# Christianity and Homosexuality



## Blake Bowden (Nov 29, 2009)

Thoughts?

New (wrong) thoughts on homosexuality: Progressive Revelation

Chrtistian gay advocates say: progressive revelation has "revealed" that homosexuality is now acceptable to God. Just as it was okay to have multiple wives in the Old Testament, and God changed that rule such that we can now only have one wife, we can now see in our culture that God has changed the rule about homosexuality.

First, what is progressive revelation?

Progressive revelation means that God did not tell us everything from the beginning. He has revealed information about Himself, his law, and salvation in steps. Over a period of time He has told us more and more.

In the Old Testament we see God taking people from a pagan culture and teaching them how to be the people we were created to be. He did not try to change them in a day, but instead took 2000 years (from Abraham until Jesus came) to lead them to the point at which some could accept Jesus as the Messiah.

In reading the Old Testament we can see that people do not change easily. For example, from the beginning God has made it clear that He is the only God, and that worshipping idols is not only useless, but wrong. Yet the Israelites continued to turn back to worshipping idols for 1000 years after they were told it was wrong -- from the time of Moses until the Babylonian captivity.

Imagine what would have happened if God had skipped the Old Testament and sent Jesus right away. Jesus, and his message, would have been ignored (as were most of God's Old Testament prophets). We'd have a dead messiah and no salvation.

So God took His time and changed things slowly, at a pace humankind could accept. For example:

<> Nowhere in the Old Testament does God say that having multiple wives is okay. He did not reveal that it was wrong until the New Testament. However, from the beginning it has always been wrong to have more than one wife. Genesis 2:24 says:

"This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." (NLT)

Genesis does not say "is joined to his wives" -- it is very clear in saying "wife" (singular) and that the "two" (not three or four or five) are joined into one.

However, God knew that if He immediately tried to change the culture which supported having multiple wives, in our free will we would have turned away from Him. Instead of drawing us closer to Him, we would have turned away from God.

So God progressively revealed what He wanted and allowed man to change his culture slowly over a long period of time. That is why it is called progressive revelation.

It is important to note that we are talking about what God has revealed to us. How does God communicate with us today? Through the Bible. With the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus -- and the New Testament -- God's revelation is complete.

Gay advocates say that in today's world God is continuing to reveal new things to us through our culture. That since homosexuality is culturally acceptable, it is acceptable to God.

WOW! What is that really saying?

We know that culture is created by people. That's why we have so many different cultures. If we are saying that God is communicating to us through our culture, we are saying:

1. That American culture is the one true culture blessed by God. All other cultures, for example those that do not accept homosexuality, are wrong.

2. Since culture is created by people, God is changing based on what people want! And as you know, what we want changes all the time.

That God should change is beyond comprehension. If God changes, how are we to know that He has not changed His mind about salvation? Maybe tomorrow morning we'll wake up and find that God has changed His mind and only people who drive BMWs are saved. If God changes, we can not be sure of anything. We are lost in uncertainty, never knowing for sure what is right or wrong; what God loves and what God hates; or how we can be saved.

The truth is: God's revelation to us ended when the last book of the New Testament was written.

http://www.evangelical.us/homosexuality/progressive-revelation.html


----------



## lopezgj (Nov 29, 2009)

“For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed”.  Malachi 3: 6 KJV

My thoughts:

I do not believe that God changes, as nothing would be certain if our Supreme Architect wasn’t.  I also do not believe that our Supreme Architect conforms to our will or culture.  I don’t believe the created can tell the Creator what’s right or acceptable just because the created may want it to be right or accepted.  Can the clay say to the Potter, “what are you making?”  To even suggest this is to begin to say that our Supreme Grand Master is not the Alpha and Omega. Not all seeing, all knowing, all powerful and ever present.  Almost to admit that the Supreme Architect of the Universe makes mistakes.  If so, then that would make Him just like us and would also suggest that our Supreme Grand Master is a push-over to what we (the created) wants and that we not HIM are really running the show.

I would rather conform to HIM…..


----------



## ddreader (Nov 29, 2009)

brother lopez. i can not disagree, with anything that you have written. some of us are better at expressing ourselves than others, especially when they are compassionate on the topic. thanks


----------



## LRG (Nov 29, 2009)

Double that, wonderful insight


----------



## ljlinson1206 (Nov 29, 2009)

I don't think there is anything that I could add to elaborate on the truth that you have spoken Brother Lopez.


----------



## owls84 (Nov 29, 2009)

I would like to agree with Bro. Lopez. I would also like to welcome him personally to the forum. I am excited to see what else he can add to the discussions.


----------



## rhitland (Nov 29, 2009)

You aught to here this Brother in his degree work, magnifico! You feel this passion coming out of him. Great to have you on here Brother Golden.


----------



## Nate Riley (Nov 30, 2009)

I also agree with Bro. Lopez. 

And add that IMO the argument about multiple wives is another fallacy in the article.  Just because someone did something in the Bible does not make it acceptable.  If you want to see how multiple wives caused problems look at the life of David.  I'm sure Solomon had some problems as well, whether they are written or not, I don't know.  It’s my belief that from the beginning God intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman.


----------



## rhitland (Nov 30, 2009)

> Nowhere in the Old Testament does God say that having multiple wives is okay.


Not to sure about that. Considering all founding men had many wifes and God told David through Nathan He would have given him more.



> 5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!  6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”
> 7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.  8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.



There is also the issue of being able to wack your kiddos for severe misbehavior how did that one get changed?



> If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
> (Deut. 21:18-21)


----------



## Nate Riley (Nov 30, 2009)

rhitland said:


> Not to sure about that. Considering *all founding men had many wifes *and God told David through Nathan He would have given him more.



To which "founding men" are you referring?


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 30, 2009)

Nate Riley said:


> And add that IMO the argument about multiple wives is another fallacy in the article.  Just because someone did something in the Bible does not make it acceptable.



So, do we listen to their words or their deeds?


----------



## rhitland (Nov 30, 2009)

Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon. All founding men is a bit to broad of term I used as some also had only one wife according to history. But I digress as the point I was trying to make was that God said he gave David many wifes amongst others so why did he have to go steal one and wack her husband when God would have given him more, thus approving of multiple wifes.


----------



## RedTemplar (Nov 30, 2009)

Heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. WHAT IS THE TRUTH? As Christians, we are taught that Jesus Christ is the Truth. I am often reminded from Eastern Star about Truth.  "Truth is eternal and unchanging....... Seek ye therefore the Truth, and having found it, make it thine own. And all these other things, faith, hope, and Love will be added unto it." So, IMHO, if you have the Truth, nobody has to tell you right from wrong.


----------



## Nate Riley (Dec 1, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> So, do we listen to their words or their deeds?



Both.  And we can learn as much from there mistakes and sinful behavior, and the consequences thereof, as their good deeds.


----------



## Nate Riley (Dec 1, 2009)

rhitland said:


> Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon. All founding men is a bit to broad of term I used as some also had only one wife according to history. But I digress as the point I was trying to make was that God said he gave David many wifes amongst others so why did he have to go steal one and wack her husband when God would have given him more, thus approving of multiple wifes.



Some is a better word.  Adam the founding man, if you will (i believe God is the founder) had only one wife that we know of, per the Bible.  And I think, with further reading, we we can see that it caused problems for each of the prominent men you listed. The Bible clearly says that Solomon's wives lead him away from the Lord.

As far as the second point, this probably an issue of interpretation.  I tend to read the New American Standard Bible.  It uses the word "care" instead of "arms" in verse 8, referring to Saul's wives.  I also throw out the following information from the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary regarding verse 8: 



> 8. I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives-The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 1, 2009)

Nate Riley said:


> Both.  And we can learn as much from there mistakes and sinful behavior, and the consequences thereof, as their good deeds.



Sounds great, it just doesn't answer the question.  When someone says one thing, and does another, which do we recognize as truth?

As far as Solomon's wives leading him away from god, I was under the impression that it was due to their pagan beliefs, not due to the number of wives.


----------



## rhitland (Dec 1, 2009)

> As far as the second point, this probably an issue of interpretation. I tend to read the New American Standard Bible. It uses the word "care" instead of "arms" in verse 8, referring to Saul's wives. I also throw out the following information from the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary regarding verse 8:
> 
> Quote:
> 8. I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives-The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.



You hit the nail on the head. This is an issue of interpretation which has evolved over time according to societies standards and education. I for one have my own interpretation as we all should and have the right to. Just as one would have the right to interpret the bible on the subject of homosexuality. There is no "they" that can say this part of the bible is right or this part is wrong except our own hearts.


----------



## MGM357 (Dec 2, 2009)

blake said:


> Gay advocates say that in today's world God is continuing to reveal new things to us through our culture. That since homosexuality is culturally acceptable, it is acceptable to God.



The advocates are in denial!!! without heterosexuals, gays would not exist.Afterall they cant reproduce. We now live in world where no one is wrong and feelings can't get hurt. When the day of judgement comes apon us, God will not be politically correct.


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 3, 2009)

MGM357 said:


> without heterosexuals, gays would not exist.Afterall they cant reproduce.



Which really has nothing to do with this discussion, unless you are trying to tie that into what is correct.  When you look at it with that mindset, since homosexual sex can't reproduce, how can we consider it sex to begin with? 



MGM357 said:


> We now live in world where no one is wrong and feelings can't get hurt. When the day of judgement comes apon us, God will not be politically correct.



No, we now live in a world where people are _almost_ free to make their own choices and live their lives the way they feel they should, without having others pass judgement on them, which like you said, will be what god does when the time comes.  Whether god is polically correct should probably be the least of our worries.

Then we throw in Bro. Nate's arguement regarding multiple wives, where we can use different versions of the Bible, then interpret whatever we want how we want, then factor in how this has been done since the time of Jesus, hence all the versions we have now, add in who wrote what sections, and how long after Christ those sections were written, how much of what Christ said didn't make it in, and who really knows what Jesus thought regarding gays?  I sure wouldn't stake my soul, or that of someone else on 2,000 years of hearsay.


----------



## rhitland (Dec 3, 2009)

MGM357 said:


> The advocates are in denial!!! without heterosexuals, gays would not exist.Afterall they cant reproduce.



Not so sure about that one. Long ago that statement was true but I know many gay people and lots of them have had children. There are ways to make it happen today just look at Octo-Mom. As long as we have men and women gay or straight we can reproduce it no longer takes a sexual act, with the knowledge we have discovered.


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 3, 2009)

I do know, according to the bible, Jesus was quoted more times condemning a man judging another man than there are quotes condeming a man having sex with a man, if he is quoted condemning it at all.

Which leads me to another question:  How does Christ tell us we can't judge another man, while Masonry makes this action a requirement?


----------



## rhitland (Dec 3, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> I do know, according to the bible, Jesus was quoted more times condemning a man judging another man than there are quotes condeming a man having sex with a man, if he is quoted condemning it at all.
> 
> Which leads me to another question:  How does Christ tell us we can't judge another man, while Masonry makes this action a requirement?



Now look at what ya'll have done you have Brother Tom preaching to us.. ! :wink:

I propose this is another level of judgment than Christ was talking about. Jesus is referring to the deepest level of judgment that of ones own superiority over another but we as Masons judge for safety and practical purposes not b/c we feel we are above anyone. Masonry recognize men are on different planes of learning and this frat would be useless for men not ready for it's teachings thus the "judgement" processes only serves them and  our members. 

Maybe we need to start this as a new thread pretty interesting question.


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 3, 2009)

rhitland said:


> Now look at what ya'll have done you have Brother Tom preaching to us.. ! :wink:
> 
> I propose this is another level of judgment than Christ was talking about. Jesus is referring to the deepest level of judgment that of ones own superiority over another but we as Masons judge for safety and practical purposes not b/c we feel we are above anyone.



Is it not the same, or maybe a few rungs further down the same ladder?

To determine that a man is not fit to be made a Mason while me and you are, is in effect, saying that we are in some way superior to him.

What exactly do you mean by "safety and practical purposes?"

John 8:7 clearly states "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  I believe that this statement speaks of judgement on pretty much any level, although in this instance, it was in response to the Pharisees who were about to stone a woman for adultery, not in response to a question on who was going to hell.  With that in mind, what are we judging potential members on, and biblically, do we have that right?  Their morality?  As some on here have stated, their homosexuality?  Their criminal record?  Their financial irresponsiblities?  What criteria do we judge?  What gives us the right, other than our charge, to do this?


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 3, 2009)

To me, this thread is one of the major problems with man's influence on religion.  IMO, Christ was pretty clear that his word was to be used as a tool for self improvement, to be seen as an example to follow for mankind to redeem himself for his sins, and come closer to reunification with god.

As man does, he takes Christ's word and uses it as a weapon of condemnation, power, and superiority.

All of a sudden, Jesus doesn't teach love, tolerance, and acceptance, he now teaches hate, disgust, and intolerance.

"Jesus wept."


----------



## Blake Bowden (Dec 3, 2009)

Hot dog this post is good. Great responses!


----------



## rhitland (Dec 3, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Is it not the same, or maybe a few rungs further down the same ladder?
> 
> To determine that a man is not fit to be made a Mason while me and you are, is in effect, saying that we are in some way superior to him.
> 
> ...



Yes judgment is the same but as you said further down the ladder. We all know some people are just evil and will do bad things just to do them. Are you better than them because you do good things or would you even have good  things to do if bad things never happened? My point is we are not making judgments on a level that will effect either party in a negative way it is a judgment processes that is benifical for both parties the man ready and the man not ready neither being better than the other just in different planes of learning. Kinda like me going to Lester's Physics classes with my 10th grade algebra it would be a waste of mine and the prof.'s time so he would stop me with the judgment of I was not ready for that class but he is still no better than me neither is he making the assumption he is by that judgement. So we are not saying we are superior just this is the wrong place and time for them.

As for safety and practical purposes. Safety: we cannot vote in violent criminals or characters that would derail the teaching system Masonry offers, which also plays into to the practical purposes. If we let every bad guy off the street in we would all spend time making bad guys better and Masonry was not designed for that in its nature. It is directed toward a more intellectual brain seeking spiritual enlightenment, where a criminal needs a whole other system to allow them to get better but again one soul is no better than the other and Masonry does not imply that.  

Man is the problem as everyone has their own version of right and that just pisses some people off to enable themselves to commit unthinkable acts and carry wicked evil judgments of superiority.


----------



## RedTemplar (Dec 4, 2009)

If we cannot make judgments, how are we to teach our children, give good counsel to our brothers, or discern between good and evil?


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 5, 2009)

RedTemplar said:


> If we cannot make judgments, how are we to teach our children, give good counsel to our brothers, or discern between good and evil?



I agree, but these aren't my rules.  Jesus made them.  Since we are in the habit of taking his words to tell others how they are wrong, this whole process seems highly hypocritical.  I judge frequently, but then again, I am not in the habit of beating someone else's lifestyle over the head with the bible either.


----------



## TCShelton (Dec 5, 2009)

rhitland said:


> Yes judgment is the same but as you said further down the ladder. We all know some people are just evil and will do bad things just to do them. Are you better than them because you do good things or would you even have good  things to do if bad things never happened? My point is we are not making judgments on a level that will effect either party in a negative way it is a judgment processes that is benifical for both parties the man ready and the man not ready neither being better than the other just in different planes of learning.



Come now Bro. Rhit, are you trying to inject logic into a religious debate?  Shame on you.. !

Taking the biblical stance here, I don't recall Jesus saying that judgement on this level is ok, but not on that one, or that just a little judgement is ok, etc.  What I read is that he said NO JUDGEMENT.  Looking at it like you are, could I assume that only a little homo love is ok with Jesus, as long as you don't go all the way?


----------



## LRG (Dec 5, 2009)

MGM357 said:


> We now live in world where no one is wrong and feelings can't get hurt.


 

Sometimes it feels as if only the rights are the wrongs.


----------



## Sirius (Dec 5, 2009)

blake said:


> The truth is: God's revelation to us ended when the last book of the New Testament was written.



How very sad that God does not reveal Himself to you. God reveals Himself to us everyday if we will only listen. Daily,  I marvel at the beauty, strength, and wisdom of a awesome God that continues to reveal Light, further Light, and More Light.


----------

