Blog Archives

“Jesus Never Said Anything Against Homosexuality”

Jesus is a real authoritative guy.  Apparently, even what He didn’t say carries weight and defines the moral standards for some people.  In support of homosexuality, I often hear that “Jesus never spoke against homosexuality.”  Let’s assume that those who say this are not just trying to stop the conversation and let’s unpack it.

What’s the argument?

My first thought is, “so what?”  What’s really the argument here?  Whenever people make general claims like this I think it’s helpful to break it down into what’s know as a syllogism.  Since the point of those who use this argument is clearly to affirm homosexuality in some way, then I think the syllogism must be something like the following.

  1. Anything Jesus did not speak against is morally permissible
  2. Jesus did not speak against homosexuality
  3. Therefore, homosexuality is morally permissible

Read the rest of this entry

Answering James Rachels’ Defense of Homosexuality

The late Professor James Rachels was a secular philosopher who dealt with moral issues like animal rights, euthanasia, and Darwinian ethics.  I once challenged someone to give me his best arguments in favor of homosexuality and he chose for me a collection of quotes from Rachels.  Here are those quotes, along with my replies.

Is homosexuality a threat to society? No. “Apart from the nature of their sexual relationships, there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in their moral characters or in their contributions to society. The idea that homosexuals are somehow sinister characters proves to be a myth similar to the myth that black people are lazy or that Jews are avaricious.”

Read the rest of this entry

Responding to a critic of “Love the sinner, hate the sin”

Since I seem to be having trouble getting my comments past the moderator, I’ll try posting them here instead.

The following is a reply to this post by Ken Jansen:
“Love the Sinner”…um…Yeah, Don’t Give Me That Crap

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I appreciate that this phrase is seen as an annoying cliche (though any suggestion that homosexuality is not to be celebrated turns out to be a source of annoyance), but it actually does express something rational and meaningful to those who use it.

Your illustration of the color red fails to capture something very important to this discussion. Red is not a thing that has properties; red *is* a property. So, if you hate red, then that’s it, there’s nothing else about it to love. A somewhat better analogy would be a red shirt. One might say they love the shirt (its fabric, pattern, quality, etc.) but hate its red color — they like the thing, but dislike something about it.
Read the rest of this entry

askthe"Bigot"

A place where ideas, not people, are under assault.

WINTERY KNIGHT

...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it." - Blaise Pascal