Out of the Mouth of Atheists

It always amazes me how God is able to get his message across. When God’s people are unable or unwilling to be accurate spokespersons for Him, then God is quite able to raise up other means by which his truth can be transmitted. Many biblical examples spring to mind. The most notable is perhaps Balaam’s ass. Jesus had the same idea in mind when he said, “if [the disciples] keep quiet, the very stones will cry out.”

Of course it is a tragedy if and when God must resort to using others to get his message across because God’s own people refuse to do so. Unfortunately we have far too many examples of those who call themselves believers who simply will not represent God aright, but will instead push their own agendas.

These so-called believers are in effect false prophets. They tell people what they want to hear, instead of what they need to hear. Scripture of course strongly warns against false prophets. But they were not just the stuff of biblical times. They certainly abound today as well.

Consider the issue of homosexuality. There are many believers who are in fact theological revisionists, who seek to totally distort the biblical message concerning homosexuality. They insist that instead of this being a sinful lifestyle, it somehow is a gift of God, and that the Bible actually nowhere condemns it. These are simply false prophets.

They even go so far as to suggest that God judged Sodom and Gomorrah not for the sin of homosexuality, but for the sin of not extending hospitality to strangers. I kid you not. This is what we mean by theological revisionism. They radically revise the commonsense understanding of Scripture in order to promote their own ungodly worldview and immoral lifestyle.

Thus many believers actually applaud and make excuses for the new American president, Barack Obama. They want to downplay the clear biblical denunciation of homosexuality, and seek to justify the strong pro-homosexual agenda of Obama. They do not even seem to have any problems with an openly homosexual bishop taking part in his inauguration.

But while some Christians are absolutely failing in their duties here, God is able to raise up those who proclaim his truth, even if they do not call themselves Christians. One example of this is Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt. Bolt is not a believer. At best he is an agnostic. But perhaps eight times out of ten his opinion pieces will more or less reflect biblical truth.

Indeed, he will often defend Christian values and beliefs, even when Christians themselves will not!  He seems to be a good example of Balaam’s ass to me. Or if he finds that a bit offensive, he appears to be like one of those stones that Jesus spoke about.

Another example of a non-believing stone making a pretty strong case for biblical truth is an article which was penned over five years ago. It concerns someone who is not only an atheist but a homosexual as well. But his comments penned back then are fully relevant to what will take place in a few short hours when BHO is sworn in as America’s 44th president.

The stone in question is English writer Matthew Parris. He should now be a familiar name, as I recently drew attention to a column of his in which he said – as an atheist – that Christian missionaries have been the best thing to ever happen to Africa. In this older column he argues, “No, God would not have approved of gay bishops”.

Given that it is a gay bishop – Gene Robinson – who will be a major player in Obama’s inauguration, this older opinion piece is well worth looking at. Consider the case that he makes, bearing in mind that he says so many things that Christians should be saying, but often are not. And he speaks as a homosexual atheist.

He begins with these words: “As it happens I do not believe in the mind of God. But Christians do and must strive to know more of it. Nothing they read in the Old and New Testaments gives a scintilla of support to the view that the God of Israel was an inclusive God, or inclined to go with the grain of human nature; much they read suggests a righteous going against the grain.”

Wow, if we stopped there that would be enough. The modern mantra today is that of tolerance and inclusion, and wishy-washy Christians, along with their interfaith buddies, are all about turning the holy and jealous God of the Bible into some celestial chum who accepts anyone and any lifestyle.

He continues, “Certainly it is true that Jesus departed from conventional Judaic teaching in the emphasis He put on forgiveness, but neither the story (for example) of the woman taken in adultery, nor the parable of the prodigal son suggest that He countenanced a continuation of the sins of either. What these stories teach is that repentance is acceptable to God however late it comes, and that the virtuous should not behave in a vindictive manner towards sinners. That is a very different thing from a shoulder-shrugging chuckle of ‘different strokes for different folks’.”

More wow. He is destroying every PC bit of theological nonsense going around! Imagine an atheist acknowledging that Jesus came to call people to repentance. I wish all Christians could figure that one out.  Why do so many believers not get it while Parris does? But wait, there’s more:

“‘Inclusive’, ‘moderate’ or ‘sensible’ Christianity is inching its way up a philosophical cul-de-sac. The Church stands for revealed truth and divine inspiration or it stands for nothing. Belief grounded in everyday experience alone is not belief. The attempt, sustained since the Reformation, to establish the truth of Christianity on the rock of human observation of our own natures and of the world around us runs right against what the Bible teaches from the moment Moses beheld a burning bush in the Egyptian desert to the point when Jesus rises from the dead in His sepulchre. Stripped of the supernatural, the Church is on a losing wicket.”

Wow some more. (OK, he seems to confuse the Reformation with the Enlightenment in terms of the grounding and discovery of truth.) Perhaps this guy is really a closet Christian. He sure talks like one – certainly much more so than many so-called followers of Jesus. And Parris also rightly knows that if there is no miraculous, then there is no Christianity:

“Even as a ten-year-old boy in Miss Silk’s Scripture class, when I heard the account of how the parting of the Red Sea could actually be explained by freak tides, and that the story of the loaves and fishes really taught us how Jesus set an example by sharing His disciples’ picnic (so everybody else shared theirs), I thought: ‘Don’t be silly Miss Silk! If Jesus couldn’t do miracles, why should we listen? If the bush was just burning naturally, then Moses was fooled’.”

So what about the homosexuality issue? Even here, as a homosexual, Parris speaks far more sense – and biblical truth – than many Christians do: “Jesus was never reluctant to challenge received wisdoms that He wanted to change. He gives no impression that He came into the world to revolutionise sexual mores. Even our eye, if it offends us, must be plucked out. So this, in summary, is my charge against the Anglican modernists. Can they point to biblical authority for what, on any estimate, amounts to a disturbing challenge to the values assumed in both Testaments? No. Can they point to any divinely inspired religious leader since to whom has been revealed God’s benevolent intentions towards homosexuals? I know of no such saint or holy man. Most have taught the opposite.”

Those wows keep on coming. Here is an atheist and homosexual who at least on this issue is far more honest and biblically savvy than many church folk are. What an incredible collection of truths coming from this stone’s mouth. This incisive and perceptive stone finishes with these words:

“A religion needs a compass. Logic alone does not point the way and religion adds to the general stock of human reasonableness a new directional needle — if it adds anything at all. I cannot read the Gospels in any way other than as declaring that this was revealed to man by God through Jesus. Revelation, therefore, not logic, must lie at the core of the Church’s message. You cannot pick and choose from revealed truth. The path to which the compass points may be a stony one, but this should not matter to a believer. The teachings of the early Church looked unattractive to the Romans. Revelation pointed the way, and only Revelation can point the way now. I believe this Revelation is false, but Christians have nothing else firm to cling to.”

One last wow. He has it all correct here – except for his rejection of Christian truth. But he perfectly understands the truth claims of Christianity, and what is at stake if we jettison the revealed word of God. Would that most believers had such a clear and fundamental understanding of the biblical message.

This is one stone who is only a stone’s throw away from entering the kingdom. He has a terrific understanding of what the biblical message is all about. Now he needs to embrace it, and know God’s love in a personal and very profound manner. Pray for Parris in this regard. And pray for a half-hearted and apathetic church that it would begin to grasp some of the Christian basics which Parris obviously has.


[1607 words]

26 Replies to “Out of the Mouth of Atheists”

  1. Quite a remarkable article by an atheist.

    Another atheist, Niall Ferguson, professor of history at Harvard University, made the same sobering observation on ABC Radio, Australia, in April 2006. He recognized that Christianity is good for social cohesion. When I corresponded with him he told me he sends his kids to church because he thinks it is good for them.

    But why don’t these guys accept the Christian message? Because they don’t think it is true. Parris said as much in another article in TimesOnline, ‘I believe this Revelation is false.’ I would like to ask Parris why. No doubt it’s because they think that science has proved the Bible is wrong, which is why the issue of creation-science is so important for the church in today’s world.

    No matter how socially beneficial a religion is, people won’t believe it if they don’t think it is true. Surely that’s a no-brainer. And that is why I retrained in geology in my 50s (because of the pivotal role of these sciences have played in discrediting the Bible in the west) and have tried to develop an interpretation of geologic data within a biblical framework.

    Tas Walker

  2. I picked out Andrew Bolt as the first person you spoke off. I have so appreciated what he has written in the Herald Sun. Thank you Andrew Bolt. I appreciate your courage and the way you speak up on righteous issues. Time and time again when the “2 Danny’s court cases” were on I thanked God for you. Thank you.
    Rhonda Knowling

  3. Some of Andrew Bolt’s detractors at other news outlets may consider him an ass, but he is one horse who appears to be led to water and drinking. I pray his thirst for eternal truth overtakes his thirst for general truth.

    AB would also have the good humour to appreciate the Balaam’s ass comparison. Hee-haw!

    Mike Evans

  4. Hi Bill,

    I’m sure you’ve been asked this a million times and you have a cleverly worded rebuttal ready to roll, however let me pose it anyway:

    In which passage of the New Testament does Jesus specifically condemn homosexuality?

    If there is none, and you are relying on the Old Testament for your position on homosexuality, do you also support the death penalty for this crime as proscribed?

    In your utopian Christian society, would all Old Testaments laws and punishment that weren’t specifically challenged by Jesus still apply?

    I must admit, against all instinct, I find myself agreeing with Andrew Bolt far more often than I’d like to admit however, I don’t think he’d agree with you on the homo issue.

    I am sure there are many Christians with a slightly less extreme interpretation of the bible, who can find room in their worldview for acceptance of homosexuality and soundly defend it biblically.


    James Beattie

  5. Thanks James

    Yes they are pretty standard objections which I have often dealt with, but I am happy to again make a response. Your first question is easily disposed of by asking another few questions, much like it:

    -In which passage of the New Testament does Jesus specifically condemn rape?
    -In which passage of the New Testament does Jesus specifically condemn environmental destruction?
    -In which passage of the New Testament does Jesus specifically condemn arson?

    Hopefully you get the point – arguing from silence is rather silly. Jesus was a first century Jew who fully accepted the orthodox Jewish view of human sexuality. This of course was elucidated in the opening chapters of Genesis, and runs throughout the entire Bible. In fact, Jesus was not totally silent on the issue, as he endorsed the Genesis account of God’s intention for human sexuality (heterosexual marriage) in places such as Mark 10:6-9. And other New Testament writers make it absolutely clear that homosexuality is not on. Consider such texts as Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Pet 2:4-9; and Jude 1:4-8.

    As to capital punishment for OT crimes, this raises a large discussion about the issue of continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. The death penalty for this and other offences was part of the civil law for the nation of Israel. The NT church obviously is not Israel, so those civil laws, along with the ceremonial laws, are no longer operative. But the moral law continues, such as embodied by the Ten Commandments.

    Concerning your question about “your utopian Christian society,” this is partly answered by what I just said. Jesus and the NT writers made it clear that some things are no longer binding, such as temple sacrifices and the like (again the ceremonial and civil aspects of the law) while the general moral laws continue. And there can be no utopian Christian society for the simple reason that this only can take place when King Jesus returns and all opposition to God’s rule is finally overcome.

    Moreover, most people are not Christians, and all Christians are not perfect (in this life) so all we can seek to be is a Christlike example in this world, seeking to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, as Jesus told us to be. A godly influence, in others words, is the best that we can offer an ungodly world which rejects the rule of God.

    Finally as to interpretation, it is not a question of being extreme. It is a question of simply taking the Bible at face value, and not seeking to ignore or alter the plain meaning of the text. An atheist and homosexual like Parris can even manage to get this right, so it seems like not such a difficult thing to achieve. The point is, a plain reading of the Biblical text will make clear that homosexuality is always considered to be sinful behaviour.

    It takes real twisting and distortion of the text to make it say otherwise. Indeed, that was the very point Parris was making. There are people calling themselves Christians who do seek to soften and twist the clear teaching of Scripture on this issue. But even homosexual atheist Parris can see through this. You can’t accuse him of being some fightin’ fundie Christian, can you?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  6. James, who said that Jesus came to condemn anyone? John 3:16ff says “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

    Jesus came to heal, to make people whole, to clothe us in our right minds. He came to set the captive free. But that was just for starters, for his main aim was put us right with the God who wrote the Old Testament, who wrote Leviticus. Whenever Satan tempted Jesus to overturn God’s created order for his own selfish satisfaction, he replied, “It is written.”

    Condemnation, however, will come for those who reject his sacrificial death on the cross. John 3:16ff goes on to say, “but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

    Homosexuality is not just another “gift” from God that demonstrates his extraordinary diversity and creativity. What God would want to bless someone with a sexual orientation that is incapable of becoming biologically fruitful, that leads to personality disorders, mental, emotional and physical health risks, to compulsions, addictions and a premature death.

    Madam do you want your little boy or little girl to become gay (or disabled)?
    She might answer: ”I will love them whatever they become.”
    No, Madam, that is not the question. Do you want them to become homosexual?
    “Yes, I want” is hardly going to be her reply.

    This might be of value to some: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/11/29/advancing-a-heterosexual-public-ethic-with-grace-wit-and-natural-law/

    David Skinner, UK

  7. In answer to James’ question regarding Jesus’ condemnation of homosexuality, why does nobody quote Matt. 10:15? Its hardly a ringing endorsement of the lifestyle.
    Dunstan Hartley

  8. Here are a couple more examples of people who defend aspects of Christianity but who are not Christians themselves: Tim Blair and Melanie Phillips.

    Melanie had a great example of this recently in an article entitled We must not let the weakness of our bishops destroy this nation’s soul. Here is a sample:

    Britain remains a Protestant Christian country, and most Britons define themselves as such. Certainly, it is a troubling fact that few now go to church, and in many respects the country has become markedly irreligious. Indeed, a report by Christian Research,
    published at the weekend, predicted that church attendance would fall by as much as
    90per cent by 2050.

    But that is largely because the Church itself has been so feeble in propounding its core beliefs. Giving every impression that faith in God and the Christian story are a social embarrassment, for the past four decades the Church has turned itself into a kind of Left-wing social workers’ trade union.

    Ewan McDonald

  9. Thank you for writing this post, and also for the discussion in the comments about these issues. It is refreshing to hear arguments like this.
    Natasha Sim

  10. God bless Andrew Bolt-what a champion for the Truth and he’s not even a Christian! It struck me though, that he can say things that a Christian leader (say Peter Jensen) cannot.
    God bless Dr Tas Walker and all the good Creation Scientists who labour daily to inform people of the great truths of the Creation, and how that connects to our faith. Love your work guys.
    Ian Brearley

  11. Bill,

    As far as I’m aware there are many if not most Christians who speak out against homosexuality as being a sin, it’s just that not all of them have access to a national newspaper column in which to express their point of view. The other thing I’ve noticed is that a LOT of Christians like to use a persons sexuality as a point of condemnation and judgement, this too, is just as sinful as anything else. That there are Christians who distort the scriptures in support of whatever’s currently trendy (in this case homosexuality) simply further highlights the difference between the ‘visible’ Church and the body of Christ. If more Christians were Biblically literate, they would notice the difference, as well as knowing that because ALL of us are sinners and deserving of death, it is not our place to condemn or judge anyone. 😉

    Paul Harry

  12. “Jesus was a first century Jew who fully accepted the orthodox Jewish view of human sexuality. This of course was elucidated in the opening chapters of Genesis, and runs throughout the entire Bible.”

    But is that first century view of human sexuality correct? Can such a position be defended in this modern scientific age? Parris, Ferguson and those who say homosexual behaviour should be accepted as legitimate claim it is untenable in this scientific age to even dream of defending the orthodox Jewish view of human sexuality which is rooted in Genesis creation.

    At CMI’s recent Creation Supercamp on Phillip Island, Victoria, two world-class geneticists presented lectures showing how the latest genetic information about the human genome enables different scenarios of human history to be rigorously tested. One lecture tested the biblical record of human history (original creation of one one male and one female about 6,000 years ago, a genetic bottleneck to three breeding couples at Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago, and the entire world human population divided at the Tower of Babel). He showed that the genetic data overwhelmingly supports Genesis history and does not support other scenarios such as evolution from an original population over millions of years or progressive creation.

    If we are going to win the argument, we have to show, not only that the biblical view works better, but that it is true–which it is!

    Tas Walker

  13. Thanks Paul

    Yes and no. Yes, we are all sinners who deserve God’s wrath. But no, you are amiss on your understanding of condemnation and judgment. We are all sinners so we all currently stand condemned, as Jesus made perfectly clear (John 3:18). It is our job as Christ’s ambassadors to proclaim the bad news of the gospel (that people are now condemned, or dead in their sins as Paul says in Ephesians 2:1), before we can proclaim the good news of the gospel (that Jesus died on our behalf so that we do not have to be condemned). Thus it is our responsibility to point this out to non-believers – to judge them if you will.

    As to judgment in general, you are again wide of the mark. Believers are throughout the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, told to judge. But see my write-ups here for more on this:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  14. Paul Harry makes the common but bizarre error that all sins are equal, which is more a Stoic view than a biblical one, as Rev. Dr Peter Barnes shows in Are all sns equal? And we are condemning no one; rather, they are already condemned, and we are just passing on the message. So don’t shoot the messenger (cf. ‘no-one delights in the bearer of bad news,’ Sophocles, Antigone, 442 BC).

    And of course, if we are not supposed to judge, then how can we judge anything as ‘good’—including non-judgmentalism?

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  15. I just read through this page. James throws up this old desconnection between the old and new Testaments, there are many today only want to tap into the gospels to confirm everything. John said there are enough books in the world to record all of what Jesus said and did.
    The one thing people like James over look was that Jesus affirmed the Old Testament LAW. He said it stands. Or if you like He didn’t come to change one dot of it. Therefore in saying that He affirmed the condemnation of Homosexuality and many other sins.
    Jesus did however apply God’s grace to our judgement and to His judgement. He didn’t say to the woman caught in adultery it’s OK to keep committing adultery He forgave her and told her to SIN NO MORE. He affirmed that adultery was and is wrong. The same principle applies if if a person had been caught in a homosexual act and dragged before Jesus.
    Jesus didn’t split the Old Testament from the New. In fact He only had the Old Testament to work with the New Testament hadn’t been written. So when Jesus referred to Scripture He was referring to the Old Testament.
    Grahame Abrahams

  16. Tas Walker,
    your point is well made,

    “If we are going to win the argument, we have to show, not only that the biblical view works better, but that it is true–which it is!”.

    This is critically the point with people such as Andrew Bolt. I have corresponded with him on the issue of the “usefulness” of Christianity for “pacifying the masses”.
    He definitely needs to come to the point where the “blinkers are lifted” and he realises that it’s not only useful, like a shoehorn, but its also TRUE!!.
    He stumbles at this point I believe, because, deep down he doesn’t think it’s intellectually respectable to accept that the cosmos was purposefully created by an Omnipotent Creator, as opposed to being the result of millions and millions of years of random chemical & purposeless astrophysical processes. (Ockham’s Razor etc.)

    In our current age and time, especially in the Western World, Biblical Creationism in a setting of Reformed Biblical Theology is the BIG ONE, the Dam Buster if you will, for expanding the Kingdom.

    Robert Phillips

  17. Paul, it is not the Christian who all of a sudden is centring on a person’s sexuality as means of self- identification. We are born as men and women. It is the homosexual and Marxist legions who, maybe for the first time in history have brought in this new classification. I believe that in Britain, this year, in pursuit of “equality”, there is going to be a census in which every citizen, young and old, will be asked to state their sexual orientation.
    Yes, all sins are equal. The stealing of an apple from the tree effects our relationship to God no differently from mass murder. But as far as our relationship with others and ourselves, sexual sins have a far greater effect than any other. For instance the adultery of David led to murder, lying and coveting.
    I Corinthians 6:18ff says, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.”

    How was Israel described over and over again in the Old Testament? Not as a load of apple or pen stealers, but as an adulterous nation. Like wise in Revelation it talks about the great prostitute, the harlot.

    Homosexual philosophy is a direct assault on truth, reason and morality. This is where the battle rages most intensely. If we loose this, we loose everything, including our children.

    David Skinner, UK

  18. Well as it seems that pretty much everyone missed the point of my earlier comments, let me clarify.


    It was the METHOD of judgement that I was referring to and penchant of a lot of Christians to see other’s sins as worse then their own.


    NOWHERE did I say that ALL sins are equal, nor did I say that we did not have the responsibility to judge things. I merely tried to make the point that it is not our place to ‘condemn people’ in our judgements. You say that ‘they’ are already condemned and you’re just reminding them, yet the scriptures say in Romans “But (G)the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “(H)DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE (I)ABYSS?’ (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead).” If you still don’t understand the point I was trying to make then read James 2 “If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgement will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement. ”


    Neither did I claim that sins do not have varying consequences and I certainly didn’t claim that homosexual activity wasn’t sinful.

    But then these types of responses kinda highlight my general complaint. A careful reading of what I wrote should not have drawn such knee-jerk responses and in the realm of spiritual maturity, questions of clarification should have been asked before the vilification began.

    If it was my fault for not making myself clear in the first place then I apologise.

    Paul Harry

  19. Thanks Paul

    But if in fact it was – as you admit – your lack of clarity which resulted in any misunderstandings, then to brand our replies as “knee-jerk responses” and “vilification” is not only far from conciliatory, but seems to exemplify the very judgmentalism which you would have us eschew.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  20. Paul, you seem to be suggesting that mercy means a total absence of discretion, discrimination and judgement between what will bring condemnation and what will not. By this reckoning there will be no need for police or law courts.

    A judge can only dispense mercy to someone who is made aware of their sin and deserves punishment. Being merciful is not simply allowing someone to continue behaving sinfully – blissfully ignorant of what they are doing and free of charge. Someone somewhere along the line has to pay for their actions. If it is not the perpetrator, then it is the victim.

    Why should we be merciful to homosexual practice that will inflict misery on all those around? Do you not have any mercy for children who are being groomed by sex education programmes that will result in their deaths?

    May I submit for you Paul, Galations 6:1ff:

    “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load. Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor. Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.”

    David Skinner, UK

  21. Bill, Thanks for Culture Watch! Such a blessing! So wonderful to read all the comments…from all of you…you are the most beautiful young people…keep having your say…us oldies not only learn from you but are inspired by you! God Bless!
    Jane Byrne

  22. One Catholoc priest told me that when the Bible was written, people did not have the information that we have today. He said we now know that homosexuality is genetically inherited, so we must accept homosexuals into the Church. My reading is that research has failed to find that it is transmitted genetically. People believe what they want.
    Tom Wise

  23. James,

    Jesus came and changed a lot of things about the Old Testament and Law and most of it had to do with the tradition and ceremonial aspects of worship, sin and the temple, he made a way for us to go to God ourselves, but he still endorsed so much of the Old Testament and quoted from it regularly (Matt 4:1-11). Jesus never once threw away all the Old Testament commandments and actually encourages the rich man with them in Matthew 10:19. Just because Jesus doesn’t utter the words “wrong” and “homosexuality” in the same sentence it doesn’t mean he agrees with this sin, Jesus made it clear that sin separates us from God that is why he died on the cross, and sin is sin including homosexuality.

    Adam Crisapulli

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *