“Oh, THAT Chestnut!” Gay Christian Logic

I believe the day has past when the answer to homosexuality was simply read them the “clobber” texts (the seven or so Scripture passages that condemn homosexuality). It’s not that the Bible does not have power. It does. The problem is that the so-called gay Christian community completely reinterprets those passages in a way that supports their lifestyles.

So, if a simple reading of the Biblical texts is not working, what are we to do? That’s a great question. I will let you know when I have a definitive answer. In the meantime, my conviction is that the battle for our culture (and not simply where it concerns homosexuality) is being waged on philosophical, academic grounds. Accordingly, I have for some time now been cataloging the logic on display in the many, many books, articles, and videos available from those who are pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-evolution, etc.

With that in mind, I want to share some of the underpinning gay Christian  “moral logic” (as James V. Brownson, author of Bible, Gender, Sexuality, is fond of referring to) that I have encountered in recent weeks.

Ancient Means Sinful, Contemporary Means Righteous

This particular chestnut of wisdom says that the Bible, where it condemns same-sex activity, is not talking about loving, monogamous, committed same-sex relationships like we see in our world today. This has become a defeater belief (click here for an excerpt from D. A. Carson’s book, The Intolerance of Tolerance, where he defines what a defeater belief is). Essentially, a defeater belief is one that, when believed, rules out any belief to the contrary. If A is true, then B can’t possibly be true. Therefore, since I believe A, I can discount B altogether. The gay Christians can therefore dismiss any assertion that the Bible is against homosexuality by claiming that it is only speaking of unhealthy same-sex activity, i.e., temple prostitution, etc. No matter what may be said about the Biblical texts that prohibit and condemn homosexuality, the final salvo fired is, “That passage is not addressing loving, monogamous, committed same-sex relationships.”

Good Tree/Good Fruit

Based on the Jesus’ “good tree/good fruit, bad tree/bad fruit” teaching, Dan O. Via writes in Homosexuality and the Bible, “If the heart is loving, the acts that flow from it cannot be evil….The inner nature of a homosexual relationship does qualify the acts (Quoted by Brownson in Bible, Gender, Sexuality).” Matthew Vines, currently a rising star in defending homosexuality and gay Christianity, explains,

Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. . . . Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. . . . Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct (From a manuscript of Vine’s video sermon).

As they love to say here in New York, “You can’t make this stuff up!” If your self-esteem and self-worth are founded on a sexual orientation that is forbidden by Scripture what do you suppose will happen if someone comes by and informs you of that? So, if I help someone commit suicide, or if I commit adultery, or pederasty for that matter (look it up), I am not sinning as long as I am loving in my heart towards that person. Amazing that we have not yet seen fire and brimstone falling in America!

The Exchange

I don’t care what anybody says, this next one is very creative! In Romans 1:26-27, Paul says,

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

The key word is exchanged. According to gay Christian logic, Paul was talking about heterosexuals engaging in same-sex activity, which violated their God-given nature or orientations. However, gay persons are “naturally” attracted to people of the same-sex, thus not violating their natures or orientations when they engage in same-sex behavior.

One must accept the premise that homosexuals were born that way for this to make sense, which I don’t. If they were not born that way, then they have indeed “exchanged” the normal for the abnormal whether they were conscious of the choice to do so or not. The onus is upon any of us: when we realize we are out of the way before God it is up to us to present ourselves to Him and allow Him to dictate how we will live and how we are to proceed.

The “Jesus never said it!” Approach

A transgender person made this statement in a comment on one of my blog entries, Why the Focus on Homosexuality . . . 

Jesus said that if a man look at a woman with lust in his heart, he had already committed adultery. He did not say the same if a man look at a man.

The utter nonsense of such a statement should be obvious. If we took this statement as true, we would have to assume that Jesus’ was saying that it is not OK for a man to lust after a woman but it is OK for a man to lust after another man!

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

3 thoughts on ““Oh, THAT Chestnut!” Gay Christian Logic

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s