This is my response to a friend's request that those who believe God is against gay marriage and believe that it should be illegal would share their thoughts regarding Mark Sandlin's article
My immediate response is this- did you read the
entire article and look up, in your bible, all scriptures that were referenced?
Or did you simple read through the information quickly, and believe every word and
thought given by the author? If you only did the latter, is that what you will
also do with my response: simply read through it, trusting my understanding and
interpretations to be truth? Or will you read my response, already being set in
your own opinion, and then seek the internet or other articles to find anything
that will counter argue what I share?
Do you really want to hear my interpretation
regarding the scriptures and homosexual behavior? Are you really open to seeing
what I believe to be true or do you simply want to argue and throw beliefs and
possibly even verses back and forth? I am not a lover of confrontation, and I
have no desire to debate with someone simply for the sake of debate. I AM a
lover of Jesus, of His Word, and of the truth however, which is why I have
spent most of this beautiful day reading through this article and digging into
the scriptures.
I also want to say that if you don't believe that
Jesus is Lord and that the scriptures are His Words, and are infallible, then
don't bother reading on, since every opinion I possess is drawn from scripture
as the only truth.
Sandlin begins his article accusing "we Christians…[of]…misinterpreting
the Bible then running amuck in the world because of it." This is a typical tactic of the enemy. (And yes,
when I say enemy I mean Satan- the devil.) Immediately Sandlin gets his readers
doubting the way Christians interpret scripture (which is ironic considering
his use of we infers he is a
Christian himself). He uses this 'doubt tactic' throughout the majority of the article;
instilling just a hint of suspicion in the reader, then inserting his own thoughts
and interpretations. Just as Satan did to Adam and Eve, from the beginning, and
continues to do today: did God really say
you shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Are you sure that's what He meant?
Maybe He actually meant something else… what does the word 'eat' actually mean
anyway? Do scholars agree on the meaning? What does the Hebrew REALLY say, Eve?
Oh, God said you would DIE? You won't really die. That's not really what God meant,
Eve! (Gen 3:1-5) (Yes, this is where you go look up the scriptures yourself
and test me!!!) Moving on…
The Bible As A Sex Manual
I'm going to inject
some side notes here. Why? Well, because I just can't help myself. Just because 'men of God' had concubines or
several wives does not indicate that God endorsed or approved of it. In fact,
concerning Kings (which Solomon was), God said they shall not multiply wives
for themselves (Deut 17:17). But when Solomon took seven hundred wives,
princesses, and three hundred concubines, his heart turned away from the Lord
(1Kings 11:3). Yes, God blessed Solomon abundantly. This does not mean that God
condoned his many wives and concubines. God also blesses those who have been
divorced. However, giving guidelines and rules regarding divorce (or slavery
for that matter) does not mean that God condones, or approves of it (Matt
19:7-9). (Remember, when I insert scripture reference, that means you need to
go read it yourself.) God blesses sinners. He does not bless their sins.
The Clobber Verses
Sandlin says the
following three verses have nothing to do with the question of homosexuality: Gen
2:21-25, Deut 23:17, and Jude 6-7. But what do you say? Go read them and decide
for yourself.
Gen 2:21-25- This reference in Genesis is the first mention of marriage- 'A man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall
become one flesh.' Yes, like it or not, these verses tell of the first
marriage. When questioned about divorce, Jesus quoted this verse along with Gen
1:27, and Gen 5:2. "Have you not read that He who made them at the
beginning made them 'male and female.' And said, 'For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh'?" Remember, the issue here is homosexuality and marriage. In
the beginning God made clear what a marriage was, and Jesus later reaffirms marriage-
between a male and a female. This has nothing to do with homosexuality but
everything to do with how God and Jesus define marriage. I know of no verses in
scripture where God blesses or even acknowledges a homosexual relationship. Ignore
it if you like, and you are ignoring the Words of God.
Deut 23:17- This verse seems to simply forbid harlots and perverted/sodomites in
the temple. It forbids temple prostitution of either sex.
Jude 6-7- Now this one opens up a whole can of worms that I dare not go down.
Double dog dare me? Ok. Let's start in Gen 6:4, which talks of giants and of
the 'sons of God' going into the daughters of men and having children with
them. Children that became mighty men-men of renown-giants! Sons of God? We
find them again in Job 1:6, and 2:1. The sons of God and Satan present themselves
before the Lord. These sons of God appear to be angels- more specifically
fallen angels or demons in Gen 6:4. 2Peter 2:4 assures us that angels can and
have sinned and Jude 5-6 references these angels- angels who did not keep their
proper domain but left their own abode. Angels having sex with women and
creating giant offspring? Farfetched and completely bizarre? Absolutely. But
not any more farfetched than Mary conceiving Jesus by the Holy Spirit and
giving birth as a virgin- and I believe in this virgin birth with every part of
my being! Are angels sleeping with women and producing giants, or whatever it
was they produced, any more bizarre? I think not. Verse 6
of Jude goes on to say that Sodom and Gomorrah "in a similar manner to
these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange
flesh, are set as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." It's
clearly regarding sexual sin and it's clearly punishable by 'eternal fire.' You
go read Jude and decipher your own conclusion.
Genesis 19:1-11
Before you read Sandlin's
opinion, or mine, go read these eleven verses.
Now, what do you
conclude after reading this passage? Was the issue an issue of 'hospitality' as
Sandlin fails to persuade? No. Looking back at my previous paragraph in which
Jude 5-6 refers to angels and those of Sodom and Gomorrah having 'given themselves
over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh' answers the question.
Yes, Lot was protecting the visitors from the men of Sodom who wanted to 'know
them carnally' (vs5). He begged these men 'Please, my brethren, do not do so
wickedly!' (vs7).
Sandlin also states
that 'Sodom is referenced multiple times
in the bible as an example of great sinning. And what might that sin be?'
he asks. He attempts to answer his own question with other scriptures (Isa 1:10-17,
Ez 16:48-49, Zeph 2:8-11). However, two of the three scriptures reference Sodom
as an example of what the destruction will be like, not what the sin was that
led to destruction. Sodom is being used as a warning of coming destruction. The
exception here are the verses in Ezekiel which speak of Jerusalem committing adultery
against the Lord by worshipping other gods. The Lord says their sins were more
abominable than Sodom's. God takes idol worship very seriously. However, this
does not lessen the sin of Sodom. I am a sinner whether I commit a 'small' sin
(as if there were such a thing) or a 'large' sin (is there any other?).
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Do you just love how Sandlin does you such a big
favor by reading the Levitical Law for you? What a nice guy he is- telling
exactly what it says so you don't have to think for yourself. As a self
thinker- as I desperately hope you are- I went through Leviticus 18 on my own.
Nope, I didn't use Sandlin's ideas, and I didn't search the web for what this
chapter says or means; I simply read it. And you know what? It wasn't all that
bad. In fact, it had some pretty important information in there! Wow, what a
surprise, the Bible actually has important information! (Sandlin, your sarcasm
and haughty attitude are having its effect. Ugh.) Anyway, if you happen to get brave and open
the chapter up for yourself you will find laws pertaining to sexual immorality:
You shall not-
- approach anyone who is near of kin to you, to uncover his nakedness (v6)
- uncover the nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother (v7)
- uncover the nakedness of your father's wife (v8)
- uncover the nakedness of your sister (v9)
- uncover the nakedness of your grandchildren (v10)
- uncover the nakedness of your step/half sister (v11)
- uncover the nakedness of your aunt or uncle (v12-14)
- uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law (v15)
- uncover the nakedness of your sister-in-law (c16)
- uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter and her grandchild (v17)
- uncover the nakedness of a woman's sister as a rival (v18)
- uncover the nakedness of a woman while she in menstruating (v19)
- lie carnally with your neighbor's wife (v20)
- burn any of your descendants through the fire of Molech (v21)
- lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination (v22)
- mate with any animal to defile yourself with it. It is perversion (v23)
So I pose this
questions- which of these 'You shall not's' do you disagree with exactly? I'll
let you ponder the list for a while. I won't say anymore about it.
And I'm not going spend
a lot of time on the issue of eating shellfish. In Acts 10:9-33 God makes
unclean foods clean and tells Peter "What God has cleansed you must not
call common." Col 2:16 encourages us not to let anyone judge us in food, drink,
festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. The issue brought up by Sandlin regarding
shellfish and pork have nothing to do with our focus here, which is
homosexuality.
Romans 1:26-28
This is where we find the
author instilling doubt and then laying the burden of proof on the reader to
disprove his opinion. Good one, Sandlin. Way to work that deception. You are
almost as good as the father of lies himself (Jn 8:44). Sandlin declares that
these verses are 'not about homosexual
people having consenting homosexual relationships.' They're not? Does the
passage say they're not? 'one of the most
prevalent forms of same-sex sex in the Greco-Roman world was male prostitution
which frequently involved boys.' Okay, so…? Regardless, do these verses say
that? No, they don't. Therefore, the burden of proof lies back on you Mr.
Sandlin. Prove from the scriptures that this passage refers to 'a condemnation of pederasty and prostitution.'
What do I read them to say? That these things are vile; that women were doing
with women that which is against nature, and men were leaving the natural use
of a woman, burning in lust for other men and committing what is shameful. You
can include 'male prostitution which
frequently involved boys' in this passage if you insist, but cannot limit
it to that alone simply because these scriptures don't say it. Paul says
nothing here regarding consenting homosexual relationships or prostitution. He
doesn't even hint at it. The only hint I hear is that of Sandlin. How about
you?
Now his issue with the
word 'natural.'
'The analysis that I find the most convincing
concerns itself with the word “natural.” It is the word that has led many to
speak of LGBTQ behavior as “unnatural” acts even though they occur throughout
nature (in one study they were found in more than fifteen-hundred species).'
According to this logic, because a behavior is found in more than fifteen-hundred species,
it must be 'natural.' Ok, how about
we use the same logic regarding babies and cleft palates. In the US, 1 in 700
babies are born with cleft palates. If approximately 4 million babies are born
each year, this would mean that almost six-thousand babies are born in the US
with cleft palates. (Um, gently correct me if my math is off, please. I'm no mathematician.)
So, following Sandlin's line of reasoning, cleft palates MUST be 'natural.' Ask anyone about a cleft
palate and I doubt their definition would be 'natural' but more on the lines of having a deformation, which is
why most cleft palates are medically corrected.
Going on about this
word, he indicates that 'As it turns out,
the word is actually not “natural.” It doesn't mean “natural” or
“nature” so much as it means “produced by nature."' Here he seems to
be implying that Paul is talking about that which is 'produced by nature.' 'That is to say, Paul is concerned with how God
created something or someone to be. He is concerned with people going against
their nature or in the words of Lady GaGa herself, if they are “born that way”
he's concerned with them behaving as if they were not.' If you are a reader of the scriptures, then this
should be drawing some serious red flags. Paul concerned that the church of
Rome were not behaving according to their nature? This sounds contrary to the
letters I read from Paul. In fact, Paul says TO THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE
SAME LETTER that they are to fight against their very nature. He shares his own
conflict in this area stating "For what am I doing, I do not understand.
For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate that I do"
and he goes on to say "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)
nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is
good I do not find" (Rom 7:15,18).
Psalm 51:5 says we were sinful at birth. Paul of all people knew the
nature of sin in every human being, specifically that of sexual immorality when
he addressed the Corinthians:"Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? (1Cor 6:18-19). Nowhere in Paul's letters or the Bible itself do we find a warning not to go against our nature. Rather, we are instructed to do just the opposite- to fight against that nature because the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him (1Cor 2:14).
Sandlin (not surprisingly) tells us not to judge others. Let's look at the issue of judging
Sandlin writes, 'Immediately following verse 28, Paul provides an
extensive list of sins. It is so extensive that we all fall into at least one
of the categories. “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when
you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself,
because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."' There you have it. The truth according to Sandlin:
since we're all sinners, sinning day after day, no one can judge anyone else.
This is the furthest thing from the truth. WHAT DO THE SCRITURES SAY ABOUT
JUDGING OTHERS?????
Let's start with Sandlin's quoted verse in Romans chapter
two. Notice verse 3 says "And do
you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, AND DOING
THE SAME, that you will escape the judgment of God?" What does that mean?
If you habitually yell at your kids, you better not be judging others who yell
at their kids. If you constantly get road rage and cut people off in traffic,
don't judge others who do the same. Stuck in the sin of homosexuality or sexual
immorality? Don't judge others stuck in that sin also. Jesus said in Matt 7:1-2
to "Judge not lest you be judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." Again, what does Jesus mean? However you judge another, you will be judged also. Period.
Let's take a long look at 1 Corinthians chapter 5. Paul (gotta love Paul) declares that he is actually hearing of sexual immorality among them- a man with his father's wife! Yes, God takes all sexual immorality seriously and acknowledges it as sin. He goes on to say that he (Paul) has already judged him who has done this deed and tells that body of believers to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Why such harsh action? So that the man in sin may repent and be reconciled to God because a little leaven (sin) leavens the whole lump (the church). Gal 6:1 says that if a brother is overtaken in a sin to restore him, and 1Cor 2:15 says that those who are spiritual judges/examines all things. Finally, Paul rebukes the Christians of Corinth for taking each other to court rather than judging the matters themselves. He reminds them that someday they will judge the world and even angels, how much more things that pertain to this life? (1Cor 6:1-6). Who are we commanded NOT to judge? Unbelievers. Those who do not call themselves Christians, God will judge them (1Cor 5:13).
Let's take a long look at 1 Corinthians chapter 5. Paul (gotta love Paul) declares that he is actually hearing of sexual immorality among them- a man with his father's wife! Yes, God takes all sexual immorality seriously and acknowledges it as sin. He goes on to say that he (Paul) has already judged him who has done this deed and tells that body of believers to "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Why such harsh action? So that the man in sin may repent and be reconciled to God because a little leaven (sin) leavens the whole lump (the church). Gal 6:1 says that if a brother is overtaken in a sin to restore him, and 1Cor 2:15 says that those who are spiritual judges/examines all things. Finally, Paul rebukes the Christians of Corinth for taking each other to court rather than judging the matters themselves. He reminds them that someday they will judge the world and even angels, how much more things that pertain to this life? (1Cor 6:1-6). Who are we commanded NOT to judge? Unbelievers. Those who do not call themselves Christians, God will judge them (1Cor 5:13).
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 & 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Examining Greek words,
Sandlin has forced me to reference my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (which,
by the way, Wikipedia says is the most widely used concordance for the King
James Bible. Impressive reference, I know). Gotta say, I love my concordance.
He addresses the word arsenokoites. You can find a link to this word here which
will tell you what this word means in the original Greek: "One who lies
with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual; abuser of (one's) self with
mankind, defile (one's) self with mankind." Male prostitute? I don't see that as part of the definition. Customer of a male prostitute? Boy molester? Using sexual manipulation to acquire money? No, no, and no. This is
not 'clearly only a word referring to men.'
Referring to men, yes, but not just any man, a man practicing homosexual
behaviors. Not practicing homosexual behaviors by molesting a boy and
abusing/defiling that boy, but rather abusing/defiling one's self with another.
'What most biblical Greek scholars can
agree on is that it is not meant to be a blanket statement about a male-male
sex act.' Really? And which scholars are those? Because when I read these
passages, I am unable to conclude anything than that which they clearly state- "Don't be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (Rom 6:9-10). Regarding the meaning of the Greek word malakos, please follow this link. "Soft" is one of the many definitions you will find.
In conclusion I will address my friend's original statement: "I don't understand why being a man or woman of faith means you should oppose
anyone getting married if it is not harmful to another human. Please
explain."
My reasoning is simple. God is God and we are not.
He is Righteous, Perfect, Holy, All Knowing, All Understanding, and His ways
are not our ways. This God has set guidelines for us to live by and implemented
consequences for not living by them. The consequence of sin- any sin- is death
and eternal separation from Him. I do not wish this on anyone; neither on
homosexuals, drunkards, murderers, thieves, my friends, my family, my children,
or my grandchildren to come. When the ways of man move toward corruption and
against the ways of God, ALL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES. All of Egypt suffered
because of Pharaoh's hard heart and sin of unbelief. All of Israel suffered
because of a King's failure to seek God before going into battle. All of our
nation will suffer as we willingly allow corruption and blatant sin to become a
part of our society. Homosexual marriage will, without a doubt, be harmful to
others. This is why men and women of faith are taking a stand on the issue.
Homosexuals need only go to the Lord in repentance and turn from their sin.
Jesus will forgive them just as He forgave the adulteress woman saying,
"Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (Jn 8:11). Christ did
not come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
(Jn 3:17). However, He didn't come to bring peace either, but a sword- to set a
man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own
household (Matt 10:34-39). This sword is demonstrated with the issue of homosexuality.
Families and friends are against one another. We are a fool to think any sort
of division is not of God. He divides. But, He does all out of Love because He
desires that none should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Pt
3:9). And this is my desire as well. I desire a Godly country for my children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. I pray that even just one person would
read this, be convicted of sin, and turn in repentance to God, receiving
eternal life with Him.
Follow by liking my Facebook page.
