GAY TRUTH

Rev Dr Peter Catt and Dr Stuart Edser have offered a strange and misleading picture of the Christian faith . Despite claiming an allegiance to Christianity, their thesis has more in common with a late night 'reality' television show than with the teaching and work of Jesus Christ . First of all, Catt and Edser would have us believe that the majority of Australian Christians now support homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, it doesn't take much to realise that they have been selective in their presentation of the evidence. They were able to cite two polls, by Crosby-Textor and Galaxy. The former was commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality (AME), and both failed to make the crucial differentiation between nominal Christians and practising Christians, which is a normal sociological and theological distinction. It is odd that two 'Christian' ministers should so glibly assume as Christian any person who identifies with the name in a survey. Even Jesus...

Sodom and Gomorrha, Alte Pinakothek, Room 23 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Mr. Vines says, " Genesis 19 . The actions of the men of Sodom are intended to underscore their cruel treatment of outsiders--not to somehow tell us that they were gay . . . It’s now widely conceded by scholars on both sides of this debate that Sodom and Gomorrah do not offer biblical evidence to support the belief that homosexuality is a sin ." Matthew Vines cites no reference to demonstrate that it is "widely conceded by scholars on both sides of this debate that Sodom and Gomorrah do not offer  biblical  evidence to support the belief that homosexuality is a sin.”  Just saying it doesn't make it so.  In contradiction to his assertion, a quick look into commentaries on Genesis 19 provides the following: The term "sodomy” is derived from this passage. It is widely held that the severity of God ’s judgment of Sodom had to do with the prevalence of homosexuality there. 1 Sodom and...

English: Abraham Sees Sodom in Flames, circa 1896–1902, by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (French, 1836-1902) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) There are, in our day, two principle competing views on how to answer this question. Because we live in a world where those committing sexual perversion have become a protected class , certain circles of the church have rushed to accommodate them. The up and coming theory, however anti- intuitive it might be is this- God destroyed Sodom not because it was a city given over to perversion, but because it was a city that failed to exercise hospitality. God’s wrath was poured out not because the men of Sodom, pounding on Lot’s door, wanted to sexually assault the angels, but because the angels were not treated with grace and compassion. It wasn’t what they wanted to take, but what they failed to give. The more conservative wing of the church, of course, takes an older view, a more intuitive view. The narrative here goes like this- Sodom was a ci...

HOMOSEXUALITY Sexual relations between people of the same sex. When discussing homosexuality, the biblical emphasis is on behavior, and the verdict is always that it is sinful. Homosexuality is a consequence of rejecting the created order. The prima facie case against homosexuality in the Scripture is found in God ’s creative plan for human sexuality. God created mankind as male and female, to procreate within the context of marriage (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:18–24). This creation order for human sexuality received the endorsement of both the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 10:6–9; Matt. 19:4–6) and the Apostle Paul (Eph. 5:31). On the surface, homosexual behavior should be recognized as sinful because it violates God’s original plan for heterosexual monogamy. Against this background of God’s creation scheme for human sexual expression, Paul makes a theological argument in Rom. 1:18–32 that homosexuality is one consequence of rejecting God as Creator and His created order. Paul indicates that both...

GENESIS 19:4–5  “The men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them’ Both Lot and Abraham proved themselves to be good hosts in feeding their angelic visitors, but the similarity between these two meetings ends there. Abraham was able to provide a leisurely supper of bread, curds and milk, and meat (Gen. 18:6–8) while his nephew served unleavened bread (19:3b), a staple produced when food is required posthaste. The need for the angels to eat so soon after coming to Lot’s home is another omen that all is not well in Sodom. Today’s passage confirms this conclusion. Lot’s plea for the angels to stay with him (v. 3a) is shown to be borne out of fear for their safety as the men in the city surround his house and demand “to know” his guests (vv. 4–5). “To know” is sometimes a euphemism for sexual intercourse , an...