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.

Death, Suicide and Euthanasia.

Until I experienced God through HIS Word and deed, I was fearful, apprehensive and didn’t desire death. But when I believed in Christ and became aware of the glorious life that awaited me, the fear of death vanished. Today, I welcome death anytime, for when I die I will be with my God forever. The fear of death is dead in my life (cf. Psalm 23: 4; Romans 8: 38-39; 2 Corinthians 5: 8; Philippians 1: 21-23), for death is the gateway to a glorious eternity with God.

While I was discussing with a very dear brother about the torment of evil and expectation of a joyous life, we hoped that the Lord’s second coming is imminent, for evil will be annihilated when HE returns in all HIS glory and splendor. So, death can be viewed as a transition from the evil world to a joyous eternity in heaven. If death doesn’t facilitate this glorious transition, then one hopes that the Lord would arrive soon to deliver us from evil and pain. If one fails to desire death from the perspective of a glorious eternal coexistence with God, the existential reality of evil could motivate the frail to die, as an escape mechanism from the pain of suffering.¹

This is the predicament of a suffering man who loses all his means and hope to live on earth. He desires death through suicide as a means of exiting the world of evil and torment. But, is suicide acceptable?

Imagine a world renowned artist painting before a large audience. He finishes the spectacular work of art, and the audience is fascinated. Following are two scenarios: in the first, the artist unexpectedly shreds the painting to pieces! The audience is greatly saddened. In the second scenario, after the art is painted, a man from the audience unexpectedly grabs the art and shreds it. This man is detained by the police.

In both scenarios, the fascinating piece of art is lost. In the first scenario, the art is shredded by the owner. None can complain, but for the fact that the world lost a precious work. In the second scenario, a man shreds the art without the owner’s consent. This being theft and destruction, the culprit is nabbed by the police.

The above illustration serves as an analogy of our life. God is the artist and our life is HIS art. God, being the creator and sustainer, is the owner of every life. As in the scenario of the artist shredding his art, there could be, at most, a feeble concern, when the creator God, the owner of every life, chooses to eliminate that very life HE created. However, if anyone else eliminates that life (through suicide or murder), he is an unauthorized eliminator, for he rebels against God (the owner of life), who alone possesses all authority to eliminate the very life that HE created.

I say this at length to affirm that suicide is a sin against God. God makes and takes life. HE has the sole authority over every life. When man commits suicide, he dethrones God, and sins against HIM. Aquinas teaches that suicide is a sin on account of three violations – nature and self love, community, and God. He states that our freewill (inclination to commit suicide) should submit to God’s authority, who alone can decide our exit from this world.²

Having said this, I believe that a Christian who commits suicide is not hell bound, since we are saved by grace through faith. My rationale for this fact has been presented in my blog, “Way to Heaven? Not By Works!” A man who commits suicide violates God’s will and expedites his journey to the other side of eternity. Therefore, a believer in Christ should not commit suicide, instead he should trust in God for deliverance during moments of excruciating pain.

“The timing and manner of a person’s death belongs ultimately to God (Eccl. 3: 1-2; Heb 9: 27),” writes Scott Rae. ³Although death is considered an enemy (1 Corinthians 15: 55-56), for Christians, death is a vanquished enemy. God gives everyone who believes in Christ, the victory through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the Cross of Calvary. Thus, it is mandatory that death not be resisted or expedited.

Let us look at physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.⁴ If a man is dying and his prognosis hopeless with any further treatment determined as medically futile, in general, he could be allowed to die. However, considering that man’s death is in God’s hands, removal of life support that leads to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia could be problematic. Not every decision to terminate life need be morally acceptable. For example, removing the ventilator that provides breathing support to a recovering patient would be unethical. Thus, we need to think through physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, because our moral choices would either abide by or abate the moral values that protect the sanctity and dignity of life - the dying included.

One can posit the validity of euthanasia from the realm of mercy - as a justified end to needless suffering. But medical alternates are: to sedate the patient to sleep (unconscious state) or to relieve pain (which could even hasten the death of a patient, but as an unintended act).

Scott Rae states that euthanasia could be advocated from, among others, the perspectives of ‘utility’ – avoidance of a high cost medical care, and ‘Personal Autonomy’ – one can decide when to die as one can decide when to marry. ‘Utility’ can be questioned from the ill-advised future possibility of coercing a terminally ill patient to consent to euthanasia, and ‘Personal Autonomy’ can be disputed citing the fact that an individual has no absolute right over his life. (This theme has been discussed in my previous blog on abortion).

Scott emphasizes that the opponents of euthanasia conclude that euthanasia and assisted suicide amounts to killing an innocent person. Since elimination of life is God’s prerogative, they reinforce that human beings cannot play God by eliminating human life. But this argument will not be accepted by atheists, who do not believe in God. The opponents of euthanasia also emphasize the redemptive value of suffering (suffering equips a believer to comfort others who suffer). If suffering is good for one’s life, then one can argue against every medical care that eases suffering. But why shouldn’t medicine alleviate unnecessary suffering? A better reasoning against the redemptive value of suffering is the proximity of suffering to death. If suffering leads to death, then the suffering one cannot positively impact the one suffering. So the redemptive value of suffering diminishes.⁵

To conclude, all possible medical treatment should be offered to the dying if the treatment can potentially save him. But, postponing death is not the only solution because every life is valuable irrespective of its quality. The development of medical technology could extend one’s life span, but one should be cautious to not use expensive medical resources on treatment that is futile. Medical treatment should be withdrawn when it is no longer helpful to a dying patient or when the treatment is more burdensome than being helpful to him. “Even though death is rightly to be resisted through reasonable medical means, the Christian’s eternal destiny is beyond death. In that sense, death for a Christian is by definition a “good death” because it ushers him or her into God’s presence in eternal life,” says Scott Rae. 

May the strength and wisdom of God prevail upon those contemplating suicide and those applying medical treatment in seriously ill patients. May HIS pleasing and perfect will be done in each life. Amen.

Notes and References:

¹ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Human Life as a Journey to God - 29.4, p208.

² Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Living in the World – Moral Virtue - 64.6, p391.

³ Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p218, 2009.

⁴ Euthanasia is often termed, ‘mercy killing.’ It is a direct and intentional effort of a medical professional (e.g. through lethal injection of drugs) to help a dying patient die. (Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p214.)

⁵ Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p224-234, 2009.

(6) Thoughts pertaining to Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia have been extracted from Scott Rae’s work, ‘Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics,’ barring sporadic interposals of my thoughts.  

Would Catholics go to Heaven?

Some Protestant christians are quite vociferous about the Catholics heading to hell. Is this a legitimate thought? If so, why is it legitimate?

Before we venture into this examination, let us briefly remind ourselves of some pertinent theological terms and the church history.

“Salvation postulates the spiritual; the spiritual embodied in a soul; the soul sanctified through divine grace. Grace is the unmerited interior assistance which God confers upon man in order to render him capable of supernatural acts of the soul through which he may attain salvation. Salvation presupposes a condition of sin. As sin is the greatest evil, salvation is used mainly in the liberation of the human race or the individual from sin and its consequences.” ¹

The reformers were a breakaway group from the Catholic church (Catholic = Universal). Martin Luther^AA (1483-1546) was a leader of this religious reform. Luther never saw a Bible until he was 20 years old.² He was an Augustinian friar, ordained in 1507, taught at the University of Wittenberg, and was a doctor of theology. His ‘The Ninety-Five Theses’ was a seminal academic rebellion against the authority and the religiosity of Catholicism. Luther believed in salvation by grace through faith, e Heso confronted the teaching of salvation by works (sale of indulgences, purgatory, pilgrimages, compulsory confessions et al.). He said that all good works of man aimed to attract God’s favor are sins.³ He was excommunicated in January 1521 by Pope Leo, was under an imperial ban, and deemed a heretic by Emperor Charles V.⁴

The Catholic church, from what I have read and heard (I have not had the opportunity to worship in one), clearly promotes salvation by works, which is in total contradiction to the Bible. Other contentious practices in the Catholic church are: worship of Mary & saints, transubstantiation, sacraments, distinction between priests and an ordinary worshiper etc.⁵ (Please read the references if you desire a better knowledge of these terms)

Under the umbrella of “works” are the contentious practices. These contentious practices are a result of their faulty interpretation of the Bible (e.g. purgatory & 1 Corinthians 3:15). Thus, the catholic interpretation of the Bible entails salvation by works, which in turn causes contentious practices.

To complicate matters, the Catholic Bible has extra books called the Deuterocanonicals or Apocryphals or the Intertestamentals. Some of their contentious practices are an outcome of these books (e.g. purgatory and 2 Maccabees 12:43–45). We should consider two aspects when we discuss Catholicism: Catholic interpretation of the Bible and the Catholic inclusion of the Apocryphal books in their canon. These are the root of the contentious Catholic practices.

Quite similar to any believer, a grass root Catholic cannot undo his canon, but he can learn how to interpret the Bible without errors (cf. the Bible cannot contradict itself). The grass root Catholic is also flooded with teaching from his priests, which he needs to cross verify with his Bible to determine the legitimacy of the teaching. One cannot blindly follow. The buck stops with the Catholic, as it does with any believer. We read and understand many things under the sun, but one needs to rely totally upon the Spirit of God to determine the right from wrong. The ‘right’ should be integrated and practiced, and the wrong discarded.

Every contentious practice of the Catholic Church moves the believer away from Christ. Any act that moves a person away from Christ is a sin.

The error of the Catholic Church isn’t unique to them, the Protestant churches also contend with the same problem. One should accept that many Protestant denominations have practices that are contentious as well. Salvation by works is preached and imposed by many Protestant denominations.  If Catholics are guilty of venerating their priests, the Protestants too are. If Catholics are guilty of worshiping idols, Protestants too are, it is just that the idols are different (church building, people, image of the cross etc.). When we point one finger at the Catholics, we should understand that three fingers are pointing at us.

Thus, Protestant churches, by virtue of their imperfections, cannot claim superiority over the Catholic church. So the dialogue with Catholics should be built on love and respect – as one imperfection ministering to another.

With regards to practices that are an outcome of “salvation by works,” it is one’s responsibility to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28: 19-20). We are to make disciples of the Lord Jesus and not any other. When we express our convictions, the person listening may or may not accept our convictions immediately. Patience ought to be practiced when we dialogue with our Catholic brothers and sisters. Our dialogues should be soaked in prayer, so to discern the Lord’s time and will.

Thomas Aquinas and Thomas à Kempis are some of my most favorite and respected authors. These are Catholic theologians and godly thinkers. God has spoken through them and continues to speak through their writings. I cannot surely imagine them being eternally separated from God (yes, this is not a sound logic!). But from their writings, I believe that their faith in Christ was intact. All that matters for eternal security with God is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. I will only go as far as to say that those who believe in the Lord Jesus will be forgiven of all their sins, and will inherit heaven. This includes believers of Christ from Catholicism and Protestantism.

Sole faith in Christ is the only prerequisite to gain heaven. There is no other prerequisite. The final judgment is in the hands of the Lord Jesus, so if a Catholic believes in the Lord Jesus, he will indeed go to heaven.

But what about the Catholic who believes in Christ and consciously practices deeds contrary to the Bible? Will he go to heaven?

Let us be reminded of the inherent complexities in this question. First, the presence of extra books in the Catholic canon should be acknowledged. One should understand the veracity of the Protestant elimination or the Catholic inclusion of the Apocrypha from their respective canons. The knowledge of this research would empower the researcher to eliminate blindness from his thoughts and would equip him to treat the Apocryphal teaching accordingly.

Second, the understanding of the proper biblical interpretation is mandatory for both Protestants and Catholics, for even the Protestants are guilty of contentious practices contradictory to the Bible. One can always obtain information from knowledgeable people, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the reader / hearer to discern the right from the wrong. Discerning right from the wrong is a heavyweight endeavor, for one should spend hours wrestling with the biblical text, and praying and receiving the convictions from the Holy Spirit, to understand and assimilate the truth. A common shortcut practiced is to eliminate personal labor and depend on another, who is presumably more knowledgeable. If the presumably-knowledgeable is incorrect in his thoughts, then the reader / hearer would also be sucked into his error. One should be a Berean in his biblical learning (Acts 17: 11).

Now we need to contend if conscious practices contrary to Bible would eliminate one from heaven. We could define any practice contrary to the Bible that violates God and HIS commands as a sin. So would sin eliminate a believer of Christ from heaven? The answer to this, as far as my learning and understanding goes, is an emphatic NO. If we are saved by grace through faith, then we are only saved by grace through faith. We are not saved by positive or negative works of any form or sense.

It should always be our endeavor to move away from sin (contentious practices) that separates us from God. We can and will overcome sin (not to the extent of sinless perfection) by the grace and the power of our Lord.

It is always wiser to leave all judgments related to eternity to the Lord (cf. Matthew 7: 21-23). Explaining our position with careful research, prayer, love, grace and patience is well within our reach. Transformation of hearts is only in the Lord’s reach.

Let us continue to make disciples of all nations, but let us do so in love, gentleness and respect. The good Lord will continue to bless and keep us all. Amen.

References and Notes:

¹ Joseph Javorski, A Catholic's Conception of Salvation, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter, 1938), pp. 35-38

² http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

³ Brecht, 2:7–9; Marius, 161–62; Marty, 77–79. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#cite_note-68)

⁴ http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/luther_martin.shtml

⁵ http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html

^AA For those unfamiliar with church history, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jr. are different people.

Useful reads:

1. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther

2. http://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html