Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[McCulloch]

The Bible teaches that a wife should respect, love, serve, counsel, and submit to her husband. The Bible also teaches that a husband should love, cherish, protect, understand, listen to and provide for his wife.

Where specifically does the Bible teach that a husband should listen to or understand his wife?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 6 Post 55:

First let me say I 'preciate GentleDove's position as it relates to her theology. By no means do I consider her position as anything but an honest take, devoid of the hatred this topic so often brings up.

Consider the contrary. Why should governments hand out licenses at all if anyone can marry anyone (or anything, for that matter)?

Because they offer them to some.

But my question was, why offer them to any?

Exactly. Since they are offered to some, I contend there should be no religious test (here objections based on "God said so") used by the government. Let the churches make their decisions, let the government be reflective of all its citizenry.

You seem to be arguing here for an impartial standard of justice. But if there is no God, then why should your subjective opinion of “impartiality� and “justice� have any persuasiveness to me at all?

I'm arguing for an equal standard of judgement. Where the state issues privileges it should not discriminate based on religious notions of what one's (unprovable) god thinks.

Why would someone’s opinion of the “right� of the state to give a marriage license have any hold on me?
If my opinion is that the state has no “right� to give out marriage licenses, then it’s my opinion against other opinions, and I decide that my opinion wins. Also, I define marriage my own way.

This is exactly what some theists are doing to others - forcing their opinion onto them, but in a discriminatory fashion.

Why shouldn’t three women and a 5 year old boy marry a Doberman pincer?

Because a 5 year old and a Pincer can't be reasonably assumed to offer informed consent. The three women should be able to declare themselves.

Here again, you evidence a need to insert a “moral� standard or check on children or animals being married. You write “should.� But where is this “should� coming from? How is your opinion transcendent and universal such that your opinion that a child and an animal are not capable of “informed consent,� whatever that means, “should� obligate the three women to not marry each other plus a boy and a dog?

Okay, this is really a red herring, and a bit off topic, so I will only address it this last time:

A five year old child lacks legal status to agree to marriage, based on reasonable assumptions they don't understand exactly what all marriage entails.
The Doberman just as well be the five year old.
The three women should be allowed to declare a marriage amongst themselves if the state is to afford legal protection to all, and refrain from religious based discrimination.

It’s really none of your business (or the state’s or anyone else’s), if three women, a boy, and a dog get married.

It is because of the reasons stated above.

If they live next to you and you see or hear some strange goings-on, buy a set of earplugs and some window blinds. Or watch. Who’s to say that’s wrong? Join them. Why not? What’s “marriage� anyway, but a relativistic, subjective concept, undefined by any but those involved?

If the females were hot I'd do my best to join. I leave the issue of the boy and dog to my above reply.

Warning...

I have read and understand the disclaimer.

Why should your pious, self-righteous, own personal, subjective opinion about “informed consent� restrict other peoples’ sex lives?

For the reasons stated above. I notice you didn't answer my question about whether you felt an eight year old girl could give informed consent.

What is your opinion or the shared opinion of any other group of people, to overturn what they have decided for themselves is all marriage could be or ever “should� be?

Aren't you doing the same by advocating against gay marriage? Or in addressing homosexuality as an abomination?

My point is that we should all seek the maximum amount of freedom for all ("all" here being adults engaging in sex or marriage).

Are you saying they don’t have a “right� to love each other? Are you going to try to impose your own, subjective definition of “love� on other human beings? Who are you to declare what someone’s “rights� are or whose “consents� are deemed by you to be valued? How arbitrary!

That's kinda what we all do when we debate for restrictions on any class of people. My position is such restrictions should be kept to a minimum, and as a matter of government should not be tied to unprovable claims about what an unprovable god thinks.

If there are billions of definitions of marriage, then isn’t it silly to have “the government� hand out marriage licenses at all? Anyone could and “should� marry anyone or anything, with or without “consent,� or any other arbitrary, subjective, “moral imposition.�

Fair 'nuff, but we can't escape the fact the government is in the business of marriage licenses. As such, I contend we should not discriminate against otherwise harmless human beings based on what someone claims their preferred god wants.

Unless of course such claims could actually be proven.

Even then, I'd prefer rebelling against any god that is so petty he'd get bent out of shape over homosexuals.

Then you withdraw your “moral� opinion that “informed consent� is necessary to have a marriage? It is not “sinful� or “immoral� for three women to marry a dog and a boy? It is not “sinful� or “immoral� for a man to marry 6,000 8-year-old girls?

Can we please drop the pedophilia/bestiality red herring?

I asked before, I ask again, do you think eight year olds are able to give informed consent?

Can GentleDove offer verifiable evidence his (sorry, her) proposed God has a monopoly on ethics or morality?

The impossibility of the contrary. If there is no moral, transcendent, creator God Who made humankind in His image

And your evidence for this claim?

(so that morality is revealed to our consciences)

Can you offer verifiable evidence your preferred God reveals such?

who is capable of revealing Himself through non-physical (spiritual) means

Verification for this claim?

Verification for the rest of the many claims in that paragraph?

Yet that isn’t what we find in reality.

You make claims, but offer no way to verify you speak truth.

How can a non-Christian proceed on the basis that tomorrow will be like today or that a similar scientific experiment under similar circumstances will have similar results? Only by borrowing the Christian worldview on this point (and many others).

Because we can reasonably assume similar conditions (sunrise, taxes, Chevy's breaking down) of the past will present themselves tomorrow.

If I post in these forums tomorrow, can we say I accurately predicted tomorrow based on recent past events?

And if those twins are, in his judgment incapable of “informed consent,� then it’s another man’s “evil.� Yet if there’s no God, nothing obligates anyone to anyone’s opinion of “evil,� not even to his own opinion of “evil.�

Exactly. You imply that "homosexuality as an abomination" is evil, others don't.

Can you offer verifiable evidence for your claim that homosexuality is considered an abomination by your preferred god?

If not, I contend what two otherwise legit folks do in the comfort of their own is up to them, and not some busy-body, and certainly not the government.

The Biblical principle that everyone reaps what he sows is well-known to be universally true.

Only in the most vague of senses. Does GentleDove contend folks will be somehow punished after their deaths by this god?

Or try obeying Him (according to the context of all of Scripture and the Christian worldview), and see what happens. If you’re anything like every person I’ve known who sincerely...

Operative word here being sincerely. Any failure here can be dismissed as an insincere effort.

But you also wish to restrict the “rights� of others. Who “verified� to you that “informed consent� should be the standard or morality for everyone? (And don't tell me you read about "informed consent" in a book!

Exactly. We learn through various means - even religious - what we consider acceptable or not.

What I ask is for theists to offer verifiable evidence for claims a god considers homosexuals an abomination.

To me, man on man homosexuality is an "abomination" merely because I think it is "icky"*. I have no other reason to base this claim, and so would never expect the government to enforce my opinion based solely on an "ick" factor.
*And so really only consider it an "abomination" if I engage in doing it.

[kjw]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

So the claims go. I challenge you to offer verifiable evidence for your many claims here.

[McCulloch]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

So, you have proven that a writer of a New Testament book believed that men having unnatural sexual relations would not enter into God's kingdom.

Next step. Show that this writer was correct in his assessment.

[bernee51]

Hi Friends, ..

Hoi back at you

1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter.

This assumes that a hysteric, mysogynist, self-hating, misanthtrope could be clear on any matter

It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom.

This assumes god and a kingdom.

Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts.

Got some evidence that this happened?

Repentence is taught throughout Gods word.

The perils of attachment are taught throughout the Bhagavad Gita.

What's you point?

It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc-

Please do not include me in your guilt trip.
I am not a sinner.

That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23--

Sorry - these are words that "Matt" claims of Jesus.

Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

perhaps it is itself deceptive?

[kjw]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

So, you have proven that a writer of a New Testament book believed that men having unnatural sexual relations would not enter into God's kingdom.

Next step. Show that this writer was correct in his assessment.

Hi, Until Gods kingdom arrives his assessment cannot be proven.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

So, you have proven that a writer of a New Testament book believed that men having unnatural sexual relations would not enter into God's kingdom.

Next step. Show that this writer was correct in his assessment.

Hi, Until Gods kingdom arrives his assessment cannot be proven.

How convenient - Do as I say or face punishment at some indeterminate time in the future.

I gotta wonder what some folks think constitutes evidence.

[kjw]

Hi Friends, 1 corinthians 6: 9-11 is pretty clear on the matter. It says,-- fornicators, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men( obviously females as well ) Will not enter into Gods kingdom. at 11 it shows that they didnt do these things anymore, they put it behind them to serve God the way he requires. Also God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah for such acts. Repentence is taught throughout Gods word. It means to stop doing a sin, not doing the sin, asking forgivness, etc,etc,etc- That makes one a worker of iniquity ( worker of lawlessness= practicer of sin. And we most certainly dont want to risk eternal life and hear Jesus speak the words at Matt 7: 21-23-- these are ones who are told they are christians he is speaking to. Ones who were told they were saved. Verse 9 at i cor is a warning not to be decieved by anything else.

So, you have proven that a writer of a New Testament book believed that men having unnatural sexual relations would not enter into God's kingdom.

Next step. Show that this writer was correct in his assessment.

Hi, Until Gods kingdom arrives his assessment cannot be proven.

How convenient - Do as I say or face punishment at some indeterminate time in the future.

I gotta wonder what some folks think constitutes evidence.

Faith is what a person of God lives by. I dont think its a convienence, reality shows that Gods kingdom isnt fully ruling the earth at this point in time. until one can see those events occur, one cannot possibly prove it. But it will be too late then, so one must go by Faith, there is no other choice.

[GentleDove]

In Jesus’ answer, the woman in question did not have seven husbands in the resurrection, so how were their supposedly false "patriarchal interpretations" overturned here? How does this passage or other passages teach that the Sadducees were “practicing the kingdom of heaven?�

I don't get it - what is it exactly that you're arguing against? Where did I ever say or even imply that the Sadducees were 'practicing the kingdom of heaven'? The Sadducees were indeed trying to make Jesus look ridiculous, but in order to make him look ridiculous, they were making assumptions about the 'kingdom of heaven' based on their own patriarchal worldview - assumptions which Jesus rejected.

Okay, I think I misread an earlier post of yours. I read “…kingdom of heaven as it was practiced in the world of the time…� instead of “…kingdom of heaven marriage as it was practiced in the world of the time…� So, I withdraw my argument against something you never said. Sorry!

Otherwise, your point, it seemed to me, was that Jesus in His reply to the Sadducees was lifting the prohibition against sexual immorality, as defined in the OT. (Thus, implicitly, the prohibition against homosexuality is also lifted by Jesus.) However, Jesus did not do that. He was basically saying that it won’t even be an issue in the resurrection because there won’t be marriage in the resurrection.

In addition, I do not at all agree that the Bible taught a social structure that “oppressed women and conceived of them as property.� Are you trying to say that the Biblical doctrine of marriage itself is oppressive to women? The Bible does not teach that the doctrine of marriage is oppressive to women or causes them to “be conceived of� as property. This sounds to me like an idea imported to Scripture rather than exported from Scripture.

And yes, I think that some forms of marriage as practiced in the Bible were oppressive to women. Polygamy comes to mind as one of the most obvious examples. Thankfully, the Pauline prescriptions for marriage made the institution far more egalitarian.

I agree that some forms of marriage as practiced in the Bible were oppressive to women, and that polygamy, while perhaps not “oppressive� to women, certainly caused a lot of domestic unhappiness, as a perversion of God’s prescription of marriage being between one man and one women (until one of them dies). Paul wonderfully reiterates and expands on the marriage relationship in the NT; however, I believe he is upholding the commands of God regarding marriage from the OT, not disputing them. The practice of polygamy in the Bible is more descriptive of what some people did than prescriptive of what God commanded all people to do.

Arsenokoitai does not connote “social oppression,� or using “positions of privilege� to victimize children. This sounds like a Marxist worldview applied to the Bible as a hermeneutic, which I reject as an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture.

Hm. It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of Marxism. Though I think Marx was right in diagnosing many social problems of his time, his prescriptions were wrong and often disastrous.

That said, my interpretation here is historical-critical, not Marxist. Think about the time period! Homosexuality was linked in the worldview of the time to the sexual abuse of children, given the social practices and expectations of the Roman ruling class (borrowed from earlier Greek culture, in which it was expected and approved for older men to take younger boys as lovers). However, it is not so anymore - child abuse has been criminalised; and we have sociological data that suggest that homosexuals are no more prone to child abuse than heterosexuals are.

Well, homosexuality was prohibited (by God in the Bible) in the OT and the NT both, across thousands of years and different cultures. Homosexuality existed in both OT and NT times, and the Bible is consistent about calling it sin.

Child abuse—and homosexual behavior—was criminalized in those cultures that had a Biblical view of sexual crime, such as the United States and other post-Greco-Roman Western societies. However, with Biblical morality condemned as “oppressive� these last hundred years or so (and especially the last forty years) in the United States, we find child sexual abuse—and homosexual behavior—on the rise.

Homosexual organizations (and those who approve of them) try to have children at their “gay pride� events. Here is the chicagopride website, where you can check out the hundreds of photos of what some Chicago elementary schoolchildren saw at this event (14 slideshows of the parade, 6.28.09). Be sure to let the full slideshows run; they put the more innocuous photos in the beginning. Also, scroll down to see the Boys and the Bees book they have for sale on their home page). Home Depot has sponsored craft booths for children at multiple "gay pride" parade events.

Homosexuals have “Gay Days� at Disney World (what’s that about? and there are other photo galleries of the Disney "Gay Days" to which I will not link because, in my view, they are pornographic.); teach homosexuality in public schools; and famously tried to force the Boy Scouts to allow homosexuals to be troop leaders (for love of God and country--and other people’s boys).

There are homosexual organizations that promote child sexual abuse and the legalization of it. NAMBLA, and similar organizations, are quite active in publishing books, child pornography, fighting laws against child molestation, etc., to attempt to make the sexual abuse of boys mainstream, acceptable, and legal.

Without God and His Word, and apart from the regeneration of the Spirit, any perversion can seem acceptable to the perverse human heart. Times change, but human nature remains the same, apart from the grace of God—sinful.

The Bible in no way teaches or justifies the ideas that 1) women are “objectified� or “instrumentalised as property� in the Bible

Well, they were, historically.

But you have misread my argument severely: the Gospels and the letters of Paul teach against objectification and instrumentalisation of women.

Good, I agree that Paul teaches against the objectification and instrumentalization of women. I still think you are mixing the descriptive history of the OT with the prescriptive commands of the OT. The Bible doesn’t teach the objectification and instrumentalization of women, but it does record it (and the ugly consequences of it, as well).

homosexuals are being unjustly “excluded and oppressed;�

They are. They do not have the same legal and social rights as heterosexuals do - this is fact. See my post above.

Yes, homosexuals do not have the same legal and social “rights� as heterosexuals do—justly so. The Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin and that approving of homosexuality is a sin. The Bible tells us that open, unrepentant, homosexual behavior is a crime, to be capitally punished by the state. The idea that homosexuality is normal and the state should protect homosexual behavior as a “civil right� has only been promoted (at least openly) in the United States in the past forty years or so.

And don't try giving me the 'well they have every bit as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as heterosexuals have', because Anatole France knew better. As he sarcastically put it: 'The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread'.

I don’t understand why you believe homosexuality is equivalent in some way to being poor. Biblically, homosexuality is a sin, and being poor is not a sin. Does this have something to do with "existential facticity"? Would you also say the poor choose to be poor, and therefore it would be wrong to try to help them raise their standard of living?

The aims of the gospel are not “existential.�…The gospel is the opposite of existentialism.

Sorry - all religions have existential aims, in that they all attempt to impose meaning on the universe, Christianity included. The meaning that we try to impose on the universe is the divinity of Jesus and the centrality of Jesus in our lives - our lives should be lived with the approval of Jesus as the ultimate goal.

As I understand it, existentialism is a philosophy that begins with a sense of disorientation, confusion, and alienation in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world, beyond what meaning we give to it.

However, this is not the Biblical view of the world or the human being’s place in it. Biblically, the universe is meaningful and rational because the sovereign creator God, Who exists outside us as individuals, superintends it by His providence. God has not left us alone to determine our own identity in the universe apart from His objective standard. God, in His mercy, ends for the Christian the alienation from Him caused by our sin.

According to the Bible, we as individuals do not create each our own reality of “god� (even if we decide to “choose� the Biblical God) by imposing our idea of him on our construct of reality. No wonder an existentialist has so much angst, if his response to and responsibility for the projection of the “god� he chooses in an attempt to impose meaning on the universe all lies on his shoulders! That’s too heavy a burden to bear, in my view.

And if “god� is just a willful imposition of one’s “god�-idea, which only exists as something meaningful to that individual in a meaningless universe, then it’s just a sham. He’s his own “great and powerful Oz� behind the curtain, pulling the levers, and on some level he knows that. (Of course, an existentialist would just carry on through the absurd meaninglessness of his own attempt at creating his own meaning.)

The Gospel gave rise to existentialism, which is all about choice. You can choose to accept Jesus as the Way in which you live and speak and act, or you can choose not to. Jesus asks me the question - 'who do you say that I am?' - and my answer reflects more on what I am and what I have chosen than on what Jesus is.

The Bible gives us the opposite of the “existentialism applied to Christianity� view you are presenting here. The Gospel is that God loved us and chose us, not that we loved and chose Him.

No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. (John 15:15-16)

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. …We love Him because He first loved us. (1 John 4:9-10, 19)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

God, Who defines Himself and Who is the only One Who is self-existent, tells us our essential nature and reveals His essential nature to us in the Bible. We, as individuals, do not define our own essential nature and God’s, too. Even “god� is an extension of self-identity and the self-will, in the existentialist view. However, Biblically, we are derivative of Him, and He is derivative of no one, the true “I AM.�

The Gospel is the good news that, although Christians have all gone our own way, God laid our iniquity on Himself, Jesus Christ (Is. 53:6). It is upon hearing this Gospel, that Christians, by the Spirit of God, love God and now wish to obey Him. (This is true in the OT and the NT.) Bible tells us that we must agree with God’s will and morality, not our own. (Deut. 11:1, Dan. 9:4-5. Jn. 14:15)

But following Jesus should be done sincerely.In following him, there should be no demand on people to deny in bad faith the factual conditions of their own existence; that includes sexual orientation.

Under existentialism, in following “him,� one is only following oneself. Being sincere is no good, if you’re sincerely wrong. I know that within the existentialist worldview, reality is what you make of it. But Biblically, reality is objective and meaningful and true and knowable. For example, the existentialist phrase “true for me� relies on a perversion of the word “true.� To say, “this is true for me� is just another way of saying “I believe this.� If a doctor tells you that you have brain cancer, would you say, “well, that’s true for you, but it’s not true for me�? Of course not. Truth is objective and outside ourselves and our will.

The Gospel is all about overcoming the “factual conditions� of our sin through faith in Jesus Christ (faith which God gives us) (1 Jn. 5:4), not through faith in one’s self, one’s existence, one’s freedom, and one’s responsibility, and all the consequences—even hell—no matter how existentially “authentic� that would be.

Sources on Existentialism

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... n&ct=title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/exist ... on-faq.htm

Mercy (and justice and all other morality) is defined by God in the Bible, not by you or me or anyone else. Redemption is in Christ, not in the state “granting the right� to marry or any other legality.

You don't show 'mercy' or 'justice' to a black man by barring him from sitting down in your restaurants or drinking at your water fountains. You don't show 'mercy' or 'justice' to the poor by leaving their health uninsured. And you don't show a homosexual 'mercy' or 'justice' by telling her that she is unclean in ways which you are not, and thus barred from communion and from the legal and social spaces which are open to heterosexuals.

Being black or being poor is not immoral, unlike homosexuality (according to the Bible). Once again, God defines justice and mercy in the Bible, and the Bible tells us that justice and mercy “kissed� on the cross of Jesus (Ps. 85:10, Hos. 2:19).