new

In ancient times homosexuality was prevelant in such a way that the writers of the Scriptures felt the need to address the issue specifically. What did they have to say? Although it is not extensive, it is very clear from what exists that homosexual practices are considered a form of sexual deviancy. Romans chapter 1 does the best job of stating this, for homosexual practices are likened to exchanging the glory of God for worthless idols. Somehow, in the mind of Paul (and I believe the inspired writings of Paul), homosexual practices are a form of idolatry and the sacrificing of God's glory for a ‘dark’ purposes.

There are other verses addressing this issue. I am not sure if they were mentioned, but I would assume so. To the original poster: if you desire, please ask and you will be provided with the necessary Scriptural passages. I don’t believe, however, that is your main concern.

I do believe that your main concern is about how to love your neighbor. First, I implore you to consider what standard you consider absolute. Do you believe that standards can ‘drift’ over time, shifting to fit the needs of an ever-changing society? Or do you believe that there is one standard by which every society in every generation must answer to? We see laws come and go with governments, should we expect the same for religious customs and beliefs?

My firm belief is that the Bible stands as a testament to what God has to say to the world, and that through this medium he speaks words of power that are fully capable of bringing about all that he plans. I believe that this word of the living God teaches us to abhor certain practices labeled as ‘evil;’ homosexual acts are one such practice. They are lumped together with lying, stealing, murdering, adultery, haughtiness, boastfulness, gossip, etc. (Romans 1:28-32)

So how do we love people who claim that they are ‘homosexual?’ Do we consider someone who murders a ‘murderer’ in the sense that a murderer is who he is? Or do we treat a murderer as someone who commits an action that can be repented of and forgiven, allowing progress to be made? Do we consider a pedophile as having a character trait, or a character flaw that needs correction?

The idea of someone ‘being homosexual’ is a language issue in English that can prevent good discourse from happening. We label individuals as if that is part of their identity, and no doubt many claim that it IS indeed part of their identity. I do not believe so. I do not believe that homosexuality is any more a part of their identity than adultery is part of someone’s identity. I do not consider someone a lifetime ‘adulterer’ with such as their identity; I consider an action or a lifestyle choice (if they continue in it).

I consider someone a ‘Christian’ in their identity because I believe they are brought into a new identity in Christ (according to Scripture). I believe this then becomes part of who they are, and it is central to their being.

I believe homosexuality is different. Our desires are a combination of natural, built-in desires and those that are programmed into us by our greater culture (society as a whole, i.e. Japan, China, Kenya, etc.), our immediate culture (family/friends/etc), and by ourselves (our own choices, resolves, etc). Having grown up in the states (US), I took to playing chess. I love the game. Now that I live in Japan, I hardly ever play; why is that? It’s because one culture instilled in me a desire for something that is common and popular, while the other culture began removing that desire by lack of presence.

After all, how many of you crave sanshoku dango? Or how many of you crave Melon Pan? This are two of my favorite snack foods in Japan, and the craving for these things was non-existant before I came here and began eating them. You cannot crave what you have no experience with. That is not saying that you are unable to crave something because you didn’t try it; I’m saying you’re unable to crave something that you are unaware of.

How far can someone claim that their homosexual desires are inherent? If they are, is that justification for the practice? After all, some people are inherently more aggressive, but we never use this argument as justification for unwarranted violence. should we not expect the result of sin corrupting the world to end with unholy desires in us? How far can a pedophile or practicer of beastiality claim inherent desire? Where does a culture draw the line and label one ‘deviant sexual practice’ and label the other ‘accepted, inherent sexual desire.’

Do you consider a person ‘homosexual’ if they have never had relations with an individual of their own gender? If so, that put it on the same level as heterosexuality (something we DO all generally consider inherent and a part of our identity). What about people who consider themselves heterosexual, have never practied homosexuality, yet have occasionally had such thoughts or desires? What label do they carry?

Let me end with a short story that should illustrate the point. It should show how our labels may actually be limiting people who otherwise should not be limited:

I once knew someone who grew up quite normally. Catch is, this individual had problems with the law and discipline. Trouble was constantly around the corner. Eventually, after a normal sexual identity of hetereosexual relationships, this individual delved for a brief time into a homosexual relationship. After ending the relationship, this individual never returned to such practices again, and in fact abhorred them. This individual never went through ‘therapy’ for such, nor was he pressured for nobody knew about it.

What label does this individual carry, who no longer has any such desires nor feels any identity with homosexuality? Did he make a switch from heterosexual identity to homosexual identity and then back again? Did he only briefly ‘experiment’ but was neverly truly ‘homosexual?’ Is he ‘bisexual’ but represses one sexual identity?

Consider that love for your neighbor will lead you upstream at times. Love, after all, accepts you for who you are, but will never leave you that way. Who loves who leaves a person in all their previous states of sin and sorrow? Who does not seek to build up their friends? If you seek to build up, then you must seek to change, indirectly or directly. If you do not seek to build up, then perhaps you are not such a good friend; this applies to all of us, including me.

Recent news media reports about homosexual activists trying to get funding cuts for the Boy Scouts highlight the need for parents to understand the link between homosexuality and the teaching of the religion of evolutionism in the public schools. It is vital that parents understand that evolutionism is really a religion masquerading as science. At its foundation, evolutionism is rooted in the religions of atheism and humanism. Both of these false religions directly challenge the authority of the Bible, and indirectly (often in subtle ways) encourage their believers to substitute the fallible ‘wisdom’ of men for the infallible true wisdom of our Creator.

As the priests of evolutionism labor diligently in our public schools to indoctrinate our children with their world view, one side-affect of their efforts is that they often succeed in convincing many of their students that the moral absolutes of the Bible (i.e. homosexuality is sinful) are not to be believed. How do they do this? By attacking the very foundation of the Bible, the book of Genesis. If they can convince their students through their bad science that Genesis is not a true account of our history, then they’ve succeeded in undermining the whole authority of the Bible. Not all evolutionists have this as a goal. But intentional or not, this is the often the net affect of the dogmatic teaching of evolutionism as fact in the public schools. Christians who fall for this deception typically end up on one of three paths in their lives:

1. They engage in highly creative interpretations of the Bible to try to make the Bible somehow ‘fit’ with the lies of evolutionism. This then sets a precedent for the twisting of other parts of the Bible, including its clear statements about homosexuality being sinful. Once Christians start traveling down this road, it often becomes a slippery slope that leads to all kinds of other gross misinterpretations of scriptures. Now, their “sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6;17) is now a dull sword. They may still be Christians, but they’re less effective (sometimes to a very great degree).
2. They abandon the moral absolutes of Bible all-together. This is becoming more and more a trend with young people who have been indoctrinated in evolutionism for many years in the public school system.
3. They initially are ‘believers’ in evolutionism, but later become concerned about what seems to be irreconcilable differences between the Bible’s account of Creation and Evolution. This concern causes them to investigate further by getting the opposing views to evolutionism. Those who do this with an open mind often discover the truth that God’s Word can be trusted (including the book of Genesis), and that evolutionism is indeed a false religion disguised as science. This then can lead to a proper understanding of how God intended homosexuality, among other issues, to be viewed. It can also completely eliminate the need to do creative Bible interpretation, because now the plain reading of scripture is readily understood to be the truth.