Why I believe homosexuality IS a sin

In its section called the Dialogue Corner, the Chicago-based African American Lectionary has posted a series of compelling essays on sexuality .

“The first issue that we decided to address is Sexuality. To do so we invited a diverse group of writers to provide articles on topics including: Working to Connect Religion, Black Bodies, and Sexuality: What Black Churches Should Know; Homosexuality; The Down Low Phenomenon; Talking to Gay Teens—What Should the Church Say; Why I Believe Homosexuality Is a Sin; Ways Pastors Can Dialogue with Churches about Homosexuality; Why Some Black Churches Demonize Members of the GLBT Community; and Why I Believe Homosexuality Is Not a Sin.”

One of those is my original writing entitled “Why I believe homosexuality IS a sin”. The reason the “is” is emphasized because a counter argument was written by Valerie Elverton Dixon,Phd an “independent scholar” from Montclair, NJ.

Read Why I believe homosexuality is a sin by DL Foster

Read Why I believe homosexuality is not a sin by Valerie Dixon

Who makes a more compelling argument? Whose argument is more biblically sound?

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Why I believe homosexuality IS a sin

  1. Honestly, she almost makes a better argument for why homosexuality IS a sin.
    There is so much I could say, but gonna keep it to a few brief points: My summation of her argument, essentially its motive and not the act that is sinful, and the sinfulness of homosexuality is relative to the time and society in which the law was practiced or presented.
    Thing is, just 40+ yrs ago, if that, it was still a sin in our society, in most states law books anyway. Just cause Isaac Newton coined the law of gravity in 17th century doesn’t mean the dinosaurs weren’t subject to it, as are we today. She’s using a tree falling in the woods argument, God gave the law to Israel and no one else is subject to it, please. If time and society are an issue, the church has been going into all the world preaching it since Jesus ascended into heaven, and if you raised in a Bible believing church you can’t not know, so there goes the whole argument for a lot of folks.
    “God is a God of new mercies. Morning by morning God‟s liberating Spirit moves through human communities. God‟s new mercies affirm the equal humanity of women, liberates slaves, and makes genocidal war unthinkable as anything that God either requires or sanctions. It also brings justice to those who live on the margins of society” Now she tagged it with a Bible verse, but the paraphrasing reminded me of this post at DefCon http://defendingcontending.com/2010/03/14/which-jesus-do-you-worship/ – I immediately thought who is her God?
    Lastly, she foot notes I do not believe in natural law (she didn’t believe in original sin either), so I find my understanding of God’s law from an interpretation of scripture that I hope and pray is informed by Holy Spirit. Unsure much?? See, if these baptist folks would get filled with the evidence…I’m done

  2. She starts skating from the first sentence onwards…..applies her own definition of what the defintion of a sin is. Goes on with word quackery, and completely denies what sin is: namely, whatever God says is a sin. What a joke. My two year diploma in what has amounted to basket weaving, beats out her PHd in what amounts to peanuts.

  3. Jim I have to agree with you. It didnt really rise to the level of a credible argument for her position. This is what a phd produces these days?

  4. Its astonishing that individuals that have vastly inferior minds attempt to attack the truly learned ones. Comedy. None of those who comment have a PhD (which is obvious is in the lack of substance visible in your attack-u-ments)

  5. @Todd-a phd is not needed to refute trash, and made up erroneous theology. This lady should have gotten her phd in horse crap because she is good at writing it.

  6. If what she wrote was the result of a phd, what’s the need for one? Education can stand in the way of wisdom and learning sometimes.

    And I bet Todd didnt even read the articles,just wanted to make some meaningless jabs. lol

  7. @Todd…..now, just imagine what God thinks, when we try to twist His words, and apply our interpretation on what He clearly calls a sin; HOMOSEXUALITY. Todd, God wiped out Sodom because of this sin, how much of an education does one require to understand His position on this?

    @everyone……Todd’s tactics are typical of the homosexual lobby, namely question what God hath said. Sounds liked someone we met back at the garden.

  8. So, I’ve read both essays, and one scripture comes to mind “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”. Clearly, one the the essays (the one written by Dr. Dixon) is proof of what happens when one doesn’t obey II Timothy 2:15. There are several gaping holes in her argument (for example, her erroneous understanding of I Timothy 1:8-11, her claims of no usage of arsenekoitai prior to I Corinthians 6:9 ( but if one would be the Septuagint, one would find otherwise), and the like).
    On the other hand, your essay provided sound teaching, correct exegesis, and proof of the demonstration of God’s power. I commend you, and I thank God for you, Pastor Foster!

  9. @ Jim – I couldn’t agree with you more. Does any of these scriptures sound familiar also?

    Genesis 3: 6 – “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree DESIRABLE TO MAKE ONE WISE….”
    Proverbs 14: 12 – “There is a way that SEEMS RIGHT to a man…..”
    Romans 1: 22 – “PROFESSING TO BE WISE, they became FOOLS….”
    These people are so smart. They should just stop walking all the way around the side of the house, jumping the fence, wading through the bushes, and climbing the ladder to come through the window. Come on in the front door!!! Because one day, they’re going to arrive at the same place!!!!

  10. actually, I did read the article DL. I must commend you for presentig both perspectives. That is true objectivity. My comment was directed at the uncritical thought often associated with fundamentalist “ranting”. Everyone has a right to their belief, however, when belief itself holds critical thought an analysis hostage – when it discourages individual thought as opposed to group-think, its a very dangerous pathogen indeed.

  11. Jim Wrote…
    @Todd…..now, just imagine what God thinks, when we try to twist His words, and apply our interpretation on what He clearly calls a sin; HOMOSEXUALITY. Todd, God wiped out Sodom because of this sin, how much of an education does one require to understand His position on this?

    Apparently very much. The gay movement discounts the orthodox Church’s intepretation of Sodom and Gomorrah and vice versa. Apparently its very difficult to ascertain the thoughts of God. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have so much theological vasciliation between Christian sects – who each often claim to be the only ‘true church’.

    It seems, Jim, the is MUCH room for interpretation.

  12. The issue isnt about what a church says or thinks, its about what the bible says. Its clear and only a fool would see it wrong. God isnt stupid and he didnt mince his instructions about sin or about homosexuality. Confusion is a product of the devil. God is not the author of confusion.

  13. Define “uncritical thought” (with some sourcing) please as it seems to be the litmus the religious left types throw out there to diminish honest exegesis. And just who gets to decide when uncritical thought is actually uncritical? And by who’s authority?

  14. Great question DL.

    Critical thinking requires a capacity for skepticism. Modern Philosophy teaches that (a) my perceptions are not reality and therefore, are not definable as law or fact. Intellectual honesty instills a voracious appetite for sound thinking. Sound thinking is realized through rigorous introspective analysis. As I weigh my enternal resolution against, sound, rational, verifable evidence, I can rest assure I am not bound my ancient dellusion.

    With respect to religion – particularly Western Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianities, this idea is frowned upon. Objective Methodologies are often derided as “heretical” because they encourage true thinkers to challenge every-single-assumption and/or indoctrination – even the Holy Texts of men. The Bible is said to date the age of existence somewhere near 6,000 years. Both Carbon and Radio-metric dating completely reject this commonly held ‘religious fact’ as utter rubbish – perhaps even juvenile comedy.

    While science is not perfect – nor does it pretend to be perfect, at least the findings of other thinkers are vigorously scrutinized by the community of thinkers. What is more, those ideas that are disproven or fraudulent are dismissed, and the perpetrator of the misguided information either decreases in intellectual stature, or is ejected from the community as a fraud.

    While Christianity on some level endeavors to scrutinize its adherents, it falls considerably short of objectivity because the Bible, a book of books piecemealed together by many sources, is held to be the end – all – authority….. yes, a book.. is considered the final authority with regards to all things God. Can you not see the inherent danger in a book which may be perceived to “concretely” represent the ultimate salvation narrative (systematically), but in fact, the determination of “truth” or “sound biblical exegesis” is left to the massive diversity of interpretation amongst adherents to the faith.

    So I would respectfully question all here: How could the Bible be “authoritative” or “objective” as opposed to complete unadulterated subjectivity? Based in the [limited] understanding of ancient man?

    Thanks for the forum

  15. Well in the very first paragraph she gets the definition of “sin” wrong. I guess she’s not reading her Bible much.

    Sin is transgression of the Law according to the Bible and not society or a particular time period as she put. Sin is not invading the space of another its disobedience to God’s Word.

    That just proves the point you can have multiple phd’s but if God’s Spirit is not assisting you in rightly dividing His Word, degrees are worthless. Not to mention if God has given you over to a reprobate mind, that piece of paper hanging on the wall is not going to do you much good…..

  16. @Todd

    To what variety of skepticism are you referring? Incidentally, having the capacity to do something and actualizing that capacity are not equivalent. Thus, reducing critical thinking to merely a capacity is wholly inadequate.

    In addition, your statement concerning modern philosophy requires qualification. Most people would agree with the statement that our perceptions are NOT NECESSARILY equivalent to reality. So, on what basis are you making your absolute claim that our perceptions are not reality?

    You stated that sound thinking is realized through rigorous, introspective analysis. What criteria do you use to determine the level of rigor in your thinking?

    Your response also suggests that empirical verification (science) is only acceptable means of knowing anything. Did you use empirical verification to draw this conclusion?

    The notion that a methodology is objective is nonsensical. The presuppositions of the scientist/researcher/thinker tends to play a role not only in the questions that are posed, but also in what evidence to collect, as well as how the results are interpreted. As such, there is no such thing as an “objective methodology.” In fact, following your advice, I must challenge the notion that an objective methodology exists anyway.

    Your example concerning the age of the earth fails to acknowledge the fact that no consensus exists among Christians. There are multiple camps, including young earth creationists, old earth creationists, and theological evolutionists. You should try to present all of the views instead of “the one” that tends to bolster your own position.

    By the way, ideas in the scientific community are accepted or rejected by consensus – not because they are necessarily true or false. Consequently, one can’t necessarily conclude that ideas are proven or disproven in science with absolute certainty.

  17. @ Todd – are you using the terms authoritative and objective synonymously? Also, your “limited understanding of ancient man” phrase implies that medieval, modern, and postmodern man are no longer limited. In what sense are you using the term “limited?”

  18. “Critical thinking requires a capacity for skepticism.”

    When you posit a statement like this, it shows me we are talking apples and oranges. In case you havent realized it yet, this isnt a scientific site nor does the biblical truth require science and logic to arrive at a rhema conclusion. If you are referring to a commonly used definition of skepticism i.e.

    1 an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
    2 the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
    3 doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

    then you are running counter to what the bible says about (1)doubt if you have faith and do not doubt Matt 21:21 (2) uncertainty And WE KNOW that all things work together for the good of them that love God […] Rmns 8:28

    Since this involves the issue of homosexuality and the biblical perspective, what purpose does “healthy skepticism” serve except to further alienate a person from an honest search for the truth? If you come to the bible with doubt and not faith, your “search” will end quickly. And I thought it was healthy not to have presuppositions and prejudices when attempting to discover truth. In your case, you arrive with a built in handicap.

    And I asked you to tell me who determined that critical thinking was required to extract revelation from the scriptures? What person or authority made that determination? And is it someone who’s life is perfect and unblemished. Untarnished? One who is innocent of all guilt? Is it someone we can all agree is worthy of such authority, thus worthy of our compliance? Who is this person? Is it you?

    You are objecting to the bible’s authority (which you have the free will to do so) but after reading your response, you offer absolutely nothing in terms of an alternate authority free of subjectivity to which we can look to for absolute answers. So we are back to nothing but a simple human complaint.

  19. Carbon and Radio-metric dating are based on assumptions and unkowns and is not accurate at all thus cannot be trusted. So if scientists were to really dismiss things that are not reliable you can start there and also the supposed big bang, unless you deem that reliable? Nonsense!

    A women has a hair dryer, I am sure that the instructions will say not to use it in and near water. The point is, there is a reason for the instructions, obviously so she doesnt get electricuted.

    I find it funny that people will tell you to do exaclty what the bible says not to. Without faith it is impossible to please God. So you dont put your faith in Christ and then try to find out if its true, search prior to believing. If you doubt and start seeking after, you are a fool, for you started to build a house that you didnt know you could finish.

    So Todd, since this is Christian blog you should expect believers here. Jesus said blessed is the man who believe but has not seen.

    When you dig deep and are subjective as far as the reliability of the scriptures please do a study on the destrcutive nature of homosexuality and sin as a whole. The same things the bible say to refrain from are the things that have caused more hurt and pain than we can fathom. Also come with a better alternative to the worlds issues than what Christ offers for if you tell one to doubt, the only fair thing is somethine more rewarding and comforting that what they already have, if not, there is no point at all.

  20. DL, I certainly am not complaining, as I’m not vested either way. I must apologize for my very first post being emotional and irrational. I think the bible brings considerable wealth to the human experience. I find wisdom in it. however, I don’t believe its the only source – even the exclusive source, for instruction on how to live a life of excellence and accomplishment. We won’t see eye-to-eye with regard to the exclusivity claims of Christianity, and that really isn’t my point. My point is critical thought is ok to a certain depth inside Christianity, afterwhich, the authentic seeker, runs the risk of being deemed heretic – or worst yet – demon, spawn of evil, etc – for merely refusing to accept the exclusivity of any religion. How is that healthy?

    Again thank you for forum. I need to understand the religious perspective. I want to understand. I’m open.

  21. DL,

    I’m not certain if this is the appropriate topic-forum for this question, but the bible systematically speaks to Providence in the lives of humans, so how do you address someone like me.. who acknowledges that God [undeniably] exists, yet has significant issues with the issue of the bible as (a) God’s only word (b) an exclusive doctrine of salvation? What about the vast majority of the human family who aren’t Christ-identified? Are they dammed ( that’s about 80% of the human population).

  22. Todd: The “religious” perspective that you are lacking is very simple and straightforward. It is acknowledging that God is holy and God is omniscience and as such, He does not need to explain what
    we may demand to be explained. Such knowledge of the workings of God comes only via a submission to the Word of God via his son Jesus Christ.
    Without that submission, the words of God are foolishness to people who are perishing. God never agreed to be subjected to be first being tested by man and then, maybe then we might accept his right of sovereignity.
    From the very beginning, God made certain statements about his nature and character and gave evidence of his power and ability (Romans for example) but fallen mankind has chosen to seek an alternative path to a “god” for reasons that they find the requirements of the God of the Bible too much to their disliking because God makes demands upon his creation of submission and obedience.
    Mankind bristles at the notion of submitting to God since they believe that their man made arguments should have equal weight and stature with God’s requirements of holiness and righteousness.
    Unless you are born again, you are not able to even discern the things of God because they are revealed only to those who have his Holy Spirit.
    God does not try to be politically correct with anyone at anytime in our time space history.
    Intellectualism has a place but when it tries to ascend to the place of God, God does not allow pretenders to his throne.
    When God has repeatedly declared that homosexuality is sin as the Word of God defines sin, then the “debate” is over and we either accept His definition of sin or we try to “wiggle out” and use human
    philosophy to create some wedge room so we do not have to face the requirements of holiness.
    If you are a seeker after truth, you will only find absolute truth in the person of Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh.
    Do not allow the folly of succumbing to the fleeting satisfaction of intellectual curiousity and without arriving at a destination and that destination being that you are in a born again relationship with Jesus the Christ.
    To lose all for the sake of an argument that God has already decreed as being of no value (people indicating that homosexuality is not a sin) is a tragedy of eternal proportions.

  23. Yes, I think that/those questions have merit and relation to this post. The homosexual issue is one and the same as the sin issue. In fact the homosexual issue is a component of the larger sin issue.

    Having said that if a person struggles with understanding and perhaps accepting that homosexuality is sin, it is a pointed indicator that they also do not understand what sin is all about in the first place. That is what I brought out in my commentary on the African American Lectionary.

    You say that you acknowledge that God exists. Great, but that is of little importance in the grander scheme of things for even the demons acknowledge his existence. James 2:19 says it best “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.” (NIV). So with that Todd, if you do not fear God your belief in his existence is upstaged by demons.

    Your significant issues with the Bible stem from an intellectual mindset( that you have stated you think is important).
    And that is not to say that God cannot or will not use an educated mind with the capacity for critical analysis. Yet, such must be submitted to the Lord’s guidance. Romans 1-8 is a brilliant example of Paul’s educational and analytical prowess where he employed a form of argument called a syllogy. Syllogism is a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion. You should read the aforementioned and look at how his argument is laid coming to the stunning conclusion in Romans 8:28.

    But even sans intellectual handicaps, you still cannot understand the mystery of God and his word. Its not a club, all are invited but the key is submission to him. FIRST. No man comes to the Father except he first be drawn by the Spirit. If God is drawing you, then your response should be a unanimous yes and humble submission. Though he condescended to men of low estate (you and I) we are in no way his equal by any stretch of the imagination.

    Jesus himself established the doctrine of exclusivity as it relates to the path to salvation. His invitation is inclusive, but once a person accepts his inclusive offer, it immediately becomes one of exclusion. There is no other way, no other name, no other path except Jesus Christ. Reject that and you are condemned. Jesus’ conversation with Niocodemus revealed that. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

    Its important to see the revelation that God does not damn anyone, its their rejection of the ONLY means of salvation he has freely provided that damns them. Its like a drowning man rejecting a rope or flotation device thrown to him because he doesnt agree with the person offering it. Hence, you are left to suffer with your own choice.

    Most people though they see clear signs, evidence and even the voice of God himself will not believe. Most people of his time DID NOT believe Jesus was the savior even while he was physically here on the earth working signs and miracles and proof of his identity. You say that 80% of the human population rejects the Lord Jesus as the exclusive door to salvation? Im not sure I can substantiate that number but I will say that things havent changed much.

    Consider if you will the prophecy concerning Isreal which is representative of humanity:

    Romans 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.

  24. I dont know really. They said give them a one line bio, so thats what I came up with. I guess the content mattered more than people going to my website. 🙂

  25. That is a shame because devils like “minister” gerald palm her is using. it against you.

    GCMW: I dont think so. He did me a favor by calling attention to the site. I write in the open and all of his “outrage” is moot because nothing Ive written or said is hidden from anyone.

Comments are closed.