Homosexuality: Sin or Not?

In my posts on homosexuality, I merely assert that it is a sin without providing theological reasoning for why. Since I have been challenged on that point several times, I will now explain once and for all why I believe that homosexuality is a sin.

I have discussed the nature or nurture question and a theology of homosexuality. In this post, I am only considering the Scriptural evidence on whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

There are five passages of Scripture used to directly condemn homosexuality, and three that are used to indirectly condemn it. Let’s consider the direct condemnations first, then move on to the indirect ones.

The first direct condemnation is Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that. This passage clearly has homosexual behavior in view, and it quite plainly condemns the practice by calling it an abomination.

Some argue that this passage is referring only to temple service. But look at the context — every other sexual prohibition listed in chapter 18 is meant as a universal moral precept. After explaining dozens of prohibitions that are still observed today (even by the most libertine among us), the passage concludes:

So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God. (Lev 18:30)

Clearly, all of the listed prohibitions were meant to be universally binding.

Next, we come to Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Again, clear as day.

It is important to note that the Levitical laws are part of a larger contract with God and the people of Israel.  That contract has been breached by the people of Israel and is therefore no longer in force.  Therefore, by bringing this passage up, I am not condoning violence against homosexuals.  It is God’s domain to punish sinners, not ours.  We should seek to bring them to repentance, not judgment.

Moving on, we find three New Testament passages often used to condemn the practice. First up is Romans 1:26-27:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

This passage condemns both gays and lesbians. Paul is here making an appeal to the original created order, one man and one woman, as described in Genesis 1-2. Homosexuality is described in this passage not only as a sin, but as a symptom of a deeper problem within society. The problem is described in verses 21-23 — worshiping creation rather than Creator. In all of the responses to blogs I’ve done on homosexuality, I see this time and time again.  “God made me this way and I’m not going to change.”  That pride is what Paul has in mind here — we are beholden to what we are instead of looking to what we ought to be.

Paul goes on to describe that the guilty are not just practitioners of homosexuality, but those who condone the practice (see Rom 1:32). That means that American society, becoming ever more tolerant of homosexual practice and allowing gay “marriage,” is under God’s judgment. And, as the letter to the Hebrews points out, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31).

The second passage in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

First Corinthians 6:18a says to flee sexual immorality. So far, I’ve built a very strong case that homosexuality is just that: sexual immorality. But God promises to deliver us:

And such were some of you. But you were washed,  you were sanctified,you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)

The Corinthians that Paul was addressing were Christians; and God cleansed them.  This promise is true for us today.  God will wash us of our sins in the name of Jesus.

The final passage in the New Testament is 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Again, this passage speaks for itself. Homosexuality is a clear sin, and those who practice it are unrighteous along with the other people on the list.

The words translated “men who practice homosexuality” in the ESV are actually two Greek words. One literally means “soft” and the other is untranslatable (some think Paul coined it, but it isn’t unique to him).

Objectors say that since we don’t know what these words mean, then we can’t attribute them to homosexuality.  Contemporary scholarship, however, does not side with these objectors. “Soft,” we think, refers to the passive partner in homosexuality (the “bottom” in today’s slang) and the other term refers to the active partner (the “top”). By using both terms, Paul meant to indicate both offenders sinned. He was trying to leave no doubt that homosexuality is a sin.

While the direct condemnations of homosexuality should be enough to prove the practice is sinful, it doesn’t convince everyone.  So there are three indirect references that are usually mentioned. Let’s take a peek at those.

We’ve all heard “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” In the original created order, God created male and female in his image (Gen 1:26-27; see also Gen 2:24). From this, we can posit that he did so for a reason because God works everything after the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11) and brings everything to a conclusion he has declared (Is 46:10).  The most damning direct condmenation, Romans 1:26-27, assumes male and female as the original created order or it would have no force.

The next indirect condemnation is the story of Sodom (Gen 19:1-29). But the question is often raised, “Was the sin of Sodom really homosexuality?” Critics point to Ezekiel 16:49, which seems to suggest that the real sin of Sodom was unkindness to travelers in need. But that sin is mentioned nowhere in the Law, so it is doubtful that God destroyed the city for that reason. Sexual immorality in general is mentioned as the cause of the destruction of the city in Jude 7, but no specific mention of homosexuality.

Therefore, I would seriously caution Christians not use the story of Sodom to condemn homosexuality.  That means the pro-homosexual party has batted down one passage out of seven (so far) to make their case.  It doesn’t look good, but we still have one more to look at.

The third indirect condemnation comes from Jesus himself.


Well, true.  But, in Mark 10:1-12 Jesus confirms that the archetype for marriage is one male and one female, as set forth in Genesis 2:24.  Though he never made a direct condemnation of homosexuality, he did follow the Genesis teaching of marriage I set out above and that means that he would say marriage is between a man and a woman.  Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

The overwhelming biblical evidence is on the side of homosexuality being a sin. Only a dismal one proof text out of eight is found wanting.  The person who tries to say that homosexuality is no sin has to ignore an awful lot of Scripture to arrive at that conclusion.

Now we have to consider the obvious objection: These passages are talking about lust; what about homosexual love? To which I say: love is always encouraged in both the New and Old Testaments. The Greatest Commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might, and to love your neighbor as yourself (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18).

All references in the so-called “clobber passages” are references to the act of homosexual intercourse, not to homosexual love. Therefore, homosexual love is acceptable to, even encouraged by, God.

It is homosexual sex that is not accepted.  Since it is the act of intercourse that consummates a marriage and homosexual persons can’t lawfully do that, homosexual marriage is not acceptable to God.

It requires ignoring much of the Bible’s passages and underlying assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin. Therefore, we conclude the act of homosexual intercourse is an abomination to God and homosexual “marriage” is not tolerated by him. The weight of the biblical evidence supports this conclusion. Love between a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, is accepted and encouraged.  Leave the lust behind, like all other sins.


About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on September 9, 2009, in Morality, Sin and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 56 Comments.

  1. Reblogged this on Josiah Concept Ministries and commented:

    I now rescue an old post from the archives. It is germane to the recent discussion I’ve been having on homosexuality as it relates to the Catholic priest who denied a young proponent of same-sex marriage confirmation. It is my answer to the question of why homosexuality is considered a sin.

  2. The passages in Leviticus are customary laws. Acts 15:1-21 has a lot of customary laws being changed. The customary laws are subject to change but the religious laws are not. It is important to understand the difference between customary laws and Yah’s laws. If you want to keep the customary laws then you should also continue to stone people for not keeping the Sabbath.

    Romans 1 is addressed at a variation of homosexuality that was being performed by pagans in their temple worship. Romans 2 proceeds to command Jews not to judge others for they have also done wrong. As such, Paul’s argument condemns a variation of homosexual Temple prostitution.

    The other two verses you quote from 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians maintain biased and presumably inaccurate Greek translations of words that simply mean “sexual perverts” and the word for homosexual actually has been used in context of things related to economics and more likely simply condemns a form of shrine prostitution.


    • Well, junior, you’re wrong and very naive.

      School is in session. Now pay attention!

      First of all, the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 doesn’t change a doggone thing. What it does is incorporate Gentiles into a plan of salvation. It was necessary to do that because up to this point, no one could agree on how to do this. The decision of this council fits perfectly with Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians in his first letter to them (7:18-19).

      Paul wrote quite extensively on the theme of circumcision and how it is unnecessary to effect salvation. He asked the Galatians who had bewitched them into thinking that they needed to follow the Mosaic Law once again when they are perfected by faith rather than works of Law. Other letters (Rom 4:8-12; Gal 5:1-4; Phil 3:2-3; Col 2:8,11,12,15) touch on the theme of circumcision and how it bears no relation to salvation, too.

      It has nothing to do with the legal enforcement aspects of the Mosaic Law. As I’ve covered elsewhere, there are actually three divisions: dietary, legal, and universal. The dietary aspects are out for sure (Acts 10). The legal codes can be used to derive universals, but are not meant to be followed rigidly (you don’t put a railing around your roof per Deut 22:8, but you would if you built a balcony; cf. 1 Cor 9:9-10). Finally, the universals would always apply because they are universals. Sexual morality is universal; therefore, so is the prohibition on homosexuality.

      You’re going to have make a better argument … wait — I misspoke. Let me start again. You’re going to have make AN ARGUMENT if you want to put homosexuality in the legal code, because based on its placement in Leviticus it is quite clearly meant as a universal. Otherwise, I guess you’d be okay with having sex with your father, step-mother, siblings, step or half-siblings, aunts or uncles, or animals. This same section also forbids burning your children in the name of the pagan god Moloch — would that be okay with you?

      And your problems don’t stop there. Leviticus and Deuteronomy form the basis of God’s covenant with the people of ancient Israel. What happens to a contract if one of the parties fails to live up to its side of the agreement? There is a breech and the original contract is no longer in force. The penalties — stoning adulterers or Sabbath-breakers, for example — were part of the original contract and are NOT OURS TO ENFORCE ANYMORE since Israel breached this contract and it is null and void.

      That would seem to help your case more than your own pathetic argument. However, we must understand that the commands of God flow from the nature of God, which is eternally good and unchanging. If it was a sin then, it is a sin now. Homosexuality is a sin, therefore, and always will be. The Law is useful for our instruction per Romans 15:4 (also 1 Cor 10:9-11). So I stand behind deriving universal applications from the legal codes and sticking to the universals (even if the contract isn’t in force) because those laws teach us something about the nature of God (which is perfect even if the law is an imperfect reflection of it).

      I’m not done shredding you yet, so sit tight.

      In Romans 1, Paul addresses common folk in the letter, not clergy. There is no instruction in Romans 1 concerning temple worship, but it speaks to the general behavior of society. Where are you getting that the prohibition on homosexuality is only for temple prostitution? Not from the passage, apparently. Must be in the New International Secret Fundy Code Version, or the NISFCV. My copy hasn’t arrived from Amazon.com yet.

      As for the Greek words that you dismiss as simply meaning “sexual perversion,” even if that were true Leviticus still defines homosexuality as a universal sexual perversion (as covered above). So you’d be hard pressed to think that homosexuality isn’t at least implied in those lists.

      But, once again, you are naive as to the meaning of the two Greek words in question. Christian Research Journal writer C. Wayne Mayhall argues (like I do) that the word isn’t all that mysterious.

      Lots of assertion, but no meat plagues your feeble attempt at a reply. When you are ACTUALLY READY to step up to the plate and argue, come back. Until then, I slap your knuckles with a virtual ruler.

      CLASS DISMISSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. I really didn’t feel the “holy spirit” thingy-ma-bobber here with you. Regardless,

    Leviticus 20:25 – ‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground–those which I have set apart as unclean for you.

    Acts 15:20-21 – Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

    Yes, it was a meeting designed for the Gentiles but they now have the universal law. And homosexuality isn’t in it. Thus, your argument on Acts 15:1-21 isn’t a very good argument. It simply dismisses one piece of the Bible that does not support you and upholds a piece that does support you. I can assure you that this is NOT the way to do hermeneutics.

    For more info on Leviticus:

    • Are you sure you’re a Christian? I don’t know of many Christians that would refer to the Holy Spirit as a “thing,” given that he is the third PERSON of the Holy Trinity and not a nebulous force.

      Second, you didn’t present anything approaching an argument here. You conceded my point and then said I didn’t present an argument. The problem is that I did present an argument; it is you who is lacking in that area. It also raises the question of what you conceded to if I didn’t present an argument.

      More than likely, it seems that you agree with my general point, but want homosexuality excluded from general revelation and natural law so bad that you overlook the obvious. Why is homosexuality neither general revelation nor natural law? You fail to explain that.

      I’m not saying that we have to obey every bit of Leviticus or take it at face value. But this isn’t the only condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible; I have discussed numerous others that you ignore. Likely because this is the easiest to bat down.

  4. LOL. I read the article you had posted and all it did was argue etymology. “Let’s put words together in order to complete our own personal agenda!” Okey dokey! Let’s put the words “ear” and “buds” together and get “Buds that are ears!” No…wait! “Ears that are buds!” Oh but wait, the word doesn’t mean either so it must not have come from a combination of “ear” and “buds”. Oh, this is getting frustrating!

    Two follow-up sites proving my point on the meaning of the word “arsenokoiten”:

  5. LOL. I finally read that article you had me view. Most of it is on the word’s etymology. “Let’s put the words ‘ear’ and ‘buds’ together and find out what that means!” It means “buds that are ears!” No wait…it means “ears that are buds!” No wait…oh, this is ridiculous! arsenokoitai comes from arsene and koiten. I already knew that. But the word’s ETYMOLOGY is NOT the same thing as its MEANING! In regards to what the word ACTUALLY means, you’d be better off consulting the following sites:


  6. I’ll have a look at your articles later, but for right now you should understand that etymology is key to understanding compound words (particularly recently coined words).

    For your example of earbuds (which is asinine), the “bud” portion notes the physical similarity to the buds on plants. It’s strangely fitting, because a less well-known definition of “bud” is an immature person — which you clearly are when you put forth examples like that.

    If someone was analyzing a word like earbud 2000 years from now, he would likely note it was compound of ear and bud. He would also be able to note a specific, concrete noun that it referred to and discern that neither component word is meant literally. He could easily grasp why we called it that.

    An etymological discussion of arsenokoites is fruitful for the same reason.

    Even if Paul wasn’t referring to homosexuality in the letters to Corinth or Timothy, then you still have Romans 1 and that is a powerful condemnation of homosexuality (as your own link to STR’s website argues).

  7. Right. But Romans 1 is talking about a form of shrine prostitution where people engaged in homosexuality. And as you will discover on one of my links, the word arsenekoiten was NOT coined by Paul. It was used by Greeks before Paul started condemning it. Additionally, the etymology of the word is essentially “male” + “bed”. So male-bedder or couch potato. Also, if you are going to argue that homosexual love is okay then you further betray yourself because the word as defined in lexicons is referring to active and passive tenses.

    What I find funny is how you “Christians” are quick to condemn homosexuality but that isn’t even one of the seven things your god hates (Prov. 6:16-19).

    As for Christians who refer to the holy spirit as a “thing” – you should take a look into The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Sir Anthony Buzzard strongly asserts that the holy spirit is God’s active force. Since Buzzard is a Christian, then it is conclusive that there are Christians who believe the holy spirit to be a “thing”.

  8. “I’m not saying that we have to obey every bit of Leviticus or take it at face value.”

    And there you go my friend. You have now conceded on Leviticus.

  9. Sorry, I also forgot to highlight another key point. Even if the verses you point out do condemn homosexuality, they speak nothing about whether it is okay for women to take sexual intercourse with other women. Not even Romans 1:26-27 states that the women started practicing intercourse with other women. In other words, your god is so dumb that he is unfair about his laws to condemn men for a “crime” but not women.

  10. Sorry. I didn’t mean the “str” website. I meant this website. That was a “mis-click” on my part.

    And besides, anti-gays cannot be rightfully said to “Stand to reason” so their website title also confused me a little bit as well.

  11. All right, NE Sun, I’m going to address all of your comments as a group right now. Before I do, I want you to understand that I’m going to be heavily moderating your comments from now on. You take more potshots than arguments and you don’t listen to reason. In a moment, I will show that you endorse heresy. You are shaping up to be a waste of my time.

    Case-in-point: I have argued why Romans 1 is a general case, and you ignore that. I would like to know WHY Romans 1 refers only to shrine prostitution, but you fail to produce a single reason. Restating your position is not an acceptable reply to any argument. You need to either explain why I’m wrong or why you’re right. I’m waiting.

    If your articles are correct, then your best case scenario is that we simply don’t know what aresenokoites means. If so, then we ought to find that out quick, because otherwise we’re arguing for nothing because there’s no way to know if homosexuality is really a sin or not.

    With that in mind, is lesbianism a sin? Well, yes. And Romans 1:26-27 absolutely condemns it. Follow along:

    For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Did you catch that? “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.” What’s contrary to nature? It doesn’t say, right? Wrong. “…[A]nd the men likewise gave up natural relations with women….” What the men were doing (homosexuality) the women were doing likewise.

    Now, I was thinking on the way home from work today that I hate the term “Christian fiction.” Why? Because books like The Oath or The Visitation aren’t “Christian” in any way. The Visitation features three demons that turn a simple preacher into a New Messiah and the main character is dangerously close to chucking his Christianity out the window. The Oath has several grisly death scenes and the main characters, one unhappily married to someone else, have sex with each other.

    But Frank Peretti uses those books to deal with Christian themes (in an unfortunately preachy way).

    Applied to “homosexual love,” I simply mean love between members of the same sex. I love my male friends, but I wouldn’t call that “homosexual” in the same way we use the term to apply to romantic love between men. The key adjective is “romantic” — romantic love between men isn’t the norm, and thus shouldn’t be acted on or consummated.

    Switching gears slightly, is it your position that Christians should only be able to preach against the seven things God hates in Proverbs 6? Or is your position that only those seven things are sinful, while everything else is fine? No matter how you slice it, your attitude falls under two of those things — you are sowing discord among your fellow Christians, and you’re so convinced you’re right that I think it qualifies you to have a “haughty eye.” You won’t even interact with the material I’ve presented you, and you even took a potshot at Stand to Reason, which is an excellent ministry.

    Lastly, the Holy Spirit isn’t a force. He is a person with the full capacity of a person. Anthony Buzzard is a non-Trinitarian, and non-Trinitarianism is considered heresy. He might not be your best source for such information, therefore.

  12. “Case-in-point: I have argued why Romans 1 is a general case, and you ignore that. I would like to know WHY Romans 1 refers only to shrine prostitution, but you fail to produce a single reason. Restating your position is not an acceptable reply to any argument. You need to either explain why I’m wrong or why you’re right. I’m waiting.”

    This is why Romans 1 only refers to shrine prostitution: the key thing to understand is “natural relations”. That is, these people went against their nature. The best psychological analyses that we have on the subject of sexual orientation in general have demonstrated to us that one’s sexual orientation is simply apart of who they are. There was a study done on David Reimer where they attempted to change his sexual orientation after his penis was severely damaged in circumcision. Reimer ended up driving himself to committing suicide. It’s not even good to try to change one’s sexual orientation and most of these “support” groups for homosexuals end up doing more harm than good.

    Case in point, Romans 1 deals with homosexual acts that go against nature and therefore refers strictly to shrine prostitution.

    “If your articles are correct, then your best case scenario is that we simply don’t know what aresenokoites means. If so, then we ought to find that out quick, because otherwise we’re arguing for nothing because there’s no way to know if homosexuality is really a sin or not.”

    My articles did give a definition of arsenokoites. They argued that it is shrine prostitution. They further argued that anti-gay Christians have abused these verses beyond recognition.

    For further notes see Brian McLaren.

    “Lastly, the Holy Spirit isn’t a force. He is a person with the full capacity of a person. Anthony Buzzard is a non-Trinitarian, and non-Trinitarianism is considered heresy. He might not be your best source for such information, therefore.”

    Really now? Where is your authoritative source to state that people who do not believe in the Trinity are “heretics”? Have you actually read anything that which stands in opposition to the Trinity teaching or are you simply attacking Buzzard on sole note that he disagrees with you? I would have to see your evidence that Buzzard is a “heretic” before I dismiss as a source on such information. Nevertheless, I will give a different source. Greg Stafford does not believe the holy spirit is a person. The Restored Church of God believes God is two persons of the Father and the Son and the holy spirit is their active force. Or are all “non-Trinitarians” considered heretics and therefore not a good source? If so, then are you bigoted against non-Trinitarian Christians? Or do you not even consider non-Trinitarians as Christians?

    • Sorry it took so long to get back. I keep pushing the answering of comments to the back burner, and then before I know it, the answer is too late to be of any relevance. I think that’s the case here, but I’ll give it a go anyway.

      First, I don’t find the line of argument that sex orientation is a part of us to be very convincing. Our fallen natures mean that we enter this life inclined to sin and only by being “born again” of the Spirit can we be cleansed of our sin. Sex orientation is part of our fallen nature, and therefore that does NOT make homosexuality “natural” in God’s eyes just because it is part of us.

      We are not ordered to embrace matters of the flesh; we are ordered to set our minds on the things of God rather than things of the world (1 Jn 2:15-17). We are expected to deny ourselves (Mt 16:24).

      Your articles gave a definition that I don’t accept by spurious arguments that I don’t accept. So it looks like we have to agree to disagree unless something more definitive comes along. It appears neither of us are impressed by quoting “dueling academics.”

      You actually referred me to Brian McLaren? Have you not read this blog? I’ve blasted Rob Bell, one of McLaren’s co-laborers in the Emergent movement, TWICE. Emergent Church leaders are NOT good sources (for some ideas why see Apologetics Index hub page on the Emergent Church, the CAA page on affirmation of exclusive truth, and the CAA page on moral relativism.

      Am I bigoted toward non-Trinitarians? Are you seriously asking me that? Seriously? What a joke.

      First, the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is a person.

      Second, the Council of Constantinople pronounced those who denied the person of the HOly Spirit anathema.

      Third, the Athanasian Creed (accepted by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and many other Protestant churches) tells us that we must believe in the Trinity as a condition of salvation:

      Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal.

      So non-Trinitarians aren’t Christians by this creed.

      But I’m not sure I’d go that far; I would call non-Trinitarians false teachers. The Bible strongly condemns false teachers (see, in particular, 2 Pet 2:1).

      For more on defense of the Trinity, check the CAA page on defending the Trinity and the CAA page evaluating Oneness doctrines.

      • Um…what is the big deal with emergent church members?

        Um…the Athanasian creed is just a piece of shitty paper probably not even written by Athanasius. Jesus says he is the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14) so he must have been created.

        Um…your arguments might be circular and fallacious but I think this argument goes to me. It has been proven to all with an open mind that homosexuality is not a sin, God is not explicitly a Trinity and the Athanasian creed is paper.

        There are Anglicans who believe that David and Jonathan had a homosexual, intimate relationship by the way.

      • LOL…

        My argument is neither circular nor fallacious. Everything you said is based on assertion and you repeatedly refuse to substantiate it with anything more than borderline bully tactics and argument by popularity.

        Our discussion on this is CLOSED. Others are welcome to comment if there is new territory that they wish to explore.

  13. My arguments are borderline bully? Did you mean your arguments were borderline bully?

    • New fallacy: tu quoque.

      It’s a rare privilege to argue with someone who can introduce a new logical fallacy so late in the argument.

      • Tu quoque is only a fallacy in this sense:
        “He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel.” (wikipedia)
        Note: the argument presented here has nothing to do with whether or not the other person did libel against them.
        Thus, to say that I am using arguments of bullying when you have also done the same is actually a fallacy on your part – double standard.

  14. Wrong. Again.

    Tu quoque is more general than libel. It is defending yourself by saying someone else is doing what you have been accused of doing, as though that were an acceptable defense.

    So, when you say that I bully people and think that makes it fine for you to do the same, you have committed this fallacy. No libel involved. I am simply pointing out that you have defended your actions by saying that I have done the same thing. Of course, assuming I had bullied people, that STILL WOULD NOT MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME BEHAVIOR. This is the point you seem to be missing.

    A double standard is when one standard applies to one situation, but a totally different standard applies to another situation WITHOUT a reasonable difference.

    Rules of discussion are rules and apply to me as much as they do to you. All of your rhetoric assumes that homosexuality is good and that all reasonable people agree on that; therefore people who say otherwise must be silenced. BULLY. You won’t discuss your presupposition or put it under the microscope; you simply state it’s true and that all civilized people accept it. BULLY.

    So, to review:
    1) No double standard has been used here.
    2) You have used bully tactics.
    3) Therefore, I haven’t libeled you.

    The real question is why I’m responding to you at all. Like Padme in Star Wars said of Anakin, “There’s good in him!” Perhaps I, like Padme, am saying of you, “There’s reason in him!” But it’s looking like that’s just wishful thinking at best, a delusion at worst. Padme was right — it only took 3 more movies to show it. If I’m right, don’t make me wait that long.

    • Okay, fine. I will not list any one who already agrees with my position that homosexuality is natural, I will have you look into a group that agrees with you.

      First off, though, I am a bisexual and I really see no possible way for me to change my sexual orientation. I assume you are a heterosexual. Did you choose to be a heterosexual? So if you do not choose to be a heterosexual, how can you choose to be a homosexual? Is this a double standard?

      Now I am certain you have heard of Exodus International. They are one of the leading “ex-gay” ministries. But why don’t people believe their claims about everyone being a heterosexual? For starters, they attribute homosexuality to a denial of the standard norms of a patriarchal society.

      Because of this, they have a distorted view of the cause of homosexuality. They would then have to contend that Rob Halford of Judas Priest and heavy metal for that matter are feminine as opposed to masculine. Besides, matriarchal societies have a way different view of proper gender roles then do patriarchal societies.

      Additionally, many of the people that have gone through Exodus International’s programs still have the temptation of homosexuality. Has their orientation really changed if they are still showing homosexual temptations? I doubt it. Doesn’t this cause suspicion?

      People who have gone through programs where others force them to change their sexual orientation normally do not end up well and Exodus International unfortunately has a losing streak in this. I mean no damage to Exodus International, I have been to one of their meetings but what they teach about homosexuality and how to “cure” it, I have learned, is wrong even if well-meaning.

  15. Thanks for a marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will make certain to bookmark
    your blog and definitely will come back at some point.
    I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great
    writing, have a nice weekend!

  16. i’m sorry that a while back i was a douche to you. can i be welcomed back with your loving arms please 🙂

  17. I was recommended this blog by my cousin. I’m not sure whether this post
    is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my problem.

    You’re incredible! Thanks!

  18. Good post. I learn something new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon every day.
    It will always be exciting to read through content from other writers and use something from
    their web sites.

  19. What’s up to every one, it’s iin fact a giod for me to go to see this web page, it contains precious Information.

  20. You can sing these melodious Christmas songs in great tunes with a lot of fun and joys.

    Or was it instead a happy dark night where you sat near a bonfire with your friends eating
    marshmallows. Find out about the top free plugins for Windows Media Player and learn how to use them.

  21. By authorizing our comment, we are able to deliver $0.01 to a particular cause.

  22. Oh my goodness! Awesome article dude! Thank you so much,
    However I am encountering difficulties with your
    RSS. I don’t know the reason why I can’t join it.

    Is there anybody getting identical RSS problems? Anyone who
    knows the answer can you kindly respond? Thanx!!

  23. Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a blog site?
    The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright
    clear idea

  24. Here are some insightful quotes I like…
    Lemme know if you like them:

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge.

    “I, at any rate, aam convinced that He (God) doesn’t throw dice.”

    “The important matter is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing.”

    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is

    “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
    and I’m not certain about the universe.”

    “Falling in love isn’t at all the most stupid thing that people do — but gravitation cannot be held responsible for it.”

    “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious.

    It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”

    “Anyone who hasn’t made a mistake has never tried anything new.”

    “Strive not to become a man of success, but instead attempt to become a man of value”

  25. If you desire to improve your know-how only keep visiting this web site and
    be updated with the latest news update posted here.

  26. Very soon this web page will be famous among all blogging users, due to it’s good articles

  27. What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious familiarity concerning unexpected emotions.

  28. Although training inside of BMW Group of people there have been minimal source
    available to do this combined with the person director trusted
    implementing their own. His cooking area
    helper, a Dutchman, hands us a mimosa, whilst faint
    Arabic audio tinkles within the history. Nevertheless, another most frequent reason for failure would be
    that the innovator delegates after which will not supply proper help for
    your supervisor being delegated to.

  29. Hello! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my previous room mate!
    He always kept talking about this. I will forward this
    post to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read.
    Many thanks for sharing!

  30. Hello there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?
    There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your
    content. Please let me know. Cheers

  31. Thanks for some other excellent post. Where else could anyone get that type of info in such a perfect way
    of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and
    I am on the search for such information.

  32. Hmm it looks like your website ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess I’ll just
    sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to everything.
    Do you have any recommendations for first-time blog writers?

    I’d definitely appreciate it.

  33. I simply need to figure out where to secure the key for the gun lock.

  34. After I initially commented I seem to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox
    and from now on every time a comment is added I recieve 4 emails with the same comment.
    There has to be an easy method you are able to remove me from that
    service? Thanks a lot!

  35. So there might be a riad marrakech mabrouka tough one.
    While many bikes are unisex, there are places you can go about deleting it yourself.
    Rim brakes are less common, with most awards still lacking an overwhelming favourite.

    There riad marrakech mabrouka were times though, during the colonial period when Morocco was a protectorate of
    France. This town is very famous with its stones and potteries.

  36. Hotline Miami 2 picks up several years after the events of the first game.

  37. Hello would you mind letting me know which hosting company you’re utilizing?
    I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different browsers and I must say this
    blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a fair price?
    Cheers, I appreciate it!

  38. In 2012, my path again crossed with a former British Gurkha.

    By gaining fights, you could enhance your level and be the best ruler among
    your friends. That aggressive strategy has worked wonders, putting Chevron’s opponents on the
    defensive and convincing many people that the Ecuador suit is
    a sham.

  39. Howdy! I know this is sort of off-topic however I needed to ask.
    Does running a well-established blog like yours require a massive amount work?
    I am brand new to blogging but I do write in my diary everyday.
    I’d like to start a blog so I can share my own experience and thoughts online.
    Please let me know if you have any kind of ideas or tips for new aspiring bloggers.
    Appreciate it!

  40. I’m gone to convey my little brother, that he should also visit
    this weblog on regular basis to obtain updated from most up-to-date reports.

  41. Pretty! This was an extremely wonderful post. Thank you for supplying
    this info.

  42. Pretty great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your weblog
    posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and
    I hope you write once more very soon!

  43. In the center of it all is Bongy, the mascot for The Bong Warehouse:
    a giant, blue-colored bong with sleepy eyes and a stoner smirk on its face.
    If you do have the budget to buy some of these
    fun and unique instruments, then I would suggest Music in Motion, Musicians Friend or West Music.

    The folks at Cheap Bongs are pretty pleased
    to publicize the roll-out of the first-ever total listing of the lowest priced tobacco-blazing
    components online.

  1. Pingback: Things God Can’t or Won’t Do? « Josiah Concept Ministries

  2. Pingback: Coming Out of the Closet, part I « Josiah Concept Ministries

  3. Pingback: Why Christians Can’t Have a Meaningful Debate About Homosexuality « Josiah Concept Ministries

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: