Is homosexuality worse than heterosexual infidelity?

[Moses Yoder]

I don't normally copy and paste an article but this is great stuff. At the end I have a question.

The morning after Chick-fil-A day
AUGUST 2, 2012 BY MIKE PATZ 1 COMMENT

Its the morning after the Chick-fil-A drama and Im still chewing.

I remember the day I was sitting next to an incredibly nice gay guy, enjoying a really good conversation when he dropped the ultimate conversation-killer.

What do you do for a living?

I hate that question. I hate that question because people cant help but size you up when they hear the answer. I hate that question because were already prone to think of ourselves as human doings instead of human beings. I hate that question because of what it does to people when they find out what I do.

Ive often tried to find ways around the question. Ive told people I work with non-profit organizations (this is true). Ive told people that I write (this is true). Ive even told people that I am a spiritual guru that assists people in opening their third eye (I really like this one). For whatever reason, on that day, I just cut to the chase. I work as a pastor of a church.

Everything changed. His next words went something like this:

Listen, Im gay and Im content with who I am. Im sure you are going to say that I was not born this way, and I wont argue the point. For a significant part of my childhood I was violated by a neighbor and then an uncle. Did that play a role in my sexual orientation? Possibly. I also know many people that had a trouble-free childhood and they turned out very happily gay. Regardless of how it occurred, this is who I am now and I make no apologies for the man I have become. If God has a problem with a man who tries to be true to himself, then I have a problem with a God that allows these kinds of things to happen to kids like me in the first place.

I kept thinking how much easier it would have been if I said I was a writer.


Fortunately, Jesus has a way of showing up in the middle of conversations just like these, and on that day He did not disappoint. My friend shared his heart, and I shared mine. Ive never seen people change via argument, which is why I prefer to help people taste and see that the Lord is good.

This is where Christians tend to blow it.

They taste really bad. They serve up some really Biblical truth in some really nauseating ways. They major on minors and minor on majors. They tend to be extremely unaware of their pride, and pride is like bad breath " everybody knows you have it, except for you. Its always easy to scream the loudest about sins you do not personally struggle with.

So why are we yelling?

Im still not sure why Christians are so militant in their opposition of homosexual immorality while they seem to go so mild with their opposition of heterosexual immorality. I hear the concern about homosexuality and the catch phrase is often family values: Imagine how much it will mess up a child who is being raised by two women, the reasoning goes. A kid needs both a father and a mother, we say. Yet the gays I speak with often wonder how the church can talk about family values when 50-60% of Christian couples divorce. Talk about family values. So a community of people that do not stay married is trying to talk to us about marital morality. How ironic.

In light of the fact that Christians have just as much pre-marital sex and watch just as much porn and divorce just as frequently why arent we more embarrassed to speak out on the issue of homosexual sin? Good question.

One guy said, Its funny how you can claim the grace of God to cover heterosexual sin while saying that homosexual sin is beyond the reach of Gods grace.

That brings me to all the Chick"fil-A drama.

I get why Chick-fil-A day looked so annoying to so many people yesterday. I understand why people have planned a kiss-in this Friday. And I can see why people shake their heads when they read yet another homophobic Facebook post.

Church people ask, why wont our culture repent? My answer: because repentance is a learned behavior. Someone has to model it. I tell parents that its silly to expect a child to repent when they have never seen a parent repent. And its futile to wait for a culture to repent when a culture has never seen the Church repent.

Is the real problem with our culture the unrepentant gay community? No. Its an unrepentant Church.

I am so sorry today for all the hatred that Christians have dished out toward gays. I am so sorry for all of the homophobic sarcasm that has come from the pulpits of Christian ministers. I am so sorry for the way we pick and choose which sins to condemn. I am so sorry that we have claimed to follow Jesus while we neglected widows and orphans, and then engaged in gossip and gluttony. I am so sorry that we have provided such a bad example for the rest of society to follow. Im embarrassed, Im ashamed, and I repent. Im serious. I repent.

Yet Im also concerned that when our culture most needs to hear truth, Christians dont know how to tell it.

Weve come to a dangerous moment in culture, and Christians are ill-equipped to handle it. We have reached the point where disagreement is now seen as hatred. I read an article today where a woman was appealing to Christians to recognize their hateful crimes against the homosexual community. I nodded in agreement, but decided to keep reading to see how she itemized these crimes. Paragraph after paragraph described the hurt and rejection resulting from these offenses, but it took a while to get to the actual crime: Christians claim that homosexuality is a sin. I was stunned. Disagreement was equated with hate.

Christians have a substantial challenge on their hands because every generation and every culture is going to disagree with Gods truth at some point. How interesting that our USAmerican culture considers Christianity to be closed-minded on the issue of sexual morality, while the majority of world religions are in agreement in opposition to the USA position on sexuality. Is USA culture not closed-minded for claiming that all these other religions are wrong? Is it not hypocrisy to say that we will be tolerant with everybody " except the people we consider intolerant. Closed-mindedness is not just a religious thing, its a human thing.

If ever Christians needed some good breath, it is now.

Because we have to kiss this world with the truth of God.

The problem is, no matter how good your kiss, your breath can ruin the whole experience. And no matter how much truth we bring, if it does not drip with grace and humility, it always falls flat.

Im not asking Christians to stop telling the truth, Im asking them to brush their teeth.

What does that look like? The apostle Paul said to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy towards all people. (Titus 3:2)

Can you imagine what would happen if an entire chunk of Christians decided to embrace the Titus 3:2 approach? Will people be staging protests and kiss-ins to protest Chick-fil-A? Maybe. But the way of Jesus is to speak evil of no one. Has Chick-fil-A been bullied? Yes. But the kingdom of Jesus response is to avoid quarreling. Is there more drama to come as our culture becomes increasingly polarized? Of course. But if God is our Father, then we have to start showing the family resemblance, being gentle and showing perfect courtesy. This should have an effect on the way we post our thoughts on Facebook. Or talk to angry people at work. Or wait in line at Chick-fil-A.

You see, we cant shrink back on truth-telling or we dishonor the very Gospel. But when we bring the truth of Jesus we have to do it in the Spirit of Jesus.

Or stop being surprised when our culture doesnt want a kiss.

Is homosexuality worse than heterosexual infidelity? If not, why do Christians hate gay people so much? If the two are equally bad, why do so many Christians who would never be gay cheat on their wife?

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

How about responding to my Post 200, 99percent? Once again ...how come scriptural adulterers, i.e. divorcees/remarrieds, can continue to 'live in sin' once they repent but repentent (?)

KID, man, I'm sorry but you seem utterly incapable of understanding the act of repentance and forgiveness as it is defined in Christian theology. That is an opinion of mine about your position there that may be wrong, but you consistently argue against forgiveness renewing a person.

Adultery is a sin that is forgiveable.

Forgiveness eliminates sin forever. Until the next sin is embraced. But that is a new sin. Not the old ones reattached like the punishment of a suspended sentence. Forgiveness is not a suspended sentence. It is totally erase.

Any, that is, except one, is forgiveable. Per Jesus. And it is not adultery. When you look at how Jesus responded to the adulteress woman and the promiscuous Samaritan woman at the well, you just don't see the draconian concept you seem to peddle.

. . . homosexuals have to, from then on, live a life of celibacy?

As you must know by now, my issues for the most part have nothing to do with adult people that desire to engage in gay sex male or female. It is about false teachings and false teachers "IN" Christianity that promote imitation theology to promote unGodly beliefs and practices. That is why I posted in the "apologetics" section.

How come no lifetime of celibacy for the adulterers?

Where is that called for? David and Bathsheba? The woman caught in adultery? I see a possibility for a Deacon or an Elder being disqualified for Deacon or Elder if not married to one wife (a female wife), but I don't see the foundation for your zealousness to cement people in their sins for all eternity for your desire to insert gay activism where it shouldn't be plied or tried.

If this question is too hard then just tell me so.

To hard? It's answer has already been provided. I didn't write the New Testament OR any of the Gospels. No, really, I didn't. I have just come to realize they are really impressive and are honestly written.

Read Pslam 51 and get back to me.

You keep on and on about the NT disapproval of across the board homosexuality even though I've shown a number of times that the (very few) texts relating to homosexuality are open to interpretation.

Now that gay activists demand that that be so.

How typical and to be expected. If you want to look for truth, you MUST look to The Church. The Church seems the only obstacle for the total conquest of the west left for the gay agenda.

Indeed, they ALL appear to be related to public idolatry or/and temple prostitution and nothing to do with what one might do in private.

That is simply reading into theology through an agenda. Many cults do this. Mormons think Jesus was related to Satan as family. And other off-base theologies as well. But they demand they are a Church of Jesus Christ too. Look at the OP again please.

In fact, private intimacy between people would have nothing to do with Paul, Jude, etc. They would therefore have no cause to write about it.

What????

Paul invented a word arsenokoitai to literally describe personal sexual behavior of the homosexual nature. He already had pederasty to use but didn't. And it was absolutely disapproval of the behavior. Same gender sex acts can never be affirmed and approved of BY the New Testament witness. Not anywhere.

Now, would they? Anyway. how come your interpretation is the correct one and other interpretations are the wrong ones? How can you actually prove that you are correct and the others are not? In fact, can you do so? By the way, that's a challenge if you're interested in taking it up . . .

I'm sorry pal, I'm calling "Where's you proof? Where's your evidence? on you here.

I have provided scripture and history in this thread over and over again and you simply keep refusing to acknowledge it. This is like showing you a rose and your saying: "It's a bunny rabbit. Prove it's not."

This is what I teach about people like you and their ways of life and moral foundations. And this website has provided so many examples of this. I have obtained a wealth of examples of how liberalism is applied to Biblical morality.

But you must at least agree that my positions are that you can believe anything you want to up to the point that you demand others to alter, change and redefine their beliefs because you don't like them and a portion of "society" has differing ideas of morality. Like I have written before, pop culture 21st century style, isn't going to alter Christian truth. There may be new products sold in new Churches, but they are ultimately selling a different gospel and a different theology from the description of both in the New Testament.

[Ooberman]

People don't have dog heads.

People don't rise from the dead, either.

Jesus did. As did others. I believe the reports in the New Testament.

You are free to disapprove of them all you want to.

Now how about addressing the OP and leaving the Christian bash-fest for another thread?

We are debating Christianity. Debating it often appears to be bashing it to the religious believer.

Yes, I know you believe things. I'm sure the artist of that painting probably said the same thing you did, except that he believes in dog-headed saints.

And he probably gave the exact same argument as you: none.


So, why do you believe the reports of the NT? Was it the reports of saints rising from their graves or the Sun stopping in the sky that made you believe it was reliable?

Let's face it, you believe because you believe. But that is not why we have a debate forum.

I have provided you examples of how the Church has changed, I have provided topics for debate... you have responded with bare assertions.

You are in violation of the forum rules.

[Allahakbar]

KCKID

How about responding to my Post 200, 99percent? Once again ...how come scriptural adulterers, i.e. divorcees/remarrieds, can continue to 'live in sin' once they repent but repentent (?)

KID, man, I'm sorry but you seem utterly incapable of understanding the act of repentance and forgiveness as it is defined in Christian theology. That is an opinion of mine about your position there that may be wrong, but you consistently argue against forgiveness renewing a person.

Adultery is a sin that is forgiveable.

Forgiveness eliminates sin forever. Until the next sin is embraced. But that is a new sin. Not the old ones reattached like the punishment of a suspended sentence. Forgiveness is not a suspended sentence. It is totally erase.

Any, that is, except one, is forgiveable. Per Jesus. And it is not adultery. When you look at how Jesus responded to the adulteress woman and the promiscuous Samaritan woman at the well, you just don't see the draconian concept you seem to peddle.

. . . homosexuals have to, from then on, live a life of celibacy?

As you must know by now, my issues for the most part have nothing to do with adult people that desire to engage in gay sex male or female. It is about false teachings and false teachers "IN" Christianity that promote imitation theology to promote unGodly beliefs and practices. That is why I posted in the "apologetics" section.

How come no lifetime of celibacy for the adulterers?

Where is that called for? David and Bathsheba? The woman caught in adultery? I see a possibility for a Deacon or an Elder being disqualified for Deacon or Elder if not married to one wife (a female wife), but I don't see the foundation for your zealousness to cement people in their sins for all eternity for your desire to insert gay activism where it shouldn't be plied or tried.

If this question is too hard then just tell me so.

To hard? It's answer has already been provided. I didn't write the New Testament OR any of the Gospels. No, really, I didn't. I have just come to realize they are really impressive and are honestly written.

Read Pslam 51 and get back to me.

You keep on and on about the NT disapproval of across the board homosexuality even though I've shown a number of times that the (very few) texts relating to homosexuality are open to interpretation.

Now that gay activists demand that that be so.

How typical and to be expected. If you want to look for truth, you MUST look to The Church. The Church seems the only obstacle for the total conquest of the west left for the gay agenda.

Indeed, they ALL appear to be related to public idolatry or/and temple prostitution and nothing to do with what one might do in private.

That is simply reading into theology through an agenda. Many cults do this. Mormons think Jesus was related to Satan as family. And other off-base theologies as well. But they demand they are a Church of Jesus Christ too. Look at the OP again please.

In fact, private intimacy between people would have nothing to do with Paul, Jude, etc. They would therefore have no cause to write about it.

What????

Paul invented a word arsenokoitai to literally describe personal sexual behavior of the homosexual nature. He already had pederasty to use but didn't. And it was absolutely disapproval of the behavior. Same gender sex acts can never be affirmed and approved of BY the New Testament witness. Not anywhere.

Now, would they? Anyway. how come your interpretation is the correct one and other interpretations are the wrong ones? How can you actually prove that you are correct and the others are not? In fact, can you do so? By the way, that's a challenge if you're interested in taking it up . . .

I'm sorry pal, I'm calling "Where's you proof? Where's your evidence? on you here.

I have provided scripture and history in this thread over and over again and you simply keep refusing to acknowledge it. This is like showing you a rose and your saying: "It's a bunny rabbit. Prove it's not."

This is what I teach about people like you and their ways of life and moral foundations. And this website has provided so many examples of this. I have obtained a wealth of examples of how liberalism is applied to Biblical morality.

But you must at least agree that my positions are that you can believe anything you want to up to the point that you demand others to alter, change and redefine their beliefs because you don't like them and a portion of "society" has differing ideas of morality. Like I have written before, pop culture 21st century style, isn't going to alter Christian truth. There may be new products sold in new Churches, but they are ultimately selling a different gospel and a different theology from the description of both in the New Testament.

Do you sell the same NT and gospels as the original salesmen, the catholics?

[KCKID]

KCKID

How about responding to my Post 200, 99percent? Once again ...how come scriptural adulterers, i.e. divorcees/remarrieds, can continue to 'live in sin' once they repent but repentent (?)

KID, man, I'm sorry but you seem utterly incapable of understanding the act of repentance and forgiveness as it is defined in Christian theology. That is an opinion of mine about your position there that may be wrong, but you consistently argue against forgiveness renewing a person.

No, no ...I'm not arguing against forgiveness and you know it. You, however, are evading my question with subterfuge. I guess that you do this as a matter of course since there is much that you believe (as per the Bible) that doesn't make sense and you need to defend this.

Adultery is a sin that is forgiveable.

And, if homosexuality is a sin then that would be forgivable also ...right?

Forgiveness eliminates sin forever. Until the next sin is embraced. But that is a new sin. Not the old ones reattached like the punishment of a suspended sentence.

But, but ...would not the forgiving of the first sin be dependent on one giving up that sin?

Forgiveness is not a suspended sentence. It is totally erase.

But again ...would this total erasure of the sin one has repented of need to be discontinued?

Any, that is, except one, is forgiveable. Per Jesus. And it is not adultery. When you look at how Jesus responded to the adulteress woman and the promiscuous Samaritan woman at the well, you just don't see the draconian concept you seem to peddle.

Subterfuge. You're evading my question. Please respond to the following and I'll keep it as simple as I can so as not to be misunderstood: Two Christian people divorce and they remarry. Now, according to the Bible no-fault divorce is a no-no. Remarriage is a definite no-no. These two Christians repent of their scriptural adultery, i.e. no-fault divorce and verboten remarriage. HOWEVER, they remain in their adulterous relationship even after having repented because the idea of annulment is too great a sacrifice for them. Most understandable, I quickly add. My question yet again. Is it okay for these two folks to continue in their adulterous relationship or should they demonstrate true repentence by 1. getting this marriage annuled, and 2. remaining celibate from here ever after?

Do you understand my question?

Okay, assuming you DO understand the question and are still okay about the Christian couple remaining in their adulterous relationship which has now become a non-adulterous relationship since they've had this sin erased by their having repented (??) ...why would not a repentent homosexual be accorded the SAME erasure of their 'sin' after having repented and, as with the heterosexual couple, be entitled to share an intimate relationship with another of like sexual orientation? Why one (the Christian heterosexual couple) but not the homosexual couple who have done PRECISELY the same act of repentence but not having eliminated the sin for which they repented?

Whew ...!

[Ooberman]

Apparently, Christians can do all the fun sins as much as they want, repent, and do them again... but gays aren't allowed to marry the people they love.

I think we see the pattern. Adultery is OK, gay is not.

[tokutter]

[Replying to post 214 by Ooberman]


Yes Ooberman, I know what you mean. I tried to get a copy of the sin rule book from one of the christian posters on here some time ago....I got the old "christian shuffle" on the workings of sin and repentance and such...sooooo I got off that crazy train.

Some time ago I got into a heated discussion with my sister about same sex marriage (she's a fundamenalist christian). The stuff that came out of her mouth about homosexuals left me speechless. I think she truly believes they are all pure evil and want to steal all the children and drag them into the sewers and eat them.

Ooooh by the way this discussion took place right before her and my other sister were leaving for a weekend gathering of their womens chirstian group (something they do regularly)......I mention this because the other sister has lived her entire adult life outside the sanctity of wedlock...with two different men....one by which she has a son.........BUT HEY, THAT'S ALL GOOOOOOOOD......wink wink nudge nudge......

THE DISCONNECT THESE PEOPLE CAN PULL OF IS A TRUE ART FORM

[bluethread]

Apparently, Christians can do all the fun sins as much as they want, repent, and do them again... but gays aren't allowed to marry the people they love.

I think we see the pattern. Adultery is OK, gay is not.

No adultery is OK. Making a contractual commitment to adultery is the same as making a contractual commitment to homosexuality. Is it fair for a married man to be denied the right to marry the one he loves, just because it is not his wife, if "love" is the standard?

[Goat]

Apparently, Christians can do all the fun sins as much as they want, repent, and do them again... but gays aren't allowed to marry the people they love.

I think we see the pattern. Adultery is OK, gay is not.

No adultery is OK. Making a contractual commitment to adultery is the same as making a contractual commitment to homosexuality. Is it fair for a married man to be denied the right to marry the one he loves, just because it is not his wife, if "love" is the standard?

Is it the same?? In one, you have a person who is violating their vow to another. The other , potentially have two people making vows to each other. There are gay couples that have lived in monogmous , devoted relationships for many decades. For example, Jim Nabor just married his partner of 39 years... because gay marriage became legal in his state. There was another couple that got married after being together 50 years!

One is breaking a vow, the other is making a vow.

[KCKID]

S

Apparently, Christians can do all the fun sins as much as they want, repent, and do them again... but gays aren't allowed to marry the people they love.

I think we see the pattern. Adultery is OK, gay is not.

No adultery is OK. Making a contractual commitment to adultery is the same as making a contractual commitment to homosexuality. Is it fair for a married man to be denied the right to marry the one he loves, just because it is not his wife, if "love" is the standard?

So, are you acknowledging the inconsistencies/double standards/hypocrisy of Christians with regard to divorce/remarriage as being 'sort of' okay but homosexuality definitely not okay ...?

[99percentatheism]

Apparently, Christians can do all the fun sins as much as they want, repent, and do them again... but gays aren't allowed to marry the people they love.

I think we see the pattern. Adultery is OK, gay is not.

Straw man argument filed under S.

It is fascinating that the only comparison for gay behavior is the most odious and unfaithful of behaviors.