Creation, Redemption, and Homosexual Desire

"alone" by

Halden has pointed us to a very poignant reflection on homosexuality by Wesley Hill, asking the question, “Will the Church be the Church for homosexual Christians?” You should read it before you read my meager considerations below.

Hill is a committed Christian and “non-practicing” homosexual. Perhaps “non-practicing” is a curious way to put it; as is clear, he does not, and cannot, partition his male-attraction to a latent and unaffective part of his brain. It is constitutive of his experience and longings in the world, as he tries to make sense of Christ’s call to a moral order in a disordered reality. In his case, he is more aware than others that the disorder is not “out there.” It cuts across the deepest parts of our personality, with wounds that endure, despite the sincere intentions of a superficial faith (“I’m trading my sorrows”) or a creative reworking of God’s order (the liberal project). In the latter, we literally become the creators — usurpers of God’s creative holiness; in the former, we dismiss a creation that doesn’t really need to be redeemed.

Submitting to the Creator is all the more difficult when the disorder is not of our making, when we find ourselves (our very self) with desires, not in-themselves sinful, but nonetheless, if acted upon and made real in our relations, contribute to a subversion of God’s order. This is a hard truth, to say the least. Our longings — what we believe are proper objects of fulfillment — do not necessarily partake of the beauty and goodness which inheres in God. The sources of the disorder in these longings are not easily located, i.e., “why am I made this way” does not always have an answer, other than the classic Pauline-Augustinian answer: the Fall.

It is fundamental to secular anthropology that morality can be read off of nature, under conditions of “fulfillment” given from humanity itself; it is fundamental to Christian anthropology that morality must re-create nature, under conditions of “fulfillment” given by God. The secular and Christian hermeneutics are irreconcilable here. It is futile for Christians to argue against the sanctioning of homosexual practice using the secular presuppositions of an anthropology  “from below.” The Christian theorists of “natural law” must be tempered by this point. However, this is not to say that Christian morality “condemns nature” per se; rather, it “fulfills nature” as it is intended by its Creator. This is part of the larger fact that Christ did not come into the world to condemn it, but to bring it to holiness (by way of His sacrifice and our repentance).

So, the homosexual has an especially difficult cross to bear — a cross given in his creation as this particular human being, a homosexual human being. And if all of us were more honest about how deeply we are fallen, we would discover similar “creation-constituted” crosses, and probably many that are sexual and relational. Yet, our hope is found in a Cross that is neither taken away (Jesus was tortured and executed) nor sanctioned (Jesus conquered death). Our life in Christ is, thus, both a sickness unto death and a healing unto life. Our disorders must be borne and taken to our grave, so our faith can be revealed in the glory of a new creation. With this as our foundation, the necessary and fulfilling relations with homosexuals in the Church, that Hill eloquently pleads for, can be nurtured.


  1. Even if I grant that homosexuality is a post-fall condition, why should acting upon homosexual desires be inherently wrong? Aren’t all physical handicaps and biological disorders a consequence of the fall? People with these conditions were viewed as unworthy of participating in temple worship in Israel, but we no longer feel the same way today. Why can’t a cultural change regarding how we perceive homosexuality be reflected in our ecclesial practice (e.g., ordination)? Why must we accept the cultural perspective on homosexuality in Scripture, when we don’t on so many other issues? And just because we may judge it a post-fall condition, that doesn’t mean celibacy is the only path, just like people who are left-handed by nature no longer feel cultural pressure to write with their right hand.

  2. Great post. Youve summed up my of late formualting response to homosexuals. I see it as thee most obvious fruit of a world dominated by existentialist thoughts. Being your”self” over and against everything else. Youve also highlighted the key hypocrisy of the church in dealing with this, in that we condemn homosexuals so easily yet fail ourselves to deny things (it could be anything) that are central out “selves” and yet dont condemn as viruently. Its this failure that i see is the main reason why homosexuals smell ungrace from us.
    Out of curiosity what do you make of those who claim to have changed sexualities ? and more importantly what do you think of those ministries that go down this route and what place do you think they should have in the church. Exodus ( a big ex-gay ministry) had research done on its members and the research said 30 % where almost completly or completly changed.

  3. David,

    Collapsing homosexuality into all other handicaps or disorders (like left-handedness!) is most odd. My strong desire to sleep with my married co-worker is a result of the fall, but so is my biological capacity to contract cancer. One is sin (if I follow through on my desire or dwell on it, as in lust). The other is not sin.

    I don’t know how to tackle your comment because it assumes a view of scripture and ethics that I do not hold. It’s almost as if you really do hold homosexuality to be nothing more scandalous than left-handedness. But as before, one is a sin when acted upon and the other is not sin in any way imaginable. The real question is why is homosexuality a sin? That must be pursued and accepted or rejected on its own grounds.

  4. Mark,

    Here’s the thing: on what basis are you so quick to say that homosexuality is a moral sin? The passages in the NT are ambiguous at best. The OT passages are irrelevant, since you can’t pick and choose which OT laws to follow. And we already pick and choose rather arbitrarily in the NT. In Rom. 1, Paul appeals to nature, but I don’t see anyone today who is convinced that we need to accept Paul’s appeal to nature in 1 Cor. 11 regarding head coverings. And 1 Cor. 11 is a direct admonition to the Corinthian church, whereas Rom. 1 is not. The rest of the NT passages are lists of vices with words that are notoriously difficult to define, particularly when you see them in their larger Greco-Roman context. But even then, the NT has a clear command regarding ethics: our way of life has no other normative principle than the gospel, specifically, the gospel of God’s love (cf. Rom. 13:10). In other words, the NT stands resolutely against any new ethical code, like Leviticus. Instead, it calls the church to regularly reassess their lives in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ, what Paul calls the “law of love.”

    The cultural framework within which the NT was written is not itself part of this gospel. Just like we don’t think that in order to be a Christian you have to believe that heaven is somewhere in the sky or that the earth is a certain number of years old, so too the cultural assumptions regarding what is “natural” are not determinative of the Christian faith. The gospel can be contextualized and enculturated in different times and places while still remaining the gospel. These different cultures have different interpretations of what is “natural,” and thus the gospel will call them to different ways of life, always united by the law of love. We need to avoid radical relativism, but we also need to avoid cultural imperialism and legalism.

    My basic point is this: homosexuality is only self-evidently a sin if you accept the definition of “natural” with which the biblical writers were working. But since this definition of “natural” is not itself constitutive of the gospel, it can be jettisoned without losing anything. I think we have to see the problem of homosexuality the way Paul saw the problem of eating meat sacrificed to idols: if you are part of a culture where that is offensive to the community, then you must live differently; but if you are part of a different community that no longer takes offense, then you are free to live that way. The appeal to Genesis and the “original” man and woman is irrelevant, because as I already said, there are post-fall conditions which we no longer view as barriers to full participation in society and worship. And it is not self-evident that homosexuality cannot be classed with these non-offensive post-fall conditions. Do you understand my argument?

    If your counter-argument is simply that what the Bible views as natural, we too must see as natural, then I will simply say that you are deluding yourself, because no modern person sees the world the way the ancients did. We live on this side of the scientific revolution, and we can’t go back. We live in a radically different cultural situation, and we can’t ignore that when we turn to the Bible.

  5. David,

    Thanks for the responses. You sum-up well some issues that would have to be dealt with in a fuller, more adequate treatment. I’ll admit to working, roughly, within classical “natural law” and “moral order” thinking, coupled with some biblical positivism. I suspect that any elaboration of our differences would come back, again and again, to these foundations. Thus, I see the morality of homosexual unions as pertinent to moral discourse in a way that left-handedness or failing eyesight are not. Whether or not a homosexual acts on his or her sexual desires has relational and moral consequences. It is not morally-neutral like our overall subjection to entropy. It is prescriptive and relevant to God’s order. Head coverings for women can be a sign of authority and modesty, but, as a sign, it is dispensable (accidental, not substantive). The fleshly union of male-female intercourse, physically exhibiting the spiritual differentiation-in-union of male-female differences (=complementarity), is not accidental, but substantive. I imagine you’ll take issue with forcing a “complementarity” on those with SSA, but this is as best and faithfully I can comprehend the biblical, scientific, societal, and experiential data.

  6. Trousers,

    You’ve also highlighted the key hypocrisy of the church in dealing with this, in that we condemn homosexuals so easily yet fail ourselves to deny things (it could be anything) that are central out “selves” and yet don’t condemn as virulently.

    Yes, very true.

    As for the ex-gay advocates, I have a problem when they suppose that re-orientation can be normative, when the discipline of celibacy is likely the more healthy route. But, sexuality is as complex and fundamental to our personality as it gets (including aspects of both nature and nurture, parental and societal), so it should be expected that many homosexuals can genuinely cultivate an attraction for the other sex, especially since the strength of SSA varies from person to person.

  7. David
    I should point out that saying the NT passages are ambiguous at best , is true in that if you are looking for holes in their fairly obvious meaning the most you can do is make them ambiguous….

    ok so thats a bit cheeky but i do want to make the point that you must admit that much of what your saying seems to be designed to take down rather that build up? If things are as evident as what you say they are wouldnt it be the other way around?

    I am also very curious as to how you deal with the existence of the celibate for reason of faith (and open about it) gay person and the ex-gay. I consistently hear ex-gays in particular being bashed(and i use that word knowingly) by proponents of homosexuality.

  8. Trousers,

    Like the eating of meat issue, if a person feels like their homosexual desires are contrary to the will of God, then absolutely – they are morally obligated to be celibate. But for those who feel otherwise – those who “know better,” you might say – there shouldn’t be any pressure to be celibate. The pressure, of course, should be to consecrate that relationship within the community of the faithful as an act of discipleship. This is where the church must bear its responsibility in our day and age.

    I will “bash,” however, those who make gays and lesbians feel as if their identity as a child of God depends on them becoming “ex-gay” or living in complete celibacy. These people turn salvation into a work, and thereby contradict the entire nature of Christian faith.

  9. David

    A good response. we all stand before our own lord eh?
    Still I think your wrong.One must assume that as with the meat issue Paul didnt leave them continue on with this thinking (he does say he can eat the meat himself) and that he challenges them on it for the sake of their discipleship. IMHO that is what i would do with your good self should you walk in the door of my congregation. I wont jump on you for what you believe but AT SOME STAGE we must face what i see as a serious discipleship issue.
    The homosexual who has his or her relationship conscreated and proceeds to live with and love hisorher partner misses out on blessings and will rue the day on judgement day that heorshe made the choice they did. Im not denying them salvation in saying that just that there reward will be less.
    It could often be a lonely walk but its the walk that is for them. Saying otherwise is only pandering to the sensibilties of today’s middle class. One doesnt defend the white supremacists view of scripture but they do have an argument. Why are we not supporting their cause? Because its offensive to nearly everyone unlike two loving men clamly walking down the street holding hands. I believe the zeitgeist has made its (strong) case to you and won you over. Pls come back.

  10. “…will rue the day on judgement day that heorshe made the choice they did”?

    I think we must be reading different Bibles. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The judgment day for Christians happened in Golgotha in 30 AD. The eschatological judgment is not a new judgment, but the confirmation of what happened there and then. Either we are reconciled to God in Christ or we aren’t. But the one thing that we cannot say is that we will be judged based on what we did or did not do. That would be a salvation by works. But let’s set that aside: how do you know that God will judge homosexuals for having a consecrated relationship? What insight do you have, on the basis of Scripture, regarding God’s eschatological judgment? The only “law” I see in the NT is the “law of love” of which Paul speaks. Are not homosexuals living as disciples of Jesus Christ capable of fulfilling this law? Are they not able to love their neighbor as themselves? Are they not able to bear witness to the gospel?

    Whether you think they can or not is beside the point: the fact of the matter is that many of them do. There are many gay Christians who are clearly filled with the Spirit. Is not this precisely the rule of thumb that convinces Peter that the Gentiles are part of God’s community?

    The white supremacist argument is bizarre. They clearly contradict the law of love. They do not love their neighbors as themselves. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. The law of Christ or law of love is the sole determination of what it means to live as a follower of Jesus (love being defined by Christ’s life of humble obedience to the Father). There is no point of comparison between gays and white supremacists. That’s just absurd. Seriously, you have to have a better argument than that.

    As for the zeitgeist issue, two things: (1) show me that your exegesis of Scripture definitively shows that homosexuality contradicts the gospel, and (2) I think your assertion could be turned against you. That is, you are accusing me of confusing our modern culture with the gospel, but I could just as easily accuse you of confusing the ancient culture of the biblical writers with the gospel. At the end of the day, we need to see that particular cultures may come and go, but the gospel is independent of them. The gospel is capable of being enculturated in any place and time; it is “translatable.” Within the ancient culture of the biblical writers, there are certain assumptions about what it means to be human that we no longer share.

    So here’s what I’m saying: (1) if the biblical references to homosexuality are not clear-cut, and I think it’s fairly obvious that they are not, and (2) if the gospel transcends culture and is translatable into different cultures, then (3) perhaps it’s not capitulating to the zeitgeist, but translating the gospel anew into a different cultural context.

  11. David
    another good response.
    1. on their being no condemnation for us in christ. Too true, your right to point this out and i admit my wrongness.
    let me however say that i think my wrongness was when i said “rue” i dont believe (now-thanks again for pointing that out) there will be sadness for us when we are faced with our judgement and yes i do use the word judgement because i do see the bible as teaching that their will be rewards for us in heaven based on what we do- take all the obvious conclusions you like, reward is a biblical fact. this doesnt affect our salvation, thats guarenteed but rewarded for our works we shall be. and i believe that as i will lose out for the many things i do and dont do that are not what HE wants, the homosexual who is not celibate shall do likewise.

    2.The white supremacist argument isnt meant to be taken on its own.what i wanted to convey is that obviously it is an evil ideology but because its obvious to everybody it as such doesnt get much airtime however i think people are willing to accept homosexual couples as christians precisely cause its NOT obviously evil. in my opinion your thoughts are – well presented and logical in of themselves- reverse engineered i.e. its only after the fact of accepting homosexuality as a valid option that you formulate them. that said i accept your point about the possibility of the old zeitgeist affecting me. Logically either one of us COULD be right.

    Let me say two more things. One is that you are right to ignore some of my opinions and ask me to show you how exegtically i see homosexuality contravening the Gospel. We could do that somewhere else if you like. Theres only a dozen or so verses directly linked to the issue. Im up for it if you are.

    Secondly i really want you to know that i do believe that a homosexual christian couple can be as loving as the next, i have no problem there. I believe they will be in heaven and will recieve many rewards for all that they do. Not only that but i will pray with them work with them and praise God with them, or though should i be in a position of leadership at church with them, eventually im going to have to “have the talk” and if they wish to stay knowing my position they can but i couldnt in all honesty have them in leadership afterwards. I am complelty convinced of the rightness of my position – its celibacy or change . I will walk with my brother or sister who struggles with this as far as we have to. I say all this to lead up to my point- despite my acceptance of them i do feel they are wrong and i think that in time that despite much of the good that they can and will do they will also bear bad fruit. I dont know what this will be but it will come. Much in the same way as liberal theology of the last couple of centuries had brilliant motives and did many great works for society they are now dying and have lost christ. I dont know if the pro-homosexual churches will lose christ but something will happen. Despite their sincere faith, a blind spot like this can only lead to a crash. The liberals slowly turned wine into water, what will ye end up doing?

  12. Trousers,

    Thanks for that clarification. I certainly respect and appreciate both your position and your honesty. You are a model dialogue partner, and I thank you for that.

    You are right that passages in the Bible speak about rewards. Those are complicated passages that have vexed interpreters for centuries. All I will say here is that before we can say that homosexuals will be judged negatively for their behavior in the eschatological judgment, we have to have some idea of the criterion/criteria for that judgment. And I only see two criteria: (1) Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection to redeem humanity, and (2) the law of love that follows from this redemption. I think the one thing we cannot do is directly apply the lists of vices found in certain NT letters to us today without realizing that those lists are written for specific communities in the light of the two criteria listed above. That is, the lists do not constitute a new law for Christians to follow; that would be in direct opposition to what Paul says. Instead, they are formulated on the basis of what that particular community needed to hear as part of the exhortation for them to abide in love. The question we have to as ourselves today is: what does it mean to abide in love today, in light of modern scientific research into human identity and biology and the cultural transformations that have happened in society? What does it mean to be a follower of Christ here and now in the 21st century? We always need to ask this, in every new time and place.

    You claim that the white supremacist argument does not work because I have already presupposed the validity of gay unions. Not true! I am stating a logical and self-evident fact. White supremacy is, by definition, something that intends to harm another human being. This is a fact. Homosexuality does not, by definition, seek anyone’s harm. Actually, it doesn’t really “seek” anything at all (so the analogy breaks down on a second level), but insofar as it seeks anything, it seeks love between two people. Whether you see it is a love-relationship or not is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that two gay persons experience what we universally call “love.” Arguments about it destroying the family unit or dissolving the church, etc., are also irrelevant, not to mention logical fallacies (slippery slope arguments). I’m not accusing you of making those arguments, because you haven’t. I’m just anticipating hypothetical responses to what I have said.

    I’m happy to engage in exegetical analysis, but that’s probably a dead-end. A lot of work has already been done on this, and neither side is pleased. At the end of the day, a lot of it depends on how one views the authority of Scripture. Is there a direct application of these verses for us today, or must we engage in the work of culturally translating these passages? I side with the latter position, and most of my interlocutors side with the former.

    I appreciate your final paragraph. You show a very respectful attitude. That said, I really want to caution you about labeling your opponents as “liberals.” That word doesn’t have much purchase today. I view myself as an evangelical. I am certainly politically liberal, but theologically I am utterly opposed to liberalism. So there we have two very distinct uses of the term. A hundred years ago, the theological liberals were the most politically conservative (Ritschl, Troeltsch, Hirsch, etc.). It’s important to remember that theology and politics are distinct spheres. While I would like to rehabilitate the word “liberal,” I also want to caution others regarding their use of it.

  13. David
    thanks very much for your kind words.

    You said this”At the end of the day, a lot of it depends on how one views the authority of Scripture. Is there a direct application of these verses for us today, or must we engage in the work of culturally translating these passages? ”
    I dont think there is a difference. I naturally dont stone adulterers but i will condemn the act. Isnt what ive done there directly applying something that ive also culturally translated?

    I actually think that despite the hiatus on the verses in question, we as protestants have to go to the bible again and again. There is nothing wrong with study of other kinds, but we got to be able to find the answer in His word, otherwise we should do the decent thing and imigrate to rome or istanbul!!
    I dont think the debate has ended over these vereses but to concede something to you i do think that the battle is not to found in those verses but surrounding what you call the “law of love” I dont know how much of a theology of self-denial homosexual chrisitians can have when they keep making appeal to the law of love. Anyway i really would like to debate the actual verses themselves.

    To clarify again, i understand your point about Liberals, it is a word that has lost its purchase. in this instance i was refering to all those dead germans from the 17 and 18 century who started to challenge the bible as God’s word and push the social gospel. I couldnt tell where all homosexual christians are politically, my intention was to show a comparison, the liberals i refer to were well-intentioned and have lasted to this day but its only in the last 100 years that we are seeing that as a theology it has little future.-why bother listen to God on what to do when i know myself? In the same way i find your position well-intentioned but i suspect it will be a long long time before people are able to sum up in one line how you and yours came to be a force for little or nothing.

    i’ll end with this. Im actually doing my dissertation on “a pastoral response to homosexuality in light of the upcoming probable legalisation of civil partnerships” i live in ireland this is coming in the next year or so. Anyway, when im finished with it i could post it and we’ll get into it if you want.Apart of it will include going over each of the verses that are directly applicable to homosexuality. That would be around the start of june. You up for that?

  14. Trousers,

    Yes, I would definitely be up for it.

    I think the cultural translation is more extensive and radical than just not stoning people. That’s just a matter of application. I think how we look at the world is different, not just the way we respond to the world.

    I do not think the so-called “social gospel” is in conflict with “the Bible as God’s Word.” In fact, if you accept the latter, I think you have to accept the former. And I think a lot of the “dead Germans” were very good theologians. It’s the modern day self-proclaimed “liberals” that are often not very good.

    I wish you the best on your dissertation. I would love to hear more about it in the future. You can find my email on facebook or on my blog.

  15. In relation to the Levitical Code, Ephraim Radner’s new commentary in the Brazos Series presents a case for Leviticus being binding today (I attempted to say just some of it, but that wouldn’t do justice to his reading, but in reality it is just some of it). While I am not equipped to explain the whole argument he thinks that figural reading of the book through Chirst leads us to much different conclusions. It is the modern socio-historical critical method that makes it completely irrelevant. I doubt his argument will ever gain a significant amount of traction, but I think he provides unashamedly Christian reading of the text you hardly ever see. Needless to say I used to think it was easy to throw off the levitical code, after struggling with his book I just can’t write it off that fast. It’s worth checking out.

  16. Thanks, Matthew. I’ll have to check it out. Maybe it will bolster my assumptions about the continuity and universality of human nature, making us, qua human and especially qua Christ, contemporaneous with the past.

  17. Because Radner did his PHD under Lindbeck I have feeling you will find your assumptions about the continuity and universality of human nature will neither be bolstered or squashed but complicated.

  18. to mark, I can’t tell if you are trying to say homosexuality is “scandalous” as if that is a bad thing in and of itself? to david, are you quoting others when you say that homo. is a “disorder” or “handicap”? it seems that way…nonetheless THAT attitude is a problem. other than that I just have to say that as a gay person I think this “discussion” would be more meaningful if partaken by people who themselves were “homosexual” not just “thoughtful” straights. i mean this as nicely as i can when i say that most GLBT people do NOT care one way or another what straight wasp’s think about us, we are not seeking your approval; just keep that in mind. thanks

  19. Paul,

    I am on your side here, so you would do better not to make enemies where none need to be made. Do I think homosexuality is a disorder? No, and I never said that. You have to understand that as committed and faithful Christians who take our Bible seriously, we walk a fine line. I happen to think that the biblical presumption against homosexuality need not be authoritative for us today, in the same way that their wrong views about the sun rotating around the earth are not authoritative for us today.

    However, and you need to understand this, when I say that homosexuality is a “post-fall condition,” I am making a concession to the conservatives so that the Christian church can maintain unity. Because no matter how much inclusion and progression I want to see happen on this issue, being inclusive and progressive are virtues that always come in second place to ecumenical unity.

    You don’t need to seek “our” (whatever “our” means here) approval, but I would strongly encourage you to at least sympathize with and attempt to understand our position. At the end of the day, you may not care. But there are a lot of gay Christians who do care, and I want to build as many bridges as possible.

    Sadly, your attitude seems to be that only GLBT people can have meaningful discussions about this issue. That’s as backwards a mentality as the view that GLBT people ought to be excluded from the church. I hope you can see the irony. Your position is as unprogressive and non-inclusive as the “straight wasps” you are opposing. If a new way forward is to be found, it will require a different perspective than yours. I hope you will have the maturity to find that perspective.

  20. Paul,

    Don’t worry, you got the WASP’s (=mainline Prots) on your side. It’s us bumpkin evangelicals, and Catholics, that you meant to dismiss.

  21. David,

    I stumbled upon this discussion while doing a little research on my own… and I’m not usually one to interject, but here I feel it is necessary.

    Although it is obvious you do not need the praise, nor backing, I completely agree with you and am grateful for your whole-hearted response to each argument. More so, as a self-identifying lesbian female, I am most appreciative for your response to ‘paul’.

    It takes a superior individual to make the statements you have with such dignity and class. Further, it strikes me as absolutely absurd that anyone who identifies as LGBT could say such remarks about your reasoning.

    This is my personal and most sincere THANK YOU, for bringing forth not only a logical point of view, but for taking the time to do so.

    Now, to paul,

    How does simply being a lesbian or gay man give your argument the validity you claim it does? You must not have read, or more importantly comprehended what David was saying. What could you possibly offer as a valid argument without reiterating anything he said? Can you not see that it is because of people like David that ‘our’ fight stands a chance?

    Of course I and many other LBGTs like yourself do not let the ignorance of others affect our lives, but how dare you claim this also means that arguments in our favor (like David’s) are pointless! THAT claim, my friend, is ignorant. If what you aim for is (I hope) equality and understanding, how better is that achieved if not through supportive dialogue from those who are ‘straight’?!

    Lastly, David is not seeking to publish his approval of the homosexual lifestyle, he is logically and thoughtfully responding to and correcting the typical religious individual’s argument, which is far more remarkable anyways.

    If you personally do not care about what he has to say that is fine, ludicrous, but fine. However next time, please do not speak for anyone but yourself.


  22. From creation directives were given from GOD Himself to man to procreate (multiply). If homosexuality had a place in these directives, the human race would cease. Man can not right a concept that is wrong. I do not care how you ponder, or make relative your arguments concerning biblical principles, humans are not capable of changing God’s word whether Old Testament or New Testament. If we all convert to practicing homosexuality, the human race would become extinct. However, we should love all mankind, but hate sin.

    J. Gelin

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s