Weekend question

weekend question.jpgYukon asked on the US Message Board:

Many Conservatives, and even some Liberals, claim that same sex marriage and abortion are "sins" and the "Bible says it is wrong."

I ask any of you to please indicate the passage in the Bible where claims such as these are made? Show me one verse. Use whatever Bible you choose but where does it state this?

We don't have to delve into the homosexual issue unless you'd like, but what is your response to his question re: abortion?


"Thou shalt not kill."

Exodus 20:13

Posted by: Lauren at October 3, 2009 2:56 PM

Simply chapter and verse is only half the answer, Yukon.

There's context. Lots of context. And it would behoove you to include that in your query.

Posted by: carder at October 3, 2009 3:10 PM

We don't have to delve into the homosexual issue unless you'd like,

I'm not shy!

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-28 (New International Version)

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

It is my opinion that if God was ok with both heterosexual and homosexual marriages/unions, he would have created our bodies to be able to reproduce under both circumstances. He didn't.

Lauren, (October 3, 2009 2:56 PM). Re: Abortion: Perfect. Simple to understand and perfect.

Posted by: Marie at October 3, 2009 3:16 PM

Matthew 7:12 (NIV)
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Posted by: alkaline at October 3, 2009 3:29 PM

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, (141) tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'(142) They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."

141 Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10

142 CDF, Persona humana 8 (CDF = Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

As a Catholic Christian, I cite the Catechism because it is the compendium of the Magisterium of the Church. Catholics rely on both Scripture and on tradition. Some of course protest against that, but it is the basis on which Catholics call same sex marriage wrong, and by which we call homosexual relations sin.

Posted by: Bill at October 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Because I don't believe in the Bible, I won't quote verses.

Being against abortion, for me, has to do with the value of human life and, if we discriminate who we are going to kill (human fetuses), why can't we use the same justifications to kill other people? Why is the fetus always the exception when it comes to listing off reasons to slaughter them, when those reasons could easily be applies to other children, rapists, etc.? Logically, it doesn't make sense; and living in a society that supports killing a certain group of people with self-righteous reasoning doesn't make me feel good.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at October 3, 2009 3:31 PM

I don't think that the Bible's silence on abortion really affects the debate of equal rights versus opposing equal rights. There's more to being pro-life than just opposing abortion. If one doesn't look at a tree growing or people achieving their dreams or any numerous things in nature and think, "Whoa, I'm alive," then that person is not pro-life. Pro-life is a philosophy about the world that leads one to oppose the infanticide, when it is illegal and when it is legal, but pro-life is not the belief that abortion alone is evil. Essentially, abortion is violence that interefers with the world and denies people equal rights; it's classism at its worst- projected onto the weak.

That general sentiment is found in the Bible, yes, but it's also found in Walden, music, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, The Little Prince (squee!), and numerous other books, mediums, and beliefs. So I don't think that anyone should oppose abortion just because they don't like abortion, but because it interferes with a philosophy of peace with nature and equal rights and pacifism even in brutal circumstances.

There's no specific Bible verse that mentions this and therefore I don't think that there's an answer to this weekend question as simple as, "Thou shalt not murder." If there's a verse that addresses more than that, then fine, but it transcends that.

Are there any verses that explain that?


Posted by: Vannah at October 3, 2009 3:52 PM

Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. It is direct and intentional killing. In other words, it is murder.

"The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. (Gen 4:10)" Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2268

"You shall not kill." Ex 20:13

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstances claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being." CDF, instruction, Donum vitae, intro. 5

"Do not slay the innocent and the righteous." Ex 23:7

"The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere." -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2261

"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." -- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270

The above paragraph cites the following:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." (Jer 1:5; cf Job 10:8-12; Ps 22:10-11)

"My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." (Ps 139:15)

"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.' (75)"
Catechism of the Catholic Church

(75) Didache 2,2: SCh 248,148; cf Ep. Barnabae 19, 5: PG 2, 777; Ad Diogenetum 5,6: PG 2, 1173; Tertullian, Apol. 9: PL 1, 319-320

Posted by: Bill at October 3, 2009 3:53 PM

Oh, and I'm glad that you made that comment, Nate Sheets. Abortion has nothing to do with religion, so it's good that you brought that up. :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 3, 2009 3:54 PM

We don't have to cite scripture to be opposed to abortion. We can be opposed to abortion on the same grouds that we're opposed to maternal infanticide. What difference is there between the two, other than the fact that we don't feel particularly bad about the former?

Posted by: Austin Nedved at October 3, 2009 4:08 PM


You said that abortion has nothing to do with religion. I know you meant being "against" abortion, but that's not what I'm going for here.

You, and others that do not believe in God or the bible cannot understand that for those of us that do, we have the mind of Christ. People are born spritually dead. When one is born again, they are spiritually alive. They understand spritiual things, and God speaks to them. (i.e, Holy Spirit). It's like some sort of mechanism gets "turned on" inside of us, and we see things in a different light. We are certainly not perfect, but we are a work in progress. God shows us through various methods the errs of our ways and shows us how to glorify Him.

I'm not saying that you must be born again to be against abortion. That would be silly. There are logical reasons for it as well. However, I cannot say with 100% certainty that I would be prolife if I were not born again.

So yes, for some of us, it is a religious (I really don't like that word, though) thing, and for some it's not. There are former abortion advocates out there who came to know the Lord and turned from their wicked ways. I can't remember her name, but she was an abortionist who came to know the Lord and stopped two weeks later.

And yes, "thou shalt not kill" is a verse about abortion. It's about genocide, it's about stabbings, it's about beatings, etc. God gave man dominion over animals. (this is to stop the ridiculous comments that will follow. There's always someone that will say murder means animals as well.) God did not give man dominion over any other man. So every verse about murder, killing, etc. is about abortion as well.

Posted by: Marie at October 3, 2009 4:11 PM

Here's an article on early Christian writings.


"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions and envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galations 5:19-21

witchcraft = greek, pharmakeia, most common use abortifacients and mind-altering drugs.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." - Psalms 139:13-14

Posted by: Keith at October 3, 2009 4:18 PM


BIG apology to you where I stated that "you and others that don't believe in God or the bible...."

I don't know your feeling about God or the bible, but I got your post confused with Nate Sheets' first sentence.

I truly apologize to you if I upset you.

Posted by: Marie at October 3, 2009 4:19 PM

With respect, Vannah, abortion, being one form of murder, does have to do with my religion. Murder is in direct conflict with the Ten Commandments, which I hold dear.

Abortion is not exclusively a religious problem, but to say that it has nothing to do with religion ignores basic elements of other people's religion.

It would be more accurate and beneficial to note that people of faith and people without religion and everyone in between can agree that aborting a human fetus means death for a human being.

Posted by: Mary Ann, Singing Mum at October 3, 2009 4:24 PM

Yes, we wouldn't want to offend the sensibilities of the religious pro-lifers. We know how hard they are to come by... ;)

Posted by: Nate Sheets at October 3, 2009 5:12 PM

No worries, Marie. :)

And as far as my opinions, I agree with Mary Ann, Singing Mum, I just try to look further than abortion. Though, if you're interested, I'm an agnostic. :)

I just think that everyone has every reason- scientific, spiritual, moral, et cetera- to support life. I just, I think, like to see the natural world taken seriously and us being in awe of not just pregnancy and birth but also all life around us. I think that that would loosen the impact of abortion, genocide, classism, et cetera on us: we would have more value in life than "choice."

That's just me, though I agree with both of you, Marie and Mary Ann, Singing Mum. :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 3, 2009 5:35 PM

Exodus 21:23 provides the law against the killing of a woman's child within the womb:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

This means that killing the unborn is the same as any other human being (life for life). Although it appears to be an accidental death, the reasoning is, do not use violence near pregnant women.

Obviously when one rejects God, one also rejects what he has to say on this topic. So intellectual honesty and reading what is written must be placed within the correct context. Additionally, one has to believe that justice will be upheld and violations punished. A law is not written for those who do right, but for those who don't.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 3, 2009 5:43 PM

The two scriptures quoted by Keith pretty much sum up that abortion is murder. If God knows you before you're even formed, that means you have a soul from conception. Exodus 21:22, 23 also talks about if you hurt a pregnant woman and cause her to lose her baby "and if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life," that seems to say that causing the death of an unborn baby is a pretty serious offense. Leviticus 18:22 says(about homosexuality)Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is ABOMINATION. Abomination means not just a sin, but a sin that makes God sick (basically)

Posted by: Pamela at October 3, 2009 6:30 PM

"There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

Posted by: Bethany at October 3, 2009 7:03 PM

Why does the Bible need to specify that unborn children should not be murdered?

It doesn't say anywhere specifically that you can't murder siamese twins- but that is automatically included in the whole "murder" commandment.

And the Bible is clear about the fact that human life begins with conception (agrees perfectly with what Science shows us!)

Posted by: Bethany at October 3, 2009 7:06 PM

So looks like we are interpreting the old and new testaments literally. If we need to take the 7 verses about homosexuality completely literally, without cultural considerations, why do we not equally strive to follow:

'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born' Lev 19:33-34 --- how many of us are fighting rules denying immigrants (even legal ones) equal access to Medicaid or our public educational systems?

'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period' Lev 18:19 -- everyone following this one strictly?

'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last 7 days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening' Lev 15:19 --- better be careful and ask every woman you brush against in a store or bus!

Moving on to new testament:

'Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ' Eph 6:5 -- hmm... why didn't Paul teach that slavery was wrong instead of this verse (and several more just like it through his letters) if there was no cultural context?

'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent' 1Tim 2:11-12 --- hope if I visit your churches there are no women singing or preaching -- (FYI I was raised in a church that did follow this, but does not seem to be the norm... )

'If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away... if your right hand causes you to sin, cut if off and throw it away.' Matt 5:27-29 --although I try I'd be blind and working with nubs if I took this literally - and this is actually the words of Christ

I know and have read about the underlying meanings of these verses and why they shouldn't or don't need to be applied literally. But if there is a cultural context underlying why these no longer apply or are symbolic in nature, why do we take the very few verses about homosexuality and - vaguely - abortion word for word? Why the selectivity? And let's not forget that Paul wrote extensively AGAINST marriage EVER if someone could live without sex, basically - not much writing or sermonizing about trying our best to follow this edict, either.

And for the 'God would have made gay people able to have babies' crowd - the rate of infertility among straight, reproductive age couples is 9% - very close to the rate of self-identified homosexuals. So God makes just as many straight people unable to reproduce as gay couples... fascinating...

Posted by: shirley at October 3, 2009 7:27 PM

Proverbs 6:16-19
.........Hands that shed innocent blood.......

Posted by: Maria at October 3, 2009 7:31 PM

And for the 'God would have made gay people able to have babies' crowd - the rate of infertility among straight, reproductive age couples is 9% - very close to the rate of self-identified homosexuals. So God makes just as many straight people unable to reproduce as gay couples...

Posted by: shirley at October 3, 2009 7:27 PM

That has to be the oddest statement I have ever, ever, ever heard in my entire life. It makes absolutely no sense (well, to Shirley it might). How strange! (Shirley...clue...100% of homosexuals cannot reproduce with their partner....now please, please, please...rethink your statement & redo some math.)

Posted by: Marie at October 3, 2009 7:33 PM

10% of all people are self-identified as gay and = 5% of couples in a population (assuming everyone, straight and gay, are paired up). 9% of all straight couples are infertile (may be male, female or both - doesn't really matter if you don't believe in assisted technologies) and cannot reproduce without assistance. Therefore 9% of all couples in a population will not have children because they are in a straight relationship but infertile and 5% of all couples in a population will not have children because they are gay - without use of ART. So, again, the % of population unable to reproduce because of nature/God = same as unable to reproduce because they have sex with someone of the same sex.

Posted by: shirley at October 3, 2009 7:46 PM

Why are we even having this scripture fest? The proborts use the bible to justify the murder of inicent babies!

Posted by: RJ Sandefur at October 3, 2009 8:41 PM


okay. I see your point. But it's irrelevent. It's apples to oranges.

According to your statistics, that would mean that 9% of straight couples are infertile, and 91% of straight couples are fertile.

STILL...100% of homosexual couples are infertile.

It's really a very odd and irrelevent comparison you are attempting to make. I really don't see what you were trying to prove. Sorry!

Posted by: Marie at October 3, 2009 8:48 PM

Deuteronomy 27:25 -- "Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent person." What clearer description could be given for people who operate abortion clinics?

- Taken from www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm

Posted by: Janet at October 3, 2009 9:10 PM

OK - just trying to point out ability to reproduce does not make a person or couple any more or less valuable and I don't believe that should be used as an argument against homosexuality - many 'normal' straight people also can't procreate.

Anyway - my question still stands why we literally apply some verses and appreciate (or ignore) others because of cultural context. All or nothing - earth created in 7 days or was a way to explain creation to men with no science background, women are unclean with menses or not, homosexuality is wrong or not, foreigners should be treated as one of our own or not, slavery is OK as long as we follow Paul's writings or not, why follow some and not the others?

Posted by: shirley at October 3, 2009 9:48 PM

'nuff said and quoted. I like Bill's comments the best as they sum things up for me.
Thanks Bill.

Posted by: angel at October 3, 2009 10:00 PM

Shirley they are many books dealing with some of your questions but I don't think you are as interested in reading them as you are trying to invalidate Biblical teaching. If you are really interested some of us can give you some names of books on apologetics.

I will say that the word "marriage", means becoming "one-flesh" and trying to connect "same sex" with marriage is reproductively anatomically impossible, no matter how many other implements or other parts of the anatomy are used (Kevin Jennings PBHO's School Safety Czar once organized a GLSEN seminar at a high school explaining "fisting" to students.) I can't resist but this made me think of a rhyme that is a take off of OJ's lawyer Johnnie Cochran's poem
"If it doesn't fit, you ought to quit".

If you are really interested and ask me I could give links to two or three articles in a couple of days.
An excellent article by Dr. John Diggs Jr. MD "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" at catholic education.org and the FDA has an article about why they won't accept blood donations from MSM (men who have sex with men) because of health risks. I don't hate anyone nor am I homophobic, actually want people to know the truth so they can be set them free bcause I love them in Christ. Got to go.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 3, 2009 10:48 PM

Regarding homosexuality the Bible is v3ery clear:

"Romans 1:18-32 (
God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Regarding abortion:

"Psalm 139:13-14
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well."


"Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder."


"Leviticus 20:3
I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name."

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at October 3, 2009 11:49 PM

Shirley--levitical law was the "old law" which was to be followed until Christ came and became the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Therefore the old laws ( touching a woman who was menstruating and sacrificing a lamb etc...) no longer applied.

When Christ died on the cross there no longer had to be sacrifices for our sins because HE WAS the final sacrifice. However, some standards still applied--Paul wrote the church at Corinth who lived in a very sexually immoral culture how they were to behave as Christians. He warned them against fornication and HOMOSEXUALITY. So theres your context. We have the same responsibility as the early church did regarding our behaviour.

Paul did not preach that marriage was WRONG. He said he wished more people would stay single so they could serve God fully without having to worry about their families. Then they would be willing to risk everything to spread the gospel because they didn't have spouses and babies to worry about. Its in 1 Corinthians I think chapter 5 or 6. i don't have my Bible right in front of me.

And Acts and Facts is a great magazine (Institute for creation research) It shows how evolution is faulty science. It shows the evidence points to CREATION (literal 7 day creation) and all these men are Ph.D's and M.D's and very scientific men who point out the ABSURDITY of evolution. It also tackles Christians who think evolution is true. Good magazine, you should check it out!

Posted by: Sydney M at October 4, 2009 7:49 AM

To be clear, I am a Christian and have dedicated my life to following the words of Jesus Christ. I have no desire to invalidate the Bible. However, I believe it is clear that much of what is written in the Bible has to be taken in its cultural context - as the verses I've noted above. And, despite extensive reading, I've never come across an acceptable answer of why some verses are OK to not follow or interpret in the context of their day and others must still apply literally today.

Why do we condemn slavery when Paul was so clearly OK with it? Why do we allow women to sing in church and be out in public when having their menses? The answer is because we know better now and the culture and climate of today make these rules inapplicable.

I believe and follow the words of our Savior and let His words guide the spirit with which I interpret what was written by men doing the best they could at their time.

Posted by: shirley at October 4, 2009 7:57 AM

I did quite a series on Scripture and abortion a while back. It boils down to looking at the Scriptures as a whole and the themes:

1. How do Scriptures depict the unborn? (In a nutshell: Certainly not as valueless, disposable blobs of tissue.)

2. How do Scriptures tell us to deal with social justice? (In a nutshell: We're to defend the weakest and most vulnerable, not join in their oppression)

3. How to Scriptures tell us to deal with crises? (In a nutshell: Trust God and don't just lean on our own understanding.)

4. A look at the vocabulary of the original Scriptures and how they provide added insight onto the issue of abortion.

I've never seen an attempt to justify abortion Scripturally that stands up to even a cursory criticism. They tend to follow one of the following:

1. "Well, it's not specifically forbidden, so it must be okay." Arson isn't specifically mentioned. And there's never a mention of cats, either. So does that mean it's okay to burn down buildings and mistreat cats?

2. "God gives us free will, so He must want us to use it." That's the absolute lamest. ANY choice must be okay, by that excuse.

3. "God breathed "the breath of life" into Adam. So life begins with the first breath." Why is this Scripture supposed to be taken absolutely literally by people who don't take a single other Scripture literally? Not to mention Adam did not gestate. He was created by hand. He'd be a bit of a different case. Also, Scriptures say, "life is in the blood". Blood cells are created in the embryo between 15 and 18 days. Funny, they're not willing to grant life in the blood in keeping with Scriptures, are they?

4. Exodus 21, which they claim treats causing a miscarriage as an almost trivial matter. Even an amateur theologin, much less a highly trained professional, can knock that one into a cocked hat.

Posted by: Christina at October 4, 2009 8:18 AM

Sydney - thank you - sorry looks like we were simultaneously posting. I completely agree - the Old Testament rules and regulations were negated by the crucifixion and are useful in their historical perspective but aren't required. So, understandably, there is a large Christian community that thinks the Old Testament teachings on homosexuality and what people think relate to abortion are as inapplicable as rules regarding menstruation and food preparation.

As for Paul's teachings - much of what he wrote was based on his belief that the second coming was imminent and directed at specific churches. I believe the verses about marriage go further than talked about above - he wanted everyone to consider not marrying unless it was absolutely necessary to keep from 'burning' with desire. He was wrong about the second coming and, in the opinion of many, not universally correct about some of his other teachings. Again, please help me understand why I need to literally accept his opinion on homosexuality but not slavery.

Posted by: shirley at October 4, 2009 8:40 AM


Please read this re: homosexuality. I'll provide the link to the entire reading at the end. This teacher has helped me so much over the years understand things that I had problems with. He speaks in plain, easy to understand English. There are so many lessons regarding the teachings of Paul as well. His website is FILLED with excellent teaching that I recommend for you that WILL answer some of the questions that you have. Also, pray that God will show you, as you read His word, His truths, and not the world's "truths".

Romans 1:24
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"
God gave them up.

That is an `act.' He didn't give them up to something higher; He gave them up to something lower. So He gave them up to uncleanness. When I teach Romans verse by verse, I indicate that in verse 25 we still have immorality heterosexually (between the sexes). In verse 26 we see yet another step downward.

Romans 1:25,26
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

This is just plain English! God gave them up again, not to what might be considered `common immorality' between the sexes, but this time to a lower level - to `vile affections.'

Romans 1:27
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly (unnatural), and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Romans 1:28
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (natural or normal);"

Verse 29 gives a vivid description of their community. This is what Sodom was, and this is what any community will become when homosexuality takes over and becomes the norm.

Romans 1:29 & 32
"Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication (immorality), wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,"

Those are sober words.

Now verse 32.
"Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

II Peter 2:6
"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow (for what purpose?), making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;"

People better wake up. God is still the God of Heaven. God has not changed, and what He has previously done as an example, He is ready to do again.

(to search a specific topic:)lesfeldick.org/search.html

(for a list of books/audio (free to read, listen))

(for commonly asked questions about the bible)

I left the "http" out of the address so this post doesn't get stuck in moderation.

Shirley, I highly encourage you to check out at least a couple of his teachings. he's really, really good, and I am SURE it will answer many questions you have, much better than I ever could!

Have a blessed day!

Posted by: Marie at October 4, 2009 10:03 AM

In historical Christian theology commission of a serious sin requires more than just the act itself. Therefore, a “proof text” from the bible saying explicitly that abortion is wrong will be insufficient in determining if a sin has been committed in any individual case.

The three things necessary to make an act a sin:
1) A serious matter.
(Abortion would certainly qualify on this point.)
2) FULL knowledge that the act is wrong.
(There is a lot of confusion on this point when it comes to abortion.)
3) FULL volition of the will.
(Many abortions are compelled by desperation if not some kind of force.)

Basically, one has to say to themselves: “I know it is a wicked bad sin, but I don’t care, I am going to do it anyway because that’s what I want to do.” A sin might be thought of as an act of the heart and mind as much as it is the hands. The so called “sinner” and God are the only ones in a position to really know these facts for sure. Hence, we should all reserve judgment of individuals when it comes to sins.

If you want a biblical reference try the Ten Commandments: “Thou shall not murder.” Why a person would think that an abortion would not qualify under this commandment is at best self-delusional.

Posted by: Tom R at October 4, 2009 11:39 AM

Most of the arguements put forth of citing chapter and verse to agument the tradition of religions being against abortion are in the negative --God gave them over to shameful lusts, woe to he, but to address the same issue from a positive perspective, the very first act God did with respect to male and female was create them, and then command that they be fruitful and multiply.

If one believes that God exists and loves us infitely, then one presumes God did not forget to think things through with respect to how we were to do this, and that it is only us with our pride and unwillingness to do things except as we wish, that leads us to act in ways not in according with natural law, with the first expressed desire of God for us. Be Fruitful and Multiply does not equate with Abort and engage in alternative lifestyles of sexual gratification.

Moving on. In the new testament, Jesus speaks very firmly about the sacred nature of marriage, What GOD has joined, man must not seperate. Seperating sex from procreation either by the taking of lives (abortion), or by negating this great capacity via homosexual intercourse, is seperating the first gift, the only gift left from Eden, dividing it and making it a lesser thing.

But those who argue that abortion is a right and homosexual activity simply a choice necessitated by genetic predisposition and apetite, will not find the citing of the writings of Saint Paul or Genesis or Levicticus moving because they speak against what the person demanding proof wishes to do.

The capacity to do something with approval by law does not equal the moral acceptability of such actions. Changing hearts and minds does however require that all of us get versed on why we believe what we believe and how we came to this way of thinking, such that we can then get at the "why" we think and believe as we do. Good discussion.

Posted by: Sherry at October 4, 2009 12:03 PM

Marie, you always put it so nicely! I agree 100% with you (because you agree 100% with God!) Very nicely put!!!!

Posted by: Sydney M at October 4, 2009 12:07 PM

Syndey M.,

Oh, wow. Thank you so much for your kind words!

It's ironic, though...I always feel myself giving you a high-five when I read YOUR posts. You're always spot on! May the Lord continue to keep you in the truth, Sydney M.!

Posted by: Marie at October 4, 2009 12:55 PM

As others have said, it depends on context. Christians have spoken against abortion from the beginning. Even if bible verses are vague, the early Christian writings are not.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 4, 2009 2:06 PM

When a couple struggles with infertilty, it's because either the man or the woman has parts that aren't working correctly. The condition can often be overcome.
Not so with a same sex couple. When they can't conceive among themselves (100% of the time) their parts are working fine. Humans are simply not designed to reproduce within the same sex.
I know this is an offshoot of the topic, but I wanted to point out that infertility and same sex acts are not comparable.

Posted by: Mary Ann at October 4, 2009 3:38 PM

Shirley I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent in asking your questions I thought you were insincere when you were asking questions about Biblical interpretation, forgive me. I wanted to give you and anyone else who wants to look at an excellent article
"The Health Risks of Sex" by Dr. John Diggs Jr. MD at catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf you need to put http:// in front. Dr. Diggs documents research in a 18 page article of the health risks of homosexuality and lesbianism, the physical and mental health risks, the sexual practices, the average numbers of sexual partners, the increased STD rates and numerous types of STDs, why the physiology of the human body makes these practices dangerous, the shortened average life span for MSM (usually 20 years or less than heterosexuals) and gives an extensive bibliography at the end of his article.

Also the FDA article of why they do NOT accept blood donors from MSM www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm you need to put http://in front of this as well. This article documents that the increased rates of STD infection that are so much higher than for heterosexuals that they cannot take the chance of contaminating the US blood supply. The results could be catastrophic and no one could trust the blood supply if they accepted homosexual blood donations.

It may not be politically correct or culturally acceptable but God knew why he called "same-sex" an "abomination" and why he "created male and female" and told a man to "leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife". The Bible says the "heavens declare the glory of God, the earth and all therein". God loves us and wants the best and the healthiest thing for us.

If you read these articles you will see that the research disproves that homosexuality can be considered as a safe healthly alternative lifestyle and that our children should be taught the truth that it is dangerous and full of greatly increased risk to their physical, mentally and emotional health.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 4, 2009 5:14 PM

On homosexuality:

This might be random for the conversation, but my mother informed me that I could never be a Catholic (which would be a blow to my father's side of the family, since they are all devout, seriously devout Catholics):

One of my all-time favorite musicians (and human beings) is the lead singer of Sigur Ros, named Jon Thor Birgisson, and he is in an art collabortion with his partner (boyfriend), Alex Somers, and I saw a picture of them together in a promotional thing for their upcoming booklet/album that they made over the course of five years together and I said, "Awww, what a cute couple!"

My mom saw the picture, agreed, but noted, "You'd make it a week as a Catholic before they'd excommunicate you."

That's just my two cents, but I'm okay with gay people: I try not to interpret anything literally, or at least, in a better word, strictly. I mean, I think that it's impossible to pick and choose: if we did, women would not be allowed to do anything and slavery would still be legal and there would be a serious problem with what Jesus said and what the Old Testament said.

So, in my opinion, change comes and new things enter in, so long as they're based in love and justice and improving the world through nature, art, spirituality, et cetera.

But that's just my two cents. I don't know how many people agree with me on that. :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 4, 2009 7:33 PM

Posted by: shirley at October 4, 2009 7:57 AM

"I believe and follow the words of our Savior and let His words guide the spirit with which I interpret what was written by men doing the best they could at their time."

Shirley, 'surely' you jest?

But we will still call you Shirley.

Jesus is quoted as saying in:

Matt 19:4

He [Jesus] replied, Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparably) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? [Gen 1:27; 2:24.] Amp

Jesus is referencing Geneis when he speaks of marriage. Jesus does not say 'a 'man' shall leave 'his parents' and be joined to 'his husband', nor does Jesus say a woman shall leave 'her parents' and be joined to 'her wife'.

Jesus is 'NOT' OK with homosexuality. The apostle Paul is not a knuckle draggin, snake handling neanderthal red neck.

Homosexuality injures the very same people who Jesus died to deliver and to heal.

Jesus loves sinners, therefore HE loves homosexuals.

Jesus died, not to indulge us in our sin, but to deliver us from our sin.

We should not indulge ourselves or each other in sin because sin is harmful to people.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 4, 2009 10:17 PM

Posted by: Vannah at October 4, 2009 7:33 PM

"I try not to interpret anything literally, or at least, in a better word, strictly. I mean, I think that it's impossible to pick and choose: if we did, women would not be allowed to do anything and slavery would still be legal and there would be a serious problem with what Jesus said and what the Old Testament said.

So, in my opinion, change comes and new things enter in, so long as they're based in love and justice and improving the world through nature, art, spirituality, et cetera.

But that's just my two cents. I don't know how many people agree with me on that. :)"


I would say about 'two cents worth'.

If you ask, HE will reveal HIS heart to you and then it will not matter how many people agree or disagree with you, but that you agree with HIM and behave accordingly and that is worth a lot more than 'two cents'.

The TRUTH will set you free, but it will probably anger you firt.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 4, 2009 10:26 PM

Shirley, you are missing the point of what Jesus said about hacking off hands and feet, etc.

The point isn't to literally cut off your hand or your foot or to cut out your eye. After all, no sane person is going to do that.

The point is that nothing in this world is worth losing heaven. If it would be important to amputate a body part in order to avoid sin, why wouldn't you do what a sane person would do and just avoid the sin in the first place?

Also, read the passage carefully, and, I might add, try to understand it, in your terms, literally. He says, "If your foot causes you to sin ... If your hand causes you to sin ... If your eye causes you to sin ..."

The parts of your body do not cause you to do anything, let alone to sin. What causes a person to sin? It isn't the body parts. It's the will. What He wants is conversion of heart and conformance to the Father's will, as He says over and over again. This shocking statement that Jesus makes is intended to bring that home.

What is easier? To cut off your own hand or foot or cut out your own eye, or to avoid sin and to do the Father's will?

Think about it ...

Posted by: Bill at October 4, 2009 10:54 PM

Someone else posted:
"The three things necessary to make an act a sin:
1) A serious matter.
(Abortion would certainly qualify on this point.)
2) FULL knowledge that the act is wrong.
(There is a lot of confusion on this point when it comes to abortion.)
3) FULL volition of the will.
(Many abortions are compelled by desperation if not some kind of force.)."

---A side issue here, but worth mentioning - hopefully this will come across well with a brief, scripture-based presentation: You can sin unintentionally : Leviticus 6:14: guilt offering to be performed "when a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally..." --this issue reappears in Isaiah 53:10 "..and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering..." --what is a guilt offering? a sacrifice to atone for unintentional sin -- this issue appears again at Luke 23:34: as Jesus is sacrificed, in the manner of a guilt offering, as delineated in Lev and prophesied in Isaiah, Jesus says "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

I believe Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the sins we don't know we are making, as well as those we do know.

Sometimes, non-believers get all excited believing they have discovered some inconsistency (usually spoon-fed from some other non-believer): don't flatter yourself. Google the verse, and include the term "apologetics;" you will usually find the answer easily. In contrast, if you read the Bible as a believer, you eventually realize that, as I have noted, there is a great deal of the opposite: extensive integration across the various parts of the Bible. My example spans a historical book, a prophetic work, and a gospel account. There is plenty more where this comes from.

Posted by: Row1 at October 4, 2009 11:49 PM

There have been some great scriptures quoted. One other one that characterizes the political party of Death and their champion, BO, is:

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."
Jn 8:44

This becomes plain when:

1. We hear BO tell Planned Parenthood that government-sponsored child killing is at the core of his health care reform agenda.
2. Then he tells the Congress and American people that federal dollars will not be used to fund abortions.
3. Then we watch time and again as his party votes down ammendments that would prohibit federal funding of abortion and protect children and their mothers from the Hell-spawned industry that preys on them.

They openly promote the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent children to proportions of genocide and evil never before seen in the history of mankind: over 50 million in the US alone, over 1 billion worldwide.

Satan must be so proud of his children.

Posted by: Ed at October 5, 2009 5:38 AM

One of the things Shirley (and other Christians) should be more informed about is that there were 3 parts to the law of Moses - the ceremonial, the civil, and the moral. It's not good enough to say that the law is no longer valid, because obviously things like the 10 Commandments were upheld by Jesus. But the temple curtain tore when Jesus died. So you figure it out!

One of the clues to understanding the Old Testament Law is to look at how New Testament writers approached it.

A couple of things worth mentioning - if Leviticus 18 & 20 are no longer valid in terms of speaking about homosexuality, then please tell me if incest is also OK? Also, Jesus, who at 12 was smart enough to confound the temple elders in his knowledge of Scripture, would have known these chapters quite well - especially considering he quoted from chapter 19 "love your neighbour as yourself" - right between the two! How else can you 'sum things up' if you don't know them very very well?

Also, he had something to say about Sodom & Gomorrah!

Posted by: Mark R at October 5, 2009 11:25 AM

I know God hates shrimp as much as gay sex. godhatesshrimp.com

"Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants."

Posted by: Hal at October 5, 2009 1:30 PM


From a Jewish perspective, the answer is Genesis 9:6, Which can be translated from the Hebrew, "Whosoever sheds the blood of man in man (adam ba-adam), his blood shall be shed, ..." (The same Torah verse can also be translated as commanding capital punishment for murder, "whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed ...") Rabbi Ishmael (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b) interprets this verse to forbid abortion. The Sixth Commandment does not work because the Hebrew is "lo tirtzach," (do not murder), NOT "lo tiharog" (do not kill). Because not all killing is murder (e.g., killing in self-defense is not murder), one needs to look elsewhere to find whether abortion is permitted or forbidden killing. This difference also explains why from a Jewish perspective, the life of a pregnat woman supersedes that of the fetus in the rare case when only one life can be saved.

Posted by: Stephen Mendelsohn at October 5, 2009 2:17 PM

Hal, read my previous post. The whole 'shrimp' question says more about the breathtaking ignorance of the person making the claim, and absolutely nothing about biblical law.

So, give me an explanation of the biblical view of incest, remaining consistent with your simplistic view?

Homosexuality is consistently condemned throughout scripture, and a validation of this in the natural world is that it is 0% fertile.

Posted by: Mark R at October 5, 2009 5:46 PM

Yke, please refer to this post:

Posted by: Mary Ann at October 4, 2009 3:38 PM

this has already been discussed.

Posted by: Bethany at October 5, 2009 10:41 PM

He's more of a "meat-n-potatoes" kinda Guy, Hal.

Posted by: xalisae at October 5, 2009 11:37 PM

YOu're not understanding the difference, Ye.

The fact is that men and women were designed to go together, and bodies of the same sex were not designed to go with one another - it goes against nature.

Even when a homosexual's body is perfectly capable of reproducing, they cannot reproduce because they simply were not designed to go with one another.

Posted by: Bethany at October 6, 2009 6:42 AM

Mark R, 11:25...great post!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 6, 2009 10:59 AM