rather you wake up each morning next to a loveless hag with matching rings than to be led into the chambers of Hell by a firm-bodied Adonis.

Put away the iniquity forever: This is the last step in your reformation from an unfaithful fag to a born again believer. Here is what you do; go to the store and buy some clay and make the clay into an erect penis facing upwards. Make it at least one foot high so that you will notice it, and make it look real; take some time with it, sculpt it and shape it well; give it testicles too. Then harden it in the oven, and when it is done cooking, leave it in your living room or whatever room you frequent most. Every time you have a temptation for someone of the same sex, write the temptation down on a sticky note (no, not that kind of sticky, you fudge-packer!) and attach it to the clay penis. When the week expires, lay hands on the penis and pray; “Lord, on this phallic image of evil I lay all of my homosexuality. As it is destroyed, let my sins be destroyed forever, along with the temptations.” Then, take a baseball bat and smash the hard penis to pieces. You’re done! You finished the object lesson that helped to reinforce that you are now converted to the Lord and freed from sin!

If after this you are still experiencing homosexual temptations, then know that you could be the dreaded antichrist who is to come. It is predicted that he will also be gay (Daniel 11:37). If you are not the antichrist, you are still someone who was obviously insincere in following one or more of the steps we covered above. In that case, I hope you enjoy Hell!

(JH)

54 comments:

David said...

"We will do our best to treat our opponents with some dignity and respect, even if we do not believe what they are claiming. We choose to follow the Golden Rule, for the most part, even though it isn't to be followed unthinkingly. And we ask this from our opponents. We prefer an educated discussion of the ideas." Perhaps the satire was meant to be funny, but it certainly lacks dignity and respect. I won't return in kind.

Got creates all things. If you are tempted to shag your sister or kill your boss, is that ok too? If temptation of any kind exists, you can yield to it or not. Up to you.

John W. Loftus said...

Joe is our resident "Bad Boy." Every site has to have one. He mostly writes satire. He's funny (from our perspective) and he's a great writer.

Brother Crow said...

Joe, you forgot...hire yourself a gay masseuse and think about snorting cocaine with him, then go the National Association of Evangelicals and demand laws be passed that forbid homosexual marriage. It is necessary for one to follow the other, however...either NAE followed by masseuse, or masseuse followed by NAE. But you can't get the full effect of deliverance from homosexuality without both. Oh...you have to be a pastor of a mega-church!

richdurrant said...

Don't they have stem cell therapy for that gay gene now?

Joseph said...

What's interesting to me is how many evangelicals and conservative leaders fall to "homosexual sin." What happened to the good ol' fashioned female hookers? Hey, if it was good enough for Jimmy Swaggart...speaking of which, I just read that he told his congregation a couple years ago (yes he's back to preaching again):

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died" (Sept 2004). This kind of talk is not all that uncommon among the church people I've hung out with over the years. Could some Christian homophobia actually be a suppression of homosexual urges?

Shygetz said...

Got creates all things. If you are tempted to shag your sister or kill your boss, is that ok too? If temptation of any kind exists, you can yield to it or not. Up to you.

So you equate homosexual relations between sexual adults with murder? Honestly?

If God had made it a sin to eat, would you starve yourself? Yet when God makes someone with a biological urge to cleave to those of the same sex, it is that person's fault if he yields to those urges? Where is God's responsibility for creating people gay, if it's such a bad sin?

What I don't understand from a theological standpoint (I completely understand it from a sociological standpoint) is how Christians justify setting apart homosexuality as a special type of sin worthy of special scrutiny. Are not the wages of all sin death? Yet homosexuality gets set aside as an especially icky sin. I don't understand it.

David said...

Shygetz,

If got made it a sin to eat, I wouldn't eat. I would rather die in the will of God than thumb my nose at him.

I don't equate homosexuality with murder. But if you have murderous thoughts it doesn't follow that you blame God for your murderous thoughts. Well, maybe you do, but it seems the argument is the same. God created me a murderer therefore I must murder. God created me a homosexual therefore I must practice my homosexuality.

Of course, some argue that the Bible does not speak to committed monogamous homosexuality. That may be true, but I don't read it that way. Joe certainly doesn't either, so I guess we have that in common...

Joe E. Holman said...

David said...

If got made it a sin to eat, I wouldn't eat. I would rather die in the will of God than thumb my nose at him.


My reply: OK, here we go; the righteous one goes on a righteous rip about how bold and diligent he is to follow God. There SHOULDN'T be desires when there is no fulfillment to those desires.

I don't equate homosexuality with murder.

You should. Your god does and gave the same penalty for homosexuality as murder.

But if you have murderous thoughts it doesn't follow that you blame God for your murderous thoughts. Well, maybe you do, but it seems the argument is the same. God created me a murderer therefore I must murder. God created me a homosexual therefore I must practice my homosexuality.

My reply: What's wrong with that argument??? The point is, David, there are reasons for desires, physical needs of some sort. Eating and meeting natural, physical needs is natural, and homosexuality - though it is not conventionally considered "natural" - is just one more extention of normal desires. These people do not choose to be gay (as though anyone would knowingly choose a lifestyle that would cost them the love of their families). They are victims of what to you should be considered an unregulated body that happens to be maligned by god-people who have archaic concerns against putting penises a few inches down in different orifices. It's no different than masturbation. And why does the creator of the universe care for such things anyway??

But yes, David, you should blame your creator for creating men who "malfunction"--whether it's hearing voices when their are none, or lusting for animals or people of the same sex. You try and alleviate your creator from the responsibility of producing such creatures, but you can't.

Of course, some argue that the Bible does not speak to committed monogamous homosexuality. That may be true, but I don't read it that way. Joe certainly doesn't either, so I guess we have that in common...

My reply: The Bible condemns all forms of homosexuality. That can't credibly be disputed. So it's true; your god hates fags, no matter how you try and re-phrase it..

(JH)

David said...

Joe,

You nailed me on the first one. I would 'try' not to eat, but would likely be sucking back Miller Light and eating burgers by day 2 feeling all guilty. True enough.

Again, right on the the wages of sin is death, but earlier I was not equating homosexuality with murder and trying to clarify that. I don't feel any civil punishment is necessary for homosexuality, but punishment should be the case for murder. I was clarifying my position, not God's. I don't know that God's punishment beyond earthly death is same either. The time we walk on this spinning rock is pretty short, not sure about the after part.

My problem with your original argument, is that you are defining what is normal. That is ok, but someone who sleeps with his sister might say that is normal. Maybe she is really hot. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong and all these other things too. Therefore it is all temptation and homosexuality isn't really a special case.

Shygetz said...

David said: Joe,

You nailed me on the first one. I would 'try' not to eat, but would likely be sucking back Miller Light and eating burgers by day 2 feeling all guilty. True enough.


Ah, glorious honesty. So, you admit that, if you had a driving biological urge that was against the will of your God, you would satisfy that urge rather than God. We are halfway there.

Again, right on the the wages of sin is death, but earlier I was not equating homosexuality with murder and trying to clarify that.

You were equating the two, but I will accept that it was inadvertent and move along.

My problem with your original argument, is that you are defining what is normal.

and Joe said: homosexuality - though it is not conventionally considered "natural" - is just one more extention of normal desires.

Homosexuality is entirely natural. It occurs in wild populations of pretty much every social breeding population where we have looked for it, especially in the populations of primates to which we are most closely related. It occurs in human societies of all kinds, even where it is brutally oppressed. There are hypotheses being tested as to why homosexuality persists in natural populations; it is now thought to be due either to a selective advantage in heterozygotes, or as an evolutionary mechanism to reduce intraspecies competition. Male penguins have formed lifelong pair bonds, using a stone as a surrogate for an egg in the nests they build. A homosexual penguin couple have even hatched and raised a baby penguin from a fertilized egg.

Homosexuality is natural, and in non-oppressed societies, is normal. For a God that hates gays, He sure made a lot of them.

That is ok, but someone who sleeps with his sister might say that is normal. Maybe she is really hot.

Inbreeding, on the other hand, is technically natural but fairly unusual, and is most populations only occurs under extreme circumstances. It has serious, severe biological implications, which homosexuality does not. Many (but not all) social wild animals have developed social mechanisms to combat inbreeding. Humans also have biological evolutionary aversions to inbreeding, and most human societies have a cultural taboo against incest. So homosexuality is considerably more natural and normal than homosexuality.

The difference is that nature and reality say that inbreeding is bad. It says nothing of the sort about homosexuality (or bisexuality, for that matter). If the Bible chooses to side with reality, I will not throw reality aside just to spite Christians.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

I'm hoping this post will lead to a full discussion of the problems of Christian sexual 'morality.' (I'd always intended to open this myself, but got so hung up in the first series on general ethics that I didn't get around to it before I was 'benched.')

It strikes me that Christian ideas towards sex are not merely wrong, but counter-productive -- if the idea is to create more ethical human beings -- for two reasons.

The first is that, by concentrating exclusively on who you have sex with -- to my mind a trivial concern -- Christiantity totally abdicates any responsibility to teach the far more important question. This is the way you treat whoever you do have sex with.

I AM bisexual, as I have stated several times. I see nothing wrong with this, and have yet to find anyone on the Christian side who has given any sensible answer as to why this should be wrong except "God tells you don't do it." In fact, I'll go this far -- excluding for now any sex that involves consensual sado-masochism or dominance-submission, which are tricky questions I am still wrestling with -- I see nothing wrong in any completely consensual sexual relationship between any two people, even incestuous ones. ("Inbreeding" may indeed be wrong, and I'll discuss this in a second, but sex does not have to equal procreation, and in fact, it is an example of how 'biblical morality' has been unaffected by changes in the world that such discussions still, from a Christian point of view, imply that it does.)

On the other hand, I'd argue that any sexual act involving dishonesty, disrespect, compulsion of any kind, or irresponsibility is morally questionable or condemnable -- and Christianity has totally abandoned any effort to teach this with its 'just say no' approach. (Let me add that 'irresponsibility' means both 'failure to consider the consequences' and 'failure to take responsibility for whatever consequences occur.')

I have said that the Bible is disgustingly immoral in itsa treatment of rape, never condemning it as the most serious sexual sin, and specifically -- in the case of an 'unbetrothed female' -- giving a punishment exactly half that of 'falsely claiming your wife was not a virgin when you married her.'

But I'd argue even further that any form of compulsion or dishonesty that lessens full consent is a form of rape -- though of a lesser degree.

Thus using a date-rape drug is probably equivalent to 'classic' forcible rape as 'Rape in the First Degree'; 'Sleep with me or get fired' or getting someone unwittingly drunk to have sex with them is. perhaps' 'Rape in the Second Degree'; lying to someone and claiming you are single when you are in a relationship -- even one which allows outside partners -- because you know the other person would not have sex with you if they knew the truth is 'Rape in the Third Degree.'

As for the question of incest, if two siblings wish -- without any sort of compulsion -- to have sex with each other, I do not see how this is wrong per se. But if any two people of opposite sex have sex that could lead to a pregnancy that would be unwise and do not take all possible efforts to avoid such consequences -- even if they are married -- this would be irresponsible and wrong. (The same thing could be said if the sex could involves the transmission of an STD.)

But that long disquisition is just one of the two main problems with Christian sexual morality. (And many of the other questions raised by it are inherent in my discussion. Fornication -- not wrong. Fornication without respect or 'proper precautions' or if consequences occur running from them -- wrong. Adultery -- wrong unless permitted by the other spouse, which it often is.)

The other problem is the effect of Christian sexual morality on a person's general morality. And here -- this is rushed, hopefully more later -- the best example is masturbation. Not only is there absolutely nothing in the slightest immoral about masturbation in general, but it is almost universal for both males and -- now that women's orgasms are no longer the 'Great Secret" -- females. (For males, particularly young males, either masturbation or 'nocturnal emissions' are, in fact, a physiological necessity.

So, when Christianity condemns this, it has two main negative effects. It creates an immense conflict between a naural function and a 'threat of hell.' Handling that conflict must be the greatest problem a teenage Christian has.

Maybe more importantly, it can result in an attitude that "I'm damned anyway, since I masturbate, so it doesn't matter what else I do. I can't get any greater punishment than I already deserve for this 'great sin' so why bother to give a damn about anything else I do.

More, much more, on these later, if they get any response.

B H said...

This is bringing me back to that question of the biologically intersexed. If homosexuality is a sin, what is someone with ambiguous genetalia supposed to do? Especially in a case of phenotypic/genotypic incongruence, the individual's DNA, body, and brain may send contradictory signals. Assuming such people are as likely to fall to the temptation of homosexuality, how should they separate what are good desires from the bad desires?

zilch said...

Joe asks: "You don’t want to be a homo because you don’t want to burn in Hell, but you’re having sexual feelings for people of the same sex. What do you do?"

Well, you could just lop the sucker off.

bh- I suspect people with intersex conditions would not be welcome in the congregation, since Leviticus bans dwarves, hunchbacks, and men with crushed testicles from approaching the altar. Whether they will burn in hell for being blemished I cannot say.

Jason said...

Yet another emotional argument. Please show us where God...

1) ...singles out homosexuals to receive a harsher punishment then heterosexuals;

2) ...singles out homosexual temptations as being 'worse' then heterosexual temptations;

3) ...punishes an individual for having homosexual thoughts;

4) ...states individuals with homosexual tendencies would be punished before actually engaging in a homosexual act.

Shygetz said...

Jason said: Yet another emotional argument.

Please show us where God...

1) ...singles out homosexuals to receive a harsher punishment then heterosexuals;

2) ...singles out homosexual temptations as being 'worse' then heterosexual temptations;

3) ...punishes an individual for having homosexual thoughts;

4) ...states individuals with homosexual tendencies would be punished before actually engaging in a homosexual act.


The answer to all four is the same: God doesn't; Christians do. So the question to you is, why do you (or, at least, your bretheren) single out this single sin for special treatment?

Prup, regarding you, I can only state that no birth control is 100% effective, I consider forced abortions to be abhorrent, there are compelling reasons of public health for preventing inbreeding, and there is a biological aversion to support the social taboo. For example, see "Taiwanese child marriage" where children picked out for an arranged marriage were raised together; such couples had serious sexual difficulties even though they knew they were not related and their society demanded their coupling.

As far as I'm concerned, you may be able to make a social argument for allowing incestuous sexual activity other than heterosexual vaginal sex, but I would still have an instinctual aversion to it, and have no intention of advancing such an argument myself.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

I should clarify a couple of points I made earlier. I said, and continue to maintain, that 'sibling sex' is not, per se immoral. I did not say it was advisable, and in many cases I would argue it was not. Family dynamics differ greatly, and this affects specific cases.

(I'll admit the image in my head was of the 'time of exploration' when a pubescent is curious about all aspects of sex, and not any form of adult or long-term relationship.)

On another topic, the various prohibitions and punishments connected with sexual activities in the Old Testament are so contradictory and unequal that it is not possible to find a coherent moral code there. Rape of a married woman brings death. Rape of an unbetrothed female a financial payment to the father -- and a requirement that the two become married indissolubly. Homosexuality brings death, but so does a man sleeping with his wife during her period -- that requires both be put to death. (And, technically, the punishment only applies to a man who lies with another man as he would with a woman. Lesbianism is not specifically forbidden, and whether that prohibition refers to oral sex between men is ambiguous.)

Fornication by a woman 'living in her father's house' brings death -- if her husband demands it by claiming she was not a virgin when they got married. But there is no punishment for a male who fornicates -- unless as part of a religious service to another God or with a sorceress or other similar type.

And this book is supposedly authored by the "Creator of the absolute standard of right and wrong."

Pfui!

David said...

What is the problem with masturbation? I've been to many Sunday school classes and I don't remember that coming up (so to speak).

Can somebody help a brother out with a Bible verse?

Joseph said...

Ah, masturbation. You would think it would be an evangelicals best friend. How can you tell teenagers to be abstinent while at the same time discouraging masturbation??? Talk a disaster waiting to happen! This is why so many teens at church camps and Christian colleges go wild and have sex like rabbits. They never learn how to maintain those sexual drives through healthy self-release. Sorry if this is embarrassing, David, Dan, or Darren.

Shygetz said...

In some traditions, 1 Corinthians 6:9 is translated as meaning masturbators instead of homosexuals; the true meaning of the Greek phrase has, as far as I know, been lost.

Some evangelical traditions also expand fornication to include masturbation.

As far as I know, the only clear mention of masturbation in the Bible is in Leviticus 15:16-17, where masturbation makes a man ritually unclean. However, there is no punishment or moral judgement placed on the act; a person is just ritually unclean for a time (as they are if they have sex).

My thought is that it has persisted due to its use as another handle for control through guilt. But I'm a cynic.

Joseph said...

Another passage that is sometimes used is Onan who "spilled his seed" on the ground to keep from impregnating his brother's wife (Gen 38). Apparently Yahweh was none-to-happy about the "pulling out" method of birth control and struck him dead. According to some, like Bill Gothard in his Advanced Training Seminars, this is by way of implication a divine judgment against masturbation. Oh yeah, that and blindness.

Interestingly, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame said in some of his early writings that masturbation is healthy for young people. He must have been sufficiently beaten down by his evangelical constituents because I have not heard him say it lately.

TJ said...

>>I don't equate homosexuality with murder.

>You should. Your god does and gave the same penalty for homosexuality as murder.

But you don't really believe that God said that stuff. Do all Christians have to really belive he did either?

Jason said...

Shygetz said:

"The answer to all four is the same: God doesn't; Christians do. So the question to you is, why do you (or, at least, your bretheren) single out this single sin for special treatment?"

You seem to have a problem with a subset of Christians, not God or the Bible. This however contradicts the original post where it's stated "God hates fags". So who has the problem: God or Christians?

Until it's pointed out where exactly God says, amongst other things, that gays are "sicker then a needle-sharing transient on a San Francisco elementary school playground", the whole homosexual argument is laughingly empty of substance and does nothing except appeal to the heart strings of the Biblically ignorant.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Oh come ON, Jason. You know that the 'subset of Christians' includes almost every Christian denomination. Some denominations are changing, yes, like the United Methodists and the Episcopalians, but look how the Anglican Church is tearing itself apart over the question. And the more conservative evangelical churches are among the forefront in using Scripture to defend their homophobia.
(Ironically, the Metropolitan Christian Church -- the first 'gay church' -- at least initially was evangelical and conservative theologically. I think they've changed, but they started out there because the founder, the Rev. Troy Perry, was a student of Billy Graham's -- and if you've ever heard audio of his preaching, his voice and intonations and style are scarily identical to his teacher's.)

Michael Ejercito said...

Nonbelievers on this site are at least more honest about Christian theology than gay Christians who try to redefine the Bible.

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Scriptures and the entire history of Christian ethical thought.

That stated, people tend to forget another commandment when dealing with homosexuals.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

From the Roman Catholic Catechism- Entry 2358

Shygetz said...

Michael, that is not a Christian commandment, that is a Catholic doctrine (and one that, I might add, is irregularly followed). Prup has the right of it; do you seriously expect me to believe that the Christian church as a whole treats homosexuals with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity"?

I have accused you of many things, Michael, but I do not recall ever accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. Should I start now?

jason said: "You seem to have a problem with a subset of Christians, not God or the Bible."

I have a problem both with the theology of the majority of active Christians, and the Bible (I am very anti-stoning). If you seriously are trying to trivialize the discrimination homosexuals experience in the Christian church as compared to other sinners, then you are wrong. Given the attention the subject has gathered, it would be probable that you were intentionally lying rather than simply mistaken.

How should I judge Christianity, if not by its fruits?

thetruth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason said...

Prup,

Subset or majority doesn't change the question: who's actually being criticized here for 'hating fags', Christians or God/the Bible? Based on the original post, it would seem the latter but the majority of comments thus far seem to be focusing on the former.

Jason said...

Shygetz,

I'm not trivializing anything. I'm trying to find out where the real issue rests: with mainstream Christian theology or the Bible? The Bible makes it clear that sin is sin (save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit), there isn't a 'ranking' of sin. Christians who claim a ranking exists are sadly mistaken and their information isn't based on the book they claim to follow.

Michael Ejercito said...

Prup has the right of it; do you seriously expect me to believe that the Christian church as a whole treats homosexuals with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity"?
No.

As I stated, people tend to forget the doctrine that I had mentioned in my comment when dealing with homosexuals.

David said...

Shygetz has it right. We discriminate against homosexuals far more than any other type of sinner.

Here's why: If the person is a practicing homosexual and is not trying to avoid homosexuality, he has unrepentant sin. The unrepentant part is important. If someone struggles with stealing, for example, they would typically say that they never want to steal again. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If that person were to say I am going to steal and I don't care if it is wrong, then they would fall into a different unique catagory that we find many homosexuals in. From a church leader standpoint, I would happy to have a homosexual come and worship or attend family night. I would not support them in membership unless they renounced their sin as we all must do as Christians. The same would be true about an atheist, but atheists don't seek out church or church membership. Well, except for the atheist pastors mentioned.

From a Bible standpoint, homosexuality is not a unique or special case, but how we handle homosexuality in the church is different. And yes, intolerant Christians have treated them very poorly. I am sorry for that.

Logismous Kathairountes said...

Christian doctrine is that all human beings have sinned and deserve eternal punishment in Hell. Some of us, by accepting the free gift of forgiveness available through Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross, will avoid that fate. While we live, we will probably continue to sin - But because of God's mercy these sins will not be counted against us.

This article assumes that Christian doctrine is other than that, leading to statements like:

"You don’t want to be a homo because you don’t want to burn in Hell"

Which assumes that Christian doctrine is that if you sin, you'll get thrown into Hell - which is not correct.

Many world religions do hold such a doctrine, so I can see how it's easy to get confused. But it's not part of Christianity.

Joseph said...

And many denominations teach that if a Christian were to "go gay" they have either lost their salvation or may never have been saved to begin with. I'm sorry, but from what I have observed over the past 20 years in the church families I have been a part of and as a frequent listener to Christian radio, my observation is that homosexuality has NEVER been treated the same as stealing or adultery.

My brother is perhaps no untypical of many evangelicals. He is positively afraid of gays. He can go to a movie and watch a gun fight or even a straight couple in bed, but if two men kiss on screen, that does it...he's outta there. He says if he had to work for someone who was gay, he would quit his job.

How many conservative churches would know what to do if a homosexual couple walked into church on Sunday morning. Can't you just feel the ripples of shock running through the pews?

Michael Ejercito said...


How many conservative churches would know what to do if a homosexual couple walked into church on Sunday morning. Can't you just feel the ripples of shock running through the pews?

Most of them would cringe.

It is not easy to treat homosexuals and others with dignity, respect, and compassion. But walking with the LORD is not about what is easy.

Joseph said...

Perhaps, but have you seen an example of this actually happening? When it comes down to it, homosexuality is so repugnant to many evangelical Christian that I think would find it very hard to have the gay couple over for lunch after Sunday services. And then at what point would you bring up the whole sin issue? It would make an interesting reality show, that's for sure.

Shygetz said...

I criticize theists often, so I would like to take the opportunity to thank those Christians here who have admitted that homosexuals are unfairly discrimiated against as sinners in the Christian church. While I still disagree with your theology that homosexuality is a sin at all, I applaud the honesty of your self-inspection.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Amazing! Here we have two different commenters, each arguing one of the most noxious, destructive, and absurd tenets of 'Christian morality.' Tenets that Christian theologians and philosophers have been arguing about for hundreds of years.

But what is amazing is the sheer arrogance in which they present them. There's no hint of the debates, no idea that Christians differ on them, no slight softening by saying "Christianity, as I was taught it, or as my Church or pastor teaches, believes that..." Instead we get statements like the following.

From Jason:"The Bible makes it clear ... Christians who [differ] are sadly mistaken and their information isn't based on the book they claim to follow."

From Logismous K. (who usually doesn't do this sort of thing):"Christian doctrine is that ...

[This article] assumes that Christian doctrine is... - which is not correct."
and "Many world religions do hold such a doctrine, so I can see how it's easy to get confused. But it's not part of Christianity."

No hint of doubt, no hint of confusion, no idea that the doctrines are held by a minority of Christians, even by a minority of Protestant Christians. No Pope could speak as 'ex cathedra' as do these two. (Even my own substantial arrogance rarely reaches this height -- to eliminate any 'pot-kettle' comments.)

But let's look at the doctrines so strongly stated. (Ironically, both of them are put forth as a way of exculpating much Christianity from charges of homophobia.)

Jason is arguing that there is no 'ranking of sins,' that 'sin is sin and all deserve the same punishment.' (Do you ever 'think about what you DO think about' -- to use Darrow's wonderful phrase to Bryan?)

This is being put forth to state that Christians don't hold homosexuality as being any worse than any other sexual sin. But think, for a minute, of the implications and the effect of this argument, not just on 'sexual sins' but on all sins.

Oh, sure, it makes sense from a 'tactical' point of view to argue that 'cursing' is no less an offense against God than is murder, that disrespecting parents is as bad as assaulting them, that masturbation is as damnable as rape.

The trouble is that 'if a=b, then b=a.' Do you REALLY want to say that 'murder is no worse than cursing'; that 'rape is no worse than "looking on a woman with lust in your heart"'; that 'robbing widows of their life savings is no worse in the eyes of the God of Justice than shoplifting a candy bar'?

Because that's what you are saying. And that leads to some very interesting consequences. Like if you do look luistfully at a woman, go ahead and rape her, because you aren't increasing your sin. Like if you curse or drink or shoplift regularly and can't or won't stop it, you are damned already, so you no longer have to be concerned with any morality or ethics, you can't get any worse punishment than hell, even if you decide to become a serial killer.

And think of the psychological tortures a believer in this who commits what are, in reality, 'theological misdemeanors' must go through. And how much self-destructive or psychologically masochistic behavior springs from that deep belief inside oneself that "I'm doomed, damned, and deserving of punishment." (And, seriously, many of a certain type of serial killer do think just this way, and project their feelings of unworth and need to be punished outward onto their victims. This isn't just a minor problem for some, but a disastrous road to insanity.)

But then there's LK's 'out.' He is actually preaching the 'Faith is a get-out-of-jail-free card' position. (I've heard atheists -- not so much here but on other blogs -- condemn Christianity for preaching this, but I always thought they were being unfair, that no Christian actually defended this absurdity.)

LK, you know better than this. "Accept faith once, sincerely, and you are saved forever, no mater what sins you commit." Sin doesn't matter. We are all sinners, doomed by that fact, but saved eternally by our faith even if we go on sinning.

To quote you precisely "While we live, we will probably continue to sin - But because of God's mercy these sins will not be counted against us."

Again, do you really want to free all believers of all moral constraint, once they have accepted "the free gift of forgiveness available through Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross." Because that is what you are saying.

(And believers claim we atheists have no moral standards. But we accept that some things are wrong, because of our beliefs in humanity. Your argument says that 'it doesn't matter if some things are wrong. Do them anyway, because you know that, because you have faith, God will forgive you whatever you do.')

Amazing, indeed. The arrogance and the ideas both.

Pfui!

Jason said...

Prup,

You can wax intellectual for the remainder of time but I'm afraid it doesn't change the fundamental teachings of sin in Scripture.

Ezekiel 18:4 "...the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

Romans 6:3 "The wages of sin is death".

Romans 5:12 "...so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned".

James 1:15 "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

It's hard to ignore the obvious: God doesn't hold any one sin to be worse then the other. If you believe God holds homosexual acts to be worse then other transgressions, I'd be interested in seeing your Biblical references.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Jason:
First: I take it you do not accept the idea of hell. Your quotes do not say 'the wages of sin is eternal torment,' or 'the soul that sinneth shall be cast forever into the lake of fire,' or 'sin, when finished, bringeth forth pain for all times.' No, in each case they talk about death, not quite the same thing. So if these are the 'fundamental teachings of sin in Scripture' then hell is a myth. You do agree, don't you.

As for your comment to me that if 'you believe God holds homosexual acts to be worse then other transgressions,' obviously that is nonsense, since I do not believe in God, and I obviously do not consider homosexual acts 'transgressions,' unless they -- like heterosexual acts -- are conducted with coercion, dishonesty, disrespect, or irresponsibility. Which happens to be what I said, so I wonder if your response was deliberately ingenuous or you just have a problem focusing on statements that disagree with your preconceptions.

Jason said...

Prup,

Regarding hell, yes, I agree with the verses in Scripture regarding sin and its consequences.

I'm well aware you don't believe in God and that wasn't what I was asking. Perhaps you missed my original posts...? The comment was made in the original post that homosexuals are "sicker than a needle-sharing transient on a San Francisco elementary school playground". I'm simply asking to see the Biblical references supporting this concept of a sin heirarchy. Unless I'm missing something, sin is sin. There is no 'greater' or 'lesser' sin doctrine taught in Scripture.

Shygetz said...

It's hard to ignore the obvious: God doesn't hold any one sin to be worse then the other.

You must be talking about New God, because God Classic certainly had a heirarchy of sins, and a complex series of laws and punishments for different sins. But I guess He Who Does Not Change changed his mind.

Unfortunately for you, even New God has a (much smaller) heirarchy of sins as you mentioned earlier, as shown with his "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" rule.

And while it may be hard for you to ignore the obvious, it seems not to be difficult for the vast majority of Christians in the world.

The Chrisitian church is a human endeavor. So I ask again, how should we judge it if not by its fruit?

Jason said...

Shygetz,

As I'm sure you're well aware there's been no changing of mind, just a changing of the law.

I've already commented on the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit sin.

You can judge the Christian church however you see fit. :)

Shygetz said...

Oh, I have; but shouldn't you judge the Christian church? Isn't it a human idea; an idea regarding the interpretation and application of Biblical principles? And aren't you tasked to test all works of man by the fruits?

Do you judge the fruits of the Christian church (including the persecution of gays) to be godly?

As I'm sure you're well aware there's been no changing of mind, just a changing of the law.

Why set up the system only to change it? Why set up a system of ritual sacrifice to later have to eliminate it by sacrificing your son? How do you change the law unless you've changed your mind as to what the law should be? Remember, the law didn't have a sunset clause; there was no foreshadowing that it would someday no longer be applicable.

Jason said...

Shygetz said: "But shouldn't you judge the Christian church? Isn't it a human idea; an idea regarding the interpretation and application of Biblical principles? And aren't you tasked to test all works of man by the fruits?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at by asking these questions or what you're trying to get me to say. If someone holds onto and preaches doctrines that aren't based on Scripture, no further judgment is required.

"Do you judge the fruits of the Christian church (including the persecution of gays) to be godly?"

There are two different questions here. If you're asking if I judge the fruits of the church to be godly, it's an impossible question since some actions are acceptable and some aren't. If you're asking if I approve of the persecution of gays by the Church, I don't since this behaviour isn't based on Biblical teachings.

"Why set up the system only to change it? Why set up a system of ritual sacrifice to later have to eliminate it by sacrificing your son?"

Gal 3:24-25. Acts 13:38-39. Hebrews 7:18-19. Hebrews 10.

"How do you change the law unless you've changed your mind as to what the law should be?"

Changing the law doesn't require a change of mind. Two laws were planned from before the creation of time.

"Remember, the law didn't have a sunset clause; there was no foreshadowing that it would someday no longer be applicable."

Jeremiah 31:31

Shygetz said...

Jeremiah 31:31 has not yet come to pass. Keep going to 31:33; God's law was not written on man's heart. We do not have an instinctual desire to keep the Sabbath; indeed, even the faithful can't agree with what that means, or even which day is the Sabbath. Read on through 31:34; does the entire world know the Lord, and not require teaching from his neighbor?

If you're asking if I judge the fruits of the church to be godly, it's an impossible question since some actions are acceptable and some aren't.

Please. So, if a prophet says more than one thing, you cannot judge if that prophet is false or not? You know better. And you know well the fruit of the Christian catholic (small c)church; it is neither godly nor worthy of being God's representative on Earth. So, why should I not at least conclude that, assuming for the sake of argument that the Scriptures are true, the Christian church (and most notably, the Evangelical Christian church that we set out to debunk) is a false prophet?

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Jason: Your church publishes a pamphlet called "Homosexuality and the Church"
http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/homosex.htm#7
I'd like to know, before continuing the discussion, how much of it you, personally accept. (There is also an oganization of gay Christadelphians who argue the opposite. Do you find any merit in their arguments?)

Jason said...

Shygetz said:"Jeremiah 31:31 has not yet come to pass. Keep going to 31:33;"

Verse 31: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"

Verse 33: "...After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts..."

It's a two-part prophecy. First the new covenant and then afterwards the writing of the law on their hearts.

"Please. So, if a prophet says more than one thing, you cannot judge if that prophet is false or not? You know better. And you know well the fruit of the Christian catholic (small c)church; it is neither godly nor worthy of being God's representative on Earth."

This isn't about judging what is false or not, you're asking if I think the church is godly in its fruits. The Catholic church donates millions of dollars to any number of causes. This 'fruit' is godly. The church preachs false doctrine. This 'fruit' is ungodly. Etc. Etc. Etc. So once again, it's an impossible question since some actions are acceptable and some aren't.

Figure out what your real question is and ask it again.

"So, why should I not at least conclude that, assuming for the sake of argument that the Scriptures are true, the Christian church (and most notably, the Evangelical Christian church that we set out to debunk) is a false prophet?"

If you're going to assume, for sake of argument, that Scriptures is true, then yes, you can make that conclusion. There should be no difference between church doctrine and Scripture. If there is, the church is wrong. It's that simple.

Jason said...

Prup,

Looking at the pamphlet quickly, I'd say I agree with most of what's being said.

Regarding the 'gay Christadelphians', please note that these people aren't Christadelphians. As for their arguments, I naturally have a concern with many of them. Simply put, I fail to see how homosexuality can be adequately defended using Scripture.

Shygetz said...

Jason said: "Figure out what your real question is and ask it again."

and...

"If you're going to assume, for sake of argument, that Scriptures is true, then yes, you can make that conclusion. There should be no difference between church doctrine and Scripture. If there is, the church is wrong. It's that simple."

That was my question, and you gave me your answer. Thank you; for the limited scope of this blog (debunking Evangelical Christianity), you are on our side due to the internal inconsistency of the Evangelical Christians.

Huzzah!

Jason said: "It's a two-part prophecy. First the new covenant and then afterwards the writing of the law on their hearts."

Nope. You conveniently left out Jeremiah 31:32, which describes the OT events that are referred to in verse 31:33's "after those days". It's a clear reading of the text that I'm surprised you bumbled.

You also have to remember that this new covenant only applies to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-33); the Christian covenant holds to all the world, so it cannot be what is referred to in Jeremiah 31.

Jason said...

Shygetz,

Or perhaps it's you who are on my side ;)

Internal inconsistency within Christianity though still isn't a logical basis to debunk it. There are inconsistencies in science but no one considers science debunked because of it.

Nope. You conveniently left out Jeremiah 31:32, which describes the OT events that are referred to in verse 31:33's "after those days". It's a clear reading of the text that I'm surprised you bumbled."

Verse 32 doesn't require any emphasis because it's purpose is only to remind the reader about the original convenant made post-Egypt and how the new convenant won't be like it.

"You also have to remember that this new covenant only applies to the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-33); the Christian covenant holds to all the world, so it cannot be what is referred to in Jeremiah 31."

There is no such thing as the 'Christian covenant' and 'Jewish covenant'. Faithful Christians are considered to be "from the seed of Abraham". In Galatians 3:28, Paul states that Jews and Greeks are all one in Christ.

Romans 4:16 "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,"

One promise, many people.

Shygetz said...

Internal inconsistency within Christianity though still isn't a logical basis to debunk it.

Read the header; this blog debunks Evangelical Christianity. And internal inconsistency is indeed sufficient reason to debunk anything that claims to be the inerrant will of a perfect god.

There are inconsistencies in science but no one considers science debunked because of it.

Anytime an internal consistency arises within a hypothesis, that hypothesis is debunked. If you disagree, name one example. No internal inconsistency has arisen within the method known as science itself.

There is no such thing as the 'Christian covenant' and 'Jewish covenant'.

Wrong! Jeremiah was a Jew, speaking to Jews, about how the God of the Jews was going to handle the Jews in the future. He says so explicitly (The House of Judah and the House of Israel sure wasn't talking about Norwegians!) Paul was a Christian Jew speaking to Gentiles about how Christ brought together both Jew and Gentile into the inheritance of Abraham.

Now, let's assume for the moment that believing Christians are "descendants of Abraham." Unfortunately for you Jeremiah doesn't speak of the descendants of Abraham. He speaks specifically of the House of Israel and the House of Judah which are the descendants of Jacob (who, of course, came well after Abraham)! So, Jeremiah's prophecy still excludes us, as Jesus brings us into direct lineage with Abraham, but not with Jacob.

And you still do not address my objection, that the phrase "after those days" in Jeremiah 31:33 clearly refers to the days mentioned in the verse directly preceding, 31:32. The way you put it, with 31:31 followed directly by 31:33, makes it seem like the phrase "after those days" must be referring to the days in 31:31. I'm sure this misleading was unintentional, but it is certainly not flattering to your cause. Even ancient Hebrew had rules of grammer that were followed, and anaphors referring to direct antecedents is one of them.

Jason said...

“And internal inconsistency is indeed sufficient reason to debunk anything that claims to be the inerrant will of a perfect god.”

Christians disagreeing with each has nothing to do with God. Sorry. Catholics arguing about the heat in hell doesn’t have anything to do with the will of a perfect God. Protestants arguing about the kind of fruit Adam & Eve ate in the garden has nothing to do with the divine nature of Scripture.

“Anytime an internal consistency arises within a hypothesis, that hypothesis is debunked. If you disagree, name one example. No internal inconsistency has arisen within the method known as science itself.”

Scientists don’t agree about the inflation and pre-inflation of the universe during the Big Bang. Even though inflation is treated as fact, this naturally must mean since scientists disagree the Big Bang never occurred...right?

“Wrong! Jeremiah was a Jew, speaking to Jews, about how the God of the Jews was going to handle the Jews in the future. He says so explicitly (The House of Judah and the House of Israel sure wasn't talking about Norwegians!) Paul was a Christian Jew speaking to Gentiles about how Christ brought together both Jew and Gentile into the inheritance of Abraham.”

That’s right. Jeremiah was telling the Jews the covenant they were in would eventually end and new one would be enacted. Salvation for Gentiles was only possible under the new law which is why they weren't mentioned by Jeremiah but mentioned by Christ, etc.

Further, I agree: Christ brought Christians and Jews into the inheritance of Abraham. This is only possible if there was one covenant. Hence, “There is neither Jew nor Greek…all are one in Christ.” (Gal 3:28)

“Unfortunately for you Jeremiah doesn't speak of the descendants of Abraham. He speaks specifically of the House of Israel and the House of Judah which are the descendants of Jacob (who, of course, came well after Abraham)!”

That’s right. But again, once the new covenant was in place, non-Jewish believers are said to be “heirs to the promises”.

Secondly, the descendants of Jacob are also the descendants of Abraham.

“So, Jeremiah's prophecy still excludes us, as Jesus brings us into direct lineage with Abraham, but not with Jacob.”

Jeremiah excludes Gentiles because the recepients of the covenant was never the topic. The fact a new covenant would one day be put into place was.

BTW, the line is the same. It starts with Abraham and goes through Jacob. Unless you think Jacob was unrelated to Abraham…?

“And you still do not address my objection, that the phrase "after those days" in Jeremiah 31:33 clearly refers to the days mentioned in the verse directly preceding, 31:32.”

It’s been addressed already.

“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant…” (NIV)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. You originally claimed “there was no foreshadowing that it would someday no longer be applicable." Forgetting for a moment that a foreshadowing wasn’t even required, these verses quite clearly show that the opposite of what you’re saying is true.

But this is all off topic. If you want to get back to discussing homosexuality, I’d be more then happy to do so.

Shygetz said...

Christians disagreeing with each has nothing to do with God. Sorry.

We're not talking about all Christians, we are talking about Evangelicals. Read the header to the blog. Seriously. The purpose of this blog is debunking Evangelical Christianity. You agree with others here that Evangelical Christianity is wrong. You believe so due to the internal inconsistency within Evangelical Christianity.

Scientists don’t agree about the inflation and pre-inflation of the universe during the Big Bang.

But if any hypothesis was proferred that was internally inconsistent, it would be set aside as incorrect. Internal inconsistency DOES NOT mean competing hypotheses agree with each other; it means a hypothesis agrees with itself (thus the "internal").

Salvation for Gentiles was only possible under the new law which is why they weren't mentioned by Jeremiah but mentioned by Christ, etc.

Yeah, even though Jeremiah specifically mentioned the Houses of Judah and Israel, and no one else, by name when talking about the NEW COVENANT, he REALLY meant everyone, HONEST. He didn't simply say "all the peoples of the world" because that would have confused the stoopid Joos.

Please.

Further, I agree: Christ brought Christians and Jews into the inheritance of Abraham.

Which is the land, and the blessings of YHWH. It is not the Law.

This is only possible if there was one covenant.

Even if this were true, the point is that this covenant is NOT what Jeremiah was speaking of in 33. It can't be, because as I mentioned, that only applied to the Jews (not the "seed of Abraham", which includes the sons of Ishmael and Esau).

That’s right. But again, once the new covenant was in place, non-Jewish believers are said to be “heirs to the promises”.

Secondly, the descendants of Jacob are also the descendants of Abraham.


"heirs to the promises" to Abraham. Romans specifically says Abraham, not Jacob.

And while descendents of Jacob are descendents of Abraham, descendents of Abraham are not necessarily descendents of Jacob. Logic 101.

Jeremiah excludes Gentiles because the recepients of the covenant was never the topic.

If that were true, then you claim Jeremiah was just wasting his breath when he specifically mentioned the House of Israel and House of Judah multiple times. What a moron, that Jeremiah...

BTW, the line is the same.

Oh, so the Arabs are really Jews? That will be a relief to the modern state of Israel...

Unless you think Jacob was unrelated to Abraham…?\

No, I think Jacob was claimed to be Abraham's grandson. YOU seem to think they were effectively the same person, and that a descendent of Abraham is of the House of Jacob.

You originally claimed “there was no foreshadowing that it would someday no longer be applicable."

You are correct; there was foreshadowing that the covenant would change WITH THE JEWS. At the time, I thought we were talking about Jesus saving the Gentiles, which was not foreshadowed. And it DOES matter, as if the law changed without foreshadowing, it suggests a change of heart in God, which can't happen.

And you still haven't addressed how you justify skipping Jer 31:32 when you interpret the anaphor "those days" in 31:33 to refer to 31:31, even though this interpretation is against the basic principles of writing.

It’s been addressed already.

You say you have, but you really haven't; you just declared that it was "unimportant" (which would have been a surprise to the prophet; why do you think the Jews needed to be reminded what their covenant with YHWH was?) Why doesn't 31:33 refer to 31:32, which is just standard grammer?

Answer: Because your theology prefers it that way. Why not just rewrite the Bible to leave out the inconvenient parts like Jer. 31:32(and like "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 not meaning "virgin")? Oops, look like someone beat you to it.

But this is all off topic. If you want to get back to discussing homosexuality, I’d be more then happy to do so.

I think that topic is pretty played out...most theists here say there is nothing particularly BAD about homosexuality compared to other "sins", but admit that it gets unfairly treated by God's church.

Jason said...

"You agree with others here that Evangelical Christianity is wrong. You believe so due to the internal inconsistency within Evangelical Christianity."

Absolutely incorrect. Evangelical Christianity is wrong because many of their doctrines aren’t found in or based on Scripture. That’s it. The same goes for Catholics, JWs, etc. Inconsistency with the BIBLE is the basis for deciding on the validity of religions & their doctrines.

“Yeah, even though Jeremiah specifically mentioned the Houses of Judah and Israel, and no one else, by name when talking about the NEW COVENANT, he REALLY meant everyone…”

The OT was written to the Jews and for the Jews – Jeremiah’s message was no different. There was no need for him to mention anyone else because it was irrelevant, not least of all because the mechanism for the new covenant wasn’t in place yet. As I’ve said before, Jeremiah’s topic was the new covenant, not the new recipients of the covenant.

“Further, I agree: Christ brought Christians and Jews into the inheritance of Abraham.” “Which is the land, and the blessings of YHWH. It is not the Law.”

Precisely. Christians and Jews are both included as recipients of the promises under the new covenant, hence they’re both considered to be part of the lineage of Abraham.

“Even if this were true, the point is that this covenant is NOT what Jeremiah was speaking of in 33. It can't be, because as I mentioned, that only applied to the Jews (not the "seed of Abraham", which includes the sons of Ishmael and Esau)."

That’s right, the old covenant did apply to the Jews and only the Jews. But under the new covenant established by Christ, non-Jewish believers are considered “one” with Jews in Christ and entitled to the same promises.

Romans 4:16 “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham...”

Romans 9:8 “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed”

Galatians 3:14 “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Galatians 3:29 “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise”

Galatians 4:28 “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”

Ephesians 3:5-6 “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:”

“Romans specifically says Abraham, not Jacob.
And while descendents of Jacob are descendents of Abraham, descendents of Abraham are not necessarily descendents of Jacob.”

What are you arguing? The topic and context of Romans is the promises given by God. The promises were given to Abraham and passed through the line of Isaac and subsequently the line of Jacob. Believers don’t need to literally be from the line of any of those three to receive the promises because the promise now “comes by faith” (Romans 4:16). If we are Christ’s, then we’re counted as “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:29).

“If that were true, then you claim Jeremiah was just wasting his breath when he specifically mentioned the House of Israel and House of Judah multiple times.”

Firstly, the audience was Jewish and ONLY Jewish. Secondly - question: how it would affect anything, anything at all, if the Jews knew others would be included in the new covenant? Answer: It wouldn’t. The old covenant would still be replaced with the new.

"BTW, the line is the same." “Oh, so the Arabs are really Jews?”

The line is the same when discussing the promises. Which we’ve been doing. For quite some time now. I’ll remind you of your original comment: “So, Jeremiah's prophecy still excludes us, as Jesus brings us into direct lineage with Abraham, but not with Jacob.” The promises were passed onto Jacob, from Isaac, from Abraham.

“You are correct; there was foreshadowing that the covenant would change WITH THE JEWS.”

Wonderful! Could have saved us both some time had you just come out and said that right from the get go.

“At the time, I thought we were talking about Jesus saving the Gentiles, which was not foreshadowed.”

Oh come on. Enough with the games. Your comment: "Remember, the law didn't have a sunset clause; there was no foreshadowing that it would someday no longer be applicable." Of course it wasn’t foreshadowed. There was no law for the Gentiles. How could a non-existent law have been foreshadowed as no longer being applicable?

“And it DOES matter, as if the law changed without foreshadowing, it suggests a change of heart in God, which can't happen.”

This is flawed logic for any number of reasons. You’re assuming that God is somehow required to keep mankind in the loop regarding His plan for the earth. Secondly, the old law was simply a “shadow of good things to come” (Heb 10:1) which pointed forward to a “better hope” (Heb 7:19). The old law was never designed to be perfect – it was designed to point forward to Christ and the new law. It was done this way from the very beginning.

“…why do you think the Jews needed to be reminded what their covenant with YHWH was?)”

To show them how the new covenant would be better then the first. To show them it was to be a covenant that wouldn’t be broken again.

“The time is coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant…No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” (NIV) Jer 31:31-34

“...most theists here say there is nothing particularly BAD about homosexuality compared to other "sins", but admit that it gets unfairly treated by God's church.”

That’s not what the original post reads. Homosexuality is said to be worse then a junkie shooting up in a playground.

ANT said...

David-

I agree whole heartedly. A few things I do to stay within the scriptures.

1. "Man shall not lay down with another man." To avoid any potential conflict, when I find myself with another man, we have sex standing up. A loophole perhaps, but I ain't no faggot.

2. God commanded man to go out and be fruitful (gay?) and multiply (while standing up).

3. What about other religions and their view on homos? Mormen the better, I say.

4. Jesus had a lot of female friends. He also took one piece of bread and one piece of fish and fed a party of 500 hundred...with appetizers. That seems gay...And his best girlfriend was named Mary - which as we all know is the gays favorite name...Right up there with Becca, Chip and Stephen (only if spelled with a ph is the person a fag otherwise most likely hetero unless we can hear a lisp that they are trying to hide.)

I have seen the light. Thank you Jesus.

ANT
http://www.ant.tv
http://www.antcomic.com