|The God-issue- Part 3|
|Articles - Faith|
|Written by AnJ|
|Saturday, 12 May 2007 00:00|
Being gay- a Christian inadequacy.
Dr. Tan Kim Huat spoke about God’s laws. He mentioned that the debate revolved around whether the homosexual sex is exploitative. The pro-gay argument said that it’s for exploitative relationships only. The counter-argument is: Apostle Paul meant all kinds of homosexual relationships. [I have no clue about this argument. All i know is that lesbian sex is explicitly left out of Moses law: both men and women were mentioned for bestiality but only men were mentioned for human same-sex encounters. Whether Moses perceived sex as penile-penetrative acts only is anyone’s guess.]
Dr. Tan also mentioned the tenor of the bible- which is the love of God and justification by faith. There also seemed to be a suggestion that sin from Adam’s fall gave rise to predispositions (i suppose he meant homosexuality, adultery and all other vices). He made this link: that those who see God’s love change (stop being gay).
He pointed out the reasons why Jews were against homosexuality.
I wonder what Dr Tan thinks of the patriarchy that is slowly loosening its grips on modern day society? Androgynous attributes are in. More women are taking on leadership roles. And i wonder what he thinks of medical procedures that intervene in the natural course of diseases, preventing death that naturally would have otherwise occurred? And i wonder if birth control pills are considered the worst bane of the human race, since it successfully prevented thousands of babies being born. [Saving lots of people from starving and improving the quality of life in over-populated places in the process.]
Dr. Yap Kim Hao pointed out how the worldview is constantly changing. An example he gave: the concept of disease from that of spiritual possession to that of bacteria and germs. I thought of mixed-race marriages which were forbidden just 50 years back and accepted today. Then he commented on double standards: Moses made allowance for divorce while Jesus prohibited it. Yet, many people divorce and re-married. And adultery is listed as one of the 10 commandments, yet Christians are more against homosexuality than they are against adultery.
Dr. Yap Kim Hao believed that the bible reflects the culture of its time i.e. historically and contextually based.
Edmund Smith’s points are simpler: if you consume Jesus sufficiently, you wouldn’t be gay. Because God Himself would convict you to change. That divine change would be permanent. Edmund Smith said he is not anti-gay people- he has gay people as friends. [Ya, he’s anti-gayness. Not anti-gay people.]
From Dr. Tan and Edmund Smith, we see these:
Homosexuality is a result of the fall of Adam, therefore it is sinful in nature. And Christian gays and lesbians did not consume enough of Jesus sufficiently or/and did not see enough of God’s love.
That’s an accusation that is uncalled for.
It’s like saying that lesbians and gays are lacking somewhere as Christians and thus this gay inadequacy. It makes me wonder about the barometer for sufficient consumption of Jesus? Do you mean fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness etc? Or the amount of Abrahamic blessings, which God promised to those who are righteous by faith, that manifest in one’s life?
Alas for them, not every gay Christian is conflicted. Not every gay Christian haven’t seen God’s love. Not every gay Christian is afraid of God. The story of Mary and Martha is about the need to listen to Christ-centered teachings. Many churches are Christ-centered, grace-centered- just like Edmund Smith’s.
You are not gay because you are any less of a good Christian. Someone needs to come up with a basket of things to measure good works. What should justify you before human beings?
|Last Updated on Thursday, 25 February 2010 17:01|