[/QUOTE]
Being gay is not a sin.
Neither is being lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
The Bible never claims that it is.
It really doesn't.
Christians should stop saying it because it's reckless and irresponsible—and it's killing people.
Link to column
I said I would share my opinion on this article and here it is. Took me a while to get to it. My daughter has been having some medical issues and they have found a brain bleed. She has a very rare genetic disorder that makes her more susceptible to these types of things and it isn't her first. As you can imagine that has taken up the vast majority of my attention.
I am approaching this as an argument from authority. If you are atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Muslim, or embrace some other worldview this post won't do much for you. I'm approaching it in this way because the author of the article I am reacting to approached the Bible as an authority so I am doing the same.
If you don't agree me that's cool. I won't do every sentence because that would be crazy, but will try to stick to main points and themes. I know this will be long and many won't read, but it has caused me to consider why I believe what I do and defend it, which is always a good exercise if for no one but me. I'm trying to make a post longer than Tidewater, but it won't be nearly as good as something he could write.
I'll put quotes from the article in bold to make it easy to follow.
First, the author starts off by diving into Genesis and the creation story.
Which ones were created in God’s image, the males or the females? If our answer is both (which it must be), then God is decidedly non-binary, God transcends a single gender identity—God is by nature trans-gender. We cannot have God be a He and also make women in His image—and we can’t have a God capable of creating men and women, unless God is equally made of both. These Christians wouldn’t dream of excoriating God for the fluidity, would they?
I do agree that God the Father as described can't necessarily be nailed down to a gender. He is universally referred to as a He in Scripture because He is a personal being. He isn't an it. This doesn't mean God is transgender or nonbinary as we would think of it. I think the author should have used the term 2 spirit as I understand the term to make his point, so he starts off not even understanding the language he is using properly.
We are not made in the image of God in a literal physical sense as the author seems to imply. In John 4:24 it says that God is spirit. The author has totally misunderstood or misrepresented the concept of humanity being created in God's image. He is trying to boil it down to physical form and matter. What God is speaking about here is the immaterial part of humanity, his soul and spirit or his mind, will, and emotions as we might think about it in modern secular language. We are given agency by God to choose. We can have rational thoughts and carry out our will to at least some extent. We have free will to choose and create as God did. We can't create on his level, but we write literature, create art, create new life, and build and construct societies.
We are made for community. This also reflects God. When we think about the triune God, He fellowships among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I know that's a whole other ball of wax when it comes to the trinity, but that's not the focus of the article so I won't attempt to go deep into the concept, and honestly, it makes my head hurt sometimes. Man's first relationship was with God. The author boiling down all of man's creation in the image of God to gender is incredibly simple, misleading, and so surface level I have to wonder if he did it on purpose to make his point and ignored the rest so he wouldn't have to be intellectually honest.
They like to say that the Bible declares that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, while the Old Testament, as early as Genesis’ fourth chapter is teeming with bigamy, polygamy, and extra-marital sex practiced by the lauded pillars and Patriarchs of the faith (Abraham, Gideon, Solomon, David)—not as cautionary tale, and not with rebuke, but simply as the story of God’s people. There are no definitive statements on marriage spanning the breadth of Scripture.
We do like to say that because that's what we see in the creation story. "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." Genesis 2:24. The language is pretty plain, "two are united into one". He's ignoring this passage and going to the patriarchs to try to make another point that fails on many levels.
He is correct that the patriarchs made a huge mess very quickly. What's interesting about the Bible is that it gives a very honest view of the people's lives described in it. It is a unique thing. Abraham lies, sleeps with his wife's servant at his wife's urging, and then banishes the boy and his mother when they get into a conflict with his wife, Sarah, and their son Isaac. Abraham looks bad in the whole thing. The author is wrong that it's not a cautionary tale. It is exactly that. Every time we see polygamy, adultery, and other sexual sin in the Bible it never ends well. Abraham's family is a wreck. Jacob's family is a wreck. His children's families are wrecks. Go to Genesis 38 and read about Judah. The guy was a hot mess.
Using Solomon and David as examples is absolutely dishonest or he showing his ignorance of Scripture. Maybe he was too lazy to Google search the topic. Deut. 17:17, says, "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." This verse is giving a direct command to the future kings of Israel. David and Solomon were in direct sin and disobedience. These two men had terrible family lives and Solomon was pulled away from the Lord in his later years due to the many wives he married that weren't Jews. David had one of his sons rape his half-sister. This led to murder and another son eventually attempting to overthrow his father. Go read the story of Absalom in 2nd Samuel. David's family was a total disaster.
There are statements about marriage in both the Old and New Testaments as stated above, but the author chose to ignore them because they didn't fit his narrative. Jesus let the Israelites have it over how they were handling divorce in Matthew 5. Jesus, Paul, John, and Peter all spoke of marriage as between husband and wife. There is no hint of polygamy in the New Testament, and adultery is absolutely forbidden. Paul speaks of a husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church in Eph. 5. He speaks of men as being the husband of one wife. The author's argument falls apart here because he neglects to deal with the actual text.
To be continued.
thehill.com
