The attempts to get around the texts in the Bible condemning gay sex are embarrassing and provoke even allies to rage.  It is propaganda.  And the LGBT who end up doing that end up limiting approval only to relationships that look like heterosexual marriage.

Diarmaid MacCulloch has more right to speak than most "affirming" "Christians": “Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity.” This difficulty is harmful period. Liberals need to admit that they themselves don’t come across well enough so their theologies can still sow the seed of homophobia. Human nature goes homophobic far too easily and does not need the input of such risky scriptures.

Divine accommodation is the doctrine that God has such mysterious ways and is a mystery himself and unlike us that he has to communicate with us like a mother simplifying things and using different ways to get a message to her baby.  Jesus said that his followers were babies and that it was hard to get information to them for they were not ready to understand.  The doctrine makes all attempts suspicious that seek to explain away the anti-gay sex texts.


He quotes Paul railing against men who "burn with lust for one another; males behave indecently with males, and are paid in their own persons the fitting wage of such perversion.’ We can try to torture a liberal interpretation out of that text by claiming that Paul did not understand same-sex relations in the way we now do, so his strictures, which seem to be based on fear of idol worship of some sort, cannot apply to our time. The really honest way for us to deal with the question is to ask: even if Paul would have opposed what we mean by same-sex relations, why should his opposition be normative for us today? In other parts of Pauline theology we make choices. We might find his metaphors for explaining the power of Christ’s death suggestive, and his doctrine of God’s justifying grace liberating; we are no longer likely to make much of his expectation of the imminent return of Jesus, and some of us find his certainty that all rulers get their authority from God dangerous as well as unconvincing. Sensibly, we make choices here, we take what still has authority for us, because of its self-evidencing power, and reject the rest. In fact, we no longer treat an injunction from scripture as having moral authority over us simply because it is in scripture. It has to have moral force independent of its scriptural context. We judge scripture by our own best moral standards, not the other way round. We now do this inmost areas except the area of sexual behaviour. We must find the honesty and courage to apply this criterion of authenticity to the tangled area of human sexuality.


"Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for manoeuvring. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of scripture" - Wink, Homosexuality and Christian Faith.

"No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently no choice, and sexual behaviour, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those who condemned were heterosexual who were acting contrary to nature". Wink, Homosexuality and Christian Faith.

Note the SEEMED TO ASSUME.  Wink is only guessing.

Even if there was a chance the Bible did not condemn gay sex, that means there is a chance that it does so the gay man should consider living celibate.  Remember the Bible claims God is clear and does not confuse.  Paul as a man of his day was slamming male on male sex and woman on woman sex regardless of what feelings they have or had.  And does Wink want to condemn bisexuals who can refrain from same sex relations and seek opposite sex ones?  The contrary to nature thing is about their bodies as in he thinks penis is for vagina and that is it.  But Wink assumes nature makes people gay and reads that into the text.  If gay and lesbian is valid it does not matter how one becomes gay or lesbian.  The "born this way" must not be depended on.

The bishop will not take responsibility if somebody goes out and kills gay people because of the quotes from the Bible. If the bishop says he does not believe in killing gays today and that it was a law for the past that does not get him off the hook for he is saying, "It is only my opinion". That opens the door to people to disagree and think the killings would be endorsed by God at best or understandable at worst.

While it is good that decent people oppose the Church saying that gay sex is a serious sin, the problem that Jesus said it is the main problem.

If Jesus really set up Roman Catholicism to teach the truth and be the only right religion then he is to blame for the pope's anti-gay teaching.

The Old Testament teaches that God commanded that certain sinners must be stoned to death without mercy.

Jesus stated that he had no intention of relaxing any law of God in the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not - not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

Jesus told the Jews off for giving people who cursed their parents a light penalty and not the death penalty as required by God's law (Mark 7).

Jesus did not say that it was wrong to stone the adulteress to death. He said if you were any better than her it was okay to cast the first stone. So it is an honour.  That is saying the death penalty is right in principle even if not always practical or possible. Obviously if it is not wrong in principle it is not the worst sin if you go out and murder an adulteress!  Even worse, the episode was used not to save the woman but to get the accusers to see they deserved stoning themselves.

Jesus said he advocated love your neighbour as it was in the law of God - the law is clear that this law does not exclude killing adulterers or homosexuals. He was not taking the command out of context. He said he was using the commandment as the law gave it. The command comes from Leviticus 18 the most murderous book God ever allegedly wrote.

Jesus did not say, "I abolish the laws of the Old Testament commanding that homosexuals be put to death." You need that in such a serious matter and if you want to say Jesus was all about peace and love.

Jesus never apologised for the deaths.

It is an insult to the people murdered as a result of the Leviticus law to say, "We don't do that now so it is okay".

Jesus even if he did not demand stoning to death of people made it clear that he is going to murder them himself. Vengeance is mine I will repay - Romans 12:19. Jesus keeping the law for us means the law is still in force. See also Romans 1:31 "God’s righteous decree is that those who do such things deserve death". The decree refers to the death penalty in the law of Moses.

Jesus authorised Paul's teaching and Paul taught that gay sex is a serious sin and results in everlasting damnation.

Jesus claimed to have inspired the Old Testament. The Bible claims to have two authors, God wrote it as much as man did.

Christians who cherry-pick the Bible are giving the message: "My opinions are as good as God's. If I don't honour the whole Bible why do I honour any of it? Because it is sacred and I am just too stubborn, inconsistent and naughty to obey it all". Cherrypicking is paying homage to the Bible and the Bible should get no homage at all. It is bad advertising for the goodness of the Bible but still advertising.

Christians accepting the Jesus of the Bible and the Church that preaches the Bible as true and from God are indirectly and implicitly approving of their violent spirit and the barbaric deaths of those who faced that spirit.

If your empathy and decency are not tainted by faith, you will abandon faith in the Bible and in Jesus without hesitation. No religion with violent revelations from God should be adhered to.

Quoting murderous religious texts or any texts that reasonably can cause a reaction of obedience should be a crime and the intention to not cause a lynching is irrelevant. It is reasonable to assume there is an attempt to manipulate into violence.


From Fall 2016 • Vol. 13, No. 2 The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

A Double Review of People to Be Loved and Living in a Gray World

1  People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just An Issue. By Preston Sprinkle. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. 223 pages. Paperback, $16.99.

2  Living In A Gray World: A Christian Teen’s Guide to Understanding Homosexuality. By
Preston Sprinkle. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. 155 pages. Paperback, $12.99.

Sprinkle’s handling of Ezek 16:49–50 seems to have been influenced by revisionist
interpreters. In this passage, Ezekiel specifically notes that Sodom is unconcerned about
the poor and needy. Many pro-homosexual interpreters have thus claimed that Sodom was
not judged for sexual immorality, but for being unkind to poor people. Sprinkle affirms such
an approach, remarking, “It’s pretty sad when overfed, greedy Christians who perfectly fit
Ezekiel’s description run around hating on gay people” (PTBL, 45). Regrettably, Sprinkle
fails to emphasize the strong sexual language used in the entirety of Ezek 16, as well as the
fact the Hebrew word to’ebah (“abomination”), which occurs in Ezek 16:50, is also used to
describe homosexuality in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. Furthermore, Jude 7 references Sodom’s
sexual immorality. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed both for sexual immorality and
injustice to the poor.

Romans 1:18–32 is adequately handled in both books. Sprinkle clearly states, “Romans 1
says both male and female homosexual acts are sin” (LGW, 55). Sprinkle rightly notes that
Paul borrows terms from the LXX of Gen 1:26–27 in building his argument that homosexuality
is a prime example of idolatry. Since Paul grounds his argument in creation, Sprinkle agrees
the prohibition of homosexual acts is not culturally limited (PTBL, 93). Likewise, Sprinkle
also correctly points out that the word arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9–11 is derived from the LXX of
Lev 18:22 and 20:13 (PTBL, 109; LGW, 153). For Sprinkle, if God says having homosexual sex
is wrong, then “it’s actually unloving” to encourage people to engage in such behavior (LGW,


Why is there such an effort to make out Genesis does not say that God ruined the cities for homosexuality?

Jude 1:5-7 says that Jesus before he became man was the one who liquidated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Peter 2:6-10 says sexual sin led to the ruin of those cities.

The Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah is clear that we are meant to think that if the angels were not there the men would be sleeping with men. Ezekiel 16:50 would have to explicitly exclude homosexuality if it were not necessarily a sin when it accused them of abominations. The gay sex is considered an abomination. And Ezekiel knew that in his anti-gay times, people would read it that way. So he meant it.

The story is homophobic if the cities were said to be destroyed for the sin of homosexuality.

The story is still homophobic even if it says it was something else.  Mass murder of cities that have a high gay population is homophobia.  God may deny his homophobia but we can see it.  Most homophobes don't admit that they attack people for their sexuality.


Revisionism based on advancing an ideology like this is intolerable because

It is lies

It is far-fetched

It is reading today's ideas that nobody agreed with five minutes ago into ancient texts

It makes pro-gay activists in the Church look like liars

It disempowers those of them who say that the Bible is simply wrong

The texts remain a call to homophobia and distortion and lies makes that call louder.


No Copyright