Fidler on Homosexuality

| | Comments (24)

Update: Welcome to those who are coming from the Blogs4God plug!

It's rare that I'll find an extended discussion of anything by Tony Campolo that I agree with without reservation, but this excellent post at Fidler on the Roof includes one such discussion. He rightly condemns much of evangelicalism for how it handles homosexuality while affirming that homosexual relationships are out-of-step with being a follower of Christ. He insists that we don't have good evidence for the causes of homosexuality, and this fits with my conclusion that there seem to be biological and social causes. His main point, though, is that most evangelicals' insistence that it's purely social placed the blame on parents, which makes parents who are already scared of gay people even more scared that their kids will turn out gay. Just look at Hank Hill. There really is something called homophobia. Most people who say "love the sinner but hate the sin" really are homophobic [update: and I don't just mean people like Jimmy Swaggart, who should have given up his ministry years ago]. Many evangelicals say they're not scared of gay people, but I've seen enough detest for gay sex transferred to dislike for people who might practice it that I never believe anyone who uses that line unless I see evidence in their life that shows real love for gay people.

Check out the rest of Julie's post, particularly her reflections on her own struggles with same-sex desire and her dialogue with a gay man in a committed homosexual relationship for some more balanced and what seems to me to be the right attitude toward gay people and the whole issue. I'm particularly impressed with how she explains the distinction between being gay and advocating and seeking a gay lifestyle. It's people in her position who are going to make the most progress between evangelicals and the gay community.

I know people in a similar position, and they can speak to gay people in a way I would have a harder time doing, but what's more important is that what they're saying speaks to a gay person in a way that's impossible if you don't acknowledge that being gay doesn't feel like a choice. It feels like you just find yourself attracted to people of the same sex. Living a lifestyle of seeking relationships with people of the same sex is a choice on some level, but being gay is not about a choice of lifestyle. It's about acknowledging a state of being prior to any choice about lifestyle. Regardless of whatever really does cause that state of being, evangelicals need to acknowledge that reality, and they tend not to. Gay people will still usually resist the idea that they should choose a lifestyle not consonant with the way they find themselves to be, but that's where the issue lies, not with how someone comes to be gay.


Here is the thing though. I've never ... never met any christian who are like this Hank Hill guy(?) that you mention. In fact, I've found that the christians that I know, generally have a Compolo/Fidler temperament.

I mean I could be mistaken. Maybe if I got to know them on a much deeper level, I could find myself surprised or something. But at an everyday level of conversation, I do not find this attitude or behavior.

This is one reason why I found your posts railing on the christians and how they treat homosexuals to be surprising. Because that has not been my experience. Not through my church, not through the campus xtian groups that I knew back when I was in S.U., nor through the Net. I mean, if i wanted to, I guess I could go to and strike up a conversation and they say that I've met christians as such. But I wont do that.

Anyway, so my best guess as to why you see so much angst against homosexuals, would be that you also follow the media evangelicals a lot. However what is talked about in the media is simply not representative of the general populace agrees with or believe. Media can create that illusion.

The Daily Orange could rant and rave for a month straight on how great Michael Moores talk was... and that would tend to give you the impression that everybody at S.U. loves the guy. However in your ordinary conversations with people, u would be hard pressed to find someone that did not think that Moore was lame.

God Bless,

P.S. I just had another thought just now. How different do you think christians would be if Judges 19 and Genesis 19 were not written in hte Bible ?

Actually, I know someone you know who is very much like that. I won't mention who. I'm not talking about anything as extreme as GodHatesFags. I'm talking about a distaste for gay people on a much more hidden level, probably stemming from being grossed out enough about the idea of gay sex that it carries an difficulty liking gay people. It ranges from merely not making any effort to befriend someone simply because they're gay to trying to avoid someone or not have to deal with the issue. In some cases it involves outright disgust at the person or avoidance of someone out of a fear that they will hit on you or something. I agree with you that, at least in our generation and younger, a greater number of Christians are a lot better at this than the number who have trouble with it, but a few people I know personally fit the category I'm describing, and I've heard enough statements from others that make me think it's more widespread. It comes in degrees, though, and I think what I'm saying needs to be said, because the natural tendency of most people goes in the opposite direction.

I guess there's more that I have in mind here also. I'm including those who talk about The Gay Agenda as if there's a conspiracy among gay people to undermine marriage and all of society. I'm including those whose first thought about homosexuality is that it's an abomination and only later will say that people need to be loved. I'm including those who even later say that homosexuality is a sin, since that's a category mistake of a severe order. Homosexality is a condition. It's a condition I believe to be a corruption of the order God created, but it's not a sin, because a state of being caused by things outside one's control is not a sin. If I were to find myself gay, that itself wouldn't be a sin. People who call homosexuality a sin don't understand homosexuality at all. If you don't know anyone who has said that, I'll be surprised.

That's why I think Campolo is saying something at odds with what many people say.

The cause for homosexuality is simple: sin.

From there, all issues that pertain to human falleness can be derrived. I think the "homosexuality is biological" argument is dangerous for one reason alone; it will eventually erode at the standard for humanity God made plain in His word. Pointing to biological reasons gives room for folks to start reasoning that people are "born gay" and thus determining it as an acceptable state of being. Not so. As humans, we are born into a sinful nature. We can thank Adam & Eve for that. However, that's never a place God wants us to stay. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a Savior. The sin nature of humanity may cause people to be born into certain struggles they may not even feel they deserve (however no temptation is uncommon to man). Things like generational curses and struggles throughout the bloodline and the like are indeed a reality, but thank God they can be broken by the power of Jesus. This is the the good news AKA the Gospel: there is a remedy for our sin, paraphrased, "you don't have to stay as you are".

So like many things, we can continue to seek out scientific reasons for their being, but the reality is that we are fighting a spiritual not a physical battle. The manifestations of the sin that came into the picture are the struggle humanity has to be restored back to God's original intent, and homosexuality is not included in that intent.

I wonder if your "condition is not a sin and therefore we must stop saying negetive things about homosexuality" holds up in other situations where behavioral sins are predicated by condition.

I like big butts (I cannot lie). I can claim God made me this way. I can say that it is not my fault, that everytime I see a round honey I just find myself attracted. I could then go up to said honey and slap, grab, or poke the object of my affection.

Wouldn't you expect others to condemn my actions? Wouldn't you rightfully call my lusts sinful? Wouldn't my unrestrained impulses be against the created order of God for proper affection in marriage?

Like you, I wouldn't call same-gender attraction a sin, but I would call it sinful. I think the "sinful" label is in keeping with the biblical counsel related to the matter. And I know plenty about homosexuality.

I don't completely disagree with you, but wonder if you've shot too far in the other direction.

Some quick comments:

1. I'm leery about the biological component stuff. I've studied the bio a bit, and dont think that genes have anything to do with it. Falsifiability comes to mind here. Prove: there is no gold in alaska.

2. Actually, in my criss-crosses, its actually older people who I know, that have the Compolo temperament. Its not just our generation and the younger ones.

C'est Ca,

Saying that homosexuality is a sin is not a category order. You can only say it is by first assuming that it refers to some internal property rather than to outward behavior. But of course that isn't what we mean when they say that homosexuality is a sin. We are referring to behavior.

And why _should_ we bother to so meticulously delineate between the temptation and the act? We don't do that in other areas. We don't say, "Stealing is a sin. Of course merely being the sort of person who feels a desire to take things you like isn't a sin, it's only if you act on these desires improperly." We don't say, "Adultery is a sin. Of course merely being the kind of man who is naturally attracted to women isn't a sin, it's only when you act on the these desires improperly."

Why should we be any different with homosexuals? Yes, yes. It's the homosexual acts that are the sin (or indulging your imagination in the temptation). Just having this desire and not acting on it or dwelling on it isn't a sin. OK. OK. How many times do we have to say that to placate the gay lobby?

The answer is that no number is enough. As long as you express any reservations at all about anything they chose to do, you are a gay-bashing homophobe. One eventually loses interest in trying to avoid misunderstandings with someone who clearly intends to misunderstand anything you say until you say exactly what he wants to hear.

And the "gay agenda" isn't that hard to grasp, Jeremy: it's the agenda of getting everyone to agree (or pretend to agree) that homosexual sodomy is perfectly normal and unremarkable sex. That it should be accorded the same status in all areas of civil and religious life as normal sex. That homosexual couples are perfectly normal families and ought to be allowed to adopt kids, ought to be invited to your six-year-old's birthday party, and generally ought to be treated like any other couple.

I'm sure that undermining marriage and all of society is merely an unfortunate side effect of the agenda. Not its primary purpose.

Ambra, I think Romans 1 is fairly clear that the existence of homosexuality is the result of sin, but that's also true of a number of other things such as mental retardation, bi-polar disorder, and hearing loss. Being caused by sin isn't the same thing as being a sin. As for finding biological causes, I don't see how that affects any moral judgment. Some people are by nature, due to genetics, more prone to laziness. That doesn't excuse the laziness. So too if someone is more prone to homosexual attraction biologically, I can't see how that has any bearing on what someone does as a result any more than being in a condition caused by social forces outside your control has any bearing on what you do as a result. How you respond is what's crucial.

Blandus, please read what I say before saying false things about it. I never said anything even remotely close to "condition is not a sin and therefore we must stop saying negetive things about homosexuality". I don't have any idea what you could possibly mean by saying that an involuntary response is sinful. It just fails to understand what being sinful really involves.

Maybe what you mean is that the attitudes of affirming homosexual desires and identifying oneself as someone who ought to pursue such desires is sinful. I can't imagine that merely being caused to feel the desires is sinful any more than merely being caused to feel heterosexual desires for someone you're not married to is sinful.

Raj, the issue isn't necessarily having a gene causing being gay. It's over whether certain biological traits make someone more likely to have same-sex desire, particularly when combined with certain social forces. As far as I can tell, something like that really goes on.

It's all irrelevant to the moral questions anyway. Being gay because of your father's absence or mother's dominance is as outside one's control as being gay because of a gene. So I see no reason to worry about it anyway.


And I too would argue God offers a remedy for all the conditions you listed off. This is based on what we see in scripture. More specifically, our culture has attached fancy labels to things like "Bi-polar" disorder which is not a state God intended people to be in. People who were suffering from mental oppression in scripture had hands laid on them for healing and deliverance. I don't see how today is any different. Jesus dealt with the infirmed on many levels, none of which were "I accept you as you are, now stay this way because God intended it".

Doc, some people do use the word 'homosexuality' to refer to gay sex, but that's not how most people use it anymore, and what's most important is that it's not how gay people use it. I believe Christians are obligated to reach out to people who don't believe and to speak their language, to understand who they are and how they think and to speak the gospel into that situation. If we go around calling homosexuality a sin, they're going to hear it exactly as I described it and not as you did. So that defense won't work.

The fact of the matter is that we do delineate between the temptation and the act all the time! I used to go on Campus Crusade trips to Daytona and Panama City Beach for Spring Break, and we used to spend a couple hours on each trip talking about lust and how to do deal with it when out on the beach. What the leaders of such discussions would always emphasize is that having the attraction isn't a sin. It's acting on it by lusting that is. Christians say this sort of thing all the time. It's different with homosexual desire, because something's gone wrong for it even to be there, whereas heterosexual desire has a proper outlet in marriage, but that doesn't make merely having the desire a sin.

Much of what you call the gay agenda should be part of how the gospel is lived out, so I'm not sure I can see why it's the gay agenda. If there are kids without homes, having two gay parents is surely better than being bumped about from foster home to foster home or growing up in an orphanage, and I think it's even better than having a single parent, all other things being equal (though they're usually not). It's real homophobia to fear that gay nonbelievers are going to corrupt children any more than any other nonbeliever would.

More important, though, is the list of other things that you seem to want to deny people who are gay. If two people are parenting a child, I think it's a little silly not to treat them as a family, not to mention an immediate turnoff that will close someone off to the gospel immediately. I'm not suggesting to lie to anyone or to express approval of their relationship, but that doesn't mean you can't treat them as real people who care for each other and are trying to be good parents.

I have some friends who have a gay relative who just got married in Massachussetts. They didn't get invited, since it was a shotgun deal, but my friends didn't want to congratulate them on something they don't view as an accomplishment, but they also didn't want to diss them and turn them off even more to the Christian gospel. So they sent them a card that says "We love you guys!" As the only Christians in the family, they made a big splash by doing that and showing how much they really do accept them as people even though it was clear that they didn't agree with how they were living.

The things you're suggesting seem to me to do the exact opposite. To refrain from inviting someone to a birthday party over this sort of thing is a great way to show love to someone who thinks Christians are bigots and hate gay people and not just the sin.

You're also doing exactly what the letter Julie received that I linked to accused Christians of doing all the time that it said she didn't do, and that's seeing homosexuality as about sex. It's treating a person as a sex act. You said the homosexual agenda is about legitimizing a sex act. It's not, and it never was. A couple legal cases have been about sodomy, but what gay people really want is legal rights. They want a right to hospital visits from someone they care about enough to commit to for a lifetime. They want a right to health insurance that people in heterosexual relationships can get if they sign the right legal paperwork. There are those who think the notion of a family is heterosexist and should be eliminated, but most just want to be recognized as real people who love each other, even by those who don't approve of that love. They do want legitimacy in people's eyes, but that's only part of what they want, and many would be happy with just the legal rights, especially if they could get recognition as real people with real struggles and real relationships, even by those who disagree with those relationships. My friends demonstrated that kind of recognition and showed that the transformative gospel of Jesus Christ can accept people as they are while disapproving of actions.

Ambra, Jesus didn't heal everyone and didn't say that if someone isn't healed then something's spiritually wrong with them. His healings were most of all a sign of his identity to look forward to how things will eventually be. I think all these things will be done away with, but Paul prayed in three separate instances, probably fervently in each case, that whatever he was calling his thorn in the flesh would be removed. It wasn't. It was serving God's purpose in being there, even though it wasn't a state God intended anyone to be in. If you haven't read , I recommend you read it to see where I'm coming from here.


You took my comment and jumped one too far. I never said that people who aren't healed have something spiritually wrong with them. I said that is the mark we are after. I suppose where we differ is on the notion that homosexuality is a choice. I happen to think it is. I've seen nothing in scripture that otherwise indicates it. In which case, it is not exactly the same as being born blind or mentally retarded. Scripture does show us that people were born with deformaties and physical ailments. However, the "homosexuality is biological" argument is a fabrication of man.

I agree, there are those things which exist as thorns in our side. In Paul's case, it was intended to humble him before God. However, homosexuality is sin, and there is no Biblical justification for anyone to remain in their sin. Moreover, it is a sin against one's own body, which the Bible speaks to very specifically. I wouldn't serve a God who called people to be sexually pure and didn't give them the grace (divine enablement) and equipment (the word of God) to do so.

I read the post you linked and do understand where you're coming from, I'm just not sure if I agree with it. Quite simply, I think this is an area Christian needs to be hard on.

Oh, I see something in scripture that indicates that homosexuality might not be a choice. Romans 1 describes it as God giving them over. This is the same word used for Jesus being delivered over to crucifixion by Judas, being delivered into the hands of Pilate, and in one place delivering himself over to show his conscious choice to be given over. In Romans 1:24-28, God handed them over. God is doing the action. As far as I can tell, the reason homosexual sin is singled out in this passage is because it's a paradigm case of the unnaturalness of turning from how God set things up. There's a long list of consequences for human character, tendencies that are part of what we are naturally since the fall, and the fact that this is now natural when it is unnatural with respect to the original creation is what we were handed over to. Paul certainly isn't excusing anyone's sinful actions, but what is this handing over language doing unless it's signaling that God moved people into the category of having damaged natures with regard to sinful choices. I don't see how homosexual desires wouldn't be a part of that, given that it's the first consequence he talks about.

I didn't say that it's biological or that it's not a choice. I said it doesn't feel like a choice. Biology almost certainly plays some role in causing us to be attracted to certain people and not others, and it would surprise me if that's not true about same-sex attraction. As I said, that doesn't mean those who decide to identify themselves as gay in a strong sense have not done so as a choice. The simple acknowledging of attractive feelings is just that. It's realizing that sometimes that happenes. It doesn't endorse it, it doesn't require acting on it, and it doesn't mean basing your whole identity on it. That's what Julie was getting at. She's got these feelings from time to time, but she doesn't choose to form her whole identity on it. When I say homosexuality isn't a sin, I mean that what she's done is not a sin. Those who decide to base their whole identity on it to the point of requiring a lifestyle of romantic relations with the same sex have gone further. I don't call that homosexuality. I call it a homosexual lifestyle.

It's becoming clear to me that this term 'homosexuality' is just slippery enough, with people using it in too many ways, that any discussion of whether homosexuality is sinful is useless unless you're much more precise in your terminology. So maybe it's not a category error but more of a statement with serious ambiguity, with the gay community generally using the word one way and evangelical Christians tending to use the word in a very different way and thus not meaningfully communicating what they mean.

I was pleased to find this discussion going on. I am a person of great faith in a higher power. An awed agnostic, if you will. I believe that the basic tenants of most major religions dovetail, and that God speaks in many languages so that many will hear. The basics of respect for others, respect for self, respect for community, respect for the earth, and a sense of humility and reverence for a greater power. That said, I am also a woman who has for 6 years been in a relationship with another woman. Sex is the smallest part of our life. In our work, we are both attorneys representing indigent people to escape abuse or get services they need for disabilities. As neighbors, we welcome newcomers, help organize get-togethers, and pay the trash bill for our less fortunate neighbors. As friends of many types of people, we celebrate their weddings, welcome and care for their children, comfort them in their losses, etc. I am fully invested in my world and my community, and this includes trying to understand people who see the world differently from me. I admit that I have succumbed to some prejudices against Christians. Too often, I have felt targetted for something that is a very small part of my world. I feel resentful that the very figure of Jesus, who I have always respected, has now become a symbol of judgment and prejudice. I would like to be involved in more honest and open discussion, not a trading of platitudes. That is why I appreciate the tone of your conversation here, and I hope you will not mind my sharing. Ambra, your words especially were heartening to me, and show me that there are Christians out there who don't match the stereotype I have let form in my mind, just as I hope Christians realize that the reality of gay people's lives is often full of good, valuable things that should be welcomed in the world. Especially these days, where there are more divisions than connections.

Ok, I just have to add my $0.02 here.

In my experience, it's not that Christians are out-and-out cruel to gay people. But most of my friends have always believed I was straight. I mean, I don't LOOK like a lesbian, if I may be stereotypical for a moment. And I'm married to a man. So I have had the misfortune of sitting through discussions where many of my "Christian" friends slandered gay people and condemned them up one side and then the other, simply because they felt "safe" around other Christians. If they'd known about my struggles, I don't know how the conversations would have changed.

The problem I see with Christians is that they tend to look at homosexuals as "issues." They are a societal issue, a political issue, a moral issue. They are too rarely viewed as JUST people. People who sin - like every straight person on this earth sins. They've made these people into a cause, and they've overlooked their humanity and inherent value to God. That's from personal experience.

Jeremy, I read
"Homosexality is a condition. It's a condition I believe to be a corruption of the order God created, but it's not a sin, because a state of being caused by things outside one's control is not a sin. If I were to find myself gay, that itself wouldn't be a sin. People who call homosexuality a sin don't understand homosexuality at all."


"Regardless of whatever really does cause that state of being, evangelicals need to acknowledge that reality, and they tend not to."

This and the anti- towards anti-homosexual tone of your writings up to my comment caused me to characterize your view the way I did. I still don't think it was an entirely unfair summary.

I am a relatively Reformed guy, so I think that there is no sinful desire that is completely involuntary. You are giving people a pass on having a sinful nature because they might feel it before they choose it. It is sinful to have same-gender attraction. Yes, it is sinful to have sexual feelings for a woman other than your wife. It all comes from the Fall. We are all in need of redemption.

You seem to claim (I am lothe to assume it) that I fail to understand what being sinful really involves. I appear to be saying the same about you.

Perhaps you can clear it up. What does "being sinful" really involve?

From my observations, the problem surrounding anti-homosexual attitudes is brought on by gays themselves. They won't settle for anything less than 100% acceptance of their lifestyle. Not only must we acknowledge it as an acceptable alternative, we must embrace it, glorify it, publicize how wonderful it is, etc. etc.

I can't do that. In this regard, they are like the Pharisees and the best advise is to leave them alone.

It is so sad to see the modern western culture where sins becomes a norm in their daily lives. Even Biblical truth is modified to suit their desire. Being a "Christian" is just a belonging to some sect or community.

Tell them about the Bible truth, they will interprete them to suit their usage?

I don't know where you're getting your theology from.

Temptations aren't sins. JESUS CHRIST WAS TEMPTED.
It's how you choose to REACT that determines whether or not you're going to sin.
By some of the theology I'm reading here, Jesus Christ must have been a sinner for having been tempted at all. And I KNOW that's not what you meant.

Blandus, I'm not giving anyone a pass. There's such a thing as original sin, and it infects everyone. I've been saying all along that I think homosexuality is an effect of that. Someone who struggles with those desires is therefore dealing with those particular temptations from the sinful nature, if you want to call it that, though that's not a biblical term really. I guess what I'm wondering is where you draw the line between being tempted and having feelings. What is the temptation if not the feelings? What Julie said is important. Jesus was tempted in every way but without sin. What does that mean? If I take what you're saying seriously, it means he merely had the option of sinning but had no feelings in a direction of the temptation. So he had no desire at all to avoid the crucifixion, even though he said "not my will but yours" to the Father. I'm not sure what he was saying if he had no such desire to begin with. It's that he didn't act on that desire that amounts to not being sinful even though tempted.

Now there's a separate thing that we can call the condition of being fallen, which includes the state of having temptations, the state of having desires for things that would be sinful to carry out. That's not being sinful, though, as the biblical statements about Jesus demonstrate. It's just being in a condition such that the temptation to sin is there. It manifests itself in different ways with different people. With some people, it's a desire for people of the same sex. With others, it's a desire for different people all at the same time, some of whom by necessity one is not married to unless one is polygenous. With some people, there's a desire to make oneself look better than one truly is.

I suggest that you're also going to have trouble with be angry and yet not sinning. What is anger except the desire directed against someone else either because of how you see the person or because of how you see something they did. Almost no one ever has righteous anger, especially those who say their anger is righteous, but Jesus showed a clear case of righteous anger in his cleansings of the temple. Do you think it's ever possible for anyone else to be angry for godly reasons but to take it beyond the anger into sin? I think it is. I've seen it many times. What that shows is that you can have the feeling of anger and then move into sin with it (which doesn't always mean doing something but can just be actively taking it beyond mere godly anger to sinful anger but can also mean acting on that in sinful ways). The feeling isn't necessarily sinful, but acting on it in certain ways or dwelling on it in certain ways is.

What isn't a fair characterization was when you said I said we need to stop saying negative things about homosexuality. I called it a corruption of how God ordered the world before the fall, so how could I be saying that I wanted people to stop saying negative things about it?Anti-anti-homosexual is a fair characterization, however. I'm opposed to being against people who are gay. The Bible says that human "enemies" aren't our enemies but the objects of Christian love. Those who advocate a culture war are denying the gospel. I mean that very strongly. If you're anti-homosexual, then you're not reaching out to people who are gay with the gospel. You're telling them that first they need to change their lifestyle and then they can come to God. That's a works-based salvation, what Paul calls a different gospel and not really a gospel at all. In other words, it's heresy. As I said above, that doesn't mean not saying anything negative about homosexuality as a condition. It's negative in the same way that a tendency among most men to have desires for people other than their wives is negative. It's not a sin, since it's not an act, and it's not sinful, since being sinful is being in the condition of sinning. You can have same-sex desires and not sin.

Dude, "heresy" is a harsh and serious charge. I think I'll call it quits for your benefit. At least Julie gave me the benefit of the doubt.

I think we are too far apart on definitions to continue a reasonable discussion that does not quickly devolve into cries of anathema!

I admire your desire to see the souls and not the sins. But I also think you are allowing your compassion to cloud your doctrinal thinking regarding the acceptance of homosexuality, however you define it. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to explore this with you.

I never equated temptation with committing an act of sin. With all due respect to Julie, we are not Jesus. There are mysteries about the incarnation that I will likely never know. He was both like us, and beyond us. I would love to flesh out more about original sin, but I don't feel welcome to comment here anymore. Thank you for allowing me a final comment.

I was pointing out a heretical belief that is entailed by what you're saying, not saying that you endorse that heretical belief. The difference between being a heretic and being orthodox is that the orthodox revise their beliefs when they realize that one of their beliefs entails a heresy. The heretics just say "so much for those who call this heresy" and believe the heretical implication. As far as I can tell, nothing I said puts you in the category of those who would endorse the heretical view that I said anti-homosexual practices entail (i.e. works-based salvation). I didn't even say that you engage in those anti-homosexual practices (the ones that entail works salvation), so I'm not sure why you think anything I said involves calling you a heretic.

About acceptance, I said a lot about acceptance of people who are gay, and I said a lot about homosexuality not being the sort of thing that could be a sin or sinful. I didn't say it was good or worth accepting. I said it involved a corruption of human nature and is a result of the fall. I'm not sure why you think that means I would accept it.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04