Parents don’t want homosexual children

He is.

But what do your 14 year old son’s friends think about lesbians? 🙂

Totally agree. We should be happy to come and share at your church about what parents and governors can do.

The homosexual world has become a bit more politically savvy than in those days, and does not like to admit to the sad and the bad in its midst any more. But yes, we are certainly saying that same-sex couples do not have ‘long term relationships just like married parteners (sic)’. They cannot. They lack the complementary equipment to be ‘one-flesh’ in the full emotional and physical sense. They are trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces. That is why they keep changing partners and looking for a bit of quick sex behind the bushes. Welcome to the reality of homosexual life.

You appear to think that the world in which we now live has something to do with reality and that we ought to conform to that concept of reality.
I hope I’m not twisting your words because I’m afraid that’s how they appear to my mind.
If that is so, and, as you claim to be a Christian, how does that tie in with God’s statements, “I am the Lord and I change not” [Mal 3:6] and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever” [Heb 13:8]?
If one’s views conform to the times in which they live their judgments would be forever changing, wouldn’t they?
Surely, as Christians, we have to follow what God states is reality and not what this fallen world maintains is reality. This world presently belongs to Satan [John 12:31; 14:17, 30; 16:11; 18:36; 2 Cor 4:4] and it is a world which we are commanded not to love [1 John 2:15]. I have to remind myself of that all too often!
I have known Christians to accuse people of judging others. Ironcially, that’s what they have done themselves on doing so. Scripturally, it makes them hypocrites. They have quoted part of Matt 7:1 forgetting verses 2-5 and John 24 that we are to judge with righteous judgment. The Apostle Paul is pretty scathing in 1 Cor 6:2-5 regarding those who cannot judge.
Anyway, you again appear to be saying that “gays” (I take it you mean homosexuals and what the Bible calls
Sodomites, as opposed to happy, joyful people) and lesbians who have long-term sexual relationships is fine in the sight of God. I’m sorry if that’s not what you meant. But if it’s not, what then is your point?
I think we all know that God will judge us at the end of our days. So what?
Are you saying that He will judge those more harshly who try to live by His Word–which He magnifies above His very own Name [Psalm 138:2]–than those who flout their hostility of it and twist it to fit what they wish to believe?
If so, can you explain from Scripture how you reach that point? Sorry, but I find your comments a bit confusing.

By all means.

Hmm, ‘they are in, or want, long term monogamous relationships’ but it doesn’t happen, does it?

“As a Christian I know that I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I rejoice that I can share in the sacraments with my partner, and I wish all a Merry Christmas.” If you think you can be a Christian and a practicing homosexual at the same time, how do you explain 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11?

I’d like to share with you what one gay Christian said when commenting on these passages, and why these and other scriptures convinced him that he needed to remain celibate.

I Corinthians 6:9-11

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor active homosexuals [arsenokoitai], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

The key debate over this passage concerns the meaning of the term arsenokoitai. There is a lot of debate over this word, but having studied Greek, it seems to me fairly self-evident that arsenokoitai is a compound word referring to those offenders condemned in Leviticus 18:22. In the Septuagint, we find “You shall not lie [koiten] with a male [arsenos] as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

The linguistic problem seems to me to be exactly analogous to this: suppose I have an Old Testament text which says, “it is unlawful to lay bricks,” and I have a New Testament text that says “bricklayers are lawbreakers.” It would seem inconceivable to me to say that “Greek scholars don’t know exactly what bricklayer means.” Yet Mel White claims (with an apparently straight face) that “Greek scholars don’t know exactly what arsenokoitai means.” While I can appreciate Mel’s desire that this should be true (since I shared that desire for years), it simply is not true. My New Testament Greek Lexicon (put together by Greek scholars!) defines arsenokoites (the singular of arsenokoitai) as “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.” It is true enough that there are some Greek scholars who reject this interpretation, just as there are some Biblical Scholars who argue that God is not the Creator, or that Christ was not born of a virgin, or that He wasn’t the Son of God, or that He did not rise from the dead. But if Christians had to give up their beliefs every time a scholar professed disbelief, Christianity would not have survived a week.

Linguistically, the transformation from “it is unlawful to lay bricks” to “bricklayers are lawbreakers” is identical to the transformation from “you shall not koiten with an arsenos” to “arsenokoitai shall not enter the kingdom of God.” In both cases, the verb has been conjugated to function as a noun, and the object has been joined to the verb to form a new compound word.

Words have to mean something, and the obvious grammatical meaning of arsenokoitai is “men who lie with men,” a reference back to Leviticus 18:22. This does not automatically prove that this is what Paul meant. As some have pointed out, “ladykiller” does not mean either a lady who kills or a person who kills ladies. But most compound words have obvious meanings. A homosexual, for example, is a person sexually attracted to their own sex.

There is a tiny amount of room for scepticism about the meaning of arsenokoitai, but in order to make a compelling case against the obvious meaning, one would need to propose an alternative meaning, find documentation of that alternative meaning, and show that the alternative meaning would make at least as much sense out of Paul’s argument as does the grammatically obvious meaning.

I welcome serious, faithful scholars who challenge and question our beliefs about the Scriptures. Many of the great heroes of the faith have done this, challenging Christians to take more seriously the Word of God. Such men and women have started great reform movements. But after two years of studying Greek in college so that I could understand the translation arguments in the passages treating homosexuality, my reaction was something like, “this is the best challenge we can make on the translation of arsenokoitai?” I, at least, did not find the argument convincing.

And moving beyond the specific question of whether or not arsenokoitai refers to active homosexuals, the statement that fornicators, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other sinners will not enter the kingdom of heaven is logically connected with the statement a few verses later that sexual sin defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Paul’s argument in the latter half of I Corinthians 6 is that sexual sin separates us from the spirit (and thus from the kingdom of God). But he also argues that sinners can be washed, sanctified, and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (See Jesus and Sexual Morality: Life in the Holy Spirit, above).

None of this is to single out homosexual sin for special condemnation; adultery and fornication are just as serious in God’s eyes and much more commonly practiced. But for those of us tempted to homosexual activity, it is important to recognize that the Scriptures say that such activity can cut us off from God by defiling the temple where He dwells through the Holy Spirit within us.

It is also important not to be discouraged. Romans 7 is very clear that the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit is not over in a moment. It is a part of every Christian’s daily walk with Christ. As long as we keep returning to the cross in repentance, we will receive forgiveness and Christ will help strengthen us and progressively free us from sin. That is why Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 6:11 that we can be set free from our sins. The way is not free from struggle, but the battles do lead to victories, and freedom from the power of sin.

I Timothy 1:8-11

Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, active homosexuals [arsenokoitai], kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted (I Timothy 1:8-11).

Again, I find the argument that arsenokoitai means “men who lie with men” compelling. But this passage is also important for what it says about the law.

Christ said that “all the law and the prophets” was summed up in two commandments: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbour as yourself. The Apostle Paul teaches that those who live by the Spirit are not under the law—as he argues in this passage, “the law is not laid down for the just.” Those who live by the Spirit will show in their lives the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (cf. Galatians 5:22-23). But, Paul is equally clear that “through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). The New Testament vice lists remind us of what sin is. If we are using our “freedom” to engage in sin, then we are not free; we have become slaves of sin (cf. John 8:34; Romans 6:16-18). There are numerous New Testament vice lists; I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10 mention homosexual acts among several other vices which separate us from God.

Again, this is not to single homosexual acts out from all the other acts which bring condemnation. But in these passages, Paul argues that homosexual acts can 1) keep us from the kingdom of Heaven; 2) defile the temple of the Holy Spirit within us; and 3) place us back under the judgment of the law.

Given the stakes involved, it is not a risk I am willing to take. Even more so, I would never risk inflicting consequences that serious on another man whom I loved.

The standard come-back that Paul was addressing non-monogamous homosexuals just doesn’t cut it with the actual text. This is clearest if we look at Paul’s words in Romans.

When Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1, he isn’t just referring to heterosexuals who had abandoned their natural inclinations in order to seek homosexual gratification, nor is he referring to homosexuals who are non-monogamous. This becomes clear if we are attentive to what the apostle means when he refers to certain actions as ‘unnatural’ in Romans 1:26. In our language we have many different uses for the word natural. Sometimes, to say something is natural means that it is common or usual while other times it means that which comes easily for a person. The context of Romans 1 makes it clear that when the apostle appeals to nature he is not appealing to what is common (as if morality can be reduced to statistical observation – a very anti-Pauline idea). Nor does he mean “natural” in terms of that which comes easily for a person, since he shows elsewhere that we are to struggle against the inclinations of our flesh (Rom. 7:19-25). Rather, when Paul condemns homosexual relationships as ‘against nature’ in Romans 1:26, his meaning is clear by attending to the context. In the previous verse he talked about people exchanging the truth of God for the lie. The truth of God is clearly the normative standards that God has written into the created order (revealed in Genesis 1 & 2 – the implicit sub-narrative behind all of Romans 1), while the lie is the alternative way of doing things, one which involves turning aside from the “knowledge of God” to do “those things which are not fitting,” (1:28) ‘dishonourable’ (24) in opposition to “the truth of God” (25), and so on. So when Paul appeals to nature, he is appealing to the standard of how God created things to work, how things are supposed to be. It has nothing to do with failing to follow your own inclinations or doing something that doesn’t come naturally to you.

“Still,” someone could ask, “might Paul have simply been condemning shameful and lustful same-sex relationships, but not all homosexual activity? To assume that the Romans 1 passage is dealing with all homosexual activity would be like reading Colossians 3:5-6 and assuming that the prohibition on passion included passion in marriage.”

Paul shows that what is wrong with homosexual relationships is that they are homosexual relationships: “even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature…also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another.” The above suggestion implies that homosexual men and women are only exchanging the natural use for what is against nature if they do it with lust and shameful promiscuity. But that is beyond the bounds of serious exegesis. Reading Romans 1 and assuming it is addressing all homosexual activity is not like reading Colossians 3:5-6 and assuming that the prohibition on passion includes passion within marriage. The reason it’s not like this is because the Bible makes clear in other places that passion in marriage is good, so we interpret Colossians in light of that. But the Bible never makes clear that some forms of homosexuality are legitimate, and in fact I have shown that Paul says they are against nature.”

Homosexual ‘long term monogamous relationships’ either do not happen, or do not stay monogamous for long.

1 Now, if you believe in ‘gay marriage’, how do you finesse these gender-specific words of the Lord Jesus:
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. ?

2 How will a homosexual man or woman achieve being ‘one-flesh’ with his or her partner in perversion lacking between them the full set of the necessary complementary sexual equipment?

3 Or to put it another way, for this has implications for all of us if marriage is to be redefined in our law, how will a pair of homosexual men or two women consummate their ‘gay marriage’, given that consummation is legally defined as ‘an ordinary, complete act of sexual intercourse’?

Will: you wrote that Monogamy is important for “gay Christians” because the Church, Gospel, Tradition and Reason, “calls us to be faithful, permanent, and stable in marriage.” But isn’t it arbitrary to accept the reaching of these authorities in the areas where you happen to agree (i.e., the importance of monogamy) but then go on to reject the teaching of these same authorities when it happens to agree with you (i.e., that marriage is only between a man and a woman)?

And make no mistake, the Catholic church, the gospel, tradition and reason all reach that same-sex relationships are wrong, and I am prepared to defend that in each of these four areas if you are interested in pursuing the discussion.

Then from your own words, Mark 10:7 states that those who have ‘a vocation to marriage’ marry someone of the opposite sex.
Mark 10:6-8 shows that because God made us male and female marriage was instituted between the sexes.
Not even the Roman Catholic church sets John Boswell as an authority alongside scripture, tradition and reason.
One flesh is more than sex but it cannot exclude sex. Sexual complementarity is indicative of emotional and spiritual complementarity. Homosexuals are almost literally trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces.
People who are divorced and remarry still become one flesh and validate their marriage through consummation.
Of course your parents were ‘supportive’, but I’ll guarantee both they and your parish priest are praying for you to repent and be healed.

It is true that Mark 10:7 is talking about those who have the vocation of marriage, and therefore does not apply to those who are called to a life of celibacy like the apostle Paul. But our Lord’s words clearly show that for those who do have the vocation of marriage, such a vocation finds expression in the one-flesh relationship between a husband and wife. His reference to God’s words in the Garden of Eden underscores this point.

Will, when you suggest that Mark 10:8 (“and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh”) applies to “all who are married regardless of sexuality”, you are implicitly detaching sexuality from marriage. You are implying that sexuality (a person’s biological sex) is accidental rather than essential to marriage. I have interacted in detail with that fallacy here and I would encourage you to check it out.

I agree that “one flesh” is more than sex, but is it less? Sure, “its love, respect, understanding”, but be careful lest you veer into the Gnostic and neoplatonic error of marginalizing the significance of the physical aspects of marriage. In our article from last Spring, titled ‘Gay Marriage and the Revenge of the Gnostics’, we made a point that seems particularly appropriate for the present discussion:

What is interesting about the movement to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ is that in many respects it is a return to Gnostic ideas about the body. Advocates of gay ‘marriage’ will frequently downplay the physical aspects of marriage, urging instead that marriage is not primarily about becoming one-flesh physically, but a spiritual and emotional connection for which our physical experiences are extrinsic rather than intrinsic.

In downplaying the importance of consummation in marriage, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ have tried to reduce the meaning of marriage to merely a loving and committed relationship between two adults. It’s an emotional and relational union that creates the necessary conditions for marriage, they argue, not what you do with your bodies. In fact, the physical anatomy of the adults in question is irrelevant. Marriage is first about the communion of souls in a committed and affectionate relationship and only secondarily about physical union.

By contrast, in traditional marriage one cannot disengage the relational and the physical aspects of union.

So while I agree with you, Will, that marriage is “love, respect, understanding” and that it is “more than sex”, that is not all it is. The type of consummation that can only be experienced by physically complimentary humans is central and cannot be marginalized in the way that you seem to be doing.

Will,
‘Being gay’ is not a sin. Sodomy or for that matter any kind of sexual relation outside marriage is.
However, having erotic attraction to the same sex is a pathology, as your church teaches.
And that can be healed through faith in Jesus Christ.
The testimonies of people delivered from homosexual desires are all over the web.
Having what the Bible describes in Romans 1 as ‘vile affections’ may not have been a choice.
Keeping them is. Put simply, you don’t have to stay gay.

You write that being gay is an innate part of you as if that makes a homosexual lifestyle legitimate. I think John Frame has some instructive words that are relevant here. I am quoting now from his article “But God Made Me This Way.”

Homosexuals today commonly claim that they cannot help being homosexual. Homosexuality, they argue, is innate: perhaps genetically determined, in any case so deeply ingrained in their very being that it is, for them, an inescapable condition. Therefore, they conclude, church and society should accept homosexuality as natural and normal. Surely, they insist, it is unfair to condemn people for what they cannot help doing.

Indeed, those homosexuals who want recognition as Christians interpret the “inescapability” of their condition theistically: “God made me this way.” How can Christians, then, condemn a condition that God himself created?
This question comes up in many areas of discussion other than homosexuality.

…let’s assume that there is an innate physical basis for homosexuality, and for alcoholism, and indeed for general criminality. I suspect that as genetic science develops over the years there will be more and more correlations made between genetics and behavior, and that will be scientific progress. What ethical conclusions should we draw?

For one thing, we certainly should not draw the conclusion that gay activists want to draw, namely that any “innate” condition must therefore be accepted as natural and normal. Innateness has nothing to do with normality. Many diseases, for example, are genetically determined. But we don’t consider Tay-Sachs or Sickle-Cell Anemia to be “normal” or desirable conditions, let alone to possess some ethical virtue. Nor do we consider alcoholism or “xyy” anti social behavior to be normal and natural. Rather, we do all we can to fight them. Genetic discoveries, indeed, open up more possible weapons for this fight. Some have suggested, indeed, that the discovery of a “gay gene” would give us the opportunity, through abortion or genetic manipulation, of eliminating homosexuality (or at least one impulse toward homosexuality) from society altogether. That is precisely what gay activists don’t want to hear.

Further, we must keep these discoveries in perspective. Not everyone who has the xyy gene becomes a criminal, and not everyone with a genetic risk factor for alcoholism actually becomes an alcoholic. Similarly, it is quite unlikely that a “gay gene,” should it exist, would actually determine people to be homosexual. Although studies of twins do show a correlation between genetics and homosexuality, half of all twin brothers of homosexuals are heterosexual. So the data suggest something less than genetic determinism. Indeed, they suggest that it is possible for someone to resist patterns of behavior to which he is genetically predisposed. Genes do determine eye color, sex, blood type and so on; but patterns of behavior, although influenced by genetic make-up, do not seem to be controlled by it. The typical behavioral differences between males and females, for example, have a genetic basis; but (as feminists are quick to point out) that genetic basis does not exhaustively determine how we will behave in every situation. Women sometimes behave in ways more typical of men, and vice versa. Genes may impel, but they don’t compel.

Indeed, other sorts of influences are often more compelling than genetic inheritance. A unsigned editorial in National Review (Aug. 9, 1993, p. 17) points out that “the effects of childhood brutalization can restrict one’s freedom far more than does a physiological preference for sweets; and many purely biological impulses pale in strength before the smoker’s need of a cigarette.” So if we excuse homosexuality on the basis of genetic predisposition, we should equally excuse all acts resulting from environmental influence and from bad choices in the past. Whether a compulsion has a genetic basis is ethically irrelevant.

Nor do we in other cases excuse acts committed on the basis of genetic predispositions. One who has a genetic propensity to alcoholism cannot excuse his alcoholism on that basis; nor can an xyy man excuse his criminality. These conditions do not force people to do anything contrary to their desires. In that sense, they do not compromise moral freedom. They do create moral challenges, venues for moral temptation. But that too should be seen in perspective: all of us have moral “weak spots,” areas where we are especially vulnerable to the Devil’s enticements. These areas of temptation have many sources; heredity among them. Others would be environment, experiences, and our own past decisions. Thus some have a particular problem with temptation to alcohol abuse; others, because of their early training, personal taste, or social attachments, are not often tempted to commit that particular sin. But these will certainly have other areas of temptation. This is true even for those who are most mature in the Christian faith: such maturity opens one to the temptation of spiritual pride. Thus the person whose special moral challenges have a genetic component is not in a totally unique situation. We all face such challenges; they are never entirely under our control. For all of us, this world is a spiritually dangerous place. Truly, “your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour” (I Pet. 5:8). But thanks to God’s grace, we may “resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings” (verse 9).
Would a genetic basis for homosexuality eliminate the element of “choice?” Certainly not. A person with a genetic propensity for alcoholism still makes a choice when he decides to take a drink, and then another, and then another. Same with an xyy male who decides to punch somebody in the nose. If we assume the existence of a genetic propensity for homosexuality, it is true as we said that those with that makeup face greater temptation in this area than others. But those who succumb to the temptation do choose to do so, as do all of us when we succumb to our own besetting temptations. Homosexuals certainly choose not to remain celibate, and they choose to have sexual relations. They are not forced to do this by their genes or by anything contrary to their own desires.

Is it possible for a homosexual to repent of his sin and, by God’s grace, to become heterosexual? Christian ministries to homosexuals claim that this is possible and that it has happened, though they admit that this is a particularly difficult sin to deal with. (Sexual orientation is something that goes very deeply into human personality, and we have an instinct to keep it relatively private. That instinct is a good one, but it does make counseling in this area especially difficult.) Gay activists claim that this is impossible, and they dispute alleged “ex-gay” testimonies. Indeed, some people who have professed deliverance from homosexuality have later returned to homosexual relationships. And many “ex-gays” have candidly admitted that they continue to experience homosexual attraction, attraction which they now perceive as a moral and spiritual challenge. Pro-gay advocates argue that this lingering homosexual temptation proves that homosexuality is ineradicable.
I believe on faith that God can deliver homosexuals, because Scripture teaches that His grace can deliver his people from all sin. (See especially 1 Cor. 6:9-11.) I haven’t done first-hand research on the results of various ministries to homosexuals. It would certainly not surprise me to learn that many people who struggle by God’s grace to overcome their homosexuality still experience homosexual temptations. People who have been addicted to alcohol often face continuing temptations in this area long after they have stopped drinking to excess. Similarly those who have overcome the impulses of hot tempers, drugs, or heterosexual promiscuity. If that were true in regard to repentant homosexuals, it would not cast the slightest doubt on the power of God’s grace to heal such people. Recurrent temptation is a problem for all of us, and will be until glory. One may not judge the fruits of Christian ministries on a perfectionist criterion, namely the assumption that deliverance from sin must remove all temptation toward that sin in this life.

The bottom line is that the genetic element in sin does not excuse it. To see that, it is important to put the issue into an even wider perspective. Christianity forces us again and again to widen our angle of vision, for it calls us to see everything from the perspective of a transcendent God and from the standpoint of eternity. Such perspective helps us to see our trials as “light and momentary” (II Cor. 4:17) and our sins as greater than we normally admit. From a biblical perspective, the difficult fact is that in one sense all sin is inherited. From Adam comes both our sin and our misery. We are guilty of Adam’s transgression, and through Adam we ourselves inherit sinful natures. If a genetic predisposition excuses sodomy, then our inheritance from Adam excuses all sin! But that is clearly not the case. Of course, Reformed theology construes our relationship to Adam as representative, rather than merely genetic, and that is important. But Adam represents all who are descended from him “by natural generation;” so there is also an inevitable genetic element in human sin.

Is that fair? Consider that Adam contained all the (genetic!) potentialities of all of us, and lived in a perfect environment save one source of temptation. None of us could or would have done any better. And, American individualism to the contrary notwithstanding, the human race is one in important senses, and God is right to judge it as a single entity. The bottom line, of course, is that we are His creations. He defines what is “fair,” and he has the right to do as he pleases with the work of his hands.

In this broad context, however, the argument that one sin should be declared normal on the basis of its genetic component or because of some other kind of “inevitability” is entirely self-serving.

Actually, it is the inexplicable obsession of people like Sir Ian McKellen, Peter Tatchell, Ben Summerskill and the rest of the homosexual industry with homosexuality which continues unabated!

Have you not read: Prov 28:4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. That’s what we are doing: Contending with them. Standing up for righteousness. Being a voice in the moral wilderness.

You know of three long term homosexual relationships which you think are monogamous. Wow. Their relationships do not mirror, although they may be a pastiche of, heterosexual love and marriage.

Funnily enough, although I am under no obligation to follow the ceremonial law laid down for the priests of Israel before Christ’s ultimate sacrifice put an end to that system, I do in fact ‘poll’ or cut short my hair as described in Ezek 44:20 and 1Cor 11:14. Receeding a bit on the temples, maybe, but I can’t do much about that without Louis Walsh’s money. Anyway, no dodgy pagan haircuts here.

Again, Leviticus 21:20 refers to the Israelite priests. (vs 17: ‘Speak unto Aaron, saying:’)

You don’t actually know what I wear, but Leviticus 19:19 does not ban mixed fibres in garments, only the mixing of linen and wool. You know, you really ought to look these passages up before you quote them. You can download Bible software FREE HERE.

BTW, my full riposte to the silly ‘Dr Laura Questions’ is HERE.

The answer to your question is ‘Yes, I do to the best of my intent live my life according to the precepts of the Bible.’ What do you mean by ‘the excluded books’?

The expression ‘Wow’ was intended to convey ‘That’s not very many’.

For the benefit of those who do not know, a ‘straw man’, also known in the UK as an ‘Aunt Sally’, is a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is then to create the illusion of having refuted an opponent’s proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet extreme proposition (the ‘straw man’), and to refute that, without ever having actually refuted the opponent’s true position. Some examples are HERE.

I really did not invent the questions put to Dr Laura Schlessinger (although it might seem that way, because they are such a display of atheist ignorance as to be rather valuable) and I cannot quite see the relevance of ‘straw man’ here. No matter.

We base arguments here on theology and also on science, including social and medical science, evidence and reason. It seems a bit odd to dismiss all that just because we are Christian.

Finally, if Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Milliband have their way, marriage will be redefined for everyone, not just for Christians, particularly on the key concept of what ‘consummation’ of a marriage involves. Christians are voicing most opposition to the ‘gay marriage’ scheme because they care about society and want the best for everyone. We do not want our society to become totally like Sodom and Gomorrah.

I too would like to know what you mean by the “excluded books”. Are you talking about the Apocrypha?

You know, that is exactly what I think whenever I read the comments in Pink News or Freethinker.