God Loves Homosexuals but Hates Sin (Discussion Transcript)

Post date: Aug 5, 2014 8:43:12 PM

The response to a testimony that a homosexual was set free from their lifestyle.

Mark ########

Jesus set you free??? You changed because you wanted to change. Jesus loves us exactly like we are. I hate hearing testimonials from people convinced of something that actually didn't happen. I am homosexual and feel loved exactly like this. I don't want to change because this is my way of being and I am blessed. Sins do not exist, only ways of thinking that change from era to era exactly like fashion.?

Our Response:

God loves homosexuals, but abhors sin. Homosexuality is clearly marked as Sin in both the Old and New Testament.

Advocates for homosexuality always reject or twist scripture to make their lifestyle work.

Here's the question I'd ask a homosexual or anyone in a sinful-sexual lifestyle.

Are you willing to submit your sex-life to Jesus?

Is Jesus in control of your sex-life?

I state the question in two different ways because people don't always understand one. Ideally, if Jesus is God over every aspect of your life, that would include your sex-life. When Jesus forbids pornea (sinful sexual practices), Jesus includes quite a bit. Just to name a few:

Casual Sex







The fact that a list had to be made is good indication that someone had tried each of these things at least once.

But, if you're going to argue that Jesus never specifically spoke against homosexuality. Consider that in John 1, Jesus is referred to as God of the Old Testament. Jesus also infers that when David wrote "my LORD said to my lord" that Jesus was the LORD to whom David referred. Finally, when Jesus was taken, they asked which one was Jesus. Jesus responded with the term used for Jehovah in the Septuagint (Greed translation of the Old Testament). Jesus said "I AM" (Eigo Aemi)

Not sure of those? In the sermon on the mount, Jesus refers to Porneia as a reason for divorce. During this time, Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience would would've known the porneia codes of Leviticus.

So, when a person claims that Jesus never addressed the topic of homosexuality, you either

A) Don't understand who Jesus really is

B) Don't want Jesus to be able to dictate what is wrong with your sex-life

I do what to submit one more item for consideration. If you're going to reject all the evidence that I've presented regarding Christ labelling homosexuality as sin, then consider this...

Is it possible to make an argument from silence?

When applied, I ask this... since you have not yet made any statements regarding people randomly tying you to a tree branch and leaving you for days, does this mean that you are in support of it? Should we take your previous silence on the subject as support?

If the answer is no, then you must apply the same standard to the teachings of Jesus. If Jesus did not speak in support of homosexuality, then you look at what Jesus did support and you can get an idea of whether Jesus did or did not consider homosexuality to be sin.

Remember, Jesus claims he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.

Before I conclude, you mentioned that Sins do not exist.

Sin by definition is living up to the standards of God. Considering that no one is anywhere near God's perfection, we all sin. Certain actions are pointed out specifically as being sinful. They are considered trespasses against God. Doing these actions are no different than a person spitting in your face or performing some offensive action toward you.

If you believe that it is wrong to do certain things against people and you believe in God, then you believe that Sin exists.

If you do not believe in God, then you make yourself a god to you.

Mark #######:

Thanks a lot for your reply. From your answer I can see you still rely on books. Bible was written and rewritten several times. This means each hand put his own interpratations. Not to mention that church was and is involved in political things. Jesus of books is no more the son of God but a mixture of people wishes. I believe the only place Jesus lives is in our hearts. Sins do not exist, the meaning of sins is not that you will be judged. God won't judge anyone, God is pure love and love never judge. Your actions produce aftermaths. Sins are actions that hurt yourself or others. Being omosexual is a mere role, having sex with the man I love is an expression of God itself. Having sex with a woman who have been forced to do it, this is sin.?

Our Response

Tactics of redefining Jesus.

Make a bold claim that Jesus was all loving.

This tactic blatantly ignores historical documentation from Biblical and Extra-Biblical sources regarding the life of Jesus and why He was crucified. According to the little documentation we have from the Roman Empire, there was a troublemaker named Yeshu'a (Iesous in Greek, which is where we get Jesus). Yeshu'a preached strange doctrines but did not break Roman law. Yeshu'a was executed for disturbing the peace.

To find out how Yeshu'a disturbed the peace, you look at the remnants of the Sanhedrin. According to accounts from Caiphus (the high priest of the day), Yeshu'a practices sorcery, proclaimed himself to be God, and defied the authority of the Sanhedrin. These crimes were punishable by stoning. Because of Roman Occupation, the local Roman governer had to oversee the execution. This is why Yeshu'a was crucified (a Roman execution) versus being stoned.

To find out more, we look to the synoptic Gospels. Each time a person tells an account of an event, there are going to be differences. For instance, Mark recalls a guy who ran away naked when Yeshu'a was taken in the garden. No one else records this event because no one else saw it. Where did this naked man come from? We're not sure.

So, we look for similarities in the synoptic Gospels. Events that align:

Jesus's baptism

Jesus preaching in the temples

Jesus healing the sick

Jesus flipping the tables of the money changes

Jesus forgiving sins

Jesus betrayed by Judas

Jesus crucified

Jesus resurrected

The question now is how do we know these texts are reliable?

The criteria for historic documentation is that it:

Contains embarrassing statements

Is confirmed by external sources

Is written in the syntax of the time

This criteria also confirms the authenticity of the Bible.

The problem with most people who attack the Bible is that they assume that the Bible is a single book. It's not. The Bible is a collection of 66 books from 40 authors across 3 continents. So, when you examine the gospels, you must not treat them as a single book. Each has their own unique style according to the Author.

Matthew wrote from his perspective to the Jews. The emphasis he gives is Messianic.

Mark wrote from a Roman's perspective. He focused more on what Jesus did.

John had the closest relationship with Jesus, so John focused on the love of Christ.

Luke investigated the events some 40-50 years after the events. He took a historian's approach.

Most interesting is when you follow the writtings of Luke. Luke wrote for Theopolis, to whom he refers to as "Most Excellent". The "Most Excellent" was a greeting generally given to a person in political office. From this, we can assume that Luke was contracted to investigate the events that occurred.

The writing of Luke uses technical Grecian terms. When examining legal documents of the era, Luke's style matches what was used in the Roman courts. Luke also gives names and places when describing events. To establish timelines, Luke provides references to obscure officials in office. Luke also makes the challenge that people can go to the cities and ask the witnesses he interviewed about the events that occurred.

So, the criteria of external sources is met by the books of the Bible.

What about syntax?

Let's look at the modern day vernacular. Suppose I said, "we'll have a gay ol' time". Could I be saying that we're going to cross dress or do some other (potentially offensive) mimicry of homosexual activity? What if I was in the 1960's? Then people would understand that I'm referring to having a good or fun time with friends. Words change and speech patterns evolve over time. When determining if a document matches the era, you must look closely at how it matches to other documentation of the era. Very few people quaff their drinck. Instead, we slam a beer. Consider also, have you been disrespected or dissed? Both terms are used currently, but dissed is generally used in urban settings more than disrespected. A person's environment will affect how they speak, write, and express their self in general.

As stated with Luke, Luke's writing matches the Roman standard for a legal document.

Matthew's writings seem more educated, but still used colloquial terms of the time. Mark and John tend to use more colloquial terms. Never the less, the terms used in all 4 gospels align with the time frame and language used.

Does the Bible include the Embarassing Statements?

YES. On the cross, Jesus is recorded as saying "My God My God, why have you forsaken me?" If Jesus knew that He was going to be resurrected, why would He claim that God had forsaken Him?

Jesus also asks that God provide another way where Jesus didn't have to die on the cross.

Upon resurrection, Jesus was discovered by 2 women. At the time, a woman's testimony wouldn't hold up in court. If you were going to make the case that something happened, you'd want to say that two men has witnessed it. More so, you'd want to say that two government officials had witnessed the events. By getting the most reputable people to witness an event, you can gain quick acceptance of it as truth. Instead, the gospel accounts are that peasant women were the first to observe the empty tomb.

Finally, what happened to all of Jesus' disciples when Jesus was taken? They hid. They scattered, and Peter denied Jesus and started to swear up a storm. Some disciple... huh? For Peter to have looked back on that moment would've been very embarrassing. History now records the denial of Christ by Peter. Since Peter was considered the first pope, you would think that he'd have this removed from the records to make himself look better.

So, the Bible meets the requirements for historic documentation. When you argue the Bible is unreliable because it is written by men, you have quite a bit of evidence for the its historicity. Further more, archaeologists continue to use the gospel of Luke as a reference for digs.

In 1961, Dr Antonio Frova found the Pilate stone. This confirmed the existence of Pontious Pilate and placed him as a magistrate in the courts of Jerusalem right as Luke wrote.

So, when you make the claim that the Bible is written by men, unreliable, and changed, you have quite a bit of history to disprove. Add to the fact that we have found 5,686 Greek manuscripts that confirm the accuracy of what we have today.

Given that my argument has an abundance of evidence, I ask on what you base your description of Jesus? Is this just what you believe? Do you have documentation that confirms this All-Loving Jesus? Or is it a desire that Jesus be all-loving and all-permissive of homosexuality?

So let me address your claim that God is All Loving and Love Does not Judge.

What is your source?

Jesus preached more on Hell and Judgement than anyone else in the Bible. Those who wanted nothing to do with God were sent to Hell. Those who knew better but didn't do what God wanted went to Hell. Those who claimed to be holy, but didn't have a relationship with Christ were thrown into Hell. All of these teachings give strong indication that there will be a judgement and people will go to Hell.

So, given that Jesus specifically says people are going to Hell, upon what do you base your claim that Jesus won't judge?

You also claim that sins do not exist.

If this is this case, then why did Jesus forgive people of their sins? Why did Jesus get in trouble for forgiving people of their sins? What was the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross if not to forgive sins?

I specifically would like to know the last one since Jesus was the lamb sent to be slain. This notion comes from the Old Testament practice of sacrifices. In sacrificing, the Hebrews were substituting the sacrifice for their self. This substitution was a prophetic of the death of Christ.

When you say that having sex with the man you love is an expression of God, then you also have to answer where God blesses homosexuality? If you are god to yourself, then you can bless homosexuality all you want. If you are appealing to Jesus (by extension the God Trinity believed by Christians),then there's a burden of proof upon you to examine scriptures and show where God says that homosexuality is permissible.

In 1 Corinthians (6, I believe), it is written that the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the man and the Father is the head of Christ. Paul then says that he's not speaking of marriage, but of God.

Paul also quotes the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) when he coins the phrase aresenokoitei. This comes from the Levitical porneia laws which are considered an abomination (toev'ah). Paul also writes in Romans 1 that God considers homosexuality a vile practice. It's described as men with men and women with women. So, from a New Testament standpoint, there's not much that backs up homosexuality as acceptable.

Old Testament, Leviticus clearly states that homosexuality is punishable by death. This is confirmed in Deuteronomy.

Throughout the Bible, there are scriptures that talk of the unchanging counsel of God. (Psalms 19:21 & Hebrews 6:17)

So, if Jesus came to fulfill the law and not destroy it, God's doesn't change His mind regarding Sin, then from where do you get permission from God to practice homosexuality?

Finally, I don't understand your "Having sex with a woman who is forced to do it" statement. It seems like an incomplete thought.

I'm going to be straight with you. My hope is that you repent. It's the hardest thing to do when you build your life around an identity. You have labeled yourself as a homosexual, but in the church at Corinth Paul writes that some WERE (past-tense) homosexuals (1 Corinithains 6:11), but they were cleansed and sanctified by Christ. The idea of washing and cleansing throughout scripture is that the person is dirty. They've been marred by sin. Their sin must be cleaned. This is something that only Christ can do. The same Christ that not only forgave people of sins, but told them to stop sinning after He forgave them.

Yes, I hope you seriously take time to pray and seek the REAL Jesus, not the plastic/fake Jesus that everyone wants as a buddy. It's not easy, but there is hope.

Mark ###:

We see things in a different way. Although you think that Bible is the basic of the basics I think Bible is a mere book where people have taken advantage of Jesus to write their own way of thinking. I believe the most important thing is not to hate anyone. I won't change, but I understand you even if I do not agree.

None of us will change their minds as we both believe we know the truth.

I wish you all the best.?

Our Response:

The Bible says that God made humans in His image. For this reason, we are to love and respect everyone. I wish you would address the issues that have been raised with arguments based in evidence as I have. I would like to understand how you came to your conclusion.

If it is that you have not taken the time to really search the truth, then I encourage you to seriously pursue the truth.

If it is that you are not willing to deal with the truth, then I pray that some day you will.

Either way, thank you.