Some Collected Thoughts and Notes


Sexual Politics, Moral Absolutes, and
Notes on Sexual Sins in General

God and Sex

by Helen Fryman Setterfield

In all of the arguments that go back and forth regarding sex, and, in particular, sex outside of a man-woman marriage, almost all the arguments I have ever seen have to do with why it is wrong, or sinful in one context or another. Some of these arguments are very good. Others are very questionable. But it is rarely, if ever, that the idea of the reason for sex and the godly use of sex is discussed. That is what I would like to do here: discuss sex as the Bible presents it and what it seems to imply.

First of all, immediately after the creation of woman in Genesis 2:21-23, sex is introduced with the following statement:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

This takes place before chapter 3, in which Adam and Eve sin, so the first thing that should be noted is that sex is not a sin. It was instituted by God. Some say it was instituted entirely for the purposes of procreation, but that is not what is indicated anywhere in the Bible. In this first verse concerning sex there seems to be the implication that the sexual act itself, within marriage, is a completing and fulfilling such that that which was once separated from Adam is then joined to him again in marriage.

The natural result of sex is conception when the woman is of child-bearing age. And we notice that, back in Genesis 1:28, God tells His newly created couple to "Be fruitful and increase in number." So here we have not only the union of the man and wife physically, but the creation of new life as a result. In Psalm 127: we read,

Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.
Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth.
Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.

As a side note here, it might be mentioned that only in our modern civilization have children not been considered a blessing. This is, to me, a sign of the vast rebellion that has swept the world in these last days. And, even among Christians, limiting a family for worldly reasons seems prevalent. How many other blessings to we refuse?

In Exodus 20, we first read the Ten Commandments given by God to Moses for Israel and the world. The seventh commandment states, simply, "You shall not commit adultery." This, in the Hebrew understanding, includes all sexual relationships apart from the marriage relationship. Later, throughout the law, this is elaborated on more fully, but all the elaborations simply come back to the seventh commandment. And the seventh commandment is part of the Law that Jesus said "hung" on the two great commandments He gave as a summary: to love God with everything you have in you and to love your neighbor as yourself. This then, puts sexual restraint in a new light. It is an expression of love. To love someone is to work for the best for them, regardless of personal satisfaction or gain. And thus to restrain from sex before marriage and/or outside of marriage is not just a negative, but a grand positive. It is a deep form of caring and commitment to the beloved, in the same way that sex within marriage is.

It is also interesting that all through the Old Testament we find items and people and events which are used to express spiritual truths later. The Ark of Noah is a type of Christ: get in or be lost. The Passover blood on the doorposts indicates salvation through blood. The pictures go on and on, so that we have access to the spiritual truths of God not only in Christ's words, but in history itself and in creation. Just as Jesus used common things and common activities to express spiritual truths, we do the same today in our teachings. Common activities, like weeding the garden, become lessons in getting rid of sin before it gets out of control.

So what about sex? Is it a picture of anything? It was instituted by God and is the subject of one, and possibly two (the tenth commandment concerning coveting one's neighbor's wife might be included here) commandments. It seems to be important to God.

The first clue we have is the fact that adultery becomes a representation of idolatry throughout the Old Testament prophets. Hosea probably gives the most memorable picture of this, but it is by far and away not the only one.

The New Testament gives another clue. The Church is the bride of Christ.

What happens when a man or woman becomes a Christian? One asks Christ into one's life, to take over, and a new life is born in the person. It is this, I believe, which is the spiritual truth sex within marriage represents. There is no other activity man is involved in which expresses the intimacy of two people and results in a new life. It is interesting in Matthew 7:21-23, when Jesus talks about rejecting the false teachers, that the reason He gives is "I never knew you." Well, of course Jesus knew WHO they were. He created them. So that is not what He is talking about. He is using the older, other meaning of the word ­ the sexual union, or the union of a man and wife. Jesus had never been invited into the lives of these false teachers; He never had been intimate with them. He never knew them.

This gives us the reason why the marriage bed is held to be holy, and is to be kept pure (Hebrews 13:4). It is the picture God Himself gave to us to explain the relationship between Jesus Christ and His people ­ the Bride.

If this is true, then we should see evidence of Satan attacking this picture. And we certainly do! Almost every kind of sexual union today is promoted as being even better than married sex! People are tempted constantly through television, movies, ads, books, magazines, calendars, and even fashions. This is not even counting pornography, which has proven to be such an addictive trap for so many. Homosexuality and other forms of perverted sex are touted as normal and "alternate life styles." This kind of attack on married sex alone should be screaming a loud warning signal to people that there is something extraordinarily special about sex for it to be attacked in this way.

And there is. It is God's holy picture of His relationship with us. And, apart from all the arguments concerning emotional damage (which are quite valid), STD's, societal breakdown, family breakdown, and the rest, THIS is the reason anyone who takes the name of Christ should be absolutely firm about maintaining the holy standard of sex only within a man-woman marriage. The standard is a holy one. And sex is, in this context, a holy activity. It is for this reason that man, apart from all the animals, can find such joy in sex. When it is in the right place, it is a very special gift from God.

January 20, 1999

Overview on the Sexual "Absolutes" in the Bible

by Lambert Dolphin

The Old Testament has much to say about the specifics of sexual misconduct outside of marriage and various forms of uncleanness and defilements. In the Old Testament, for instance, homosexual sins are spoken of as abominationin the eyes of God (Heb: toebah = loathsome, repulsive), whereas this is not stated to be the case with regard to heterosexual premarital or extramarital intercourse. Nonetheless most all forms of sexual immorality, whether heterosexual or homosexual, carry the death penalty under the Law of Moses.

The New Testament does not single out homosexual sin as worse than other types of sexual misbehavior. Note for instance Hebrews 13:4,

"Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, because God will judge the immoral and the adulterous."

Here there are two classes of immoral sexual behavior mentioned: engaging in heterosexual or homosexual sexual activity prior to marriage, or being sexually unfaithful to an existing (heterosexual) marriage partner. Extramarital or premarital sins are treated alike: God approves of sexual expression and endorses it only in marriage. From the time of creation, "marriage" (the oldest of human institutions) is the union of one man and one woman. Furthermore marriage unions are made by God. It is He who joins a man and a woman together in marriage.

Romans Chapter 1 indicates that homosexual sin carries with it a special consequence from God--gender confusion (See The Seepening Darkness) --whereas heterosexual sin does not bring this kind of unique additional judgment on the participating individuals. All persons guilty of sexual immorality are still considered defiled and in need of forgiveness and cleansing.

The Bible nowhere condones genital heterosexual behavior before marriage or outside of marriage. All forms of sexual immorality receive equal, even-handed treatment by the New Testament writers. Heterosexual fornication and adultery are serious sins, but they are not "against nature" as homosexual sins are. "Sins against nature" are violations of the way things were created. Nevertheless the New Testament presents us with a single definitive list of those sinful lifestyles which exclude a person from entering into the kingdom of God.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is that list. This list is not hierarchical.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral (fornicators) , nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (two different Greek words are used---one for active and one for passive homosexual acts), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Here the emphasis is on the changed orientation and behavior that follows coming to know Jesus as Lord. Paul says, "and such were some of you..." This does not mean that the requisite overall life-style changes come without failures, stumblings and many struggles, of course. Both the Old and New Testament reveal the short-term moral lapses of many of God's best people, so His mercy and grace certainly triumph over the judgment we all deserve.

In Ephesians 5, the Apostle argues that sexual immorality in any form ought to be totally foreign to a congregation. It should be so uncommon it would not ordinarily come up for discussion among believers! Among non-Christians sexual activity of all kinds is freely discussed, often in vulgar language, and often in a demeaning manner which devalues the dignity, the sacredness of the persons involved and cheapens the meaning of human sexuality in marriage. Such behavior as one finds in the world is "not fitting," i.e., are unbecoming for Christians. This does not mean sexuality should not be discussed in counseling situations and small groups for purposes of healing, restoration, spiritual growth in the direction of wholeness and purity.

Again Paul is clear about the absolutes of God in this respect,

"...Be sure of this, no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes (continues to come) upon the sons of disobedience" (v5,6).

One very important passage in the New Testament, found in First Thessalonians, Chapter 4, reads as follows:

"It is God's will that you [Christians] should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit." (4:3-8 NIV)

Thomas L. Constable writing in the Bible Knowledge Commentary (Victor Books, 1983) elaborates on this passage:

"The will of God is clearly set many places in Scripture, even though Christians often seem to have a great deal of difficulty applying it in decision-making. It is God's clear will that his people be holy (hagiasmos) This word can mean a state of being set apart from sin to God, or the process of becoming more dedicated to God. Probably the latter meaning was by Paul here. He was not referring to the final state of all Christians when they will be separated from the presence of sin as well as its penalty and power. Rather he probably had in mind the progressive sanctification of his readers by which they were conformed to the image of Christ in daily experiences by proper responses to the Word and the Spirit of God. This is evident by the three statements in verses 3b-6a, each beginning with the word that.

"The first instruction designed to produce greater holiness is abstinence from sexual immorality. Paul called his readers to avoid it, implying the need for exercising self-discipline, enabled by God's Spirit. Christians are to avoid and abstain from any and every form of sexual practice that lies outside the circle of God's revealed will, namely adultery, premarital and extramarital intercourse, homosexuality and other perversions. The word porneia, translated "sexual immorality," is a broad one and includes all these practices. The Thessalonians lived in a pagan environment in which sexual looseness was not only practiced openly but was encouraged. In Greek religion, prostitution was considered a priestly prerogative and extramarital sex was sometimes an act of worship. To a Christian the will of God is clear: holiness and sexual immorality are mutually exclusive. No appeal to Christian liberty can justify fornication.

"Paul emphasized the same truth in a positive way by expanding on this prohibition. One avoids sexual immoral by learning how to control his own body with its passions. Self-control in response to one's sexual desires, Paul taught, could and must be learned. Christians are not the victims of circumstances or their fleshly passions. Sexual desire can be controlled by the Christian through God's power. Paul did not specify how to control one's passions. He implied that there may be several ways. But the Christian should choose a method that is both holy (hagiasmo) and honorable (time). That is, the action taken as an alternative to sexual immorality must be behavior that is set apart to the Lord in its motivation and recognized by others as intrinsically worthy of respect (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13-20). Each Christian is responsible for his own body and behavior, not his neighbor's (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13). Every young Christian, like the Thessalonians, should learn how to deal appropriately with sexual temptations.

"They were not to deal with it as the heathen did, by indulging in passionate lust (en pathei epithymias). Such behavior is a mark of heathenism. A heathen is one who does not know God. Here Paul put his finger on the key to overcoming sexual temptations. A Christian can overcome because he knows God; this makes all the difference! Paul did not say that the heathen do not know about God. The reason they behave as they do is because they do not know God personally, even though they may know about Him. When a person comes to know God by faith in Jesus Christ, not only do his attitudes toward sex change, but he also discovers that God gives him the ability to act toward sexual temptation as he could not before. Knowing God is basic to living a holy life. This is why maintaining a vital relationship with God is essential to maintaining a clean walk before God.

"In the previous two verses Paul's appeal was based on the importance of sexual purity for the sake of the Christian himself. In...verse 6 Paul appeals on the basis of the other person involved in the immoral act. The brother here is most likely another human, not necessarily another Christian male. This seems clear from the fact that this person is a victim of illicit sex. Sexual immorality wrongs the partner in the forbidden act by involving him or her in behavior contrary to God's will and therefore under His judgment. Two or more people practicing sex out of God's will are calling God's wrath down on themselves (Heb. 13:4). The initiator of the act takes advantage of his partner in sin by fanning the fire of passion till self-control is lost. Paul then cited two reasons (1 Thes. 4:6b-7) why sexual immorality should be avoided. First, sexual immorality is sin, and God will judge all sin (Rom. 6:23a). All such sins refers most likely to the various forms of sexual uncleanness not specifically mentioned in the context but covered by the general term "sexual immorality." Everyone who fears the wrath of God should abstain from immorality because judgment follows such sin as surely as day follows night. That God always judges sin is a basic Christian truth which Paul had taught them and warned them about when he was in Thessalonica.

A second reason to avoid sexual immorality is that it goes against God's calling for a Christian. Paul's first reason (v. 6b) looks forward to the prospect of future punishment, but his second reason looks back to the purpose for which God called each Christian to Himself. God's plan for a Christian includes purifying his life. Sexual immorality frustrates the purpose of God's call. Certain pagan cults promoted unclean ceremonies, but Christ's plans for a Christian are to clean him up. A holy life demonstrates God's supernatural power at work overcoming what is natural, and it glorifies God. The Greek noun hagiasmos ("holiness") occurs here for the fourth time in eight verses (3:13; 4:3-4). (The verb hagiazo ['sanctify"] is used in 5:23.)

In this verse 8 Paul drew a conclusion based on his preceding arguments. Sexual purity is grounded in the revelations of God concerning His judgment of sin and His calling to holiness. Sexual purity is simply a practical application of basic doctrine. Paul's attitudes toward sexual uncleanness did not arise from his background or personal preferences. They were the logical consequences of divine revelation. The Thessalonians and later readers of this epistle should realize that to reject these instructions is to reject the Person from whom they came originally, that is, God.

Lest anyone feel that God is asking more than is reasonable of weak mortals, Paul concluded this exhortation with a reminder that God has also given believers His indwelling Spirit. This Person of the Trinity is so characterized, that He is called the Holy Spirit. The indwelling Holy Spirit has the power to enable any Christian to control his own body, even in immoral climate. The exhortation to avoid sexual immorality; then, comes from the Holy Spirit."

Ray Stedman's study of this passage in First Thessalonians, Sexuality and Wholeness, is excellent.

To temper what may seem arbitrarily harsh and severe standards concerning sex prescribed for Christians, it should be said that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ obligates us to radical changes in all areas of our lives. We are dealing with a holy God who has said, "You must be holy for I am holy." God never asks us to do something without providing us with the resources necessary. We will also be better off after we obey God, in spite of what we think is the "loss" of something important in our lives. It is always by losing ourselves in Christ that we find out who we really are.

The Law of Moses expresses the character of God as He is. If we are going to live forever with Him, we shall all have to be changed inside--down to the core of our being. The Law was not given in order to motivate us to try harder to live up to impossibly high standards. The Law delineates sin and the boundaries between right and wrong. By exposing our hearts to the Light, God's Law is intended to cause us to call upon God for mercy and grace--which he freely grants!

But to put this in a wider perspective, it should be remembered that sexual sins are not the worst sins recorded in the Bible.

"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither." (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

The proverbs of Solomon list seven things which God hates. Sexual immorality is not on this list at all.

"There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

An Editorial on the Politics of Sex:

"Fear and Loathing in L.A."

by Hadley Arkes

(originally published in the Wall Street Journal)

The scene was a hotel in Los Angeles last month, the occasion a conference on homosexuality and the law sponsored by The Claremont Institute and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. The meeting brought together political philosophers interested in making arguments about natural rights and a group of psychiatrists reviewing, in a critical way, the claim that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. It was not a meeting designed to rouse a mass audience, with epithets and incendiary proclamations. But it set off passions quite out of scale-and it revealed the kinds of assaults that do not seem to count, or register, in the current state of our public life.

The City Council in Los Angeles actually passed a resolution to condemn the meeting. For those who may be visiting from another planet, let me put it another way:

The civil authorities in a major city declared it to be an offense to their civil order that a group of Americans would assemble to consider some of the moral and medical arguments that weigh against homosexuality and the politics of gay rights. A moral tradition running back to Athens (yes, Athens) and Jerusalem was now pronounced as nothing less than unspeakable in Los Angeles. Without hearing any of the arguments, the council caricatured the discussions as nothing less than an exercise in "defamation and demonization."

But the resolution in the council was among the milder incivilities. The hotel received a flow of menacing calls, along with threats of death aimed at the organizers of the conference. The consequence was that the Beverly Hilton Hotel caved in and canceled its contract to hold the meeting. In the end, the Claremont Institute managed to find a fine alternative setting at the Biltmore Hotel-along with a management that showed exemplary nerve. For the threats mounted, becoming ever more ferocious and audible, in the streets and in the halls, as the opening drew nearer. A crowd with placards began to pound on cars entering the garage and accosting people entering the hotel. In an attempt to disrupt the meeting, three activists stood outside the door of the meeting room, screaming charges: The people inside the hall were murderers of gays; or they and their kind were responsible for the murder of Matthew Shepard (the young gay man killed in Wyoming); or they were the moral equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan.

The themes were bizarre but no longer novel: Savage, slanderous rhetoric of this sort had become a staple in the commentary and the demonstrations that molded the story of Matthew Shepard. In that story line, anyone who had expressed reservations about the homosexual life was accused of complicity in murder.

A friend of mine at Princeton, Prof. Robert George, received a letter with a nasty edge from a former student asking why he and his political friends, so critical of homosexuality, would not condemn the killing of Matthew Shepard. Mr. George responded sharply: There had been prominent cases recently of teenagers, in Delaware and New Jersey, giving birth to babies and throwing them in dumpsters. Yet the pro-lifers did not demand that Ted Kennedy, Christie Whitman, and other defenders of abortion denounce those killings. The pro-lifers assumed that Mr. Kennedy and the partisans of abortion would never defend the killing of a child at birth. They were willing, that is, to give their opponents the courtesy of a presumption in favor of their decency.

But that is a courtesy that the partisans of gay rights have not shown the slightest inclination to extend to the people on the other side. In recent weeks, Frank Rich and other columnists have spun out columns vibrant with a hatred of the Family Research Council and evangelical Christians, who have run ads on television pointing up gays who have "converted." But those ads were put forth in a spirit of civil appeal; they cast no reproach, and sought to inspire no contempt. Anyone familiar with these Christian groups knows that they begin with a respect for persons, even persons they think are making grave mistakes. And even if they regard the homosexual life as sinful, they do not think it warrants aggression-much less lethal assaults-on gays and lesbians.

In truth, the campaigns of aggression and calumny are launched persistently from the other side. But when Catholics gather civilly across the street from Terrence McNally's "Corpus Christi" in New York--when they say the rosary and carry signs protesting against blasphemy they are labeled as aggressors and tagged for the dark crime of censorship.

This want of evenhandedness makes little impression on the media, and there is no outrage over the facts revealed again in Los Angeles: that the gay activists are seeking, overtly, to repress their opposition-to silence anyone who would call into question the homosexual life. For what took place in L.A. took place at a similar conference, at Georgetown University, in June of last year-as it will take place in any city with a "gay presence" in politics. And that lends a bitter irony to all the recent talk about a federal law on "hate crimes." These laws may appear neutral, but they are tilted toward certain favored groups. In the speech codes on the campuses, people can be punished for uttering epithets against gays and lesbians. But there has been no symmetry in protecting the people who are vilified as "homophobes." Why shouldn't a new bill on hate crimes cover the attempts to intimidate, with threats of death, people who are merely trying to exercise their freedom to discuss the rights and wrongs of homosexuality-or anything else? In fact, why would an application of this kind not be a plausible next step in the movement to extend the laws on racketeering? Of late, the courts have stretched the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to cover the "intimidations" generated by pro-life groups as they stage demonstrations and sound their views. To reach these groups, the courts have detached the notion of "extortion" from the attempt to extract financial benefits.

But how can the RICO laws be turned on people praying and standing outside of abortion clinics and not be applied to gay activists who orchestrate threats of violence and seek to intimidate others in the exercise of one of the most elementary rights: the right to deliberate in public about the substance of the laws?

Of course, we enter onto tricky ground whenever we bring in the restraints of the law to deal with private repressions of speech. And rather than enter on that path, it may be better altogether if the pundits in this cultural debate-so eager to preach tolerance to the benighted-would show a willingness to cast reproaches on the thuggery, on the ugly acts of intimidation, that come from the side they happen to favor.

* * * * *
Hadley Arkes is professor of jurisprudence at Amherst College.

An Email Exhange:

Craig Chilton <> wrote in message

"So you are saying that no one should ever say that anything is wrong because that may cause some to go "over the edge" ?"

Raymond Knapp <> responded as follows:

No. I'm saying that intolerant busybodies should butt out of other people's business. I'm not gay, so I think I would know it if the gays were doing society any harm. I see NO harm being done by them. They seek EQUAL rights with straights, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Well maybe we see you as the intolerant busybodies and need to butt out of our view on the matter. They are harming little boys and young people, same as rape. Then if you want to see harm invite one over to your house for the night, then tell us you see no harm in them. They have no EQUAL rights as straight have no EQUAL rights either. It is man or woman rights, people rights, gay or straight has nothing to do with any of this. They force their well on others of their own kind, male or female and think they have some kind of right to do such.

If it were a straight picking up an under age girl and going to bed with her, they can get put in Jail since the Gay doesn't want the girl, they say they have some kind of right to a boy. Before you know it we will have them that want Drugs to be wanting their rights and those that kill children want their rights, as it is a religionist thing to do. Some will say yeah they have rights, only just don't let me find them around my children, as that is as far as their rights will go.

There is every thing wrong with Gay rights, every thing. Since it is a behavior disorder they should be sent in the mental hospital where they can have all the rights of such a person, and have medical help, maybe then we would not of had so many with HIV and AIDS. Right to share AIDS with others, I see lots wrong with that.

But there is PLENTY wrong when a bigoted bunch of Religious Radical Right nutcakes (RRR cultists) incite and foster an atmosphere of intolerance that is totally uncalled-for. Just as it was wrong for the KKK to do so against blacks, decades before.
It is OK for the non-religious bigots? Then we see your true color busybody and such, knock the religious folks as they disagree, and have every reason to do so. They do not like AIDS and HIV being given to innocent children and by the blood, donated by these GAY folks. I sure hope you never need to get blood. Then the only intolerance in the message you wrote is for the bigoted bunch of Religious Radical Right nutcakes etc. You are the one that is INTOLERANCE!

Then the KKK never gave out free AIDS and HIV sickness did they? Then the KKK still lives and not only decades ago. I would feel safer with the KKK with my children then a bunch of bigoted Radical Right nutcake GAY folks any day. Then I am also white, and then so are many GAY's. The only cultist here are the ones for gay rights, to destroy the family and mess up the mind of children, and rape others of their own sex. Only two Sex's Male or Female, never a Gay sex! Only two group of sex organs not three kinds. The male and female have rights to be protected against the sex wants of some bigoted bunch of gays.

Just what in the hell is wrong with "live and let live," Tony? What in the world are you THINKING about? Or DO you think?
Then in Hell is where they will live, and I suppose you would let a murder live in the apartment next to yours and see him eye your family as future conquest Live and let live, only what they want is kill and let murder do it, AIDS and HIV for everyone, live and let live, you do it. Then living is not the question as no one yet has said to kill all the GAY's even if what they passed on to the world in AIDS and such kills millions each year.

Let's make America a Bigotry-Free Zone by 2000. Then leave it and it may well be, as you're the one for Bigotry of anyone that is a believer and wants what is clean and good not evil and sick. Then do not come our way, we want a free Bigotry zone also in 1999 as well as 2000.

21st Century-Bright Age of Acceptance and Liberty

Maybe it will be in the 21st as the group of people still alive and without AIDS and such would be so small the only bright age they will see is the few years they would live. Then acceptance of GAY's would mean no future at all, or 21st Century. Because Gays do not have babies, if they truly believe what they say, and only want their own kind. A hundred years would do of acceptance then the End. NO more Gays, only non-gays reproduce children. It has not happen yet and it doesn't matter what kind of acceptance we have, a man can not have babies it takes a woman to do that. The man that is GAY is denying his own right as a man, but some how thinks it is the others that is denying it from him. Then the GAY bigot still wants HIS right to Our bodies, and then some one may surely take their right and kill the bigot for trying to steal what is not his.


My response on January 10 to Mr. Raymond Knapp was as follows:

Dear Raymond,

I do not particularly disagree with you regarding your views on homosexuality. However my concerns about the way these issues are proclaimed in public discourse are as follows:

1. The gay population in the country is probably only about 5% of the total. This is not very many people, though admittedly they have a vocal lobby and political agenda that is definitely anti-Biblical. The gay men and women I know are usually very lonely, guilt-ridden and miserable people. The life expectancy for a gay man in San Francisco is only about 35 years I am told. Many commit suicide, many drink themselves to death, and of course AIDS takes a big toll. Many gays "feel" they were born that way and can not change even if they wanted to-and the gospel of Christ does not easily penetrate the homosexual community. So there is no question but what the "wrath of God rests upon them." But "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." (Romans 1:18)

2. If we assume that half of the country is happily married and faithful to their partners, then perhaps 45 % of the country consists of unmarried men and women who are heterosexual. What I have noticed in my own observations over the past half century is that the single population of unmarried men and women is sexually active--virtually 100% of this group. It starts in junior high even--it is encouraged by our school system. Peer pressure ridicules a young man or woman who remains a virgin. A huge fraction of the population is living life styles which preclude entrance into heaven just as surely as homosexual sins do.

3. Yet, no voices are raised in public about these millions of young men and women in our country who are actively fornicating. Under the Law of Moses this kind of immortality also carries the death penalty as do homosexual acts. The divorce rate is atrociously high-with plenty of adultery going on, all the way up to the White House. Adultery is punishable by death, but it is so common that no one is shocked or surprised when it occurs in the "best" of families.

4. I firmly believe that if the heterosexual, unmarried, millions in high school and college stopped fornicating, then the very small gay minority would quietly slip back into the closet and quietly abandon their public displays. The problem would be solved overnight. On the other hand if we exterminated all gays we would only deal with a small fraction of the sex sins that are destroying our nation.

I know you are concerned about child molestation--it is in the papers in my area every day. Yet the greatest number of cases by far are heterosexual abuse of young people, and most of it is committed by a family member in one of our wonderful American families where God is ignored and defamed every day.

So it seems strange to me that a few concerned Christians raise a loud voice proclaiming terrible judgment against a small number of already miserable gay men and women--and yet not one word of warning is sent forth to the millions upon millions of young American men and women who are rushing towards the same hell, and insisting they have every right to their heterosexual, immoral life style. No one questions that "right!" Therein lies the real tragedy I think!

Somehow as Christians I do think we need to be seen by the unbelieving world as men of truth and compassion, but if our message is not balanced and if we do not speak to the whole range of terrible sins of our generation, or words sound hollow and unauthentic. When we speak out only on one issue which matters to our God we quickly lose our credibility as I see it.

Lambert Dolphin

Mr. Knapp answered me as follows:

Dear Lambert,

It was refreshing to read your message, well written and information that seems correct. It is nice to see no bigot remarks and so on. Thank you.

The only remark I can think of would be the Church locally handles the sin or people that are not Gay, I know we teach that repentance and a new walk with God, accepting the Blood of Jesus for the sin they have done, and a unifying of the family. I know that I teach that we are to follow Jesus, and do as Jesus has asked us to do. Forgive and go on, seek God and follow the rules the bible set's out. Even today at one of our cell meetings that we have after Church service where maybe ten get together to testify and share, and to pray one for the other. One young lady told of her friend, who's father has another wife inside of China, so her mother wants to find a man friend also. The children do not know what to do. Our young lady was there to help, and hear her, and pray for her. We try to help our people stay together and walk together and find the peace that Jesus gives. I have heard many stories from man that we're gay and now follow Jesus, and many have found a wife and have families.

The Lord is most likely the only one that can take the reason for being gay away. Even them that feel born to it, can be born again. The bible says a new nature can be given to them. It does work. Then the Gay reject it, and if you checked out all the websites they have, you find they are doing what they can to stop the Church, the Lord and anything that says what they do is wrong or sin.

I would think, there would be some websites and newsgroups that could help. Then like Alt.christnet and such they the Gay will bomb them with messages, to make such a big thing of it, that when the Christen does reply the trouble makers have already moved on and will not reply, making it look like the Christen is doing the flaming. If you find any group that is helping these people, let me know. Here in Hong Kong, we have help center's for unwed mothers, orphans, drug abuse and such, counseling, contest with social welfare and other Churches, we are working with the hospitals and hotlines.

There are many homosexuals and I am sure the government and some Christian groups are set up to help these youth. Every month many kill themselves over the presser of school and we only hear of a few because of sexual problems. What can we do, if they do not see they need any help? I suppose pray, and just hope some of these over righteous kind of Christians, will see these people need to lead, and helped God is able. When man will be able is something to pray for.

I know because of my youth, and what homosexuals tried to do to me, I am uneasy when I am about them, if they smile or look at me like someone they want to know. They need to know us, we need to be friends, then when is it a friendship and when is it a person want for the other person. People in love, who ever they be, will do things to make the other person want them, and will lie, steal or act the way the other person wants, just so they maybe near them. Man and woman wanting each other I can handle as most can, homosexual behavior I am afraid is a little much for most Christians to understand.

Raymond W. Knapp, Th.B., D.D,Hong Kong, China
Pioneers For Jesus:

An update

Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 San Jose Mercury News.

Gay unions seek what so many scorn
By Leonard Pitts Jr.

So what is it you have against gay marriage?

I'm not talking to the guy next to you. He doesn't have a problem with it. No, I'm talking to you, who is fervently opposed.

The number of folks who agree with you is up sharply since June, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas. As recently as May, 49 percent of us supported some form of gay marriage, according to the Gallup Organization. The figure has since dropped to just 40 percent. That's a precipitous decline.

So what's the problem? What is it that bothers you about gay people getting married?

Don't read me that part in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned. I mean, that same book of the gospel mandates the death penalty for sassy kids and fortune tellers, by which standard the Osbourne children and Miss Cleo should have been iced a long time ago.

I read The Book. I believe The Book. But I also know that it's impossible to take literally every passage in The Book, unless you want to wind up in prison or a mental ward. So don't hide behind the Bible. Let's just be honest here, you and me. Why do you oppose gay marriage, really?

It just feels wrong to you, doesn't it? At some visceral level, it just seems to offend something fundamental. Hey, I understand. It's one of the emotional sticking points for us heterosexual types, this primeval ``ick'' factor where homosexuality is concerned. I won't try to talk you out of it.

I will, though, point out that once upon a time, the same gut-level sense of wrong -- and for that matter, the same Bible -- were used to keep Jews from swimming in the community pool, women from voting and black people from riding at the front of the bus. All those things once felt as profoundly offensive to some people as gay marriage does to you right now.

The issue has been vaulted to the forefront in the past few days. Political conservatives have been galvanized by it. President Bush says he wants to ``codify'' marriage as a heterosexual union. And the Vatican has told Catholic legislators that they must oppose laws giving legal standing to gay unions, unions the church describes as ``gravely immoral.''

Which is funny, given the level of sexual morality the church has demonstrated lately.

Anyway, the reasoning seems to be that gay people will damage or cheapen the sanctity of marriage and that this can't be allowed because marriage is the foundation of our society.

I agree that marriage -- and I mean legal, not common law -- is an institution of vital importance. It stabilizes communities, socializes children, helps create wealth. It is, indeed, our civilization's bedrock.

But you know something? That bedrock has been crumbling for years, without homosexual help. We don't attach so much importance to marriage anymore, do we? These days, we marry less, we marry later, we divorce more. And cohabitation, whether as a prelude to, or a substitute for, marriage, has gone from novelty to norm.

We say we shack up because we don't need a piece of paper to tell us we are in love. I've always suspected it was actually because we fear the loss of freedom. Or because we're scared to bet forever.

I'm not trying to beat up cohabitators. A long time ago, I was one.

But it strikes me as intriguing, instructive and poignant, that gay couples so determinedly seek what so many of us scorn, are so ready to take the risk many of us refuse, find such value in an institution we have essentially declared valueless. There's something oddly inspiring in their struggle to achieve the social sanction whose importance many of us long ago dismissed.

So tell me again why it is you don't want them to have that?

I mean, yeah, some people say they are a threat to the sanctity of marriage. But I'm thinking they might just be its salvation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Contact him at 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla. 33132 or (

A Few Comments:

1. The author like many Americans has read the Bible but apparently has no relationship with God.

2. The gradual breakdown of society occurs across the board at all levels (Romans 1)

3. The molestations scandals in the Roman Catholic church in the U.S. have hurt the entire Christian community and damaged the credibility of the entire Body of Christ. See Thyatira: The Worldly Church by Ray C. Stedman..

4. Morals today are assumed by many to be entirely a relative matter. There are no absolutes. This is just what Frances Schaeffer predicted 40 years ago.

5. Traditional marriage as an institution is discredited widely in this country. If the heterosexual majority does does not take marriage and family seriously why would the gay minority (3-5%) pay any attention?

6. God allows all sorts of awful things to happen in a culture when the salt has lost its savor.

7. Pitts is probably unaware of the promiscuity and ugly side of life in the gay community and the fact that monogamous gay relationships virtually do not exist at all in reality. (Joseph Nicolosi, PhD, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Aronson Press,1991)

"People who equate orthodoxy with authenticity find it hard to even consider the possibility that, despite the correctness of all their doctrinal positions, they may have missed the deepest reality of the authentic Christian life. But we must never forget that true Christianity is more that teaching--it is a WAY OF LIFE. In fact, it is LIFE ITSELF. "He who has the Son has life," remember? When we talk about life, we are talking about something that is far more than mere morality, far more than doctrinal accuracy. Life is a positive quality, not negative--a description of what we fundamentally ARE, not what we are not. The eternal life that Jesus brings to us is radical, not superficial. It is humble, not self-promoting. It is compassionate, not indifferent. It is courageous, not timid or retiring. It is a far cry indeed from the mild compatibility, agreeability, and affability that passes for Christianity in thousands of churches across the land. In fact, the Great Imitation is so widely accepted as genuine Christianity that the real thing is often regarded as a threat or a heresy whenever it appears." (Authentic Christianity by Ray C. Stedman)

Sexual Politics, Moral Absolutes, and
Notes on Sexual Sins in General

by Lambert Dolphin
Web Pages:

February 1995. Revised August 17, 1996, January 19, 1999, September 29, 1999, August 5, 2003.

spelling and punctuation checked 21July02 RPS