It’s apparently the burning question of the British General Election. Our society is obsessed with sex, and especially homosexuality. Or at least our journalists give that appearance. They seem to think that it is their responsibility and duty to ask any politician who is a Christian what they think of gay sex. Of course they don’t ask Sadiq Khan, or any Muslim politician – but that’s another story!
This weekend they have been particularly busy. After the Tim Farron debacle, we have seen the resignation of the Conservative MP Andrew Turner, and Theresa May being asked by Andrew Marr “is gay sex sin?”
Andrew Turner, Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, expressed the view in a question-and-answer session in a local school that he thought homosexuality was wrong 
and dangerous for society. The Guardian were quick to pounce. This of course is to commit the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy against the Holy State. Our media are absolutely certain that to say gay sex is a sin, is itself the unforgiveable sin. Labour’s election chair immediately pontificated – “There is no place for bigotry and hatred like this in modern society and no one holding these views is fit for public office.” Mr Turner has resigned. The thought police have done their job.
Amidst the general outcry and faux pas outrage as the shibboleth question of our culture is used to discriminate against anyone who dares to think differently, there have been occasional glimpses of sanity and light. Nick Cohen’s fascinating article in the Guardian on Tim Farron for example. Defend Tim Farron, a True Liberal even if it makes us Quesy Amongst many other good points he pointed out the stunning hypocrisy of our politicians:
Jeremy Corbyn worked for Iranian state television and spoke at Khomeinist ralliesin London. Everywhere he went, he looked a willing collaborator with a regime that flogs and executes gay men, treats women as second-class citizens and imprisons trade unionists.
If Corbyn was questioned on this, which he never is, he might say he does not approve of every aspect of Shia theocracy. But he worked for it, and was paid by it, and never found the courage to speak out on Iranian television for the victims of its oppression. A liberal society that condemns one politician who bothers God, but gives a free pass to another who works for a queer-bashing, queer-killing regime is so lost that it may never find its way home again.
Teresa May
was very clear on the Andrew Marr show. Is gay sex a sin? No. She couldn’t answer why people use foodbanks but on that one issue she knew the answer. Politically she was being astute – Pinknews, the Guardian and the Twitterati were waiting to pounce if she had got it wrong.
The “is gay sex a sin?” question is the shibboleth question of our culture. It is the equivalent to the “have you stopped beating your wife – yes or no?” question. You say yes and you admit to having previously beaten your wife. You say no and you admit to currently beating your wife.
How would I answer this question? Let’s imagine…..
Journalist: Is Gay sex a sin?
- What a fascinating question! In one sense I’m glad you asked it – because it appears as though you accept the whole idea of sin. Of course I’m not very sure what you mean by the question. Are you asking is gay sex harmful? Well you can go and do your own research and you will find that there are a considerable number of STDs and other harmful side-effects of gay sex. After all that’s why we just had the Scottish government say they are going to fund the prep drug in order for it to prevent gay men who have multiple partners and engage in unsafe sexual health practices contracting HIV. But I suspect that’s not what you’re talking about.
I suspect that you are asking is gay sex wrong or immoral? And again that is a very interesting question. Because it presupposes that there is right and wrong. Before I answer that question I would need to ask you if you thought there was any sexual practice that was wrong?
Journalist: I’m the one asking the questions. Why can’t you just give a straight yes or no answer?
- And because I’m the one actually answering, I’d like to know what you are actually asking! I suspect you’re not really asking a question at all – you’re just making an accusation, looking for a cheap headline, trying to stir up some kind of fuss. But given that you’re an intelligent man do you think it possible that we could have an intelligent discussion? So could you answer my question? Then I promise you I’ll answer yours.
Journalist: Obviously there are some sexual practices that are harmful and abusive and therefore wrong.
- Thank you. Again that is very interesting. How do you know? Who determines what is harmful and abusive? Is being married to 3 women right or wrong? Should you ask Boris Johnson or Nick Clegg if adultery or having multiple partners is right or wrong? What does that have to do with their politics? Why should sex with a 17 year old be right but sex with a 15 year old be wrong? Is bestiality wrong? Incest? Or sex in the middle of the street? Who determines what is right and wrong?
Journalist: Society and the law.
- But who are society? And who makes the law? By definition it would appear that the rich, the elite and the powerful are those who make the law. What if society decides one day that homosexuality is wrong, would that make it wrong? What if society decides that the Jews need to be removed? Or the Chinese enslaved? Or babies in the womb killed? Who determines what is right and wrong?
Journalist: Now we are getting way off the subject! What is your answer?
- Actually no. Now we are getting to the very heart of the subject and so I will give you my answer.
I am a Christian. I am an IKEA Christian. What I mean is this. I’m not a very practical person and so when I go to IKEA and buy a chair, I come home and I’m the type of person who counts all the screws, reads all the instructions and follows them to a T. In other words I obey the maker’s instructions. To me that’s the same with life. My basic position on homosexuality is this:
- Homophobia in any form is wrong for any Christian. Why should we be afraid of a sexuality – or indeed of any person or group of people? As a Christian I fear only God. I regard all human beings as made in the image of God and all are to be treated with love and respect whatever their ‘sexuality’. I know that there are many people who struggle with issues of identity and sexuality and I don’t think the solutions are as simple as people often make out. But to discriminate, bully or abuse anyone because of perceived sexuality is wrong.
- God made us as sexual beings and gave us the gift of sex to be used within the context of marriage, and only within the context of marriage. Marriage of course being between a man and a woman. This was done for mutual benefit, the procreation and upbringing of children, and the good of society. Any sex, of whatever type, out with the sacred bond of marriage is wrong. You use the word ‘sin’. Sin is that which goes against what God desires. It is not living up to his standards, or deliberately going against them. In a confused and broken world we are all sinners, whatever our sexuality. That’s why we need the Christian gospel, but is also why we should not throw away the laws of God, including the laws on marriage, which are given for human flourishing and benefit.
- You may disagree with this. But you need to remember that this is the foundation upon which our Judaeo-Christian Western civilisation has been built. Please don’t call me a bigot, or imply that I am somehow backward because I don’t accept your ill thought out and ultimately harmful view of human sexuality.
- Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you have a fully thought out, through and worked out philosophy of human sexuality and what it means to be a human being? Maybe you have examples of societies where the Christian view has been rejected and those societies have flourished? Or maybe what you are proposing is some kind of liberal fantasy that is never actually been worked out in reality?
Journalist: But what about Teresa May? She is a vicar’s daughter and a Christian. Are you saying she is wrong?
- She is completely wrong. And it’s not just me who says that. The orthodox Christian view is the view of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Islam and most Protestant churches, including at least officially the Anglican church (although I grant you that in the latter case that doesn’t mean all that much!). I’m not in a position to comment on Theresa May’s Christianity. For all I know it could be the cultural type, or the therapeutic deistic type, she may even be a confused believer. I cannot judge her, but I can judge her comments.
Let me explain it this way. In the early years of the Christian church there arose a severe persecution by the Roman Empire against the Christians. Why? The Romans were usually pretty tolerant about different religions, so why pick on the Christians? It is because Christianity challenged the sexual, societal and political views on which the Roman Empire was built. Christians didn’t kill their own unwanted children, they didn’t sleep with whoever they wanted, they didn’t engage in temple prostitution or other forms of sexual immorality. And when they were asked to bow the knee not only to Jesus, but also to Caesar, they refused. And so they were slaughtered. They could so easily have said we will bow to Caesar in public, but in our own hearts and in our own gatherings we bow only to Jesus. But they refused to do that. Today modern Western society is regressing, not progressing, to a Greco/Roman/Pagan view of the world. Sadly there are many ‘Christians’ who are just going along with the flow, and many who either don’t see it or have just given in to the bullying and pressures that come from that. But not all of us have bowed the knee to Baal.
Journalist: But what harm does it do? Why not just live and let live?
- Again what a fascinating question. Because that is precisely what you are not allowing us to do. If a Christian does not accept your view of human sex and sexuality you mock, intimidate and bully in order to exclude. You won’t let us have our views (the views on which this society was built) and be involved in public and civic life. Remember the quote above ““There is no place for bigotry and hatred like this in modern society and no one holding these views is fit for public office.” You call us bigoted and hateful because we uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ!
- To be honest it’s not so much that we are concerned about ourselves – we won’t obey you, whatever you say! In a world of illiberal conformism, we are the real radicals! We are concerned about the victims of a sexual philosophy (and I’m not talking here particularly about homosexuality which is only a minor part of this) that causes so much harm. Do you know what the biggest problem in our society is? It’s not whether people think gay sex is or is not a sin. It’s the destruction of the family. The state will never replace the family as the basic building block of society. But the shallow, selfish and superficial view of sex as a recreational pastime to be indulged in by whoever, with whomever and wherever you want, has created chaos – especially amongst the poor. That’s why we have so much homelessness, broken families, STDs, and even in the 21st-century the return of slavery in Britain – the vast majority of which is sex slavery. When I look at the sex obsessed, disease ridden, pornography swamped, perverted, cheap and abusive society we have become, where prostitution is now termed ‘sex work’, I don’t see a great deal of positive fruit from this new sexual philosophy – do you?
Can you see why I’m upset? I find your line of questioning and the general mockery and smug superiority of our cultural elites really depressing. You don’t debate. You don’t discuss. You assume, and in your blindness you cannot see the harm you are doing to all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable. Your middle class bourgeois morality inherited from Bertrand Russell, the Bloomsbury group and the so called sixties sexual revolution, may be fine for the wealthy, but for the poor and our society as a whole it has been a disaster.
I guess you have to answer to your bosses (I’ve had many journalists who have said that they can see my point and even basically agree with it, but they would not dare write anything outwith the party line – as you say ‘it would be more than your job is worth’! So much for critical thinking and freedom of the press!). But one day you will have to answer to a greater than your editor, or even than your peers and family. One day we will all stand before God and he will ask us what we have done with all the tremendous gifts he has given us – life, beauty, music, art, sex, food, science etc. And, because we suppress the truth by our own wickedness and think we can make it on our own; we will have to admit – we’ve screwed it up. We’ve screwed up our lifes, we’ve screwed up God’s planet and we have created a hell on earth. Unless of course there is another way – which there is….and that is the way of Christ.
So sorry for the length of this answer – but yes given all that is said above – gay sex, like heterosexual sex outwith marriage, is sin – but its just one of many many sins we all commit. Anything outwith the revealed will of our gracious and loving God is sin. To ignore this is like buying a petrol car and deciding that you can’t see any harm in filling it with diesel. I know there are a lot more questions that arise out of this but that will have to wait for another day. Thanks for listening to me….lets see how you turn that into a 100-word soundbite!
Footnote: Of course the above conversation would never happen – because our media generally operates in a circular vacuum with little thought given to the deeper issues of life. Some day, somewhere, someone is going to make a stand and challenge the current zeitgeist…meanwhile we just pray and watch Romans 1 being acted out in our midst.
Why are Christians such homophobic bigots
It’s the burning question of the British General Election. No it isnt. Its just something it seems you are always thinking about.
Mark – missing the point yet again. Its not us who are asking the question – its the media and the liberal thought police…
Not at all David. The only mention I have heard of this was from you.
Well – maybe you need to get out a bit and read newspapers and get some info…FYI I list three places where you can get this even over this weekend…It wasn’t me that asked Tim Farron or Thersea May!
Thanks a great piece
So well written, David! Part of me was desperate to stand again for political office but this time against my MP, Caroline Lucas, for reasons such as this…now, however, with the snap election we simply lean on Him and hear what He’s saying at this time. Either way He sits above the circle of the earth on His throne – He is sovereign, and I really do believe He is shifting this nation to one of righteousness again. It doesn’t currently look like it when we see Farron and May but nothing is too hard for Him!
Blessings and strength to you as you continue to lift His name on high!
This snap election has prevented several Christian candidates from standing, due to the sheer cost and the timing. The Christian Party (for instance) has four council candidates in local elections, all of which they are genuinely competing in – that has used the coffers up.
Anyone out there with loads of dosh to get us going for the GE? £1,000 per candidate required to stand and get out a decent leaflet to all voters. Thanks in advance.
I agree with your comments Christina. True believers will not compromise regardless of cost. God is calling His end times Church into Holiness and Faithfulness.
If it were me running for office, my answer to the question “Is gay sex a sin?” would run thus.
“I’m not going to tell you. I’m seeking membership of Parliament. I’m not running for the office of bishop. But what I will tell you is that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ, and if you express any objection to that, then you’re guilty of hate speech. Another thing I will tell you is about abortion. It is a crime against humanity in international law and under the International Criminal Court Act s51. Any Crown Prosecutor who connives at establishing impunity for the crime is himself a criminal.”
Or, much simpler, “Out of all the questions you could ask me, you ask one to which you already know the answer. Why?”
If I was an MP asked this question the phrase that Jesus said comes to mind “I’ll answer your question if you first answer mine”.
Out of all the questions you could have asked me you ask me this one why? and how does my position on this matter affect my suitability to be a MP?
Thank you for your timely response to this issue David. This is my first time commenting on your blog. As an immigrant to Scotland it saddens me greatly to see the retreat of the Church in the UK. Where are the Christians who are willing to take a stand for truth, for righteousness, for holiness? May God have mercy on us. Thank you for being the voice crying out in the darkness whilst many of our church leaders remain silent. May God give you physical and spiritual strength to continue the mission you have been called to. May he raise up others who will count the cost yet take up their cross. You are in my prayers.
Well said Christine! and as I have said before on here I am an atheist and humanist however the moral decline has and is accelerating due in no small part to the lack of moral leadership from politicians who pander to everything but stand for nothing.
Kind Rgds and best wishes to you David for a swift recovery
@ A Brown
Perhaps there is no moral leadership from politicians because they feel themselves to have the supremacy amongst humans, who they feel are the closest there is to moral leaders, in a world that occurred by chance, which is itself devoid of any moral leadership except theirs, with no criteria of right and wrong that can be calibrated “vertically”, against which morals could be observed to rise or to “decline”. In other words, perhaps they are also humanists and atheists, and (unlike you) act in the “every man for himself” way that is rational, for humanist atheists.
The psalmist doesn’t level the insult “fool” at every Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks that God probably doesn’t exist when he is thinking rationally about his own direct experiences so far. That insult is reserved for those who are atheists in their “hearts”. In your heart, you cannot be an atheist, or a humanist, because, somehow or other, in your heart, you feel the sense of moral direction that springs from God’s moral force of gravity. You bemoan the decline presided over by people in power nowadays who share your intellectual belief and non-belief (in humans, and in God respectively), but take them to their logical conclusion.
God is close, for atheists who are not biblical fools, because their almost reluctant, merely intellectual non-belief in God is not the wishful thinking of those who want in their hearts for God not to exist, so that they can do evil and escape eternal judgment. Such atheists often convert into great Christians.
Do you know what you have to do, to discover whether or not God exists, instead of relying upon your own best guess? Jesus said “seek and you shall find”, but perhaps you need a clue how to start looking? If so, your in the right place to ask.
Thank you David for another thought provoking and challenging article
Right. After that sanctimonious outpouring from JA above I’ll leave you all now to your own devices but with this
You bemoan the falling numbers of churchgoers but with the barely disguised contempt shown by JA, DO YOU REALLY FIND IT THAT SURPRISING?
best wishes to yourself David for a full and swift recovery.
The irony is that I was feeling respectful towards A Brown, and genuinely trying to communicate warmly with him, in a way I hoped he find refreshingly different from the way I seen other Christians writing to self-proclaimed atheists and humanists, which makes me cringe, as much as my efforts to reach out to Mr Brown apparently made him cringe. “Barely described contempt” is the opposite of what I felt, when I wrote what I wrote. “Misunderstood respect” is more apt a description.
Thought provoking blog, David. It’s good that somebody is speaking out about this as our society is a hairsbreadth away from losing the right to free-speech over this issue. That alone should disturb the conscience of any free thinking person – gay or otherwise.
Yes indeed
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
thank you so much for this very honest look into what does indeed seem to be such a burning question with the media and politicians of the West—
A simple answer, yes or no is no longer viable it seems because the word yes has, itself, become sadly contemptible…
Wayward children love to defy the No of a parent…such is the current trend in behavior…
Powerful blog post, David, it addresses so many issues and answers them so well. Thank you.
ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS!!!
Bravo, David. Hope SOME of the progressively-minded may read this
Slowly, you are getting there. But you still condemn “homophobia”. I plead for equal rights for homophobic people. Give me a call when you see the light on this.
Yep and I will continue to condemn homophobia – as I will racism and other aberrations. You can claim ‘equal’ rights for homophobic people as much as you want but it is irrational and dumb to argue for rights for a phobia!
Oh how I wish some newspaper would have the coursge to print your article David! It is exactly what the country needs to hear.
Oh how I wish a newspaper would print your article David! It is just what the country needs to hear.
David, a comment and a question. First, many gay men do not sleep with hundreds or even thousands of partners. I don’t deny this happens and neither do I deny it’s a route for the spread of STIs. Of course this kind of shallow and frequently narcissistic view of sex is not exclusive to gay me. However, there is no reason why gay men, especially those that believe themselves to be Christians, shouldn’t prefer a monogamous and committed relationship. Afterall this is why same sex couples enter a same sex marriage. They are as hurt as anyone else if one partner is unfaithful. You can’t use the fact of casual sex outside a committed relationship to condemn sex per se.
My question is this. I don’t understand why alleged evils of gay sex affect the poor disproportionately. I want to see proof of this. I want to see that in a society where family breakdown is depressingly common, that it is more common amongst the poor precisely because of the liberal attitudes and loose morals of the middle class bourgeoisie. I want to see how same sex relationships in partivular havr futhered that breakdown.
By the way I do agree that the issue of gay sex appears to have become something of an unwelcome shibboleth during this election campaign and that Christians are being victimised. At the same time, the Christian church has itself made a great deal of this over the years and continues to campaign not just against gay marriage but against gay sex too.
Incidently, I hope youre feeling better
Alex – I never said that all gay men sleep with lots of men and I have no more truck with hetreosexual promiscuity than I do with homosexual. As for the poor – I was talking about the destruction of the traditional Christian view of the family (of which gay sex is only a tiny part). It is the poor who are harmed most by this. I also am not aware of the Christian church ‘campaigning against gay sex’. We are asked what our views are and of course we answer. But it is not the job of the Church to campaign against anything…!
Thank you for such a brilliant and well articulated post. I will share.
Excelllent!
Must copy and memorise the gist of the counter-thrusts.
Is the Labour party chair you mention from IKEA too?
.”…Yep and I will continue to condemn homophobia –..”
Try defining it first :-s
Fear of homosexuals or homosexuality – not difficult
“Fear of homosexuals or homosexuality”
Yes, I experience exactly that. I don’t suppose, though, that you care why I have these fears. Do you condemn me for my fear?
I’m thinking of standing for Parliament again, and stating in my election address that I think homosexuality is a sin.
I have no idea why you have an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. I’m not a therapist and this is not a therapy site. I would suggest that you seek help. I also think that all of us should overcome our fears, whatever they are – and from a Christian perspective we should look to Christ to do that.
David, your reply was exactly what went through my mind when I saw Dougie’s post.
I don’t have an “irrational” fear of homosexuality and “homosexuals”. I have a rational, godly and wise fear, of both. I have suffered great harm from homosexuality, and for my beliefs about that vice, unlike any harm you have ever suffered, I dare say.
I don’t think you understand what you are doing, when you recite the idiot LGBT slogan, scripted for us, that you “condemn homophobia”, a divide-and-conquer slogan to the (false) effect that there are nice preachers of righteousness whom the unrighteous will surely defend as totalitarianism replaces liberal democracy the world over, and nasty preachers of righteousness (referred to as “homophobic”), who obviously deserve to be burnt at the stake for their vile, Bronze Age beliefs, and are jolly lucky we don’t burn heretics any more (at least, not yet).
I have never met a person described by LGBT as “homophobic” who wasn’t a jolly nice chap, more-or-less wholly without malice. Nor have I ever known a public figure who opposed LGBT in any highly publicised way, who escaped being labelled “homophobic”, even if he was, like you, of the pathetic “I am not homophobic, in fact I condemn homophobia, but I must say this …” school.
The word “Christian” wasn’t coined by those to whom it was first applied (in Antioch). It was applied to followers of The Way whether they wanted to be called “Christians” or not.
In the same way, whether you like it or not, you are just as much a “homophobe” as I am, in the eyes of those who label people homophobic, in order to avoid answering their arguments. I have resigned myself to accept this made-up word, when others apply it to me, rather than to argue that I am “not homophobic”, and that I “condemn” those who are. You should do the same, I believe.
The “homophobic” people you “condemn”, are imaginary nasty people who don’t really exist. The people whom the people who have tricked you into such silly talk really condemn, are all opponents of homosexualism, including you and me. You won’t escape, come the revolution, by saying that you “condemn homophobia”. You ARE what THEY mean by “homophobic”. What they mean, is all that matters, to them, in this inquisition of theirs. You will simply find that “first they came for the homophobes, but I didn’t realise that I myself was what they meant by a homophobe, even as I ‘condemned homophobia’.”
God bless you David. I pray for you always to think as well as you write.
You claim it is rational, Godly and wise to be afraid of some other people. I don’t see that anywhere in the Scripture – which is surely our only rule of faith and conduct. I’m afraid that unlike you, I have met people who hate homosexuals just because they are homosexual. That is just simply wrong.
@theweeflea
On the wisdom of fear of homosexuality, it was grace that taught John Newton’s heart to fear. Fear – fear of God, and hence of sin of every kind – is not redundant, until the saint’s love for God is perfect, whereupon it has displaced fear completely, as a motivation for righteousness, as water “casts out” the air that fills an “empty” bottle, when the bottle is “filled” with water. Perfect love casts out fear. Do you fear sin? Don’t despair, that you will continue to experience, as intensely as at first, the fear of sin throughout your Christian life. As your love for God grows, your fear of sin will be replaced b y wour love for God, as the mechanism whereby the Holy Ghost keeps you on the straight and narrow. So testifies the apostle Peter.
The first evidence of the beginning of the answer to the prayer in a Wesley hymn, “Take away the love of sinning”, is that one begins to hate, or to fear, sin. I have met addicts in recovery, who are (sensibly) afraid of meeting addicts who are still using heroin and crack. I have met former drunks who are still afraid to walk into a pub. Joseph was afraid of Potiphar’s wife, I day say. We pray “Lead us not into temptation”, because we are (or should be) afraid of falling.
We are to flee sinful desires, not deliberately to walk close to them, flirting with temptation, that we might boast in our hearts about how good we are at resisting temptation, and how unafraid we are of falling. That is complacency, not virtue.
Perhaps you are one of those lucky people who has no experience of homosexuality, whose ignorant misunderstanding of that vice is based entirely upon the propaganda of the only people who have experience of homosexuality whose voice is nowadays heard, addicts to that vice of reprobate mind, who call their addiction an immutable “orientation”.
Please read: Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/homophobia-defence-mechanism
As for fear of “homosexual” individuals, even Jesus showed fear, in the Garden of Gethsemane, of those who were on the way to arrest him, and of those to whom he would be handed over. Read the following two links, to get a glimpse of why I am afraid of so-called “homosexuals” – i.e. people who make a point of telling all and sundry more than they need to know, in order to provoke a reaction in some, so that they can take offence; and who are trying to subvert every church.
Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/two-year-olds-contact-stopped-with-homophobic-dad/
Conservative religious views, parental access, the ECHR – and blogging: A v Cornwall Council
http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2017/05/02/conservative-religious-views-parental-access-the-echr-and-blogging-a-v-cornwall-council/
Read Swift’s essay, and my parody of it, “The Homophobic Manifesto”.
Perhaps, if you’ve done the reading I have asked you to do, you will stop “condemning” homophobic people, and find love and respect for us who have reluctantly conceded that we might as well agree to call ourselves “homophobic”, because that is what those who hate us for not being like them call us, whether we like it or not. That is what people will call you.
Homophobia will eventually be defined as failing to attend a compulsory gay pride march without lawful excuse. Police officers will be disciplined for this misconduct, and Prospective Parliamentary Candidates will be deselected for this tactless indiscretion.
I cannot bring my lost friends back to life, in whose demise homosexuality (the behaviour and the heretical *ideology* that is now poising the body of Christ) may have played a part, but I can try to make society less dangerous for other young men, by speaking out truth I perceived about homosexuality, which set me free from it, something I hoped I would never have to talk about publicly, having retired early from the vice, before reaching my majority.
Fear for other adolescents is not an ungodly motivation for speaking out now, even though I am not in any great moral danger myself these days.
Always be aware of partial quotations. It was grace that taught John Newton’s heart to fear, but it was also grace that relieved his fears. As I have said many times I don’t accept the devil’s language or the devil’s agenda.
There are elements of the media who regard this as a judgement issue. Many politicians have political views that are broadly influenced by established western values that have a historical Christian influence. However, fewer people are prepared to accept an inerrant interpretation of scripture and regard the Old Testament proscriptions as myth and legend. Even fewer know anything of Paul’s theology other than readings at Weddings!
Any modern politician who attempted to defend them would be held up to derision with the usual jibes about death to unruly children and the avoidance of shellfish! The media or twitter generation know nothing of the apologetics of New Covenant theology but would quickly ridicule its incoherence if they did.
Many youngsters simply view criticisms of Homosexual acts as anachronistic and wrong. They are happy to be social relativists and believe that society can and should make these sorts of difficult decisions without religious dogma. It is the young supporting the new issues of gender identification and they accept there are many shades of grey.
You and I have argued before about objective truth and Naturalism and here again where you demand absolutes there are none. You may not accept this but modern society does and all you are doing is burying your head in the sand. It doesn’t care that it can’t prove the basis for its philosophy or naturalist world-view; religion no longer provides a convincing argument that it has to.
I am doing precisely the opposite of burying my head in the sand. Just because one does not agree with the current zeitgeist or the moral absolutism of the liberal elites, does not mean that one is bearing one’s head in the sand! Your last sentence is very telling – modern society has no need to provide a basis for what it thinks! So much for rationality! So much for justice! So much for truth! This is what it means to live in an alternative fact, post-truth, feelings only, elite dominated society. I will always challenge that!
Rationality, justice, truth – based on the Bible? What utter nonsense. Society feels no obligation to provide objective truths if there are none, just because the theist chooses to invent some. But you then use this as justification for continuing to make life miserable for what are already vulnerable segments of the worldwide community in many places. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the parts of the world where homosexuals are severely persecuted to see religion as a common factor. The opposition to religious intolerance is not from a liberal elite; it’s from a common, decent majority.
Jon, Just simply claiming that something is nonsense doesn’t make it so! Nor does it lend support to your position that you are rational and seek truth! It just sounds like name calling. And when you start claiming that you are ‘the common decent majority’ (without evidence and without defining what decency is) you ironically are just setting the background for increased intolerance and persecution of those who don’t accept your presuppositions and prejudices.
David
That which is not true should not be considered knowledge. It is easy to find parts of the Bible that are irrational, unjust and untrue. You simply assert the “truth” of Jesus. I accept my worldview is subjective but that doesn’t make the judgements based on it any less valid so long as they are defended rationally.
How do you think a referendum on Gay marriage would go? Where do you think the majority lies, or are they all duped by the “liberal elite”?
Of things that are false are not knowledge. I would deny that there is anything untrue in the bible….maybe you know better? Your statement about your view being subjective but you being able to defend it rationally does not really make sense! As for a referendum on gay marriage we argued for it but the Scottish government refused – I wonder why? Now of course it would probably be accepted – although if we were allowed to present our case it might be close. I remember when the pollsters changed the question from ‘do you support the view that marriage is between a man and a woman?’ to ‘do you support same sex marriage? Still there was not a clear majority – but then they changed the wording to do you support ‘equal marriage’? And who is going to say no to that? Apart from people who actually think about it. And yes they are duped – propaganda through tv soap operas, celebrity endorsements, harassment of any political candidate who dared to oppose, journalistic one sidedness, indoctrination through schools – this is how the liberal elite work. Determine what is good for us and then tell us and ban to all effect the opposite point of view.
David
On which day was Jesus crucified? The Synoptics and John disagree, one of them is untrue. It is entirely rational to assert that Naturalism is probably true, nothing has ever been shown to dispute its assumptions.
Actually Jon they don’t disagree. they don’t actually tell us the specific day.
Your assertion that it is entirely rational to assert that naturalism is probably true is just circular reasoning. The notion that the only things that exist are things is something that is completely unprovable. You just have to assume it – which is what you do. And then you judge everything on that assumption.
So the day before passover, and the day of passover are the same day? Nothing had ever been provided to disprove the assumptions of naturalism, therefore it is entirely reasonable worldview.
Yes if you read the passages and I would suggest someone like John Wenham’s Easter Enigma you will find that it is perfectly reconcilable. You are right about the assumptions of naturalism – but they are assumptions – including the one that nothing can ever be provided to disprove the assumptions of naturalism. It is a never ending circle – until the day you come face to face with God!
An excellent prime example of questioning the question and even the questioner, a Solas mantra for persuasive apologetics.
With regard to your footnote there was an outstanding article on this subject (Farron and the MP for the Isle of White who was was arm twisted into resigning) by Rod Liddle in yesterday’s Sunday Times: outstanding because it stands out in today’s culture, in contra-distinction. From a secular perspective, it nails it, defending, supporting traditional liberalism and what you stated in your earlier post on Farron:
“the traditional liberalism that allowed diversity of views and freedom of expression.”
The concern I have is; what is the residual message about Christianity and the church, given by Farron and May in their responses? Again, you addressed this in your earlier article on Farron.
Both articles need to be read together.
And, as you’ve indicated elsewhere, even in the name of equality, Muslin MP’s would not be hounded in such a way without ensuing outrage.
“…Fear of homosexuals or homosexuality – not difficult…”
So from you, fear will always meet with moral condemnation? Seems a bit harsh
No not what I said – I’m not really going to comment on comments there about things I did not say…
“I will continue to condemn homophobia” +
“[homophobia] = fear of homosexuals or homosexuality”
– did you say both of those or didn’t you? go figure!
Quibbling over language is pointless it’s true. But David, you’re disingenuous when it comes to “homophobia”.
It’s as if you so enjoy epatant la bourgeoisie by standing forth as the unlikely scourge of bigotry, that you’re unwilling to spoil it by even admitting the hopeless slipperiness of the term :-p
It’s not helpful to those toiling to stand for truth in obscurer trenches.
Homophobia is both of those. Please don’t accuse me of being disingenuous just because you don’t like what is said. The definition of homophobia is clear and I know plenty people who are homophobic and it is nothing to be proud of. If you are going to stand up for truth then don’t accuse those who disagree with you of being disingenuous. There is no reason for any Christian to be afraid of either homosexuals or homosexuality. I don’t have a fear of thieves, or slanderers, or proud people…if I did I would live my whole life in fear of others and myself. Surely we should fear only God?
So, if:
1. gay sex is a sin;
2. sex outside of marriage is a sin;
3. marriage can only be between a man and a woman
then how are gay men to express their love for one another? They can’t express it physically because it’s a sin for them to have sex and they can’t express it symbolically because it’s a sin for them to marry.
You state that you are against homophobia, yet there doesn’t seem like a lot of room for homosexuality in your world view. This comes across as contradictory.
Are you gay?
The final thought I wish to express on your piece is that I wonder, if gay sex is such a sin, why does god continue to make so many gay people (who will obviously wish to have gay sex with each other)
Dougie thanks for your comments. You seem to presuppose that unless sex is involved love cannot be expressed. I’m afraid I don’t agree with that analysis. You also seem to presuppose that God makes gay people, or rather that people being homosexual is because God has made them that way. I realise that in order to get the homosexual agenda through the myth that people are ‘born that way’ – was taught. Including the now completely discredited view that 10% of people are born homosexual. The fact is, as gay activists like Peter Tatchell now argue, sexuality is on a spectrum, and you find that people often change practices and perspectives. In fact the most common description now is either bisexual, or sexually fluid. I don’t deny that there may be a genetic component, as part of a fallen creation, but I do deny that we all have to act upon all our genetic predispositions. After all apparently I am a man who has been designed to spread my seed as far and wide as possible – does that justify adultery or polygamy? I have friends who are same-sex attracted, they live full and satisfying lives as they follow Christ and seek to live by his word. They do not buy into the myth of our current culture that unless you have sex, you are not a complete human being.
Interesting hypothetical interview between journalist and politician but in my humble opinion the interview should go like this: Journalist – do you think homosexuality is a sin? Politician gives him or her an icy stare such as Margaret Thatcher might give and asks for the next question. There is absolutely no reason for a person to be expected to give an opinion on what he regards to be a sin or not unless he is being confronted by his Pastor or his God. If the question is however – are you for or against marriage other than between one man and one woman then that might require an answer but still should not require any elaboration into what one regards as a sin.
“Discriminate against anyone who dares to think differently.”
Yes, and sadly what you write there is true. And yes, great what you say in turning the question to the gospel. No doubt you have been on the receiving end of difficulty (as have I) with what is disguised as an angel of light with equality in reality is cultural Marxism and the white heterosexual protestant alpha male being the perceived bourgeoisie.
As I understand it in recent history there were gay lobbyists in the 80’s who cam to the conclusion of being “born that way” because if that were true it would made anyone who considers gay sex to be a sin out to be the most horrible bigots. The powerful lobbyists have got what they wanted and this now is a cultural meme.
It is of course the reality that “born that way” is a lie. There is no conclusive evidence, scientific or otherwise that this is the case. And there are gay men that will say that their orientation is as a result mostly of nurture not nature. This might very well not be a popular thing to hear and there are gay men who have been discriminated against for holding this view within the LGBT community. If can be argued that this is the worst kind of bigotry.
I am not going to waste my time or anyone else’s in giving any personal opinion, but when a gay man takes the courage to be open about their sexuality and to express an opinion about sexual orientation, then I listen.
Reblogged this on milfordpastor and commented:
A borrowed post: because yes, this is how we *should* answer when asked, even though I imagine we would rarely be allowed to give such a comprehensive answer…
1) “Do you know what the biggest problem in our society is? … It’s the destruction of the family.”
My question is, can you name a time period when ‘the family’ was generally strong and stable that was also good for the poor? You claim that the destruction of the family and the “bourgeois morality” has been a disaster for the poor, which would imply that we have deteriorated from a much better point – when was that?
2) One of the things that always seemed to be brushed over in Sunday school, youth group, CU, etc. was how the ‘Biblical idea of family’ seemed to differ so much from families in the Bible. As a child I could not understand why, when sexual sin seemed to be the gravest of sins, God found Solomon worthy to build his temple despite his hundreds of wives and concubines. I could not understand why a lot of the heroes of the old testament all seemed to have multiple wives when to have sex with more than one person was such an egregious sin. The usual answer was that ‘it was a different time and place’, as if the nature of sin changed depending on where one stood in history and on the planet. I think this is important because during the gay marriage debate I heard a lot of Christians talk about the Biblical definition of marriage and how it would lead to polygamy. When I think about it though, the majority of polygamous communities in the Western World that I can think of have been based on the Bible. It just seems as if this ‘IKEA instruction manual’ is quite convoluted on the subject of marriage and how important one-man-one-woman is.
Yes – there was no time when it was perfect of course but if you look at the figures pre-1970’s you find that most families stayed together and this provided a far more stable environment for the poor.
2) Your SUnday school was not up to much if it taught you that Solomon was worthy to build the temple! He wasn’t. It was Gods grace and mercy that he was enabled to do so. And he was punished as the Kingdom was taken from him. And the majority of polygamous communities int he West have not been based on the Bible….its not the Bible thats complicated – its human beings who think they know better than God!
“It just seems as if this ‘IKEA instruction manual’ is quite convoluted on the subject of marriage and how important one-man-one-woman is.”
I think Jacob’s point is a fair one, David, and I don’t think you have addressed it adequately (though I appreciate that you can’t spend your life replying to comment threads!). Polygamy in the OT presents genuine and serious difficulties when trying to defend exclusive one man one woman marriage as the consistent teaching of the Bible (though I certainly believe *100%* that it is the only Christian position, as taught unequivocally throughout the NT).
King David is probably the most problematic case. Consider the following:
Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: “…..you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, **doing only that which was right in my eyes**.” 1Ki. 14:8
“David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from *anything* that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” 1Ki. 15:5
David is repeatedly described as a man after God’s own heart, a man of almost unparalleled righteousness, and faithfulness to all of God’s commands. Leaving aside for a moment the appalling sin with Bathsheba and her husband, which is described as the solitary failure, however serious, of David’s life, what are we to make of the rest of his many wives? (not to mention his concubines). Can we really say that after he married his first wife Michal, every subsequent sexual relationship he had was adulterous and sinful in God’s eyes? That doesn’t really seem to fit with the Biblical narrative. On the contrary, David’s wives and children very much appear to be among the many blessings bestowed upon him, given by God Himself (Abigail, for example? see 1 Sa. 25:38), with His blessing and according to His purposes. This is particularly clear from Nathan’s intervention in 2 Sa. 12, where we read the prophetic words:
“Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.” 2 Sa. 12:7,8.
“*I gave you*” … “wives” (in the plural). Remember, these are not the words of man. The “much more”, we may assume, might include not only property or power, but even more wives.
There are countless other instances in the lives of God’s chosen people (the just who lived by faith) where having more than one wife was not….on the face of it….wrong or sinful. I understand discomfort in the above comment…..”The usual answer was that ‘it was a different time and place’”…. I think it’s probably true that Christians tend to vaguely (even dismissively) appeal to ancient culture when confronted with this question.
Maybe it’s not as simple as that.
You’re the theologian David…maybe you have some thoughts about the matter! I’d love to hear them.
Thank you for your excellent post, anyhow. I could not agree with you more about these issues.
Thanks Pinky – those are helpful comments. At the risk of being too simplistic the key here is what Jesus said about divorce it was permitted because of the hardness of their hearts. Polygamy was endemic in the culture and was tied up with political alliances, land etc. And yes David was adulterous but in terms of polygamy it was permitted but not approved of. In the NT you find that people could become Christians and have more than one wife but they were not permitted to be elders or leaders. There is no command for us to marry more than one partner…
@ Pinky
+1
No. It really isn’t as simply as that. Well-spotted.
The legal doctrine has often been that men (as it were) “own” women. The immediate victims of adultery are therefore men who own the female participants. The victims of fornication are the fathers of the girls deflowered, making them more difficult to marry off, because loose woman commit paternity fraud. Polygamy is normal, at least for the top males. Polyandry is appalling. And so on.
The Torah even commands polygamy. If your brother dies without children, you must marry his widow, even if she would be your second wife. Think Onan.
War kills men and boys more than women and girls, so polygamy doesn’t necessarily mean a surplus of single men.
And so on.
What evolutionary biology predicts is what works. Whatever works is also predicted by the doctrines of creation, fall, curse, causality and (some) free will. That’s why discovering that carrot DNA is quite like human DNA isn’t proof of a common ancestor. Similar metabolism in us and our food is needed to make the food edible.
What works, to the chagrin of feminists, is the gender asymmetry described above. That is because children benefit from being brought up by both parents. Mum knows which children are hers, even when she doesn’t know who the father is. The father can never be sure, and therefore has less incentive to invest in children, but his confidence that the children he is paying for are his is increased by patriarchal systems that give him exclusive rights to the fertile women he “owns”, along with obligations to them, whether they have children or not, and whether they treat him kindly or not, and even when they grow old.
@Jacob
My “baby boomer” childhood was simply idyllic, because of the family in which I was brought up, as one of six siblings. By the end of my childhood, my life’s ambition was to reproduce that sort of family life a generation on, in order to bless my own children as I had been blessed.
For one reason or another, only one of the six siblings (my eldest sister, the first born) has succeeded in reproducing (so far as we can tell) that idyllic family life for herself, her husband, and her children.
I dread to think what sort of man my youngest son, whom I never see, will grow up to be. I bear responsibility for my bad choices, but they weren’t choices to inflict this fate upon him. In a culture whose ruling class was not so thoroughly seduced by assorted anti-family ideologies, he’d at least had *some* sort of normality in his life. I’d have been able to make sure of that, if I had not been so disempowered.
Excellent.
Can someone inform me as to why gods word is axiomatically moral. Why it doesn’t require justification, rationalisation or evidencing?
If it IS God’s word then who is going to justify, rationalise or evidence it? You? Me? Are we to sit in judgement upon God? What justifcation, rationalisation or evidence is there for us assuming that position? I should also point out that there is plenty justification, rationalisation and evidence for the bible being the Word of God. Of course those who have already pre-determined it cannot be, will not accept any evidence.
With that logic it follows that what ever god says is inherently moral. That sounds likely the most ludicrously amoral approach to life. Its arbitrary. And this might be a cliche response but i’m sure you’ll forgive me, but what about the slaughtering of innocent animals, human sacrifice, slavery all sanctioned implicitly or explicitly in the bible. Are these justified. I know how i ascertain my morals; by rationally analysing the harm my actions do on to others.
Matthew – the logic is that a straight line is a straight line. You as an individual do not get to determine what a straight line is. God is God. God is good. He is the definition of good – you, me or other human beings are not. It is not arbitrary at all. In fact the arbitrariness comes when human beings seek to take to themselves the role of absolute judge. You think you have the ability to rationally analyse all the harm that your actions can do to others. But your prejudices, sins, lack of knowledge and inability to see the future mean that that is just logically not a rational statement. Your morals come from the fact that you are created in the image of God, perverted though that image may be. You don’t get to make up your own morality, judged by your own reason.
Amazingly, there is a poster in my GPs’ surgery which states that 75% of new cases of HIV infection are among people who practise sex with someone of the same sex as themselves. (I say ‘amazingly’ because you would think that certain groups would have it removed for being ‘homophobic’.) But think about it. Homosexuals make up no more than 2% of the population but they provide 75% of new cases of HIV infection. What does that tell us? Does it suggest that homosexuals as a group are involved in monogamous sexual relationships to the same extent as heterosexual people?
As for the argument that people should be allowed to behave in a certain way because God made them that way, let us, for the sake of the argument accept the premise: if you have certain passions it must be because God gave you them and you should not be condemned for following them. Okay, certain people have a tendency to impatience. Is that because God made them that way? If so, does that mean that they should be allowed to indulge their impatience no matter what the consequences might be? Road rage, perhaps? Should we approve of road rage because God has made some people to be very impatient? Anger? Are people who have a tendency to anger to be able to blame it on God and demand that their tendency to get angry with other people should be approved? Gluttony? God made me that way so don’t you dare even mention the word ‘obesity’. Pride? Society still, by enlarge, disapproves of impatience, anger, gluttony and pride. So the argument that my behaviour should be approved because God made me that way does seem to have a rather limited application.
I think you are being mislead here. Yes ! homosexuals are at higher risk of contracting HIV. BUT there is a difference between correlation and causation. You are at higher risk if you engage in anal sex irrespective of sexual preference. There are gay men who abstain from engaging in anal sex, some that do so but protected, in monogamous or open relationships. These are important variables. Not to mention lesbians (homosexuals) are some of those at the lowest risk. If you were straight but exclusively had unprotected anal sex with strangers, you would be at increased risk.
Secondly, its a false equivalence to equate homosexuality with gluttony, or obesity , anger or pride. You do not fall in love (romantically) with food, ego or sex for that matter. There is a fundamental difference between telling someone they shouldn’t eat too much or drink too much, or xxxx too much, and telling someone they cant be with the person they love. Why did your god allow me to love someone of the same sex, only to then prohibit it?
No Matthew – I am not being misled. I’ve read a great deal on the subject and there is no doubt whatsoever that gay sex involves much higher risks than heterosexual sex. Of course there are important variables and qualifications but that does not take away from the main point. Your definition of “love” as being the criteria for everything and being expressed through physical sex is just wrong. Of course people can love food, they can love their dog, they can love many things. They can love their brothers – that does not mean that they should be allowed to have sex with them. Your last sentence doesn’t make sense. Imagine if I said to my wife that God allowed me to love five different women so why would he prohibit me having sex with them?
Thats just not correct. Gay people aren’t inherently more susceptible to contracting HIV. THAT IS FALSE. The reason why it is prevalent is because (1) Anal Sex (2) more people within the community already have it. But if i’m in a monogamous relationship with a man and we are both HIV negative, we’re no more likely to contract it than you are.
As for your point on love. The difference between the incest situation or adultery scenario is that, for most gay people, who are exclusively, romantically, emotionally and sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, this is all the love they have. They cant just remain loyal to their partner (adultery), they cant just find someone outside the family unit(incest). You aren’t just telling us to give up sex or find someone else, you’re asking us to relinquish the most important thing people have. Love. And i ask you again what type of sick god (of whom i am supposedly made in his image) allows me to only fall in love with the very thing he prohibits? Why are you allowed to love but not I (in a consenting harmless, monogamous relationship)?
Also yo didn’t tackle the issue in my previous comment regarding all the immoral and contradictory moral stances in the bible: Human sacrifice, slavery, stoning ?
(I appreciate the time you take to reply, I am legitimately interested, I was once a christian myself)
Matthew – I’m afraid I am going to have to disagree with your figures – as do most health professionals. Its true that if you are gay and celibate you are unlikely to get Aids. Its also true that if you are gay and stick to one partner, who does the same, and don’t indulge in certain sexual practices you are no more likely to get HIV than hetrosexuals. But the reality is that that is not the main reality.
I don’t have time to reply to all your other comments (which does not make them any less valuable) however on the simple one of love…you seem to be confusing desire, lust, like and love. As I said before what if I were to argue on your criteria – what kind of God allows me to fall in love with my neighbours wife and then prohibits me from sleeping with her? You see the problem when you make your desires God?
So you acknowledge therefore that not all gay sex is invariably dangerous. The reality is under 25s account for over 60% of cases of chlamydia because they engage in risky sex, yet not all sex between under 25 is intrinsically dangerous and not all under 25’s are immoral. I feel we can settle that particular point.
Secondly, the point i was trying to make about love was that what makes this prohibition on homosexual relationships so vindictive, is that you are asking people to abstain from loving relationships altogether. You are denying gays their right to engage and emotionally invest themselves in loving and long term relationships. (Unless you’d rather they lie and pretend to love someone of the opposite sex). Gays by definition are incapable of loving someone of the opposite sex, at least romantically. The same way you are not oriented to love someone of the same sex.
I emphasise the word love and will continue to use it, because thats exactly what millions of gays are engaged in. And if i cant attest to anyone else i can attest for myself, that what i care most deeply about is not sex, is not fleeting pleasures, but establishing the same type of bond that you most likely have between yourself and your wife. I know its easy to caricature gays as sex pest, but the reality is we are not all like that.
Lastly, on the issue of morality in general. I believe we have common ground here (surprised,but wait)! We both inevitably rely on particular axioms. You rely on the notion that god is good, everything he does and says is good. And i, as someone who believes we can draw objective truths about moral and immoral actions, base my assessment on wellbeing, and that striving for wellbeing is good. (Follows similarly to sam harris’ moral philosophy). My question is as follows therefore, do you follow gods word because you believe it to be moral, or do you follow god’s word merely because its god’s word? And if the latter is the case how do you know gods word is moral if you are incapable of moral judgement ?
Matthew once again I’m afraid that you misunderstand. I’m not asking that people abstain from loving relationships altogether. You seem to presume that the only loving relationships that can exist are those which involve sex – a premise I just do not accept. I’m also not sure I agree with you about the whole orientation argument. There are those who would argue that same-sex attraction, as indeed opposite sex attraction, can change. I’ve certainly seen that happen many times. Peter Tatchell argues that we should just be able to choose whatever we wish – and that most of us are wired that way! By the way I completely agree with you that not all gays, just as not all any group, should be tarred with the same brush.
Your definition of morality as being well-being is interesting. The trouble is you only push the problem further back. What you mean by well-being? And who decides what well-being is? Sam Harris is a great example to use – his moral philosophy, including his advocation of torture, is horrendous. Yes we are capable of moral judgement – but that is because we are made in Gods image. If you think there is no such thing as an absolute morality and all you’re left with is morality as a societal construct. And that really is no solid basis.
Perhaps i’ve been unclear. I 100% agree that sex is not necessary for a loving relationship.There are many people who struggle to have sex, those who have medical conditions or are at a later stage of their life, and others who are incapable of sexual attraction (asexual people). So yes you are correct that sex is not a necessity.
But i don’t think its too much to ask that i’m emotionally and romantically attracted to the person i’m with. Im interpreting what you’re saying to mean that homosexuals should enter into platonic relationships ? If this is the case, and forgive me if i’ve misconstrued your point, then why, let me phrase it this way, are you permitted to have a romantic relationship (sex or no sex), but i must resort to a purely platonic one, in which my partner would be nothing more than a buddy or friendly companion, or cohabitant ?
In fact let me ask you bluntly do you think gay people are capable of loving each other romantically in the same way that you love your wife(sex or no sex)?
Again on the issue of morality. Im not a moral relativist. But i do acknowledge that my moral outlook like your moral outlook relies on certain presuppositions, mine being wellbeing . Your moral bedrock seems however to suffer from circularity. How do you know whats good? You: God. How do you know that god is good? You: because i’m made in gods image.But why is gods image good? You are still assuming god is good. Saying that you have been made in his image, still suffers from the same fallacy. To truly adjudicate gods actions and words, we must have our own objective sense of morality. Maxims like god is good inhibit this, because we’re trapped in a loop in which the only possible outcome is god is good, for the sole reason that god is good.
And if god is so good, why aren’t you stoning adulterers, homosexuals? Jesus affirms the old testament (Luke 16:17)?
When it comes to my morality, its a bit like health. Health is about physical and mental wellbeing. There are objective things that we can say about health and improving health. Thats not to say that we KNOW everything or are in agreement over everything, we may for example contest over which vegetables are best, that doesn’t mean vegetables are no longer good for you. We may qualify certain assertions about health, “runnings good, but running day after day might be bad for your knees” , but this doesn’t make running any less good for your health. Of course someone deluded could say that drinking car fuel is good for his health and that our notion of health is all relative without some cosmic authority or guidance.
But no, morality like health is not a transcendental phenomenon, it only make sense to the extent that it identifies real things in real time, that impact the physical world we inhabit. Or of course you could join the fuel drinking man? Because hey why not ?
Thanks Matthew – I’ve enjoyed talking to you but I’m afraid that my reply is going to have to be very limited – I’m kind of swamped! Just to say that Jesus does affirm the Old Testament but also changes the judicial law in terms of punishment. Health is also about spiritual well-being. But you also’s has still not defined well-being and therefore you’re going to struggle to have an absolute morality. But I’ve already written enough – thank you for your polite and interesting interaction.
I really thought at first you were tongue-in-cheek when you sqid the meaning of homophobia is clear. Wouldn’t it be nice if that was true, and there was one universally agreed meaning, and Christians could always be sure exactly how to avoid the imputation!
Apologies if disingenuous sounded rude, but actually I still don’t know why else you’d determinedly sidestep all the harmful implications of one obvious fact, which is that when you say “homophobia,” a huge and influential portion of the world hears “Biblical morality”.
Nonsense about “fear” – almost nobody uses the word like that, and with good reason. The etymology is bogus, and even if it weren’t, since when were etymology and meaning synonymous?
Thanks – but I don’t allow the world to dictate my agenda or language. In fact part of biblical apologetic evangelism is to reclaim the language. Homophobia literally means ‘fear of homosexuality’. And words don’t just mean whatever you want them to mean – etymology is crucial to meaning. AS Christians we should not just go by feelings or the post-modern use of language. Of course the other side use homophobia as code for biblical morality – we just have to show them it isn’t – which if you stick to facts is actually quite easy!
I find it grievous that David should keep insisting that he knows what the word “homophobia” REALLY means, when the word is not *intended* to have a single, clear meaning, but rather to operate like a Paternoster lift. If you blindfold a man and lead him onto a Paternoster lift at one level, you can lead him off the Paternoster lift at another level, and he won’t recognise his surroundings when you take the blindfold off. In the same way, the hoodwinked man who admits that he disapproves of sodomy, finds himself associated with terrorists who throw “gay men” off tall buildings to their deaths.
The word “homophobic” isn’t an old word to be reclaimed. (The time for that tactic, if we were going to use it, was when the old word “gay” was hijacked.)
It is a neologism owned by those who coined it, in order to perform a deception. It isn’t ambiguous because of an accidental lack of rigorous thought by those who coined the word. The word is a weapon. The range of meanings, from homicidal violence through to failing to cheer at a gay pride parade, is intentional. Anything short of approval of the homosexual vice, is *somewhere* on the same homophobic continuum. Time then to bring in the old “all sin is equally bad” chestnut. Every sin against LGBT, falls short of the glory of LGBT.
I find it grievous that David also condemns fear, in those who know more than he does about homosexuality, from bitter experience. His callousness towards people who are afraid of homosexuality (like the Isle of Wight MP, by all accounts, who thinks it is dangerous), reminds me of the officers in World War I who court martial’ed and had shot, for “cowardice”, lapsed heroes who were souls, sons, husbands and fathers, because they were suffering from shell shock. Not for him to encourage into flame a smouldering wick, or to leave unbroken a bruised reed. Fear is a sin, or needs psychiatric treatment, as far as David is concerned.
I am homophobic, in one sense of the word, as LGBT use it. That is enough to attract their fire. But I am also homophobic now, in David’s approved sense of the word. I’ve cowered in my stinking, muddy trench many months now, since before David got called up, and came to join me here, in his well-fitting and clean new *officers* uniform. Mr La-di-da Lt Weeflea’s pistol is now pointed at MY “cowardly” head, because – frankly – Gerry gives me the willies, and he learnt that fear was a “sin”, at theological Sandhurst.
John please don’t presume. You have no idea of what I know about homosexuality or not. You can choose to live your life in fear if you wish – I am a Christian and I choose not to. I prefer to love my enemies and to treat as human beings those who disagree with me and those who have different views of sex and sexuality. I do not fear them. And I have no intention of using the devil’s vocabulary.
All anyone needs to know about “homophobia” is that the term wasn’t coined as arising from clinical research, but to give leverage to the claim that aversion to homosexuality is pathological.
That’s what I meant by saying the etymology is bogus: it was dreamt up, just plucked out of the air by a man with an agenda, and it’s worked, hasn’t it?
The other silly thing about taking a stand on the etymology is that while even “phobia” isn’t without problems (psychologists have agendas too) “homo-” is Greek for “same”, so we’re looking at a word that “really” means “fear of the same”.
JohnAllman, I’m with you. I might not go out of my way to claim the label, but we do have to engage with it as current, rather than trying to insist on some imaginary scientific derivation.
“…And words don’t just mean whatever you want them to mean…..”
Also true for you, and this one is long past the point of no return.
If you’re quite determined to die on the hill of the Etymological Fallacy, at least pick a genuine etymology!
Indeed – I’m not sure why you are having such difficulty in accepting that homophobia means fear of homosexuals….seems you are digging a hole for yourself to fall into! It is genuine.
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.
Thank you, “mgordan42”. At least one other person gets it.
The neologism “homophobia” (as you put it) “encompasses” a spectrum of failures to approve sodomy whole-heartedly. I’ve laboured painstakingly today to get David up to speed on this, using some metaphors that I regard as divinely inspired. He has taken to disrespecting me, by refusing to approve my efforts, on his pre-moderated blog. That’s his prerogative. It’s better than a king burning a scroll as firewood, I suppose.
David stumbled upon the fact that the whole homosexual thing might be becoming a bit of a problem, about a decade or so after I twigged (because God had decided to let me twig). I worked out that the entire script that David is regurgitating was one written for him (and for us, if we are fools enough), in order to fragment the opposition. You know the script: “I’m not homophobic. I condemn homophobia. Etymologically, homophobia means this … The OED defines “homophobia” thus … Hope not hate.”
I decided to stop resisting the label that LGBT applies to ALL who stand in its way, David included. I blogged “The Homophobic Manifesto” in 2013, a defiant plea for toleration. David’s recitation of a moronic, politically incorrect mantra, that he “condemns homophobia”, is an assault upon my rhetorical strategy.
Please see:
http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2017/05/02/conservative-religious-views-parental-access-the-echr-and-blogging-a-v-cornwall-council/
John I find it interesting and somewhat revealing that you side with somebody who absolutely loathes the Christian gospel. Which was my point precisely – don’t let the devil dictate your agenda! I would also appreciate if you did not lie or misrepresent on my blog – indeed if you continue to do so I will not post your posts. “He has taken to disrespecting me, by refusing to approve my efforts, on his pre-moderated blog.” firstly my blog is moderated – because of bitter experience of Internet threads being taken over by eccentrics, abusive people and those who just do not stop talking! secondly I don’t think that I have refused any one of your efforts. But I do not spend my whole day and the Internet or reading blogs and responding. I have a set time every day. it’s your choice if you choose to participate – and you’re perfectly free to disagree. But please do not lie about me.
Sorry for my impatience. You have now published my comments, that I complained were still queued.
We are both using the devil’s vocabulary, but differently. Playing them at their own game, I am accepting the label “homophobic” that (in practice) LGBT uses to put down anybody who opposes them, both kindly people like you and me, and murderous thugs. I don’t bother to distance myself from murderous thugs every time I plead for decent, law-abiding, homophobic people just to be accepted and respected for who we are, and accorded equal rights with those who hate us.
You, on the other hand,are repeating the mantra that LGBT itself uses, “I condemn homophobia”. You are doing this with only murderous thugs in mind, not (in my opinion) realising that this is to play into their hands, because what they mean by “homophobic” people, when they condemn homophobia, is anybody against LGBT, including both you, and the murderous thugs you suppose they are referring to.
We are unlikely to agree about the right tactics for using, or avoiding, the word we both use, which you think has one meaning, and which I think has many meanings, even though that places me in agreement with one or more enemies of the gospel, and at loggerheads with you, about this controversial word “homophobia”.
I don’t follow, what’s the hole I’ll fall into?
Marriage:
The King Saul was chosen by the people, in effect “after their hearts”, in prefference to God’s Kingship over them, notwithstanding all He had done for them throughout their history, whereas David was chosen by God, that is, “after God’s heart”, as opposed to the people’s heart. That doesn’t mean that he was flawless, nor perfect in obedience. He was deeply flawed, like all of us, not an exemlpary model to follow. He was not an exemplar. But it did point to the longing for a flawless , perfect King to lead, govern protect and provide for his people in righteous justice, it pointed to to the coming, future, perfect, obedient, King of Kings and LORD of Lords and His Kingdom on earth. He, the King Groom has only one Bride – the Church, with a marriage yet to be consummated, a oneness. He is perfect in His faithfulness, to his pure spotless bride. He seeks no other, His coveneant of marriage is with no other, but His chosen Bride.
All of scripture , including old covenants, is about Jesus, is fulfilled, completed, by through and in Him , in His Divinity and in His humanity.
PS.
Marriage:
Here is a tasty short video on marriage:
David, you have written what many of us think. Why to these people fall for such poor journalism? Loaded questions! Why does the christian think they must simply answer any question? Jesus didn’t.
He threw back questions to those with alternative motives. And it would not take much to question the journalist to clarify exactly what they are after, and in doing so expose their hypocrisy.
“Thou shall not bare false witness” is to misrepresent, and a lot of the media are breaking this commandment.
A good article.
Christian “politicians” (myself included) are often trying to win votes, even votes cast by heathens. Our Lord Jesus Christ was only ever nominated as a candidate in one election, and He needed to lose that election, to a less qualified, but more popular candidate than Him, called Barabbas, if even His own predictions were to be fulfilled, as touching God’s eternal plan for the salvation of men.
Reportedly, nobody at all voted Jesus that day, which is indeed a sobering thought, not least because he’d been the bee’s knees, a celeb, only a week earlier, when riding a donkey. Electorates are fickle, and fond of rascals, apparently.
Oh and just to add David, the hypocrisy is astounding. The LGBT lobby have been saying for years, they have been marginalised, intimidated, accused, exposed, mocked, ridiculed, which is considered wrong. Rightly so. Laws have been put in place to stop this behaviour. No one who is LGBT should be made to feel that way. Was the law not changed to stop sacking people because they were LGBT?
But for some reason, all the things that the LGBT community were victims of, are justified if they are christian! How does that work?
Its ok to sack christians, and accuse them based on stereotype, but it was wrong to do this to a member of the LGBT community? Double standards. How can it be wrong for one group, but not wrong for another?
Excellent article
I take it that ‘Ikea Christians’ are also Creationists?
Yes every Christian is a creationist in that we all believe in a creator. You have a problem with this? Are you stigmatising? Are you displaying prejudice?
No stigma, no prejudice. It was a simple question. I am sorry you did not understand what I was asking, perhaps because I used the term ‘creationist’ meaning a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible and does not accept the theory of evolution. I asked the question because following instructions as per Ikea implies seems rather static.
Thanks Jenny – there are different kinds of creationists. Following instructions is not static….God is not static..and its a whole lot better than just making up your own!
Your notion that the loss of family values creates disproportionate suffering among the poor ignores the appalling suffering of the poor in Victorian times, when family values were supreme and homosexuality was outlawed. There was also huge suffering in those times when abused women of any class could not leave their abusing husbands, or if they did so, they lost their children. Prostitution and slavery was rife in Victorian times too.
Do you think that WeeFlea’s 2017 contemporary ideas about what The Lord Jesus Christ taught aren’t up to scratch, because he hasn’t offered a critique of society when Victoria was queen, and you have? Are you therefore a historian?
Meanwhile, back to the analogy of the ‘Ikea Christian’. The instruction manual you rely on as a Christian is a collection of writings over centuries, many of unknown authorship. Taken as a whole it contains many contradictions and can be interpreted in many different ways. I note how fond you are of dismissing the ‘zeitgeist’ while you ignore the zeitgeist nature of much of the Biblical canon.
Jenny – you are completely mistaken! I love the Zeitgeist nature of the biblical canon… I also deny completely that the Bible contains many contradictions. But I do accept that it can be interpreted in many different ways – but not honestly and realistically interpreted in many different ways.
So, if you love the Zeitgeist nature of the Bible you would accept that different rules applied at different times in human development? That some parts of the epistles were written to address particular circumstances of the time – women covering their heads, e.g.
Thank you for your clarity!
I think it is time to have a regular national ‘Religious Question Time’ programme similar to David Dimblebe’s ‘Question Time’ to address issues like this:
Why are secular politician allowed to express their ‘BELIEF’ in no God as they wish but not people of other ‘BELIEFS’?
Adrian
even votes cast by heathens
A private message
One hopes that JA’s regard to the general electorate as whole (the ones he seems to crave) becomes more widely known
I’m glad I left this when I did:I dont know who said it first>>>But what you see certainly isn’t what you’d get!
Rgds as always.
AB
Having read your blog on “Is Gay sex a sin” and all your replies to comments, I would say what an excellent article you’ve written David. You’ve hit many nails on many heads. I agree with everything you say in your article and replies. Also with points made by the likes of gene515 and Mike17.
Since before the same-sex marriage Bill, I was writing, after a career in Primary Education, to MPs, Bishops, columnists like Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens about what I perceived happening in society as the liberal activists gradually took over positions of power in politics, education, TV, the public sector etc from the sixties and seventies.
As you aptly pointed out in one reply and seemed to echo my sentiments entirely “And yes they are duped – propaganda through tv soap operas, celebrity endorsements, harassment of any political candidate who dared to oppose, journalistic one sidedness, indoctrination through schools – this is how the liberal elite work.” I called it the drip, drip of the liberal activists’ message through TV, politics and the indoctrination in schools and universities, as we all now see in students’ repression of free speech in Universities, or the refusal to stay and debate the other side of the argument in the case of Esther Poucher and Andrew Turner. ‘I know best’! I blame my own profession for the child-centred liberal ideology of which I was trained (but having developed critical thinking through a year’s ‘teaching’ in a primary shool before college).We were trained to encourage the children to debate points of issue telling them their view was as right as the next person!
When the same-sex Bill was being debated I read widely on the homosexual, homosexuality, transexuality, the LGBT fraternity and especially on the repercussions in those countries that had already allowed same-sex marriage, in USA, Canada and countries in Europe. I joined debates in blogs in these countries and learnt a lot. Slowly, I developed what I termed my ‘rationale for discouraging homosexuality’. I know it’s long, so I hope this site allows me the space to comment here and that it’s useful in the debate on your question “Is Gay sex a sin?”.
First though, in my answer to the Prime Minister just now: “yes, it is a sin”.
Second, in my recent emails to the different parties in the Isle of Wight, who shockingly pressured Andrew Turner into resigning: I felt he’d done nothing wrong. Why? Because Andrew never said the homosexual was dangerous to society as was reported by the parties (fake news – you’re right, that’s how they work). Esther Poucher actually reported that he thinks homosexuality is “dangerous to society.”
My rationale for discouraging homosexuality:
The discouragement of homosexuality is not directly the result of the advent of Christianity. Forget about Christianity or the Bible for a moment. All through history people would have developed ‘convincing reasons’ for discouraging homosexuality. The rationale for not encouraging homosexuality goes way back before Christianity; even since before the dawn of recorded history, when, as the LGBT lobby always points out, homosexuality was rife. In those times tribes and communities would have disagreed with anything its members did that was considered against the best interests of its group. Such people would be punished or ostracised, e.g. liars, adulterers, thieves, murderers, even lepers, to name but a few. They would have felt the same about homosexuality. The medical ‘practitioners’ of the time, even without the backing then of today’s science, would have warned against the homosexual act because they would have seen with their own eyes how unhealthy a lifestyle it was. They would have seen, heard in discussion and even experienced how it created adverse repercussions (I won’t list them as you might be having breakfast at the moment!), not just for the individual, but for those in the community with whom the homosexual had sex.
[ see http://www.equip.org/articles/is-homosexuality-a-healthy-lifestyle ]
It’s not being compassionate to encourage unhealthy, destructive behaviour. In his book “The God of Sex”, Dr. Peter R. Jones wrote: “Gay sex is dangerous. Physical injuries of the intestines and the rectum come not from extremist behavior but from the actual regular practice associated with gay sex, for which the body was not designed – rimming, fisting, anal intercourse, barebacking and direct contact with faecal matter”.
See also this more recent scientific study which refutes the LGBT assertion that gays are necessarily ‘born that way’.
www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/health/2016/august/scientific-research-refutes-lgbt-born-that-way-claim?cpid=EU_CBNNEWSPM
Getting back to my rationale for not encouraging homosexuality:
Over the years, backed up by the medical practitioners, the rules or laws developed through basic experience and common sense would have been picked up and implemented in the rules/laws made by the secular and religious communities that developed, not least Christianity. In biblical times the religious communities called such offences ‘sin’. The Jews not only considered homosexuality to be a sin (i.e. against the interests and well being of the individual and those with whom they associate), but also considered the homosexual an outcast, like lepers. When Jesus was born He taught us all to love everyone, but not their sins, just as He taught us to love prostitutes but not prostitution. “Go and sin no more” He told one prostitute.
Many who support same-sex marriage and gay rights argue that, since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he did not consider it to be sinful. He didn’t need to because he knew how much the Jews already condemned it.
Read: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-homosexuality.html
Also find out what the New Testament says about homosexuality:
http://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
and if you feel Christians should not judge others:
http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html
Those who came to love Jesus and follow His example, became known as Christians! Nobody special, just ordinary folk like you or me, who wanted to follow a ‘good example’ and believed that any action that affected their own well-being and those with whom they came into contact, should be discouraged.
Christians (and other Religions) today still call such offences, ‘sin’.
(Whilst those in the secular world oscillate blindly from decade to decade, from one set of morals and guidance to another, due to the ever-changing laws of governments, usually the result of the progressive ideology of such minority groups as the LGBT, many in society gain peace, hope and fulfilment from choosing to follow the example of one ‘good’ person from history throughout their lives.)
Unfortunately some governments (yes, even some Christian ones) retained the harsher view of the homosexual. It became a criminal offence and homosexuals became persecuted. It took a long, long while for the teaching of Jesus to be really understood as one of loving people who disobeyed society’s rules, whilst discouraging their actions.
It’s good that today’s Society, governments and religions have developed a more loving, liberal approach to many minority groups, including the LGBT group. However, instead of showing concern and warning against homosexuality itself, their stance on it with its decriminalisation some years ago and greater encouragement with the more recent same-sex marriage act, has come about as a result of yielding to pressure groups, the desire to look good on the world stage and not listening to those with the skills, knowledge and experience. They dismissed not only the warnings of adverse repercussions experienced by other countries that had gone down this road, but also the fact that medical science today still advises against this unhealthy act.
So “codes of conduct formulated centuries ago” are indeed still relevant today, in spite of advances in medical science and medicine. Codes of conduct don’t basically change. Just because science can now abort babies easily and successfully, it doesn’t mean to say they should automatically be aborted at the selfish wish of the mother, or that promiscuity and murder should be encouraged because the mother can easily get rid of the baby. Nor should we necessarily as a matter of course always have to “review moral codes in light of principles and developments in society and human knowledge”. We have to weigh up the pros and cons, using our common sense and wisdom, developed from the skills, knowledge and experiences of life to determine the best course of action for the person involved and the community at large. Sadly, people with such skills and life experiences are all too often shouted down, without discussion, by selfish minority groups, who think only of themselves, or ignored by liberal governments and institutions who are hell bent on pandering to these minority groups in order to look good on the world stage of political correctness.
Matt Walsh, an American, received an email from a man (he was ‘a gay man who loves Jesus’) saying we should keep up with today’s society and culture. Walsh replied “a 2,000-year-old faith that professes timeless Truths should ‘keep up’ with the whims of modernity, but why? What do we know in our time that the Church didn’t know — that God Himself didn’t know — up to now?”
Many of us in Society today (whether religious or not) are showing real love for homosexuals by warning them of the dangers to themselves and society of practising the homosexual act. We love homosexuals, but disagree with the homosexual sex. In comparison, perhaps, society’s attitude to smoking can now be considered an act of love. We all love the smoker, but it’s the act of smoking with which society disagrees (and has now more or less been ‘banned’), due to its unhealthy effects on both the smokers and those around them.
‘God is not static’! I like it, WeeFlea! Yet you cling to your interpretation of writings given at particular points in history. You choose those that suit your own ideals; women may not be elders, but you no longer insist in them covering their heads…maybe the sort of Ikea Christian who follows the instructions precisely, but hasn’t noticed the wee extra leaflet updating them.
God is not static…his Word is not stuck in a 1st Century paradigm but is suited for all in all generations. The irony is that the very thing you accuse me of (choosing those that suit your own ideals) is precisely what those who reject the Word of God and want to subordinate it to the culture, do. The only way to prevent that is to put Scripture first – not our ideals or culture. I would love to know where you get this ‘extra leaflet’ updating the Bible – is this new biblical revelation?
So God’s word on men having short hair and women covering heads while praying is suited to all generations? Or was this just to suit that particular time? Is it OK for us to enslave our enemies as long as we don’t enslave our own people? Are women made for men, not men for women?
My position is that Christianity is not necessarily mysogynistic or patriarchal, but that the church can be a useful place for such formations to hide.
Regarding the ‘extra leaflet’, I was of course stretching your analogy a bit, but my intention was to challenge the notion of a complete biblical canon. At some point, men sat down and decided what to include and what to exclude and that nothing else was to be added. It’s like Ikea saying, ‘We’ve been making great chairs for years and now that you’ve discovered global warming you want us to make them from sustainable wood? No way! We’ve got the best design of chairs ever and we’re not going to tweak them to suit these times.’
No Jenny, – you have to read it in context – the context of the Scripture and the context of the culture. From your post you clearly have no idea what the Bible actually is, how it was formed and how it works today….. I would like to help you, but I have a strong suspicion that you are not really interested and your mind is already made up. For you to compare head covering with same-sex marriage only illustrates the pointlessness of rational discussion on the subject!