"Ten Things I Wish the Church Would Know About Homosexuality" answered

A friend of mine posted a picture containing a list titled “Ten Things I wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality.” Normally I would just read it and continue on with the other things I have to do, but I thought this one clearly shows the misunderstanding, ignorance, incoherence, and self-refuting argumentation that pro-homosexuals, or homosexuals themselves, offer in response to the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexuality.


In this post I want to do two things:
-Direct you to a refutation made by a Christian apologist against the presentation of a professing “Gay Christian” attempting to defend homosexuality from Scripture.
-Respond to each point in the list.



Dr. James White, a Christian apologist and author, has put together a segment of a little more than 5 hours refuting point by point the arguments made by Matthew Vines, a professing “gay Christian” attempting to defend homosexuality from Scripture and refute what he calls the “traditional interpretation” of Scripture. I have listened to the 5 hour segment in which Dr. White plays the presentation made by Mr. Vines and addresses each point, and it absolutely demolishes any so-called biblical defense of homosexuality from Scripture. I encourage you to listen to it here.


Here is a link to a follow-up post to this post containing a video by Dr. James White responding to this same issue.


With that said, let’s get started.

Here is the list (I typed them up for easier reading):


TEN THINGS I WISH THE CHURCH KNEW ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY


1) If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.
2) You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.
3) Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you’re with.
4) You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.
5) It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.
6) Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.
7) If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.
8) To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.
9) If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with the same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.
10) When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.



My response:


1) The argument here is, I believe, that since Jesus never specifically mentioned the topic of homosexuality, and since Christianity is founded on Christ, that Christians should not regard it as essential because the “founder” didn’t. This explicitly ignores Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19 that God made human beings as male and female and that only a man and a woman can become, spiritually and physically, one flesh, and ignoring the fact that Jesus was born under the law and was a Jew as far as his humanity is concerned, which would lead us to the fact that the law of God explicitly condemns homosexuality as an “abomination” (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 19:28), and since Jesus was considered a teacher, a “rabbi,” and since Jesus fulfilled (not abolished) the law (Matt. 5:17), he held to every jot and title of the law, thus he also rejected the notion of homosexuality and of homosexuals marrying.

But even if He didn’t, all I need to say about this is that Jesus never mentioned child rape or bestiality either, should we then not consider it essential to Jesus’ teachings that children are raped? There are a variety of things that Jesus didn’t mention, but that doesn’t make them “non-essential” to his teachings, whatever “essential” means here. The point is, he didn’t have to address every single subject imaginable. Jesus’ milieu was Israel. Especially seeing how the religious leaders of the day sought to enforce the Mosaic law (and add twists of their own to it), it is hard to imagine that such practice as homosexuality would be tolerated. It wasn’t. I would challenge whoever wrote this to offer a single piece of evidence from Jewish writers that supported homosexuality or “gay marriage.” The argument really is self-refuting and goes nowhere.

But even without all that, the simple question I would ask is: if a pedophile comes and uses the same argument against you, on what basis can you disagree or deny this person the “rights” you want to claim? You cannot, if you really wish to be loving and tolerant.

2)
I read this over and over and I was not able to understand what point, if any, was being made.


3) This is another one that seemed really incoherent to me. It is like those cliches that are going around that mean nothing but make those who use them appear smart. If what is meant by this is that just because wine is “old wine” (or the “fundamentalist-traditional” interpretation of Scripture) it doesn’t make it a “better” argument, but rather, truth is something you define for yourself; since the word “manna” means “what is it?” it probably refers to the relativist idea that you make up your own truth with whoever and wherever you are. I may be wrong as to what this point was trying to get across, but I would have preferred if it was worded differently.

4) You don’t need to ask for the same rights I have, you already have them: you can marry anyone from the opposite sex you want.

5) So, I can’t “bother” (whatever that means here) someone who is a homosexual or an advocate of homosexuality, but you can bother me? Aren’t you bothering me by saying that? I would conclude that it is also no longer your “personal view” when you are bothering me (am I not part of the “someone else” here as well?). Again, when a pedophile uses this same argument against you, on what basis can you say “you’re wrong”?

6) Who is your authority? On what basis do you affirm it’s a civil ceremony? Please define what is a civil ceremony. Furthermore, using the same logic from point 1, if Jesus didn’t talk about marriage as a “civil ceremony,” then it’s not essential to his teachings, then you can’t affirm that either. It seems very arrogant to me to see how this point reflects an attempt to redefine marriage based on a relativistic foundation (which is really no foundation at all). Marriage is a covenant relationship under God, not a civil ceremony. Once again, a “boy-lover” will use this same argument, and you will have no basis on which to disagree.

On this point, it is important to point out that a common counter-argument is the following: “You can’t use the pedophile example! That is not love, that is rape! Children or minors don’t rationalize as adults do about marriage or sex.” That is far from the truth and it’s very arbitrary, when convenient. A very good friend of mine worked as a police officer for many years and he can attest, both from personal experience as a law-enforcer and from documented evidence, that many of these adult-child sexual relationships are sought out by the minors: they like the attention, and they even enjoy and seek out the sexual aspect of it. Is that the case for every minor? Absolutely not. The point is that that counter-argument fails as well.

7) What if a pedophile tells you that? “Oh, you’re just worrying too much about something that’s none of your business!” I would hope that how a pedophile “stimulates the pubic nerve” would at least tickle your “moral compass.” Just a tiny bit.

8)
This is clear proof that whoever wrote this does not know what he or she is talking about. One thing I would say is this: If you’re going to use the Bible to refute the Bible, please don’t even bother opening it. Why? Because you are only going to allow the connections you have made of Leviticus out of context, regardless if it makes sense or not, if it contradicts itself or not, as long as it is against the true meaning of Scripture, go for it. This is really a very dishonest claim.

Will whoever wrote this (and those who agree with this list) even bother to look into the difference between ceremonial and moral law? Will they read on in Leviticus 18-20 and realize that the very same passages that speak against homosexuality speak against adultery, stealing, murdering babies, and other things that they themselves still hold as “morally correct”? Perhaps not. If we are to throw away the whole of Leviticus, you throw away the only objective basis for morality you have for condemning adultery, stealing, murder, among other things. Christ fulfilled the law, he didn’t abolish it. There’s a difference. The moral law is still binding on every human being, and it is binding upon them perfectly, meaning, it must be obeyed perfectly, which must immediately bring to light the fact that we cannot fulfill it perfectly, but Christ has only on behalf of His sheep (John 6,10,14,17, Hebrews 10).

One of the common objections that springs from this objection is as follows: “Well, Leviticus says that getting tattoos is forbidden or that eating pork is forbidden, but I don’t see you following that!” While this entry is not meant to get into that exhaustively, it is worth mentioning that the Bible, as any other book, must be read
IN CONTEXT! Who was forbidden to eat pork? The Israelites. As we see in Acts 10:15, the ceremonial law (which included the dietary laws) had found its fulfillment in Christ, and was no longer binding upon either the Jew or the Gentile. The moral law, however, is continued in the New Testament both by Jesus and His Apostles (Col. 3; 1 Cor. 6; 1 Thess. 1:5). Evidence of this is the fact that people still die. Romans 6:23 tells us that “the wages of sin is death.” Since no human being can fulfill the law of God perfectly, all have transgressed it, and all, therefore, die. The difference is that Christians have a hope, while unbelievers do not.

9) The connection being made here is that the Christian’s rejection of homosexuality and homosexual marriage is equal to racism. Racism is based on ethnicity, it is not a behavior. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior. And if we are going to be consistent when using the Bible, stealing, murder, and other sinful behaviors are condemned as such, sin. What I’m saying is this: if you are going to equate racism with rejection of homosexuality, please keep in mind that you have done away with any condemnation of stealing, rape, abortion, adultery, etc. Is there such a thing as a thieving Christian, an adulterous Christian, a murderous Christian? No. Not a true Christian. Well, neither is there such a thing as a “gay Christian.”
You cannot equate racism with rejection of homosexuality.  That is confusing categories and it does not stand. Christians don’t despise homosexuals, they should be preaching the Gospel of repentance to them (which is actually the most loving thing you can do) so that, if God wills, they may repent of their sin and turn to Christ. The North Carolina “pastor” who said that homosexuals should be put in concentration camps is not a true Christian. It is tragic that people like him end up being the image people have of Christianity in general. Homosexuality, like rape, like adultery, like stealing, are sins that people must repent of and sins that must be condemned.

And again, when a pedophile, or someone who wants to have intercourse with an animal, or a necrophile uses the same argument against YOU to demand their “rights,” on what basis can you deny them or call it “wrong”?

A pedophile will look at you then at everyone else and say “If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with the same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.”

10) Let’s pretend for a moment that Jesus did, in fact, forbid judging, aren’t you judging me by saying that? How is it fair for you to judge me but not for me to judge you?

Let’s stop pretending now. Again, people who write these kinds of things don’t know what they’re talking about. They write lists and things that on the surface appear to shame and embarrass Christians, and they use the Bible without even opening it in an honest way to “refute” things they themselves haven’t given careful thought to. What did Jesus actually say about judging? Let’s look at Matthew 7.

First of all, what are the only verses people rip out of context to come up with something like this? Verses 1-5 (verse 5 half-way, by the way), and verse 12, the famous “Golden Rule.”


Verses 1-5:
“Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye….”

That’s it! That’s all we need to read, right? What does the other half of verse 5 say?

….and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

So, you still need to take the speck out of your brother’s eye! And the very next verse says,

“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”

If you are not to give dogs what is holy, what does that make the dogs? Unholy. If you’re not to throw your pearls before pigs, what are you to throw before them? Of course, this is not a reference to actual dogs and pigs, Jesus is talking about something else. Gentiles (anyone who is not Jewish) was usually called either a “dog” or a “pig.” I believe Jesus is referring to them in this passage. 


What about verse 12, the Golden Rule?
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Well, if you read verses 15-27 you will see Jesus calling people the following: false prophets, ravenous wolves, thornbushes, thistles, diseased trees, bad fruit, workers of lawlessness, and foolish men (the Greek word for “foolish” is the word “mōros,” from where we get the English word for “moron”).

So, if Jesus Himself calls people dogs, pigs, false prophets, ravenous wolves, thornbushes, thistles, diseased trees, bad fruit, workers of lawlessness, and morons, what does that say about the original assertion that Jesus forbade judging absolutely? Is he contradicting Himself? No. He is condemning hypocritical judgment, like the Pharisees (Matt. 23), but, as we see the chapter as a whole and the surrounding context, we see Jesus himself telling his audience to judge them by their fruits, to distinguish dogs from non-dogs, to distinguish pigs from non-pigs, to distinguish sheep from wolves, good fruit from bad fruit, healthy trees from unhealthy trees, wise men from morons. And, what’s more, He himself will judge the righteous and the wicked, separating one from the other at His coming (vv.21-23; Matt. 13,24,25). He forbids hypocritical judgment but commands people to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24; Prov. 31:9).

I must insist: when (it’s already happening) a pedophile comes asking for his or her “rights,” and you tell them “NO! That’s morally wrong!” They will have every “right” to say to you, “When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.” If you really wanna be non-judgmental, all-loving, and tolerant, you must keep silent and let every form of depravity imaginable loose without any restraint or moral judgment: thieves, rapists, adulterers (I forgot, this one’s already “okay”), pedophiles, etc.


Romans 1 can’t be any clearer: The depravity of man reaches such low levels as to not only degrade himself by sexual sin but by twisting the word of God and suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. Truth is a hard thing to swallow, but truth is the only sane thing that remains in this world. Furthermore, the only truth that can be called “truth” is that of the Bible: it is the sole objective standard by which all things must be measured and lived by. If you are reading this today and you are a homosexual or you promote homosexuality, I would like to leave you with a few things to keep in mind:

1) No matter how hard you try, the Bible does not condone homosexuality, it condemns it.
2) You are a sinner and you are suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. There is hope only in Jesus Christ. If you repent of your sins and trust in Him alone, you will be saved from your sin, including homosexuality, for which the wrath of God is coming (Col. 3). There is no other name by which you can be saved from your sin (and ultimately from God’s wrath itself) and to a living hope than in Christ (Acts 4:12).

The Biblical message is a message both of judgment and hope. We have already seen how these objections seek to destroy any objective truth and deny the truth of God’s Word. It is dreadful to think of a world where anarchy and chaos rule (we’re not too far from it). There is only one source of pure, unadulterated, never-changing, eternal, objective truth, and that is God Himself, revealed through His Word.

I hope you find what I wrote as challenging. I hope it challenges you to check your worldview and see whether you are being consistent or not. And I pray that the Holy Spirit gives you a new heart to see the things of God and repent of your sins to turn to Christ, who is blessed forever, amen.

Soli Deo Gloria,


Eliezer Salazar

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “"Ten Things I Wish the Church Would Know About Homosexuality" answered

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s