tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post5379816856375095700..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: Homosexuals (among others) cannot loveDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-2231260280911834962009-11-06T12:37:37.872-06:002009-11-06T12:37:37.872-06:00@steve s - most people commenting here were focuse...@steve s - most people commenting here were focused on the contradictory ways in which the word "love" is used. IMO, this topic is absolutely central to Christianity, and very much worth 60+ comments.<br /><br />For example, when the apostle John wrote the famous words "God is love", the three most powerful cultures of the time all asserted the opposite: "Love is a god". Many are familiar with the Roman and Hellenistic deities of love, but during John's life, the Ishtar gate still stood, not far from the holy land.<br /><br />Heck, you can go all the way back to the cults of temple prostitution mentioned in Genesis, to see how the human heart always deifies individual affection and lust.<br /><br />Regarding the homosexuality angle, Roger Scruton's book "Beauty" deals with this issue extensively in Chapter 2. He explains how Plato's concept of beauty can lead to people getting all confused and drawn into something degraded -- if you want to understand the psychology of pederast priests, you can do no better than this chapter of Scruton's book.<br /><br />Of course, homosexuals aren't the only ones confused about love. You need only listen to popular love songs to understand how pervasive this confusion is. Temple prostitution and Ishtar-worship is alive and well today, just sublimated into a different form. <br /><br />Heck, one of the shining literary examples of western literature has two "lovers" committing a mutual suicide pact (Romeo and Juliet). Have you read Goethe's Werther, or Poe's Annabel Lee? This is the stuff that our culture holds up as being the highest ideal of love.<br /><br />Seriously, I think DJP struck on a really important topic here, and it serves as a great counterpoint to the Driscoll book he recently reviewed. When people focus too much on the physical act, they miss the bigger picture. If you neutered every man in society such that the physical act were impossible, you'd still have the sin of tainted love, and perhaps even more so. It's the heart that sins, not the gonads.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-53611936458182820172009-11-06T10:28:52.489-06:002009-11-06T10:28:52.489-06:00Sandman;
Of course, and you're perfectly entit...Sandman;<br />Of course, and you're perfectly entitled to.<br />I just took two of the other sins from the list to which Dan referred at 1 Cor 6 : 9. so, with, respect, it's not so far off topic.<br />I was merely speculating that one or other of these might not have taken us past 67.<br />I would argue that the idolatry-friendly culture is every bit as dangerous to the church, but it fails to excite our ire to the same extent. (Look what's happening in Dallas!)<br /><br />It may have SOUNDED like that was what I was saying...but it wasn't. ;-)steve shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06186438136791609986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-54933992945573611652009-11-06T09:15:16.203-06:002009-11-06T09:15:16.203-06:00steve s said: Is there a possibility that we chris...steve s said: <i>Is there a possibility that we christians are just a mite hung up on homosexuality?</i><br /><br />Seriously? The homosexual-friendly culture has so indoctrinated society as a whole, with sweeping effects throughout much of the Church, that so few are as bold in the Lord as Dan has been here to tackle this issue in such a straight-forward manner.<br /><br />It sounds like your saying, 63 comments have been made... it could have been less if you had just changed your topic (or called it something else)before you got started, Dan. That's the answer? People get mad when the sin of homosexuality gets spoken against, therefore, let's all not talk about it? <br /><br />I strongly disagree.SandManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04003338922805271638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-73033717598762566112009-11-06T09:09:08.104-06:002009-11-06T09:09:08.104-06:00"Our glandocentric, relativistic, pomo cultur..."Our glandocentric, relativistic, pomo culture focuses exclusively on feeling."<br /><br />Classic DJP. Love it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-11396611681811675552009-11-06T06:01:54.407-06:002009-11-06T06:01:54.407-06:00Here is what Spurgeon said about Luke 6:32.
Thous...Here is what Spurgeon said about Luke 6:32.<br /><br /><i>Thousands have never reached so high as this standard, “If you love them which love you.” But even if we reach as high as that, it is by no means a great attainment, is it? Our Lord says that sinners also love those that love them. Divine Grace is not needed to make a man the loving husband of a tender wife! Divine Grace is not needed to make affectionate sons and daughters—we see them all around us! I am sure it does not require Grace in the hearts of the bulk of you to make you feel kindly towards those who treat you in a friendly manner! “For sinners also love those that love them.” </i>Scott Shafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03312545003301027755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-80767362188906373662009-11-05T23:42:14.820-06:002009-11-05T23:42:14.820-06:00without meaning, in any way, to trivialise the tra...without meaning, in any way, to trivialise the train wreck.<br />I wonder if this post would have elicited 63 responses (so far!) if it had contained the word 'revilers' or 'idolaters' in its title.<br />Is there a possibility that we christians are just a mite hung up on homosexuality?steve shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06186438136791609986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-59918690565499990722009-11-05T21:52:42.620-06:002009-11-05T21:52:42.620-06:00seriously, did you guys miss the first sentence of...seriously, did you guys miss the first sentence of the post?<br /><br />DJP, you so need to Twitter. I would have tweet you about five times already.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-43352258430339606912009-11-05T21:39:46.179-06:002009-11-05T21:39:46.179-06:00I pick... A.I pick... A.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-18821341283360012222009-11-05T21:30:58.500-06:002009-11-05T21:30:58.500-06:00Dan,
Going back to my early comment and your repl...Dan,<br /><br />Going back to my early comment and your reply: OK, I reread that sentence.<br /><br />Is your point that you already included my suggested qualifications--in the form of "embrace", and maybe "practice" as an on-going kind of thing?<br /><br />Or are you taking 1 Cor 6:9-10 to mean, "Anyone who commits sodomy even once is marked as a non-Christian"?<br /><br />If the former: OK, your post later included the qualification--but the first definition still lacks it. (That would be a relatively small issue, though.)<br /><br />If the latter: <i>Really</i>?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-69551684853138796542009-11-05T19:27:55.386-06:002009-11-05T19:27:55.386-06:00CR,
No offense taken. Don't think for a momen...CR,<br /><br />No offense taken. Don't think for a moment I'm trying to redefine Christian love. My point is that Dan gave one definition, a biblical one. However, the word "love" has numerous definitions that are less than biblical, and are not up to the standards established by Christ, but are widely used nonetheless. So I see no problem using the word love in a context that doesn't require it to meet Dan's definition.<br /><br />It seems to me that Christ used it in such a fashion in Luke 6:32.Scott Shafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03312545003301027755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-76792646328031430822009-11-05T18:52:16.603-06:002009-11-05T18:52:16.603-06:00Scott,
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but ...Scott,<br /><br />I don't mean to be disrespectful, but think about what you're asking. Would you ask this question in any other context.<br /><br />For example, a single can be home run if you define it less than what the definition of a home run is. You can hit a home run (even though it's not a home run) but only if you define it less than the definition of what a home run is.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-42014989232808915782009-11-05T18:34:39.150-06:002009-11-05T18:34:39.150-06:00Dan,
Thanks for answering my question on how you ...Dan,<br /><br />Thanks for answering my question on how you would reconcile Luke 6:32 with your argument. <br /><br />Do you agree with this statement: Non-Christians can "love others", but only if you define love as something less than the definition you gave in the original post.Scott Shafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03312545003301027755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-85906777688537725242009-11-05T18:10:36.793-06:002009-11-05T18:10:36.793-06:00Gosh, DJP, that's so arrogant. You're wri...Gosh, DJP, that's so arrogant. You're writing as if this blog is about what you think on issues...oh, wait...CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-86329401471614919412009-11-05T17:50:57.445-06:002009-11-05T17:50:57.445-06:00Daniel Vance — ...even if I don't agree with y...<b>Daniel Vance</b> — <i>...even if I don't agree with you on this issue. </i><br /><br />That's okay, Daniel. Only person who <i>has</i> to agree with me all the time here is me.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-15818020914428240762009-11-05T16:18:55.916-06:002009-11-05T16:18:55.916-06:00Jay:
In short (and in agreement with Sir Aaron), ...Jay:<br /><br />In short (and in agreement with Sir Aaron), we don't have to question their (i.e., unbeliever's) "love"; we simply need to tell them that they are sinners in need of grace. Nothing more.<br /><br />HSAT, I appreciate your frustrations. Dan's post (and points) sounds logical and scriptural, which they are. The "problem" that you point out is a practical one: What, then, do we say to <i>them</i>? Saying it around others who agree (or politely disagree) with us is one thing, but what about those "outside" the circle, so to speak?<br /><br />Like most elements of existence, there is (paradoxically) a simple side and a complex side to this issue (viz., can unbelievers love). Dan has merely stated the simple side with his usual unapologetic (and highly appreciated) gusto and "to-the-point" syntax, though I think Joshua stated it more eloquently.<br /><br />Joshua also revealed an important distinction, a distinction that defines the "complex" side of the issue. That distinction involves one's view of Total Depravity:<br /><br />If you believe that the Fall completely destroyed/effaced/did away with all the good in us, which is to say that it did away with the <i>imago dei</i>, then of course you can say (perhaps unflinchingly) that unbelievers cannot love <b>at all</b>. They have not the capacity to do it.<br /><br />If, however, you believe that the Fall marred/damaged the <i>imago dei</i>, then you can say (again, as Joshua eloquently put it) that there remains in all of us a "remnant" (a very apt word) of the "goodness" God originally placed in us, <b>but apart from God</b> it is <i>incomplete</i>. Thus, their love, though real, is a "filthy rag" when compared to God's love.<br /><br />In the end, no matter which side (or some point in between) of Total Depravity you take, you will always finish with the same conclusion: Unbelievers cannot <i>truly</i> love (either because they cannot love at all, or because their love is a mere shell of its former self).<br /><br />I'm glad you brought this up, Jay. You've mentioned one manifestation of a crucial topic that many Christians (Calvinists especially) have heroically wrestled with for generations. We know that the Bible says that "none do good" (Rom. 3:12), and yet we read about and hear and see people do "good" all the time: selfless heroics (like 9/11), wonderful parents and families, moments of care and affection (like your mom attending to her friend with cancer). The question left to us is: What do we <i>do</i> with these things? What do we call them? What are they? If they're not "good" or "love," then what? "Feelings"? "Warm fuzzies"? "Common grace"? These are important questions, and as I said earlier, I am glad that you raised them, and I hope that my comments about Total Depravity helped give you an additional context to think about them.<br /><br />DAN:<br /><br />"Homosexual love" = "oxymoron". 100% in agreement, and your post <i>is</i> well-written and unapologetic (just the way I like 'em).<br /><br />Since this post seems to have raised an important issue, perhaps now (if you like or care to) you could write a new post, this one dealing in depth with the above-mentioned question: We know that "none do good," yet we see people (apparently) doing "good"; so what do we call it? Feelings? Guilt? Grace? Something else? I leave to you to inform or ignore, as you like.Halcyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12264274336322086961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-68588154566266484962009-11-05T16:15:17.334-06:002009-11-05T16:15:17.334-06:00SandMan: I don't think that's a repeat com...SandMan: I don't think that's a repeat comment, and I think it summarizes and answers things quite well. I do agree with you, I really do. My main curiosity (and this is something that I will largely have to work out on my own) is how that worldview (i.e. that only Christians can love) is expressed in our interactions and friendships with non-Christians. What <i>do</i> we say when non-Christians (including homosexuals) are talking about loving their families and friends. <br /><br />I do think Joshua Allen said a lot of good about the types of conversations to be had there, but it's still just a lot to process. Time for me to work on a lesson plan for tomorrow, but thanks everyone for the discussion, and thank you Dan for the thought-provoking post.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15232291579882899350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-30508472997094320162009-11-05T15:21:53.428-06:002009-11-05T15:21:53.428-06:00"If we can't use "love," even t..."If we can't use "love," even though that's the word they use, then what word do we use?"<br /><br />I would suggest, "Mushy gushy stuff"<br /><br />:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-51482750371879965252009-11-05T15:20:53.377-06:002009-11-05T15:20:53.377-06:00Does merciful behavior toward another necessarily ...Does merciful behavior toward another necessarily constitute love? I mean, doesn't the farmer care for his animal so that he can fatten it and eat it later? Is it possible that a person can be deeply grieved and compassionate toward a dying partner because they are trying to console themselves and what this loss will mean to them? When you recognize the depraved nature of homosexuality, that it is suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, and couple it with the deceitful wickedness of the human heart-- aren't motives suspect?<br /><br />In addition, as a married Christian man, I am no better. Anyone ever been sorry to see their wife sick because you knew you would be cooking dinner for the kids that night? I can only say that I love her because of the redemptive work of Christ sanctifying my heart and life and motives. Without Christ, I am void of that and have no basis to say that I truly love anyone but me.<br /><br />I apologize if this is a repeat thought... tried to read all of the comments... but scanned some in the interest of time.SandManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04003338922805271638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-33200429354266001512009-11-05T14:51:40.640-06:002009-11-05T14:51:40.640-06:00Oops, that above comment was me, from my actual g-...Oops, that above comment was me, from my actual g-mail account. You all know my real first name now! :)Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15232291579882899350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-49874981230655948692009-11-05T14:35:56.195-06:002009-11-05T14:35:56.195-06:00I think that Christians experience and can give ac...I think that Christians experience and can give actual, complete, and true love. I think non-Christians do experience a very shadowy, mutilated, and crippled form of love. I think Joshua just said it well:<br /><br /><i>I think the point is that there can be no true goodness, no true love, unless it's on God's terms. Any 'goodness' people have apart from God is (and this is just conjecture on my part) a remnant of whatever goodness God gave to us in the first place.</i><br /><br />I do believe that everything is meaningless without God. Our conventional ideas about wisdom, strength, compassion, beauty, etc. are nothing but filthy rags without Him. If any of those things exist in non-Christians it's due to His common grace, and like Joshua said, that's still all His doing.<br /><br />We have to have some kind of word for the feelings of care and support that non-Christians give their friends, spouses, and children. If we can't use "love," even though that's the word they use, then what word do we use?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913432870595227603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-87694862834232186162009-11-05T14:10:37.487-06:002009-11-05T14:10:37.487-06:00@Jay: the problem is that about half of the dictio...@Jay: the problem is that about half of the dictionary definitions of "love", and the majority of common usage, contradicts the Christian definition of "love". Much of what people mean when they say "love" is in fact the exact opposite of "love".<br /><br />So we do a disservice when we allow people to use words like "love" ambiguously. When we say things like, <i>"We are all humans, and we all love"</i>, we don't establish "common ground", we just muddy the waters. The problem is that his definition of love is different from yours. You end up talking past each other, and you implicitly endorse his concept of "love", which may be opposite of yours.<br /><br />You need to establish precision in the terminology before you can have this conversation with people. To be honest, I think homosexuals are more receptive to this insight than most. I've had this conversation plenty of times -- you simply discuss the fact that <i>"'love' sometimes means the opposite of 'love'"</i>, and then start eliciting examples.<br /><br />Of course, everyone clings to his or her own definition of love, but you first need to get someone to that point of <i>"Everyone has different definitions of love; some of which can be shockingly contradictory; and I have mine"</i>. After that, it's natural to introduce the idea that "The Bible also has a definition of love", and you can discuss why the Bible's definition is the correct one.<br /><br />I suppose that one way to initiate the conversation is to confront someone and boldly declare, <i>"The definition of marriage belongs to Christians, and so does love!"</i>.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-3431738197264842352009-11-05T13:36:42.290-06:002009-11-05T13:36:42.290-06:00You say the same thing to a homosexual that you do...You say the same thing to a homosexual that you do to any other non-Christian. You're a sinner. You need to be saved because as a sinner, you're going to hell. Fortunately there's a solution: Christ.<br /><br />The homosexual argument is just a tangental take on "I'm a good person because I don't murder or steal.". I hear it all the time. You can't be good as a non-Christian by definition. Whose definition? The only one that counts. And with all due respect to Webster, that definition isn't his but God's. The same goes for love. It doesn't matter what people say it means, only what God says it does.<br /><br />We Christians have too long tried to divorce morality from God. We argue in politics for the practical reasons of morality, i.e. the tangible, visible rewards of living in an orderly society based on God's definitions of right and wrong. And there are on obvious visible rewards and consequences for ordering society around those definitions. But if a man looks at creation and says to himself "there is no God", it's only a matter of time before they reject or refuse to see the other visible qualities.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-16636213943021240812009-11-05T13:25:13.537-06:002009-11-05T13:25:13.537-06:00Jay: CR: Then what language do we use? What do you...Jay: <b><i>CR: Then what language do we use? What do you say to your non-Christian friends when they say they love their kids? Do you protest, and tell them that they don't?</i></b><br /><br />I would say have you loved Jesus with all of your heart, with all your mind, and with all of your soul.<br /><br />Again, I don't know that DJP is suggesting that we walk up to homosexuals and say, "You don't really love your partner." Again, ask and answered.<br /><br />But I have to ask you, Jay, do you believe in the Bible's clear teaching (which DJP cited in passages) that you cannot love unless you're borne of God. Scripture is inspired by God and it is profitable for teaching. Don't you think it was profitable for DJP to remind us that only those born of God can love?<br /><br />In fact, if we're quite honest with ourselves, some of us might admit, before we read this, we might be tempted to agree with the world that you can love without God.<br /><br />I'll give you the last word.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-23970324646706844112009-11-05T12:54:51.983-06:002009-11-05T12:54:51.983-06:00Just didn't want to leave things on a sour not...Just didn't want to leave things on a sour note (I'm headed home for the day and do not have internet)<br /><br />I meant what I said about appreciating your site(s)--even if I don't agree with you on this issue. <br /><br />Blessings.<br />--danieldaniel vancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14918228884813020934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-28265010391365154232009-11-05T12:34:19.773-06:002009-11-05T12:34:19.773-06:00You don't. But I still think we're just g...You don't. But I still think we're just going to have a different perspective about the words we use re: this particular issue no matter what we do. I, and no other Christian who struggles with homosexuality that I know, is going to use the same type of language you use. Not sure what the reason for that is, or even if it's necessarily a bad thing, but I suppose it's just something that will have to be accepted.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15232291579882899350noreply@blogger.com