What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.¹ Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).²

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]³

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

²http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

³https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16^th November 2020.

If Jesus Did Not Mention It, Is It A Sin?

            While discussing sins and their relevance today, beware of an argument predicated on what Christ said or did not. The whole intent of invoking Christ’s saying is to declassify sins. Do not get deceived by such an argument, for it merely depicts the person’s lack of knowledge, or worse – his/her innate depravity.

            For instance, if homosexuality is the sin under consideration, the person who tacitly or explicitly endorses homosexuality would argue, “Jesus neither mentioned homosexuality as sin nor condemned it; hence homosexuality cannot be a sin.”

            If this argument is posed by a young and a naïve believer or an unbeliever of Christ, then this person is merely exhibiting an unpretentious lack of knowledge.

            But the same argument would be asinine or sophomoric or cretinous if it’s posed by a person claiming to be mature and knowledgeable. Such a person is innately depraved. Beware of such people.

            This argument is fallacious for many reasons.

            The God of the Bible is a blessed Trinity. They are co-equal. Perfect harmony exists between the three persons of the blessed Trinity.

            If God the Father (the first person of the blessed Trinity) classified homosexuality as a sin, then Jesus Christ (the second person of the blessed Trinity) would not declassify homosexuality from its status of sin to being acceptable behavior.

            But those who either tacitly or explicitly strive to endorse homosexuality place Jesus in such a horrendous position as if HE contradicts God the Father.

            Dr. Robert Jeffress, Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Dallas and an adjunct professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, in his article, entitled Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality? exposes three flaws in the argument that Jesus never condemned homosexuality:¹ (Emphasis Mine)

When confronted with verses in the New Testament against homosexuality, homosexual advocates will quickly go to another myth of homosexuality. And that is, Jesus never condemned homosexuality. That argument is flawed in three important ways.

First, that argument assumes that Jesus’ words are more authoritative than the rest of the Bible. To say Jesus never condemned it is to say that Jesus’ words carry more weight than the words of the apostle Paul or the apostle Peter or any other scripture. But we don’t believe that as Christians. Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God.” Those are all God’s words.

Second, the argument fails to realize that by affirming the truthfulness of the Old Testament, Jesus automatically condemned homosexuality. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Let me illustrate it this way. Let’s say somebody came up to you and said, “I believe President Obama is pro-slavery.” You say, “Why would you say such a thing?” And your friend says, “Well, I did some research. Of all of the speeches the president has given, in not one speech did he speak out against slavery. Therefore, he is pro-slavery.” Would that be a logical deduction? Of course not. At his inauguration, the president swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And the Constitution prohibits slavery. Thus by swearing to uphold the Constitution, he was saying, “I am going to uphold all the laws, including laws against slavery.” It’s the same way with Jesus. When Jesus upheld the Old Testament, He was automatically condemning homosexuality.

Third, by upholding God’s plan for sexuality, Jesus did condemn homosexuality. In Matthew 19 the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus by questioning Him on the issue of divorce and remarriage. Jesus answered by going back to God’s original plan for human sexuality, which is this: sex is reserved for a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Yes, it’s true that Jesus never mentioned the word “homosexuality.” He never said, “You shall not commit homosexuality.” But guess what? Jesus never said, “You shall not commit incest.” Jesus never said, “You shall not commit bestiality or pedophilia or necrophilia.” Was he pro-necrophilia and pedophilia? Of course not. By upholding God’s pattern for sexuality–a man and a woman in a marriage relationship–Jesus automatically condemned any deviation from that pattern.

            It is a fact that Jesus never condemned smoking weed, spousal abuse (domestic violence), piracy of intellectual property, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and many more sins. But it would be rather immature of a Christian to endorse such a sin because Jesus never publically condemned it.

            An article in the Canadian edition of The Gospel Coalition website exposes the flaw in this argument by using another example:²

Asking whether or not Jesus ever talked about homosexuality is somewhat analogous to asking whether or not Jesus ever talked about elder abuse.

Kind of.

But not exactly.

Jesus never used the specific words “elder abuse” but he did rebuke the Pharisees for not properly honouring their parents (Mark 7:12-13) and he did cite approvingly the 5th commandment, which states:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” (Exodus 20:12 ESV)

So yes, Jesus would disapprove of elder abuse but no, he never addressed the topic directly using that particular term.

Much the same would have to be said with respect to the question about homosexuality.

Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for having a low regard for the Biblical ideal of covenantal marriage. He said to them:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4–6 ESV)

Clearly Jesus affirmed the Biblical vision of marriage as a life long union between one man and one woman. He affirmed sexuality within that particular context when he said, approvingly, “the two shall become one flesh”. And he did so by referring authoritatively to a passage from the Old Testament.

Furthermore, Jesus referred negatively and disapprovingly to all forms of sexual immorality. He said in Matthew 15:19-20:

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. (Matthew 15:19–20 ESV)

To “defile” means to make unclean. In the Old Testament it referred to what put one outside the worshipping community; the term is used in a similar sense in Revelation 21:27:

But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Revelation 21:27 ESV)

Therefore, Jesus is saying that evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness and slander are defiling sins that would exclude us from the everlasting Kingdom of God – presumably if not confessed and forgiven through his atoning work on the cross.

But what did Jesus mean, precisely, when he referred to “sexual immorality” as one of those defiling and excluding sins?

The Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) defines the word porneia, translated in most Bibles as “sexual immorality”, as involving “unlawful sexual intercourse”. The Jewish law provides a long list of what constitutes unlawful sexual intercourse in Leviticus 18-20. According to those statutes, a man was forbidden to have sex with the following:

1. His neighbour’s wife (Leviticus 18:21)

2. Another man (Leviticus 18:22)

3. An animal (Leviticus 18:23)

4. His mother in law (Leviticus 20:11)

5. His daughter in law (Leviticus 20:12)

6. His sister (Leviticus 20:17)

Sex with any of these would be considered porneia – unlawful.

According to Jesus sex of this sort defiles a person and thus places them outside the worshipping community and outside the eternal kingdom of God.

Therefore it certainly cannot be argued that Jesus affirmed or was indifferent toward the issue of homosexual sex. Jesus clearly endorsed the Old Testament vision of marriage as an inviolable covenant between one man and one woman and he clearly viewed unlawful sex as being the sort of thing that defiled a person and placed them outside the kingdom of God. Jesus did not use the word “homosexuality” but neither did he use the word “incest” or “bestiality”. He did not need to. In using the Greek word porneia he identified with how the Jewish law delineated lawful and unlawful sex.

According to Jesus, unlawful sex is sin.

Sin separates us from God.

But thanks be to God, Jesus came to offer his life as a sacrifice of atonement and is therefore able to offer forgiveness to all lawbreakers and sinners.

Including you.

And including me.

Jesus said that he was going to the cross in order to secure forgiveness for broken men and women just like us. At the Last Supper he passed a cup to his disciples and said:

this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28 ESV)

Unlawful sex is sin.

Theft is sin.

Murder, adultery, false witness and slander are sin.

But thanks be to God – all such sins can be forgiven and forever washed away through the shed blood of Jesus on the cross.

Hallelujah!

SDG,

Pastor Paul Carter

            So to conclude, any argument that strives to endorse (or declassify) homosexuality or any other sin based on the fact that Jesus never condemned it, is fallacious and the agency of this fallacy i.e. the person/institution that conveys this fallacy should be disregarded.

Endnotes:

¹http://www.firstdallas.org/icampus/blog/did-jesus-condemn-homosexuality/

²https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/jesus-ever-talk-homosexuality/

Websites last accessed on 15^th July 2019.

Pastor Joel Osteen, Lady Gaga, Gay Pride Month; The Enemy Within & A Bright Future

            Any school going teen raised within the confines of Historic Christian worldview will consider gay marriage as an aberration. But LGBTQ movement is gaining traction in every nook and corner of our world. This unholy movement will continue to assault the traditional heterosexual marriage (between a male and a female). So our next generation may even consider gay marriage at par with the monogamous heterosexual marriage.

            Given this existential reality, we who subscribe to Historic Christianity should be concerned with another entity. Not the secular world, but another entity.

            Beware of the enemy within!

            ““Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves,” says the Bible about the enemy within (Matthew 7:15, NET).  

            The enemy within could be far more dangerous and destructive than the enemy outside our domain. In this context, the enemy within is the group of Christians who actively endorse the LGBTQ agenda. Call them the Progressive or Liberal or the Postmodern Christians.

            Do not be deceived when you observe Pastor Joel Osteen and his wife attend Lady Gaga’s gay pride event, “Joel Osteen has fallen so far down into apostasy that his seared conscience doesn’t even alert him anymore when trouble is on the horizon, such was the case on Monday night at the SiriusXM and Pandora merger event in New York City. Joel and his wife Victoria were in attendance at the Lady Gaga Pride concert featuring drag queens, amazingly foul language and the endless glorification of the LGBTQ+P for Pedophile agenda. It seems that the Osteens had no problems at all attending such an event, which is not surprising considering how they have been creeping ever closer to supporting same-sex marriage.”¹

            It’s a known fact that Pastor Joel Osteen tacitly endorses the LGBTQ agenda, “On October 2, 2013 Pastor Osteen joined Josh Zepps on HuffPost Live for a more relaxed and intimate interview.

            Zepps read a piece that he liked from Osteen’s new book: “It doesn’t matter who likes you or doesn’t like you, all that matters is that God likes you. He accepts you, he approves of you.” Zepps followed up by asking if that included homosexuals.

            “Absolutely,” Osteen insisted, “I believe that God breathed life into every person and that every person is made in the image of God and you have accept (sic) them as they are, on their journey. I’m not here to preach hate or push people down.””² (Emphasis Mine).

            God loves everyone, sinners included. Therefore, God loves homosexuals. But God does not approve of the practice of homosexuality. In other words, God loves the person, who is a homosexual but detests the practice of homosexuality.

            So when Pastor Joel Osteen says that God approves of homosexuals, he seems to say that God approves of homosexuality, but nothing could be further from the truth.

            Sincere yet naïve Christians who may adore celebrity preachers like Pastor Joel Osteen should beware of such false teachings.

            The secular world may force its LGBTQ agenda into our domain. This is expected of them. But instead of remaining true to the Bible, a significant portion of Christian denominations and its leaders, especially the celebrity preachers whom many Christians adore, endorse sins and declassify them as acceptable practices. In the process, these people try to usurp God from HIS throne. But God cannot be usurped. What God termed a sin will always remain a sin. Of course, I am referring to LGBTQ practices.

            We who worship the living God should have the mind to reject such teachings because such teachings contradict the Word of God. If we endorse homosexuality because we blindly accept the teachings of these heretical celebrity preachers, we tread on dangerous ground.

            So beware of the enemy within!

            The future, however, seems to be bright for those who remain true to God’s Word.

            Nancy Pearcey quotes Andrew Sullivan to assert that the support for LGBTQ agenda among our younger generation is reducing. Here's an excerpt of Andrew Sullivan's article from Nancy Pearcey's Facebook page:³

Andrew Sullivan (homosexual columnist) says support for trans ideology is going down

For the first time, we’re seeing a sharp drop in tolerance of “LGBTQ” people among the younger generation. This is an entirely new phenomenon. It used to be the young that spearheaded toleration and inclusion. Now they’re suddenly bolting in the opposite direction:

“The number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people slipped from 53 percent in 2017 to 45 percent in 2018 — the only age group to show a decline,” according to the annual [GLAAD] report. And that is down from 63 percent in 2016. “36 percent of young people said they were uncomfortable learning a family member was LGBTQ in 2018, compared with 29 percent in 2017, and 24 percent in 2016. 34 percent were uncomfortable learning their doctor was LGBTQ vs. 27 percent a year earlier. 39 percent were uncomfortable learning their child had a school lesson on LGBTQ history vs. 30 percent in 2017.”

Or check this out: 62 percent of young men regarded themselves as “allies” of LGBTQ people in 2016; only 35 percent now say the same — a near-halving of support. Women “allies” have dropped from 65 to 52 percent.

The turn began in the year that the Obama administration — with no public discussion or congressional support — imposed critical gender theory on America’s high schools, determining sex to be whatever a student says it is. The imposition of trans ideology by fiat on the entire country’s young — along with severe public stigma for those with even the slightest questions — was almost textbook left authoritarianism. Well meant, perhaps. But dictatorial.

Even GLAAD, the culture police for the gay left, concedes that the transformation of the gay-rights movement into a trans movement steeped in critical gender theory in the past few years is likely the reason... GLAAD vows to crack down ever more firmly on those who aren’t fully onboard with its agenda. The last thing GLAAD would do is ask itself if it is actually exacerbating the problem, and that the redefinition of almost everyone’s sex and gender to accommodate less than 1 percent of the population is why this resistance is happening....

Kids are not stupid. They know they are being propagandized. This poll suggests the backlash has arrived, and it will likely grow."

Endnotes:

¹https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/little-monsters-joel-osteen-wife-victoria-honored-guests-lady-gaga-pride-concert-new-york-city-monday-night/

²https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joel-osteen-larry-king-homosexuality_n_4591090?guccounter=1

³https://www.facebook.com/nancy.pearcey.7/posts/10157425523754241

Websites last accessed on 30^th July 2019.

Consent Condoms & Consensual Sex

            The New York Post recently reported the latest development in the realm of sexual ethics – the “consent condom.” The article states, “This new “consent condom” is a hands-on experience.

            Tulipán, an Argentinian sex toy company, has created a new rubber that requires four hands to open — ensuring that both parties are equally involved in the decision to have sex.

            How it works: All four corners of the packaging must be pressed at the same time to open it.

            These origami-style contraceptive containers read, “If it’s not a yes, it’s a no.”

            Tulipán won’t officially launch the new prophylactic until later this year. Until then, the company is handing them out at bars in Buenos Aires for couples to test — and hyping them on social media, of course.”¹

            The consent condom is obviously predicated on ‘consent’ – the current sexual ethic that governs the sexual behavior of the impetuous and the naïve.

            According to Christian apologist, Sean McDowell (in his article entitled THE NEW “CONSENT CONDOM” IS A SIGN OF THE TIMES) this latest development reveals the failure of the sexual revolution:²

Creating a "Consent Condom" is certainly a savvy marketing move that will draw attention to their brand and may contribute to the conversation about reducing sexual assault (although it is questionable how much it will really help).

The point of this blog is not about the company and its marketing efforts, but to ask a deeper question: What does the creation of a “Consent Condom” reveal about the current sexual ethic?

Consent Condoms and Modern Sex

The first point is obvious: The new sexual ethic is consent. As long as it is consensual, any sexual behavior between adults is permissible. Former behavior that was considered shameful, such as pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual behavior, and so on, is now considered permissible if there is consent.

Failure of the Sexual Revolution

The second point regarding the “Consent Condom” is that it reveals the failure of the sexual revolution. That’s right. It shows that the promises of the sexual revolution are vacuous.

We were promised free love. We were promised freedom from sexual repression. We were promised increased mental and sexual health for individuals and society.

According to Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce, proponents of the sexual revolution promised that “sexual liberation” would lead to the transformation of human nature:

 “Through absolute, unlimited sexual freedom, man will free himself of neurosis and become fully capable of work and initiative. His psychological structure will be changed, and he will also be freed from military and aggressive tendencies, and from sadist fantasies.”

Transformed Human Nature

Interestingly, Del Noce notes that proponents of the sexual revolution promised it would lead to people being less aggressive and freed from sexual fantasies. It's hard to imagine how anyone could argue this is the case.

Honestly, are we seeing a decrease in sexual aggressiveness? Are we seeing an increase in sexual self-control?

Quite obviously the opposite is the case. Rather than seeing less aggression, we are having a national conversation about the reality of sexual aggression (hence the need for the new condom). Rather than seeing more mental self-control, we are experiencing the pornification of society.

The fact that someone invented a “Consent Condom” shows how far we have come. It was designed to start the conversation about sexual assault, and it might do so. But in doing so, it also reveals something much deeper about the modern sexual ethic and the failure of the sexual revolution.

            Furthermore, let us revisit the theme of consensus being the justifying factor for sex outside the precincts of monogamous heterosexual marriage. I had debunked consensual sex with respect to homosexuality from the perspective of natural law in an earlier blog of mine entitled, Does Consensual and Harmless Sexual Intercourse Legitimize Homosexuality? That reasoning is not limited to homosexuality but can be used against any form of consensual sex. Here’s an excerpt:³

Much acclaimed theologian of the Catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, bases his doctrine on natural law. Natural law “does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world… St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").”²

So now I prefer to approach the theme of gay sex being consensual and harmless from the perspective of natural law…

(1)  The nature or essence of every biological organ, according to natural law theory, involves its purposes (or final causes). So the purpose of the eyeball is to make us see. Similarly, sexual intercourse also has its own purpose, which is to procreate (bear children).

But I have heard arguments that the final cause or the purpose of sexual intercourse is the pleasure. This is wrong! Pleasure cannot be a purpose for sexual intercourse.

Think about eating. You may argue that eating is pleasurable, but the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but to offer the body the nutrients it needs to be healthy and survive. The pleasure of eating is nature’s way of getting us to eat.

As Professor Edward Feser states, “So, the final cause of sex is procreation, and the final cause of sexual pleasure is to get us to indulge in sex, so that we’ll thereby procreate…Notice also that nature makes it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation. There is no prophylactic sheathe issued with a penis at birth, and no diaphragm issued with a vagina. It takes some effort to come up with these devices, and even then, in the form in which they existed for most of human history they were not terribly effective.”3

(2) Natural law theory states that an action or a behavior, even if it does not harm anyone else, need not be acceptable or need not be the normal way of living life.

The life of an alcoholic is not acceptable, even if he/she does not harm anyone. Similarly, a person – inclined to molest children (even if he has not molested children) – who masturbates to pictures of naked children is living a sick life. Such a person is not living the way a normal human ought to live.

Therefore, gay sex cannot be justified even if it were harmless.

(3) In the same manner, consensus cannot be a legitimate reason for an action/behavior. Gay people cannot argue that consensual sex is always righteous.

Consensual sex cannot be righteous always. A pedophile cannot argue that he had sex with a child because the child consented. A parent cannot claim that he/she had sex with his/her child (minor or major) because the child agreed to have sex with the parent. In a marriage, consensus between the husband and the wife to have sex with others outside the marriage does not justify their affairs.

I will summarize now:

A. According to natural law theory, the main purpose of sex is procreation through the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus gay sex cannot be natural, but it is an abnormal activity/behavior.

B. For reasons mentioned in (2) and (3), consensual and harmless sex cannot justify gay sex.

But remember that this question was popularized by the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, and his fellow New Atheists. If you are an atheist, you can do just about anything and everything because you are your own authority (cf. relative morality and subjective truth claims). The problem with your position is that if you justify homosexuality, you should also, by the very same logic, endorse/accept bestiality, adultery, polyamory, incest, pedophilia etc.

I have only one request to you if you are an atheist; please do not yield to your subjective desires, for they can absolutely mislead you. Ask God in utter sincerity, by assuming HIS presence, to reveal HIMSELF to you, and HE will indeed do so.

If you are a Christian and if you are still unable to understand that a consensual and a harmless sex cannot justify homosexuality, then please communicate with your pastor or your church elder. Else please contact me. (My contact information is available on this website.)

Therefore, the notion that gay sex is acceptable if it is consensual and harmless is invalid and a false assertion.

            To conclude, consensual sex cannot justify any form of sex outside a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Endnotes:

¹https://nypost.com/2019/04/04/this-consent-condom-takes-four-hands-to-open/

²https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/the-new-consent-condom-is-a-sign-of-the-times

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-consensual-and-harmless-sexual.html

Websites last accessed on 15^th April 2019.

Laws Cannot Change Flaws

            The five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court in India is hearing petitions that demand the scrapping of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes gay sex. One of the reasons offered by the Supreme Court to hear these petitions is the changing ‘social morality.’¹

            The judiciary may decide to uphold Section 377 or it may decide to decriminalize gay sex in India. Even if the court decides to uphold the law criminalizing gay sex, the continuous uproar from the pro-LGBT section of India’s populace would, in the near future, succeed in decriminalizing gay sex in India. So it is a mere matter of time – possibly a few years – when gay sex would be legitimized in India.

            Would the endorsement of gay sex by the Indian constitution (at any point in time) motivate us, Christians, to change our view on gay sex?

            A worthy Christian response is two-fold:

            First, hating the gay people is out of the question, so let us love them. But remember that our love for the gay people is not an endorsement of their sinful lifestyle.

            A gay lifestyle is an abomination.  However, we should love the gay people. By doing so, we hope and pray that they will see God in and through our love and allow HIM to change their lives.

            Second, let us, as God-loving and Bible-believing Christians, be strong in our biblical convictions. The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. So let us uphold the biblical teaching at any cost.

            Significantly, let us not commit the error of diluting the biblical teaching because of the changing ‘social morality.’ Today our society may decide to decriminalize gay sex and tomorrow our society may decide to decriminalize other offenses.

            Let not the changing mores of our society dictate our response to sins. Sins are an assault against God, so sins ought to be hated and rejected at all costs because we are God’s people.

            We reject sins because we love God. Remember that the commandment to love our neighbors is always preceded by the commandment to love our God.

            If the Lord Jesus wanted us, HIS disciples, to declassify sins as acceptable practices, then HE would not have reduced the laws to two. Instead, HE would have reduced it to one. But the Lord did not!

            Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias articulated this thought wonderfully, “For living together in harmony, Moses gave 613 laws to help build their community. About half a millennium later, David, in the fifteenth psalm, reduced them to eleven. Isaiah, in his opening chapter, reduced them further to six. Micah, in his sixth chapter, narrowed them down to three: “To do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly before your God.”

            How much further could one go to find the essence of the law? Jesus, in the 22nd chapter of Matthew, was asked which was the greatest commandment. The point was to see if he would earn the wrath of the political or religious leaders who dictated social or religious practice with scores of laws. Jesus, knowing their intent, surprised them. He did not reduce the laws to one. He could have done that. Instead, he reduced them down to two: “To love the Lord your God with all our heart, strength, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.” “On these two,” he said, “hang all of the laws and the prophets.”²

            Ascribing preeminence to God is the bounden duty of an honest Christian. Such a Christian would not endorse sins. Instead, he will reject sins but will love the sinner.

            Let us then love the gay people but let’s reject gay sex because it is a sin against God. Let us always love the Lord our God and continue to follow HIM all through the days of our life.

            But that’s not it! This situation in India is a classic case that reveals the incompetence of the law to change the hearts of the people. As Ravi Zacharias said, “Laws don’t change flaws.”³

            The law to criminalize gay sex has been in existence for around 150 years in India. But that law did not succeed in convincing people that gay sex is immoral.

            When India decides to decriminalize gay sex, I would like to think that India would have moved over from the side of the law to the side of grace. When grace is in effect, sins would be condemned but sinners would be offered a second chance to repent and reject their sins.

            Those practicing gay sex (not only them but all who sin voluntarily, which includes you and me) are being swayed by the powers of this world and the ruler of the kingdom of the air (Ephesians 2:2). The law is incompetent to save us from sins. Only the blood of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can save us from sins, says Ravi Zacharias:⁴

All the platitudes of political double-speak remind us that if we hope in politics and laws we will make the suicidal blunder of thinking that laws change hearts. They do not. Societal laws are always at the mercy of power brokers, as language without integrity of heart lends itself to the machinations of demagogues. Oftentimes those machinations will dress up their own violations with noble purposes. Few evils rise to the insidious level as those that mask reality with purportedly benign intentions, cosmetically hiding a cancerous, self-serving motive.

We see again and again in the ebb and flow of history how laws have the power of letters but they never win the soul of a person. Courts, agencies, police, military, EPA, FAA, FTC, IRS, the politically correct enforcers…my goodness, we have enough laws to make Rome look like a toy shop. All over the world we hear more talk about brotherhood and yet in reality we see more hoods than brothers.

But, thank God, there is a law above our laws. There must be a law above our laws that gets to the innermost being of a person and breaks the pursuit of autocracy within. That happens when we admit that the heart must humble itself before God, and this brings change. That surrender of the heart to God disarms the individual and engenders a love from God and for His will.

We look around today at the environment and mourn the abuse. Fair enough. But here is the greatest mystery of all. Why do we never think of the “invironment”? What stalks us within? Is there nothing sacred about this body? Is it only the trees that need protection? Is there nothing sacred about my relationships so long as I can pop something into the mouth to negate the behavior of the night before? Is there nothing sacred about work so long as the government will pay my bills? Is success all in the power to enforce and not in the power to change for eternal truths? Has the family no place in the building blocks of a society? Is politics purely left and right without any up and down? Ah! There’s the question.

Having left that question unanswered, we are producing a generation of young people that are ready to cry “justice” when wronged but seldom think of what is right in personal responsibility. They know everything about outer space and very little about inner space. They know how to hate; they simply don’t know how or why to love…

… we see the love of God at work. He sends and gives His Son so that we might not have to live with mere laws. We hear enough that we are a nation of laws. Laws don’t change flaws. They just reveal them. How about becoming a nation of grace? In Him, law and love converge. He brings the work of grace within us to make us hunger after the true, the good, and the beautiful. That rises beyond mere laws…

Several years ago, terrorists broke into two hotels in Mumbai and opened random fire. So many were killed. The carnage was bloody. One Indian actor was found alive amidst the pile of bodies under a table where several had dived for cover. In an interview he was asked, “Why didn’t they also shoot you when they walked by?” He said, “I was so covered with someone else’s blood that they thought it was mine and left me for dead.”

He didn’t know it but he hinted at the Gospel. The blood of our Savior saves us.

            The law cannot change your heart and mine. But Jesus can. But we need to allow HIM to rule us. We need to commit our lives to HIM and HIM alone. When Christ rules us, we will repent of our sins and HE will make us new again. The blood of Christ shed on the cross of Calvary will heal and save us.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/will-examine-correctness-of-2013-verdict-on-gay-sex-says-supreme-court-1880773

²https://rzim.org/global-blog/from-kiev-to-ferguson-stable-words-in-an-unstable-world/

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 11^th July 2018. 

Does Consensual and Harmless Sexual Intercourse Legitimize Homosexuality?

            Whenever I discuss against homosexuality in any forum, I can always predict this question to crop up: “When two consenting individuals engage in sex, why is that sexual activity wrong, especially when it is harmless?” The two key words in that question are ‘consent’ and ‘harmless.’

            When I encountered this question for the very first time, I thought this question was so valid that consensual and harmless sex did seem to legitimize gay sex!

            I had no clue then that this question was made popular by the renowned atheist Richard Dawkins, who in his work, God Delusion, said “Enjoy your own sex life (as long as it damages no one else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclination, which are none of your business…”¹ (Emphasis Mine).

            This then is what the gay activists are stating. What’s wrong when two [single] men or two [single] women fall in love with each other and decide to consensually engage in sexual intercourse? What if their consensual sex is harmless? If this is the case, why should anyone object to gay sex? This is the force of their argument.

            Then I thought about my opposition to gay sex. Why do I passionately oppose gay sex (homosexuality)?

            Primarily, I oppose homosexuality since I am a Christian!

            The Bible condemns homosexuality. God determines homosexuality as a sin. Hence I oppose homosexuality.

            But I wanted to learn more about the biblical condemnation of homosexuality.  The God of the Bible would not have arbitrarily condemned homosexuality. I was sure HE had valid reasons to condemn homosexuality.

            So why did God condemn homosexuality? This was a very easy question to answer.

            God condemned homosexuality since sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed within the precincts of a marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7 cf. 1 Corinthians 6: 12-20). Hence, God, explicitly, prohibits homosexuality (cf. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26-27). 

            Fair enough! As a Christian, this made sense to me.

            When I thought of this subject from within the confines of Historic Christianity, I understood that the question of a consensual and a harmless gay sex cannot even be raised. Why?

            When gay sex, in all forms and shapes (metaphorically speaking), is unequivocally forbidden by God, there can be no question about gay sex being consensual or harmless. Therefore, a Christian cannot indulge in or practice gay sex. Period!

            But when I talk about this subject in any forum, there are non-Christians in the form of atheists, skeptics and agnostics, and then there are Christians (and people belonging to other religious worldviews) who honestly question their faith. They are the ‘sincere rebels.’

            Unfortunately, non-Christians do not accept the Bible as God’s Word and so was the case with the sincere rebels. Hence, speaking to them, on this theme, from the vantage point of the Bible, need not necessarily resonate with them.

            There had to be another way to approach this theme with these folks. It's the way of natural law theory. We would receive much clarity if we think about this subject from the perspective of natural law theory.

            Much acclaimed theologian of the Catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, bases his doctrine on natural law. Natural law “does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world… St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").”²

            So now I prefer to approach the theme of gay sex being consensual and harmless from the perspective of natural law.

             Let me try to simplify this perspective without bogging you down with the heavy and deep Aristotelian point of view that natural law theory is predicated upon:

            (1)  The nature or essence of every biological organ, according to natural law theory, involves its purposes (or final causes). So the purpose of the eyeball is to make us see. Similarly, sexual intercourse also has its own purpose, which is to procreate (bear children).

            But I have heard arguments that the final cause or the purpose of sexual intercourse is the pleasure. This is wrong! Pleasure cannot be a purpose for sexual intercourse.

            Think about eating. You may argue that eating is pleasurable, but the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but to offer the body the nutrients it needs to be healthy and survive. The pleasure of eating is nature’s way of getting us to eat.

            As Professor Edward Feser states, “So, the final cause of sex is procreation, and the final cause of sexual pleasure is to get us to indulge in sex, so that we’ll thereby procreate…Notice also that nature makes it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation. There is no prophylactic sheathe issued with a penis at birth, and no diaphragm issued with a vagina. It takes some effort to come up with these devices, and even then, in the form in which they existed for most of human history they were not terribly effective.”³

            (2) Natural law theory states that an action or a behavior, even if it does not harm anyone else, need not be acceptable or need not be the normal way of living life.

            The life of an alcoholic is not acceptable, even if he/she does not harm anyone. Similarly, a person – inclined to molest children (even if he has not molested children) – who masturbates to pictures of naked children is living a sick life. Such a person is not living the way a normal human ought to live.

            Therefore, gay sex cannot be justified even if it were harmless.

            (3) In the same manner, consensus cannot be a legitimate reason for an action/behavior. Gay people cannot argue that consensual sex is always righteous. 

            Consensual sex cannot be righteous always. A pedophile cannot argue that he had sex with a child because the child consented. A parent cannot claim that he/she had sex with his/her child (minor or major) because the child agreed to have sex with the parent. In a marriage, consensus between the husband and the wife to have sex with others outside the marriage does not justify their affairs.

            I will summarize now:

            A. According to natural law theory, the main purpose of sex is procreation through the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus gay sex cannot be natural, but it is an abnormal activity/behavior. 

            B. For reasons mentioned in (2) and (3), consensual and harmless sex cannot justify gay sex.

            But remember that this question was popularized by the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, and his fellow New Atheists. If you are an atheist, you can do just about anything and everything because you are your own authority (cf. relative morality and subjective truth claims). The problem with your position is that if you justify homosexuality, you should also, by the very same logic, endorse/accept bestiality, adultery, polyamory, incest, pedophilia etc.

            I have only one request to you if you are an atheist; please do not yield to your subjective desires, for they can absolutely mislead you. Ask God in utter sincerity, by assuming HIS presence, to reveal HIMSELF to you, and HE will indeed do so.

            If you are a Christian and if you are still unable to understand that a consensual and a harmless sex cannot justify homosexuality, then please communicate with your pastor or your church elder. Else please contact me. (My contact information is available on this website.)

            Therefore, the notion that gay sex is acceptable if it is consensual and harmless is invalid and a false assertion. 

Endnotes:

¹God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, p.264.

²https://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/, last accessed on 30^th June 2018.

³The Last Superstition, Edward Feser, p.142.