i guess that’s what happens when you mention the word “gay.”

I don’t know what your experiences are or have been and therefor I don’t and didn’t know if you spoke from authority or not. I have come across rhetoric very similar to yours in many instances throughout my life, and I really just wanted to offer a different perspective regarding what “biblical truth” might be. I don’t claim to have knowledge of absolute truth, I do claim to be keenly aware of when I speak from believing rather than personal experience and I intended to make it clear in my post that I was only offering a different perspective, not accusing you. I recognize now that the line I wrote about pharisees could be taken as an accusation, sorry about that. The idea I was trying to communicate is that the pharisees taught without authority, and those who rely only on the Bible (rather than their personal experiences of God) are like the pharisees in that respect. I did not mean to imply that you are violent and I do not claim to know that you lack personal experience of the divine. There is a subtle difference between a suggestion and an accusation. A suggestion (as I intended to offer) implies a lack of knowledge or desire necessary to accuse (and I lack both). You can do what you like with a suggestion, I see that you have made your choice concerning mine. Sorry that I offended you.

Be well,
Ryan

To address your statement, Ryan, that I “may be coming from a point of belief rather than knowing,” my reply would be “Yes! I have not rational certainty; though who does? For example, it is by faith that you and I ‘know’ the Christ and that we ‘know’ that we have the Holy Spirit.” But to suggest then that this means that I am speaking more as a Pharisee rather than as a disciple of my Lord, I must confess has cast me into total bewilderment. It is not uncommon for those Christians either whose emotional sensibilities are a bit more delicate or those Christians who focus sharply on the same to do such a thing. Whenever a Christian stands firm in a tough truth that perhaps another is fretful to hear, some of those who faint at the hearing of hard truths are quick to whip out accusations of Pharisaism. Remember, the Pharisees proceeded in a manner to stone those persons who disagreed with their understand of God, which Jesus attested was even false. Have I proceeded in my comments in a manner that displays hatred, or has anyone here demonstrated that my affirmations of God’s written word amount to falsehoods? To both of these, the answer is no. Thus, yes, I would say that you are quite mistaken in your assessment of my character. My request then is that you turn from these false charges against me.

Moreover, when you issue the statement “you may be coming from a point of belief rather than knowing, and that means you are speaking more as a pharisee than as a disciple of the Christ,” is it not ironic that you have loaded your reply to me with phrases of uncertainty (or belief) such as “I think I understand,” “you may be coming from,” “I could be wrong, it just sounds that way to me,” “If this is the case (and I believe it is),” “not that I have the authority to say,” “I take this to mean,” “it seems,” “seems to be”? Does this then not make you similar to a Pharisee by your own standard of measure? Likewise, when you say “There is a big difference between teaching from a point of belief in something I have learned from a book or a teacher (like the pharisees did) and teaching from a point of authority (like Jesus did). Until I have the authority to teach like Jesus, I am going to stick with listening,” does this not make you a hypocrite, for you extend yourself beyond mere listening and are attempting to correct me (as you believe that I am misguided)? Furthermore you suggest that learning from books or teachers is akin to having the futile wisdom of the Pharisees. Would this not then suggest that your claims to knowledge here are like those of the Pharisees, for you mention that you have taken wisdom from a book by Ekhart Tolle. Ryan, slow down and think a little more before attempting to correct someone.

Christ Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Ryan, so I’m afraid you’re just going to have to put aside this notion that brothers and sisters in Christ cannot righteously hold each other accountable by the moral direction God has given us until they are elevated to the authority of Christ Jesus. Such is a not something that Scripture teaches us; I’m not sure where you picked it up. But, although we do not have the authority of God inasmuch as we are not the original source of all that is good and neither are we perfect (despite our striving), we do have much guidance from God laid out clearly in the Holy Scripture and by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the New Testament writers, who I am inclined to say have more credibility than any theologian, charge us that we see to it that false doctrines do not overtake the church.

Now, in an attempt to convict me of wrongdoing, you say that Jesus taught that “an attitude of righteousness closes the mind from receiving Truth.” Ryan, hold back the reins, brother! By imputing an “attitude of righteousness” on me are you attempting to discerned my intentions in offering Christian guidance to others in desperate need? I reserve no offense at those who suggest the prideful intentions of others if the allegations are backed by unmistakable reasoning, being sufficiently deducible from the expressions of the one accused of arrogance. But, sir, you have utterly failed to demonstrate my arrogance, instead simply accusing me of it! I believe in some things I am righteous. (Ought Christians to flee from righteousness?) But, if I credit my righteousness (as well as my wisdom and my capacity for compassion) to God, as I in fact do, what wrong have I done? Ryan, it is an attitude where one’s righteous efforts are credited to one’s own glory that is sinful. Have I lavished glory upon myself, that I am the source of my righteousness? Friend, you really ought to be more careful.

And if by “condemning,” Ryan, you mean to suggest “reproving,” your “firm belie[f]” that “we can be of far greater assistance to one another if we choose to listen without condemning,” is quite common and also often quite misguided. In any case, we will be far more appreciated if we choose to listen without condemning (i.e., reproving). This much is true. But we are not called to be loved by the world and those who pursue the world, but to speak the truth in love, precisely as Jesus the Christ did; and thereupon, those who crave the truth will choose to love us and the message we carry, and those who cringe at its telling will choose to hate us as well as the message we carry. By passing up the perfect opportunity and sparing someone the hard truth that could lead them to the redemption of their souls, you effectively dismiss the significance of their salvation. Wise up, brother. And consider this: If I merely relay God’s written word wherein he has condemned certain practices and the persons who willfully pursue them, is it really I who condemns anyone? —-For I have not the authority to declare what is right and what is wrong Of My Own Accord. Rather, it is the authority that comes from the wisdom of God, much of which is at our fingertips within the pages of Scripture, that condemns a man or spares a man; I am simply an earnestly concerned messenger. A liar ignorant of the truth not only is deceived himself, but, if he is bold, he deceives others as well. Thus if I correct a false teacher, my investment for the Kingdom extends far beyond the original source of false teaching, perhaps even exponentially. (And your clarification of “the kingdom of heaven” is really not something that is relevant to the truth of what I am saying.)

When moral correction is given to us, as Christians we bear the responsibility, the moral obligation, to receive it in humility and to compare it with God’s written word and also with the Holy Spirit. There is no gentleness in all the world than can compel an arrogant spirit to receive a righteous reproof in humility. I have spoken Scripturally sound truth with all love and all compassion, and yet some have responded to me in hostility. This reveals not the slightest bit of guilt on my behalf, Ryan; it does, however, reveal the arrogant spirit of some of those who receive correction. I have stood firm in Biblical truth, protecting it from misrepresentation, and therefore offered guidance for others in receiving the promise of my Lord and Savior. “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” (Hebrews 10.25–27; see also Hebrews 6.4-8). The key word in this passage is “willfully.” Those who pursue homosexual relations, insisting that such is not sin, rejecting the opportunity to repent and strive for righteousness, and thus rejecting the Scripture which attests to the contrary, are sinning willfully, by spirit.

You say “it seems far more helpful to encourage people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, to seek the kingdom of heaven. I know that I respond much more easily to someone encouraging me to do something rather than to not do something.” Again, Ryan, responding with joy to the absence of much needed correction is not necessarily indicative that the one addressing you has addressed you appropriately. Moreover, there is an affirmation in every moral negation, my friend. To encourage someone not to reject God’s grace in a life of willfully sinning is, as a matter of fact, to encourage them to passionately seize God’s grace. And, have I really suggested that practicing homosexuals ought not to seek an eternity with the Father, as you imply? I have not. Be careful that you not slander your brother. Remember, receiving correction is a two-part responsibility, not one part greater than the other: the one who corrects must do so in compassion, and the one who receives must do so in humility. If only the receiving end of a righteous correction is arrogant, the one who corrects bears no blame. But with not the slightest defensible reason you assume to discern arrogance on my behalf. I attest, sir, that you are presumptuous and mistaken.

However, perhaps our one point of agreement is that building relationships with people to put a face to the love that Jesus brought is a crucial component of making disciples. However, also, there is a time and a place for making a concerted effort toward building relationships: whilst reading and writing on blogging sites is often not one which lends itself to the cultivation of traditionally conceived friendships. For example, in your reply to me just now wherein you offered advice, was this commentary given because you intended to spend time with me, to build a continuing friendship with me so as to share my burdens and my joys? Likely not; and yet that itself was not of any harm.

My purpose here has been that of establishing a superior case as to why something, namely the validity of a moral imperative, is true by the Christian standard and why the imperative is worthy of our obedience. There are different aspects in guiding people to the truth. Just recently I went to an event where evangelist Ravi Zacharias was speaking at a university, and he presented intellectually oriented information to the audience to address those who denied or doubted the truth of the existence of a Creator. Some attending Christians whom I spoke with afterward grumbled, saying, “I doubt many people came to Jesus after that lecture.” But such Christians missed the whole point of the lecture! What a shame. While the eternal salvation of those in the audience was doubtless on the mind of Ravi Zacharias, he was addressing apparent intellectual stumbling blocks to faith in Christ. If one believes there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of a Creator, then this is a sure impediment to believing that Jesus is the Christ and receiving an eternity with our heavenly Father, wouldn’t you say? But out of compassion, Ravi extended grace in striving to remove such a stumbling block so that those who were skeptics might now be enlivened with a curiosity to seek the truth to further extents, whereas before they felt that the nonexistence of God was a given. In a similar manner, I have been endeavoring to remove a stumbling block, a false philosophy that can cause some of us to become complacent in a particular sinful lifestyle, believing that God approves of it, which will hinder some of us from choosing to receive God’s grace.

Therefore, Ryan, I submit that God raises up diverse leaders with dissimilar skills, no one greater than the other, to work together for the glory of God; that the one who wishes to be an encourager is not to dismiss the value of intellectual contribution, thereby pitting reason against spirit; and that the intellectual is not to dismiss the value of encouragement where such is due. I believe that my skill is a very misunderstood one (and often underappreciated), indeed. One might even say, Ryan, that I am a bit of an outsider in how I am sometimes received: Surely Jesus knew what this felt like at times. Though, I am sometimes also given encouragement from persons of older generations, even women, in my efforts to stand firm and speak the truth, even the tough truth, when others lack the wisdom or courage. In fact, Ryan, if you’ll notice, Andrew, who has commented under this article, and who has confessed his struggle with his own homosexual orientation, has even offered his encouragement to me under one of my replies here, saying in approval, “right on, Jared.” Apparently his spirit did not take offense with my comments. And to his confessed struggle—-which did not lead him to embrace defeat—-I expressed much joy for his honesty and determination to remain faithful to Jesus, even in the face of cultural pressure whereby those with his orientation are encouraged to embrace defeat.

I would also encourage you to review my response to Laura on November the tenth, at 12:54pm. It bears a similar theme to what I have written here.

With all the false accusations which have been leveled at me from various commenters here in an effort to divert from addressing the underlying issue itself, instead of construing me as arrogant and uncompassionate as you and others are eager to do, perhaps my Christian detractors might marvel: “Boy, given all the false and damaging accusations against Jared; which have been issued by folks who claim he does not listen, when in fact the shoe is precisely on the other foot; and which he has had to resolve; he sure is an extraordinarily patient, kind, and gracious person.” I say this not for my sake, but for yours, to convict you so that you might grow in the Spirit of the LORD.

I think I understand your stance on confronting people in an effort to guide them to a healthy relationship with their Creator. It is noble and just. I submit however, that you may be coming from a point of belief rather than knowing, and that means you are speaking more as a pharisee than as a disciple of the Christ. (I could be wrong, it just sounds that way to me)

I would like to offer a different image of what “inheriting the kingdom of heaven” might mean. According to the gospel authors, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is “at hand”. Perhaps this means that our divine inheritance is not a phenomenon that is only reserved for after death, but is one that can occur during life and in fact in the present moment. If this is the case (and I believe it is), then I would be wary of recieving guidance from someone who has yet developed the “eyes to see” (not that I have the authority to say who that is). Jesus instructed his followers to “remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter from your neighbor’s eye.” I take this to mean that we should not go around condemning our brothers and sisters until we too have claimed our divine birthright and entered into the “joy that is beyond understanding”.

Ekhart Tolle gives a pretty lucid description of the spiritual consequences of homosexuality in his book “The Power of Now”. He says that a homosexual orientation can be of spiritual benefit to an individual because such a person will be made to feel as an outsider and will have greater impetus to seek an identity rooted in a spiritual, rather than a physical, reality. He also says that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle can be a hinderance because of the strong pull to invest the identity in being a homosexual which is a purely physical (and therefor temporary) phenomenon. With that perspective it seems far more helpful to encourage people, regardless of their lifestyle choices, to seek the kingdom of heaven. I know that I respond much more easily to someone encouraging me to do something rather than to not do something.

I firmly believe that we can be of far greater assistance to one another if we choose to listen without condemning. The act of condemning automatically closes us off to the possibility of receiving what the person needs and locks us into a dogmatic view that may or may not represent Truth. It also creates an attitude of righteousness which seems to be at odds with what Jesus taught. Jesus told the pharisees that he “did not come to call the righteous, but the sinners”. I don’t think Jesus was suggesting that the pharisees were in the clear and therefor did not need his help, after all he warned his disciples to “avoid the leaven of the pharisees”. I think Jesus was rather telling his followers that an attitude of righteousness closes the mind from receiving Truth.

As one who is earnestly seeking the kingdom of God, I do not feel I have the authority to condemn my fellow humans until I have achieved the goal and thus know the way from experience. There is a big difference between teaching from a point of belief in something I have learned from a book or a teacher (like the pharisees did) and teaching from a point of authority (like Jesus did). Until I have the authority to teach like Jesus, I am going to stick with listening so that I can support my fellow seekers in the most loving, compassionate, and helpful way possible – as one who wants to know God and wants to help others as well.

As for Pascal’s wager, it is often an unacceptable move for someone to give up earthly enjoyment on the “chance” that it might lead to eternal consequences. It is therefor more skillful (as far as I can tell) to be there for our brothers and sisters and support them in continuing to seek God, even if their choices of lifestyle differ from our own or do not line up with our own understanding of how God wants us to live.

Regards,
Ryan

“Are Christ followers still called to confront sin? (Back to Penny’s point) Absolutely. But I don’t think we are called to confront sin in the way you might be talking about. We are called to confront sin in love and (I really like Penny’s point here)listen and ask questions. Telling someone that what they are doing goes against God’s law is easy, asking them why they are sinning and becoming committed to their freedom from sin through love is HARD. But I believe, unequivocally, that this is what God calls us to do. … And walking, talking, listening and learning through someone’s journey is humbling and allows us, mere broken humans, to participate in the divine came near.”

I suspect that I really do need to address this matter of loving and listening to the afflicted as a separate note: the confusion among some of you is so heightened. Laura, you say in agreement with Penny in one of your replies, “I ABSOLUTELY agree that the key, key, key is to LISTEN.” Laura, for what purpose are we listening? If we are seeking to provide comfort to someone facing a confessed tribulation from which they are seeking freedom or refuge, then, of course, the key is to listen to that person in order to understand what is troubling them (and why) so that we might appropriately care for them: be it with Spirit-led advice, prayer, physical help, or all three. But, in our case, Laura, it behooves you to acknowledge: Those homosexuals who willingly pursue homosexual relationships and have confessed a determination to reject the opportunity to repent inasmuch as they believe their behavior is not sinful are precisely those who only desire that someone lend an ear on matters of homosexual behavior inasmuch as they are seeking encouragement for their continued pursuit of that sinful behavior. Do you see? Such persons as I just described will not benefit from your suggested course of action that we “ask them why they are sinning” because they do not believe they commit any sin by homosexual relations! Nor have I suggested that we not take the course of action you suggest with those afflicted by homosexual desire who do, in fact, confess the sin of homosexual behavior. Different approaches to different struggles. The one who does not confess the sin will not benefit if we take for granted that the behavior is sin, therefore we must persuade them (and those who advocate on their behavior’s behalf) that such behavior is sinful in order to proceed to the next step. Acknowledging the problem is the first step on the road to recovery. And to persuade a person who has demonstrated resistance requires that we listen to their reasoning, which I dare say that I have done rather superbly.

Would you suggest that my sympathy for one who struggles with a sin ought to persuade me to dismiss God’s clear prohibition on that sin as expressed in the Scripture? You say not, but your attempts to discourage me thus say otherwise. (You are not alone in this practice; I have seen it often.) Moreover, Laura, your attempted counsel, as well as that of some others commenting here, can be likened to that of one who, after befriending a drug addict ignorant of consequences, endeavors to show compassion to that person by defending their damaging drug habit when the person becomes depressed insofar as the drugs help to soothe their pain! It is to their ultimate destruction, but rest assured, they will thank you for your encouragement, for neither you nor they are careful to heed the warnings of concerned friends who speak the truth. And the concerned friends are often libeled as “uncompassionate,” “ungracious,” “hateful,” “bigoted,” and perhaps “ignorant” for their compassion, their grace, their love, their acceptance of those who are afflicted, and their sufficient understanding of the crisis being suffered. Concerned friends are often libeled because they offer the crucial love that is difficult to receive, whereas the enabler offers either the encouragement to pursue the object of one’s desires or a truth so dilute as to be ineffective.

Therefore we must be very careful in suggesting or even hinting that someone does not speak in love, or, as it was suggested by Lisa, that one speaks in arrogance. Such a serious allegation demands remarkable evidence, lest it be libel. And perhaps that person who is accused actually has a greater understanding of love than his accuser thus far understands. Let us love all our brethren and even those outside the church as does our LORD: one such way being that we not deceive them, for love “rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13.6). Thus, if love rejoices in truth as do I, and I have not spoken hateful words toward any person here, then I have spoken the truth in love (Ephesians 4.14–16). For a man to call something precisely what it is does not suggest that he speaks without love or that he speaks in arrogance. Nor are we to believe ipso facto that one who speaks the truth is without compassion when those who despise the truth cringe at its telling.

But on to the crux of the matter. We not only have several passages of Scripture—both in the Old Testament and the New—which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior as such, and which do not give any special mention of certain kinds of homosexual behavior such as between a man and a boy or regarding rape or polygamy as a condition of the sinful nature of homosexual behavior, but we also have countless passages of Scripture which take for granted that God’s sacred plan for sexual relations from the beginning of the creation of mankind is for such relations to occur only within marriage, and that God’s sacred plan for marriage is the union between a man and his wife for as long as they both shall live. Thus to equate Paul’s condemnation of homosexual offenses with homosexual rape is no more than sheer, naive wishful thinking which is easily undercut. (See my reply to our sister Emily above regarding the equality with which homosexual behavior, incest, bestiality, polygamy, adultery, lust, and premarital sexual relations are all condemned in Scripture, each being blasphemy by sexual perversion.)

In any case, let us consider a sort of Pascal’s Wager in terms of Paul’s intent. Your exegetical speculation, Laura, that, to paraphrase if I may, “The most appropriate reading of the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual offenders is in terms of a condemnation of homosexual rape and man-boy relations” is a wild guess at best, for you suggest, without knowing, that there is an implied intention on Paul’s behalf that there be a conditional provision to the condemnation of homosexual behavior. Not Paul, nor any author of Scripture, has expressed such a condition in the Scripture, nor can such a condition be deduced by the same. You must already confess, then, that the weight of plausibility is not in your favor. This naive suggestion of yours then demands an answer to the question: Why would you attempt to offer any encouragement to homosexuals to declare that they are eternally safe to ignore the warnings from Christians such as myself and to pursue a homosexual relationship based upon an undeniably counterintuitive exegesis of the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual offenders which bears no proof in the Scripture, being neither explicit nor deducible therein? In doing so, you assist in jeopardizing the heavenly eternal destination of our homosexual friends on a wild guess. —Such is not compassion, but grave cruelty! You mean well but you do much harm: for if I am wrong, the homosexual who heeds my advice forfeits sexual pleasure but his soul may be safe for all eternity, but if you are wrong, the homosexual who heeds your advice surely forfeits his soul unto the devil for eternity though his pleasure may be pursued for however many years his earthly life may endure. Of course, I am not wrong.

Perhaps, as common sense with the Holy Spirit would attest, when the Apostle Paul wrote

“[K]now ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 — American Standard Version),

we are best to construe the implications therein regarding homosexual behavior with Paul’s later letter to the Romans wherein he wrote with clarity

“Professing themselves [(i.e., ‘men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness’ {v.18})] to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due” (Romans 1:20-32 — American Standard Version).

Three things are apparent in this passage which are relevant to our purpose here, Laura, which we would all do well to take note. Firstly, Paul specifically undercuts any inclination that liberal scholars might have that he was making reference to the adult/adolescent age coupling in the homosexual relationship (as was common in Rome) as a condition of the sinfulness of that relationship by his affirmation that having “burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness” is sin, or that which is wrought from “vile passions.” If Paul meant to suggest that only men with children burning in lust for each other constitutes homosexual sin, he would have written so. Second, again, the phrase to have “burned in their lust one toward another,” in speaking of men, Paul undercuts any misconception that he was only speaking of certain kinds of homosexual relations between men, such as homosexual rape. Thirdly, by stating “likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,” in drawing a parallel to the “vile passion” whereby the “women changed the natural use into that which is against nature,” the wise Apostle Paul specifically condemns lesbian relations so as not to leave out women.

Aside from my revision of Pascal’s Wager and my conservative reading of Paul’s intent, Laura, don’t hesitate to review my replies to Emily as well. Also, I am going to provide you (and everyone reading here) a link to an insightful article by Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig entitled “A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality”: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5339. Although, please note that this particular link cannot be followed to the article until you log in to the website to receive his once-monthly newsletter.

And remember, “homosexuality” is often meant to imply both the homosexual orientation and the manifestation of that orientation in deed or lust. The homosexual orientation is the result of a fallen world under the curse of sin, just as is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism (as many scientists believe there is), but the mere proclivity is something that the vast majority of the afflicted have not made a conscious decision to acquire, and thus it is not itself a sin for which the individual is accountable. But just as the one who is afflicted with alcoholism is not thereby given a moral pass to drink to his heart’s content, so, too, the one afflicted with homosexual desire; be it by nature, by nurture, or both; is not thereby excused of his obligation to abstain from sexual perversion.

Sexual perversions are blasphemy against our God’s design of man and woman and the sacred union of marriage between the two; thus we willingly decline to love the LORD our God with all our heart by engaging without repentance in sexual perversions, and therefore forsake the “greatest commandment” that Jesus confirmed (Matthew 22.37-38), which is “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.” So said the Christ of Himself, “If you love Me, you will obey what I command” (John 14.15).

If we grant that the Apostle Paul is not a liar when he claims to speak with the authority of the Spirit of God in condemning homosexual behavior, then discerning the truth of the matter is not difficult at all. Some professing to follow Christ, however, are not willing to grant that the Apostle Paul, who had encountered the risen Christ and thereupon received the Holy Spirit, is not a liar; thus I have provided other reasons.

In sum: If we grant homosexual relations as morally acceptable to our Creator, we must also grant the moral permissibility of incest, polygamy, bestiality, and all mutually consensual fornication, for all such things have been equally regarded as sexual perversions (which are blasphemous and sinful) by the LORD our God. To maintain that all such deeds (being manifestations of a man’s unGodly desire) are morally acceptable to our holy God is absurd, therefore all such things remain sin.

Laura, your oversimplification of my words are not insightful. And, if you were assuming (as many are all too eager in an attempt to dismissively categorize me as they wish) that I am sheltered from alternative views, that I find it difficult to love, to respect, to listen, and to understand homosexual persons, please pay closer attention to what I say, for such is a total misunderstanding. Other than that, who could disagree with your post? I surely do not. What is more important than repeatedly asking questions? —Getting answers to those questions. I’d say I have sufficient answers from the homosexual’s point of view. Surely I received enough answers from commenters advocating the Christian moral permissibility of a life of homosexual behavior on this article likewise.

It is truly ironic, though, that often those who accuse others of not listening, and of not showing grace, are the most eager of all to oversimplify the words of more conservative ideological opponents in order to maintain a veneer of intellectual victory, as well as to demonstrate a lack of grace toward ideological opponents.