My fellow Red County blogger Dr. Richard Swier brings our attention to fresh evidence of one of the best-kept secrets in health research: the increased health risks in the homosexual community.
I say "best kept secret" because if the same health risks associated with homosexual behavior were even hinted at for, say, drinking Diet Coke, or perhaps attending church more than once a week, the "mainstream" media would be shouting about it with megaphones from every available highest rooftop nonstop.
But since these health risks are linked to homosexual behavior--at protected, politically-correct behavior--there is, of course, a near-total media blackout concerning them.
Does the "mainstream" media really hate homosexuals, and just wants them to remain ignorant about the health risks associated with their behavior? One has to wonder...
Dr. Swier's post points to a report released last month by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health entitled "A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys."
Highlights of the report from the Department of Public Health include:
- The odds of being a current smoker were 2.5 times greater for gays and lesbians compared to heterosexuals.
- Bisexuals were 3.1 times more likely than heterosexuals to report feeling tense or worried.
- Lesbians were 2.2 times more likely than heterosexual women to be obese.
- Bisexuals were 4.4 times and gays/lesbians 1.5 times more likely than heterosexuals to report their health as "poor" or "fair."
Researchers found that in many cases the disparities were even greater for bisexuals than for gay/lesbians when compared with their heterosexual counterparts.
The report also says that bisexuals also face increased problems concerning "mental health and violence victimization."
For a state as liberal as Massachusetts to actually go to the trouble of investigating this health threat, and what's more, publishing a public report on it, surely indicates the extreme nature of the problem.
Another interesting aspect of the issue is that with Massachusetts' highly socialized health care system, these increased health risks caused by homosexual behavior are costing the taxpayers additional money. In other words, the taxpayers of Mass. are paying for the health consequences of homosexual behavior, whether they're engaging in the behavior or not.
As Dr. Swier points out, the report says the disparity between the health of homosexuals and heterosexuals needs to be reduced or eliminated. Yet there doesn't seem to be any sort of suggestion about reducing or eliminating the behavior which is causing the increased health problems.
Can you imagine such a response to smoking related illnesses? Just smoke a lower-tar cigarette! Use a better filter! That lung cancer and emphysema have nothing to do with the pack you smoked every day! It's only Right-wing Christian propaganda! Just practice safe smoking! Give them more access to health care! They have a right to smoke! God created them to be smokers! After all, they can't quit...and suggesting they can quit is just bigoted "hate speech," right?
The hypocrisy is amazing and the silence from media and government officials is deafening!
When I frequently try to point out the increased health risks associated with homosexual behavior (such as AIDS, several other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence), homosexual activists almost invariably try to disregard them under the claim that such statistics come from some "right wing" or "Christian" source that is "biased." When I point out that much of the information I cite about homosexual behavior comes from sources such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Gay Report, the Department of Justice, the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention, the American Sociological Review, the Archives of General Psychology, the Handbook of Family Diversity, the Washington Blade, the Journal of Sex Research and other non-religious and non-conservative sources, silence invariably follows...or a different angle of attack on the truth about an obviously immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice. Some would rather risk their health and life than alter their behavior.
What spin will homosexual activists and apologists contrive to avoid the unpleasant truth contained in this government report?
How long will the "mainstream" "objective" media ignore its duty to report fully and truthfully on such issues of public health and safety?
How long will homosexual activists pretend the emperor's clothes are just wonderful...as homosexuals caught up in this behavior continue to suffer and die premature deaths?
29 comments:
I haven't had time to read this report yet, but already I'm wondering if there's a correlation between physical health risks and irresponsible sexual behavior among homosexuals. Because as a gay man in a long-term, monogamous (literally and absolutely monogamous, not "open" or "kinda monogamous") union, I can safely say that I have a clean bill of health and so does my partner. And it didn't happen by magic; it happened because we don't make stupid choices with our bodies. So taxpayers needn't worry that their money is going toward my AIDS cocktail or anything like that.
But speaking of using taxpayer money to pay for things that are frowned upon, maybe I have a problem with my hard-earned money footing the bill for all those divorces and abortions you heterosexuals can't seem to get enough of. How's about you guys get yourselves under control first before you lecture others on morality, mmk?
I think that link between health risks and irresponsible sexual behavior is highly likely, Anonymous 1:42. The problem is, promiscuity is very high in the homosexual community, so the majority of these health problems are unlikely to improve until the promiscuity problem improves. And research indicates that isn't likely to improve. Even in homosexual relationships where a claim to monogamy is made, that "monogamy" usually involves outside partners; apparently many in the homosexual community are willing to render the word "monogamy" as meaningless as they want to render "marriage."
I agree with you on the taxpayer funding for abortion, which is why I and most social conservatives are working to end taxpayer funding for that. And while there hasn't been a direct taxpayer cost for divorce identified that I know of, I do recall a report being released in the last year which found a $12 billion indirect cost to taxpayers. Fortunately, social conservatives are with you there, as well, since we would like to see an end to no-fault divorce and work hard to promote the sanctity of marriage.
So as you can see, we're trying to clean up the heterosexual house in addition to counseling the same in the homosexual house.
I agree that there's a huge problem with promiscuity in the gay community.... but that problem also exists among heterosexuals. One of the reasons marriage came about was to control and restrict people's sexual behavior into more healthy, exclusive relationships rather than some kind of free-for-all. That's why I think encouraging gay couples to enter into legal relationships is a logical way to amend this problem. To me, that's a more realistic solution than either turning a blind eye, expecting every gay person to "turn" straight, or demanding that they be celibate.
Promiscuity in the homosexual community is far higher than it is in the heterosexual community, and the extremely high rates of AIDS and other STD transmission in the homosexual community is probably evidence of that.
Unfortunately, allowing homosexuals to counterfeit marriage will only destroy that institution while doing nothing to remedy promiscuity. Even homosexual couples who claim to be "monogamous" are usually found to involve outside sexual partners--sometimes many partners. If they wanted to remain monogamous, they could do so without the official veneer of "marriage," yet the don't.
So that's really one additional reason not to counterfeit marriage for homosexuals: it wouldn't do anything significant to help the promiscuity problem anyway.
And while I don't think anyone expects every homosexual to revert to heterosexuality or remain celibate, (just as we don't expect every drunk or drug user to get off their substance of choice), we should still make the effort to educate them about the risks and try to help them get right.
The success rate for helping homosexuals get straightened out is actually better than the recovery rate for alcoholics or drug addicts. But regardless of the success rate, I agree that we shouldn't turn a blind eye, but should always try to help people get out of destructive and unhealthy livestyles.
Helping homosexuals get straightened out? Love the pun, Bob.
By the way, do you actually know any gay couples who are truly monogamous? Do you know any gay couples at all?
oh yes ....in capable of objective reason bob ellis
if you think about it. given the numbers of heterosexual couples to homosexual couples and given the number of couples who pactice some form of anal stimulation. there are probably more heterosexuals practicing anal sex than homosexuals.
i find it interesting this shock of health problems among homosexuals, knowing that for 500 plus years that homosexuals have abandoned by friends and family, rejected by society and the church, and subject to possible assault,incarceration,and even murder. are you so dense as to think that as soon as they were made legal, 500 years of trauma would be wiped out and cease to exist.
tell you what bob, come to me 50 years after homosexuals get the same support that heterosexuals get and you might have something to be concerned about.
in truth they should be congratulated for being so resilent , given the culture that they have been forced to live in.
Yes, Anonymous 2:52, that pun mildly registered on me as I wrote it, but I went ahead with it anyway.
I know a few homosexuals and have over the years, but no, I don't personally know any "couples."
You know, feetxxxl, groups who have in past generations who have suffered real abuse (and not for immoral acts, mind you) should be insulted at your pathetic whining.
Blacks suffered greatly under slavery in America, then under decades of segregation...but they didn't experience these kind of health problems--at least not until they abandoned morality for the comforts of amoral socialism (in fact, even with many in the black community having done so, I still don't think the health risks are as bad there as they are in the homosexual community). The Jews have also suffered greatly for thousands of years without these kinds of health problems.
But you whine because heterosexuals won't join your delusion in calling an unnatural, immoral and unhealthy sexual practice "okay." And we won't applaud you for attempting to counterfeit what is probably the most important institution in the world: marriage.
Cry me a river...
Why not find someone of the opposite sex to marry and then you will get that same support you talked about. It's unreasonable to expect it if you haven't done anything to merit it.
Why not simply face the reality that homosexual behavior is obviously unnatural, has no legitimate biological purpose, is unhealthy, and is immoral? Why not repent of your sins, get right, and live a healthy and wholesome life? God certainly wants much better for you than what homosexuality has to offer.
You don't personally know any gay couples? Do you feel compelled to go out and meet any, to see whether there are actually some gay people who value monogamy? Or are you content to resign yourself to prejudice?
"Prejudice" implies a judgment without knowledge. I already know all I need to know to understand that homosexual behavior is unnatural, immoral and unhealthy. And this report from the Mass. Department of Health only confirms everything else I know about the behavior.
Your statement also implies that were I to get to know homosexuals or homosexual couples better, that somehow their behavior would magically become moral, or that their behavior would somehow magically become natural, or that their behavior would somehow magically become healthy. None of these are true.
Reality and truth are not situational or based on proximity.
Why don't you adjust to reality, rather than trying to bend your perception of reality to fit your emotional inclinations?
I think you already know all that you WANT to know.
I'm not implying that knowing a gay couple personally would change your opinion of them - of course it wouldn't, if you're as firm in your beliefs as I think you are. I was just making an observation of how very typical it is that someone like you will go to such exhaustive lengths to research and write about people whom you claim to love and care about, without also actively trying to seek out friendships with them; can you honestly say that your interaction with homosexuals amounts to more than superficial acquaintance? How can you say that you want to share eternity with someone in Heaven when you act like you would just as soon not know them at all here on earth? If you had any close friends who were homosexual, maybe you would have thought twice before making the pun of "straightening them out," a term that many gay people find hurtful and offensive. Instead, you were aware of the irony and decided to roll with it anyway. Nice. Can a single gay resident of South Dakota say that he considers you his close personal friend? Would they say, "Here's a guy who cares deeply enough about my wellbeing and constantly shares God's word with me, even when I'm not in the mood to hear it; here's a guy who refuses to give up on me"? Or would they say, "That guy Bob, he just writes articles about the community I happen to belong to, and groups me in with those violent, hateful gay activists who spread AIDS, even though that's not what I'm like at all"?
Speaking personally, my own former pastor never fails to tell me how much he cares about me and prays for me. To him, I am not a casual acquaintance; I am a gay man he WANTS to have in his life. In fact, many Christians in my community make it a point to minister specifically to gay people. They don't hide behind studies and reports and computer screens. They don't write about them - they talk TO them! They know that the best way to reach someone is through face-to-face conversation, not through articles that make sweeping generalizations.
I'm glad your pastor is praying for you, and I'm also glad there are many Christians in your community who are ministering specifically to homosexuals. Both of those are vital; I just hope that by "ministering" you don't mean "enabling" which is what many theologically and morally bankrupt so-called Christians are doing today.
By your implications, I would have to become involved in any segment of society that I wanted to address: homosexuals, the divorced, prostitutes, drug addicts, drunks, thieves, embezzlers, the politically corrupt, terrorists, abortionists, and so on.
That is a fallacious and unreasonable assertion, and I think you know it. I minister to and associate with those with whom God brings me in contact, and I try to carry out the work I believe God has called me to; no more, no less.
Usually when a homosexual or homosexual apologist urges those who know the truth to "get to know" homosexuals, what they imply is that somehow the homosexual behavior will be come "okay" when thy get to know homosexuals better. And often, people do allow their emotions and sentimentalities to blind them to the truth, and they often surrender the truth on the altar of "being nice."
Sorry, that's just not going to happen here. As I explained earlier, right and wrong (and health, for that matter) do not magically change due to proximity or familiarity.
I care about the health, spiritual welfare and well-being of the homosexual residents of South Dakota, as well as the world, and also the other groups I mentioned above. Unfortunately, when you're caught up in sin it's hard to see that (I understand that--I used to be a drunk). But I cannot and will not sacrifice the truth of the message in order to make someone--including myself--feel good.
Too much pursuit of good-feelings has enabled homosexuals and many others to feel too comfortable in a sinful and destructive lifestyle...and when you're comfortable where you are, you aren't likely to change. And they need to change if the want to live a healthy life and have a good relationship with God.
this is what comes from ignorance bob. king henry instituted a law in the 1500's that mandated the punishment of hanging for acts of sex between those of the same gender. it remained on the books for 400 years.
the influence(there is no seperation in england between church and state) of this law resulted in the first biblical transposition(late 1800's) in 1tim and icor from the greek term (malebed)the original english translation (defiling oneself with mankind), to the word "homosexual". this was done without any written explanation.
no, i would say in terms of time and energy and influence across cultural lines homosexuals have been much more persecuted. and that anti homosexual attitudes are much more deeply engrained in this cultural.
and still there are those like yourself who say scripture says homosexuality is a sin but are yet incapable of explaining how the words of the verses say homosexuality is a sin.
its the old cultural habit of assigning a certain understanding to a scripture regardless of the words out of belief, sans objective reason and credible witness.
Did you get that so-called information about homosexuality and Bible translations from some homosexual apologetics website, feetxxxl? I’ve seen these kinds of lame explanations before and they’re just that: lame. They usually demonstrate an embarrassing (for the peddler of so-called “lost knowledge”) and basic lack of knowledge about the Scriptures and history.
The first time the Scriptures were translated into English was the Wycliffe translation in the late 14th Century, and I’m virtually certain it didn’t contain the word “homosexual” (though it did contain language which left no doubt whatsoever that God was talking about men having sex with men, and women having sex with women).
The first major English translation was the famous King James Version of 1611. But again, no use of the word “homosexual here.”
The first time the word “homosexual” appeared in a Bible translation, I’m pretty sure, was the Revised Standard Version which was published around the middle of the 20th Century. And the word is a combination of the Greek homos meaning “same” and sexual, which we all understand.
The Bible uses rather descriptive language concerning exactly what God disapproves of: “'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” And “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Regardless of the word used, the meaning is abundantly clear: men having sex with men, and women having sex with women. And God’s opinion of it is equally clear: it’s a violation of His design for the expression of human sexuality, and He strongly disapproves of it.
All the gyrations and attempts to avoid an unpleasant reality might fool some here on earth, but when folks get before God...He isn't now, or will He be then, either fooled or impressed with their ability to craft a deception. And the outcome won't be pretty.
Better to face the music now and get right before it's eternally too late.
first of all we know that not all prohibitions of lev were of themselves sins such as rules of eating,household chores on the sabbath, wearing mixed fabric. and things that were condoned such ethnic slavery, burning witches at the stakes and parents having their children killed for cursing them are today, intolerable evils.
lev is no criteria for what is a sin under the new covenant.
and bob, if homosexuality of itself is a sin why does romans mention that in order to abandon what had to have same sex relations they had to be given over to shame based lusts. rather than say they were given over to sin, having same sex sexual relations with each other.
is it saying that in order to sin by having same sex realtions you have be given over to shame based lust.
that would mean that all homosexxual marriages are full of shame based lust.
if you said that, i would say that you were guilty of false witness.
and if homosexual marriages are about bonding in the same spirit as heterosexual marriages. that is they come together out of mutual love respect, devotion,trust, and affection for a shared commited life together................rather than shame based lust, then romans 1 is not about homosexuality.
besides, we know that where there is lust, what ever commitment there is in the relations is to satiating the lust. the other individuals involved are merely instruments to satiate the lust.
the lust displaces possibilities of love and commitment and affection.
feetxxxl, you are correct that not all of the instructions in Leviticus were moral; some were ritual and dietary, and still others were intended to teach us lessons about God's character, holiness and avoiding sin.
The New Testament makes it clear that the ceremonial and dietary restrictions were done away with under the new covenant established by Christ. It also makes it clear that the moral law remains totally intact; God's character has not changed, his designs for human conduct and nature have not changed, and how we are expected to behave and treat one another have not changed. One of those moral issues is homosexual behavior, made just as clear in the New Testament to be immoral as in the Old Testament.
You said: "if homosexuality of itself is a sin why does romans mention that in order to abandon what had to have same sex relations they had to be given over to shame based lusts. rather than say they were given over to sin, having same sex sexual relations with each other." Have you ever said the same thing a different way? Have you ever said and intended the same thing, but with different words? Have you ever discussed one facet of an issue without comprehensively covering every aspect of that issue in one particular discussion? God makes it very clear that lusts are immoral; he doesn't have to say "Thou shalt not sodomize each other" to get the message across.
Here's what the passage from Romans 1 says:
God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
It's pretty obvious what God is talking about here...unless one is determined to manufacture some pretzel-logic to fool themselves into believing God didn't really say what it looks like he said.
Look at the whole counsel of God, as homosexual behavior is mentioned several times in both Old and New Testaments. It does not say that someone must feel lust in order for their homosexual behavior to be sin, though lust is usually involved. Homosexual behavior is immoral any time it is practiced, just as a father having sex with his daughter is always immoral, just as prostitution is always immoral, just as adultery is always immoral. It doesn't matter whether genuine love and affection is involved, it doesn't matter if it's consensual, it doesn't matter if it's done standing on your head or fully clothed--it's always immoral because for two men or two women to engage in sexual relations is a violation of God's design for the expression of human sexuality, which is between a man and a woman in marriage.
There is simply no way around it: homosexual behavior is immoral and disapproved of by God at all times in all places in all manners and in all circumstances.
Why not just accept the truth, ask God to help you gain freedom from this immoral and unhealthy practice, and embrace the abundant life God wants for you?
Have you ever said the same thing a different way? Have you ever said and intended the same thing, but with different words?
you ignore the whole dynamic of romans.
what translation are you using.
my translation says (niv)
"BECAUSE OF THIS, god gave them over to shameful lusts." "even their women (were given over to it and acted accordingly )
is it your contention that the following actions have no connection to the shameful lusts
is that your same contention also about verses 23 and 24and 25. that there is no connection between they "exchanged the truth for a lie and exchanged the glory of immortal god for images to look like mortal man"
and
" THEREFORE GOD GAVE THEM OVER ..................TO SEXUAL IMPURITY"
and
"they exchanged the truth for a lie and worshipped and served creatd thing"
you are saying their is no connection. each action is isolated and unconnected
why do you ignore burning heretics at the stake, condoning ethnic slavery , having ones child put to death for cursing them.....................................are these about ritual? enslaving someone is not moral. have you not read about solomon's slave labor camps.
why do ignore hebrews 8. is it your understanding that our relationship to the law is according to the spirit of deut 28.
paul says that we died to the law and are resurrected with christ to live under grace. not under the law as in in deut 28.
(dont we agree that christ and the cruxifiction came because man was unable to follow the law.)
according to romans and galations.............. now under the new covenant, the 2nd commandment is the summation of all the law.
that means that in regards to the law under the new covenant, the only law that is our concern is that whose essence is about loving ones neighbor as oneself. ( each partof the law carryingthe essence of the summation))
.
the law is now for making one conscious of loving ones neighbor as oneself.(romans)
itis helpful if you annotate your responses if this discussion is about scriptural truths
feetxxxl, your statements are a bit disjointed and hard to follow, but I'm going to try to answer you as best I can.
The translation I cited earlier was NIV, same as yours. I did not say homosexual behavior has no connection to "shameful lusts." Neither did I say that homosexual behavior necessarily solely involves lust with no genuine love or emotion. Please go back and read what I said again, so I don't have to repeat it here.
The sins you mentioned (heresy, slavery, childhood rebellion, etc) are not ritual, they are behavioral and moral. There is far more in the book of Leviticus that is moral in nature than homosexuality or even the sins you mentioned. But it also contains ritual and dietary instructions which, as the New Testament makes clear, are no longer applicable.
And for more information on God's disapproval of lust, read these passages.
We are "dead to the law" as Paul put it with regard to the old Mosaic Law, along with its ritual and dietary laws, and also with its harsh penalties; what is wrong is still wrong, but penalties for infractions sometimes change. The grace extended to us by Christ is in no way, shape, form or fashion a license to sin. If you think even for a second that God's grace means license to sin, you are gravely in error. You need to read Galatians and Romans, and read them closely.
And I think I've told you this at least once before: you are NOT following Christ's command to love one another when you engage in or condone someone else engaging in homosexual behavior: the behavior is condemned by God, so you are participating and/or encouraging another person to sin, which is NOT a loving act.
please show me in what i had written that says i was approving of condoning sin.
let me repeat it again. under the new covenant all law is for making us conscious of loving ones neighbor as oneself.
if david ahd loved his neighbor as himself he would never have stepped into what he did with bathsheba.
about romans 1, are you saying that what god gave them over to in 26 had no influence in what they did in 26 and 27, such as influence the abandonment and the commiting of indecent acts
"Homosexual behavior is immoral any time it is practiced, just as a father having sex with his daughter is always immoral, just as prostitution is always immoral, just as adultery is always immoral. It doesn't matter whether genuine love and affection is involved, it doesn't matter if it's consensual, it doesn't matter if it's done standing on your head or fully clothed--it's always immoral because for two men or two women to engage in sexual relations is a violation of God's design for the expression of human sexuality, which is between a man and a woman in marriage."
Mr. Ellis, if two gay men are walking down the street holding hands, is that the same thing, morally speaking, as a man who rapes his underage daughter? Or a woman who has sex with a married man and hopes that his wife won't find out? In other words, do you believe that all sins are equal in the eyes of God?
I notice that the Bible makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual homosexual behavior, but rather speaks of it in general terms. Does this mean that if you were raped by another man, that you would be as guilty of homosexual behavior as your attacker? Would God consider you a "homosexual offender"?
Finally, I don't understand why the penalty for breaking these Mosaic laws has changed. In ancient Hebrew times, children who disobeyed their parents, men who cheated on their wives, and men who had sex with men were all killed because that's what God commanded, but today they are not. If God is omniscient, he would have known that he planned on changing the rules eventually. So why did he demand capital punishment for so many people when he knew the whole time that it wasn't always going to be like that?
"Look at the whole counsel of God, as homosexual behavior is mentioned several times in both Old and New Testaments. It does not say that someone must feel lust in order for their homosexual behavior to be sin, though lust is usually involved."
you are saying that the majority of legal homosexual marriages performed in mass. are full of shame based lust.
according to what...........romans .............your witness.............does "usually" mean 80-90 percent.
but we already know that anything full of lust. whatever commitment there is, is to the lust. the people involved are mere instruments for satiating the lust.
lust displaces commitment. lust displaces love.
how is that homosexuals compared to heterosexuals have never been characterized as more lust ridden.
in fact homosexuals compared to heterosexuals havenever been found wanting.
they are not less a friend, father, attorney, counselor,administrator, neighbor, friend etc.
would you say the same of those given over to the sin nature of gal 5 compared to those that were not?
feetxxxl, your statements are so confusing that maybe you think you didn't approve of or condone sin...but what you said certainly strongly implies that. If you are implying that because Christ has established a new covenant based on grace that homosexuality is now not wrong, then you are approving or condoning sin...and that is precisely what it sounds like you're saying.
And no, I am not saying there is no connection in Romans 1:26 and Romans 1:27. Perhaps you don't understand (if I'm understanding the intent of your very-hard-to-follow comments) that God did NOT force them into sinful acts. They already had hearts that rejected God and his commands, and so God quit striving with them, trying with the power of his Spirit to draw them away from sin and toward obedience. When God quit trying to reach them at all, these people immersed themselves wholly in sin, including homosexual acts.
In the end, it's simple: There is nothing whatsoever anywhere in the Bible that you will find to justify homosexual behavior. God disapproves of homosexuality by all people at all times under all circumstances. You will not find a single positive mention of homosexual behavior in the Bible. Meanwhile, you will find many references where God makes it clear that his design for human sexuality is a man and a woman in marriage, and that he strongly disapproves of homosexual behavior or any other misuse of human sexuality.
Is that clear enough?
feetxxxl, with regard to your 11:42 comment, I've attempted to have a coherent discussion with you for about as long as I can manage. In this my last response, let me be as plain as possible: homosexual behavior is always wrong at all times and under all circumstances. Period.
Mr. Ellis,
Anonymous 10:22 here. I hope you won't let feetxxxl's incoherent comments keep you from responding to mine, if you care to answer.
Sorry about that, Anon 10:22; I meant to respond to you earlier but must have gotten distracted.
All sins are wrong in God's eyes and all sins leave us short of God's standard and in need of the grace of Jesus Christ. However, obviously some sins have a greater impact than others and some do more damage and more hurt to other people than some other sins...but they are still sins and still wrong.
As for the consensual/non-consensual issue, I chose my words poorly and apologize for the confusion. When I spoke of consensual/non-consensual homosexual sex, I was referring to the excuse given by some homosexual apologists that (a) some ancient cultures used non-consensual homosexual sex to humiliate a defeated enemy, and (b) the Bible was talking about this kind of homosexual behavior and not consensual homosexual behavior--specifically with the focus on the person initiating the homosexual conduct.
Obviously the recipient of non-consensual homosexual sex is not guilty. However, there is no distinction or absence of guilt for the person who willingly engages in homosexual behavior, whether their partner is willing or unwilling. To willingly engage in homosexual behavior is always wrong, period.
God is omniscient, and did know he would be re-ordering things. In fact, God foretold in Genesis chapter 3 that Jesus would be coming someday to begin the restoration of the human race, even though that didn't happen for another 4,000 years.
As I said before, God established rules and penalties in the Old Testament to teach human beings lessons about his character, his nature, what he considers important, about spiritual cleanliness (with physical cleanliness for examples), about right and wrong, and what violates his design for creation.
Why did God put certain foods off limits in the Old Testament, yet rescinded that in Acts chapter 10? For reasons best understood only by Him, God decided that lesson was no longer needed. Maybe it was because he was now sending his Holy Spirit to teach and guide his people, and because of that his people no longer needed the requirements of the old Mosaic Law to help them understand. But while the ritual and dietary laws have changed under the new covenant, the moral law of what is right and what is wrong has never changed. Murder is still wrong, theft is still wrong, dishonest measurements are still wrong...and homosexual behavior is still wrong.
As to required punishments, most parents punish infractions from their children differently when that child is a toddler, to when the child is in grade school, to when they are a teenager. The wrongful behavior has not changed, but how you deal with it may, based on the physical development of the child and upon their level of understanding and motivation.
Thanks for getting back to me. Everything you said makes sense, except the part about the recipient of non-consensual homosexual sex not being guilty. I want to agree with that too, but none of the verses about homosexuality say that. So how do you know?
Uh, common sense? Since when has God ever held the victim of an offense morally accountable for that offense? Do you think he holds female rape victims morally accountable for being raped?
Well, didn't God say that if a man has sex with an animal, the animal is to be killed too? If a poor goat got the same punishment as his, uh, human friend, then something tells me common sense will only get you so far when studying the Bible.
You can't read God's mind, can you? Didn't think so. If it's not written down in the Bible, you're just guessing.
You must be desperate to justify homosexuality, Anonymous. Few people would search for such obscure references to attempt to justify a practice which is rather obviously immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. You've made it obvious that you aren't inclined toward morality or to common sense. What do you think that says about your mental and spiritual state? In all seriousness, I think you should ponder that question for a while.
Frequently God instructs us to completely destroy things that have been involved in despicable and immoral acts...but not people. Animals do not have a soul and are not created in the image of God as human beings are. An animal could be destroyed because of its connnection to the henous act of bestiality, but an unwilling human being would not be destroyed because (now listen closely, here), the human being is an immortal being, created in the image of God. Undertand? animal=not created in the image of God; human=created in the image of God.
And no, I can't read God's mind. I never said I could, as much as I wish it were possible. But God did give me (and you) a Bible we could study (you should try it some time--not search it for excuses to commit immoral acts, but genuinely study it with an intent to learn), and a brain to use to figure things out (yes, you have one, too), and a conscience to guide us toward truth and morality (you have one of those, too). If you used all of these wonderful resources in concert, you might just find the truth and be set free from your slavery to immorality...and slavery to desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable.
Post a Comment