Or: Why Christians Believe Homosexuality is Sin
(This is going to be a long one. I don’t expect most will read it all the way through. At least not in one go.)
The one point that I would make, if I could make it well enough, and fix it in the minds of every person on the planet, and cause there to be some sort of magic spell that forces people to understand it, for all eternity, would be this: If the Bible doesn’t say it, Christians do not say it. If the Bible said nothing about homosexuality, Christians would say nothing about homosexuality.
The basic, proper, humble Christian position is always biblical. Sometimes individuals who call themselves Christians do spew out hatred steeped in ignorance against homosexuals, and that is itself a sin. (Like those of Westboro Baptist Church, if it can be called a church…) But the fact that some people calling themselves Christians really are sinfully prejudiced does not change the fact that the Bible says homosexual behavior is a sin. The biblical Christian doesn’t oppose homosexuality out of disgust or fear of people who are different than they are (though that does happen, and in my teens I was guilty of this). It is not out of hatred. Christians ought not do anything out of hate. Hatred has nothing to do with it. It is all about what God teaches us in the Bible. The proper, biblical Christian opposes homosexuality because the Bible does. If the Bible said nothing about it, we would say nothing about it.
So, to knee-jerk scream “Bigot!” whenever a Christian tries to explain his or her position is really quite juvenile. The bull sees red and charges without a thought. We have become a culture that doesn’t know how to have a real argument anymore, argument not as in a shouting match, but a real philosophical argument or debate, where there are statements given by both sides to establish definite propositions. As it stands, most of the dialogue today seems more like abuse, or simple contradiction:
***
And just what is a “bigot” anyway? It’s a word often in the culture these days, but everyone seems to use it without really having a clear idea of what it means, just that it’s bad and connected to prejudice. Worse still, I fear people are beginning to make “bigot” and “Christian” interchangeable, and they emphatically are not:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
– Galatians 3:28
… you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
– Colossians 3:9-11
The religion that gave us those verses is bigoted? Please.
The term needs some study. Here’s the etymology of bigot, and it is a strange, complicated word:
1590s, “sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite,” from French bigot (12c.), which is of unknown origin. Earliest French use of the word is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul, which led to the now-doubtful, on phonetic grounds, theory that the word comes from Visigothus. The typical use in Old French seems to have been as a derogatory nickname for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of the Germanic oath bi God. But OED dismisses in a three-exclamation-mark fury one fanciful version of the “by god” theory as “absurdly incongruous with facts.” At the end, not much is left standing except Spanish bigote “mustache,” which also has been proposed but not explained, and the chief virtue of which as a source seems to be there is no evidence for or against it.
In support of the “by God” theory, as a surname Bigott, Bygott are attested in Normandy and in England from the 11c., and French name etymology sources (such as Dauzat) explain it as a derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans and representing “by god.” The English were known as goddamns 200 years later in Joan of Arc’s France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the sense development in bigot is difficult to explain. According to Donkin, the modern use first appears in French 16c. This and the earliest English sense, “religious hypocrite,” especially a female one, might have been influenced by beguine and the words that cluster around it. Sense extended 1680s to other than religious opinions.
If the Online Etymological Dictionary is correct in its assessment of the bi God theory, then here we have a huge irony: If “bigot” really originally in English referred to religious hypocrites, meaning Christian hypocrites, meaning Christians who do not believe or practice what the Bible teaches, then the original, proper accusation of “bigot” would fall on those Christians who, for example, approve of homosexuality, not the other way around.
***
Of course words change their meaning, and today “bigot” is defined like this (by Webster):
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).
Again, some Christians really do deserve to be called bigots, as Webster defines it; but some Christians, even the majority of Christians, have reasons for thinking homosexuality is a sin that are derived from the Bible. And they are reasons, too, not nebulous, arbitrary commands from God as some people seem to think (none of God’s commands are arbitrary; they are thought-out and argued in the Bible itself).
And, of course, the argument is out there that the Bible doesn’t, in fact, say homosexuality is a sin. This argument is simply wrong. Which brings me to a really, really unhelpful, poorly argued chart which has made the rounds on Facebook and the wider Internet.
I’m talking about this one:
Notice that no Scripture is ever quoted here, just assertions made.
What a patronizing title! “So You Still Think…” as if the argument should be over already, as if the Supreme Court’s decision somehow usurps two millennia of biblical interpretation. And right from the get-go, whoever made this chart invalidates his or her obvious attempt at taking the moral high ground with what is said in the bottom left blue box. Like I said, knee-jerk reaction to whoever disagrees. Sharks smell blood and go into frenzy. “Bigot! Chauvinist! Sexist! Xenophobe!” It’s hard to defend against such accusations when our opponents don’t let us get a word in edgewise.
Which is why I much prefer writing to talking. No one can talk/write over or interrupt me here. You’d have to hack my WordPress account.
So, let’s take this chart apart piecemeal.
***
“Because God Made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!”
The response in red below this objection is essentially, “God only made male and female sexes because the Earth needed to be populated.” You couldn’t truncate Genesis 1-2 more if you tried! Yes, Genesis 1:27-28 are about population, but they are also about what mankind is supposed to be doing in the world (all quotes are from the New King James Version):
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
And in Genesis 2 we have the story that has all the great qualities of a fable without ceasing to be truth, the story of Adam’s love for Eve:
And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
– Gen. 2:18
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:
‘This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.’– Gen. 2:21-23
I am not here arguing for or against the “literal” interpretation of this story, where we must imagine God physically, surgically extracting a rib from Adam and then we see the rib sort of shape-shift into Eve. Anyway, I am sure that the importance of this story rests not on its being in this way “literally” true, but rather on what it teaches. I like the NKJV because it organizes Adam’s lines, the first recorded words of a man, into a sort of love poem. How else can we interpret it? Adam says to his wife that they are one and the same, “What you are is what I am, I identify with you and love you so completely that we are one flesh.”
And to close out the story:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
– Gen. 2:24
The “Therefore” here is telling. This is a story of archetypes. The logic runs something like this: Since the very first two archetypal humans were man and woman and became one flesh together, as Adam says of himself and Eve, this should be the standard for all men and women. This is the blueprint for humanity. As Adam and Eve were, so should all subsequent humans be. That is the interplay between verses 21-23 and verse 24.
We can’t miss the significance of Eve being a woman and Adam being a man. Woman, in the story, is specially made for Man, to be “a helper comparable to him.” (By the way, there is no room for feminist critiques of the Bible here, because of 2:18. It says women are comparable to men, right in the second chapter of the first book of the Bible. So the charge of the Bible being sexist or chauvinistic is unfounded from the beginning. More on this below.)
I think God as Creator is not often given enough weight. As Creator, God has a right to expect creatures to conduct themselves in a certain way—that is, according to His design. Genesis 1 and 2 are, among other things, about the goodness of the function of God’s created order. The functioning of creation is good and glorifies God, and while the word “function” is somewhat unlovely and doesn’t immediately inspire us (at least, it doesn’t for me personally), God probably disagrees. He created the universe to work a certain way, and that grand design includes the function of men being for women and women for men, not only for procreation, but for everything else mankind is supposed to do in being the image of God on Earth. This function is part of the “very good” goodness of Genesis 1:31:
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.
***
Alleged “Other Definitions” of Marriage in the Bible
Also answered by the verses above is that chart’s next objection rightward of “Adam and Steve.” It claims the Bible defines marriage, in addition to one man one woman, “as one-man-many-women, one man many wives and many concubines, a rapist and his victim, and conquering soldier and female prisoner of war.” The Bible reports these sorts of relationships, but that doesn’t mean it condones them. Here is another huge important thing people need to realize about the Bible, that what it reports in stories it doesn’t necessarily condone. Reporting Lot’s incest with his daughters is not condoning or approving of incest. Recording the story of Jacob and his multiple wives is not condoning polygamy (in fact parts of it read more like a cautionary tale against polygamy). Reporting the hundreds of wives and concubines of Solomon is not condoning it.
Genesis 2:24 still stands as the only definition of marriage, and Jesus confirms it:
And He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
– Matthew 19:4-6
“For this reason…” What reason? The fact that there exist two different sexes, that “He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.'” Since there are two sexes, in other words, “a man (a male) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (a female), and the two shall become one flesh.” Since there are two sexes, they are therefore made for each other. That is the logic. (I know the context of Jesus’ statements here is in regards to questions of divorce, but the internal logic still applies.)
Furthermore, there is no verse anywhere in the Bible about polygamy comparable to Genesis 2:24, no verse giving any blessing to the union of more than two people in marriage. Only two halves can become one whole. Three or more halves cannot become one. Simple math.
***
As for the “rapist and his victim” bit, I would love to be shown a verse where this scenario is condoned as a legitimate way for a man to get a wife for himself. There may be a few verses in the Pentateuch that say a man must marry and provide for a woman if he has raped her, or else be put to death, but that is far from condoning rape. It is more about getting justice for the woman, it seems to me.
The only other thing I can think of is the story of David and Bathsheba, and if you know anything about that story, you know that God severely punished David for his actions. Again, this is an example of the Bible reporting, not condoning, behavior:
When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.
– II Samuel 11:26-27
***
And regarding the supposed “conquering soldier and female prisoner of war” definition, this is an oversimplification of what Deuteronomy says:
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.
– Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Yes, Moses allows the Israelite warriors to take captive women as their wives, but it is not simply rape or keeping the woman, as wife, in captivity. The women are to be a set free, they “shall put off the clothes of [their] captivity.” The formerly captive women seem to have some choice in the matter, and Moses commands that they shall not be treated “brutally.”
I admit it still makes for uncomfortable reading, though. But if I had to venture a guess, I would say that Moses allowing Israelite soldiers to take wives from their female war prisoners is a sort of concession, in the same way the giving of divorce certificates was a concession for a people whose hearts were sinful, as Jesus says:
They (the Pharisees) said to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
He (Jesus) said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
– Matthew 19:7-9
In the same way, certainly “from the beginning it was not so” that soldiers took female prisoners for wives, because in the beginning there was no warfare, and God never intended there to be warfare. The scenario itself is only possible in a sinful world. God works His will in our sinful world without condoning the sins of sinners, with whom He must necessarily work, to achieve His goal of redemption for all creation.
And anyway, this scenario is still a man with a woman, so it is no point for the argument that the Bible condones homosexuality.
***
“Because the Old Testament and New Testament Say So!”
I do not know as much about the Old Testament as I do about the New, but I do know that there are different categories of law in the Torah. Some laws are moral laws and are to be followed by everyone, Jew or Gentile, like the Ten Commandments. Some laws are for priests alone, the Levitical laws, and non-priests are not expected to follow them – like the one about not wearing clothing made with two or more different fabrics, I believe, or the one stating that priests must wear underpants when going up the stairs to the altar. Some laws are ceremonial in nature. Some laws, I think, are cultural and/or for health and cleanliness, or else were meant to separate Israel from the pagan nations surrounding them – such as the commands to not eat shellfish or pork, or to not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
“Well there you go!” someone might say. “If there are cultural laws, then surely the Old Testament laws against homosexuality are cultural, and not moral.” Wrong. The New Testament might do away with some O.T. laws, but it does not do away with this one.
Which brings us to probably the most-laughable statement in this chart: “The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.” Really? Really?! That’s the best the chart-maker could do? To what “original language” is he/she referring? As if Koine Greek (the original language, if anyone didn’t know) has the nuance to, in a single word, distinguish between “male prostitution, etc…” and “committed same-sex relationships.” That’s like saying that stealing isn’t sinful so long as one is a professional thief.
That single word is “homosexual” and its cognates, and not even the Supreme Court could fail to interpret what the New Testament means when it uses it. Here are a few examples:
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites (ESV has “men who practice homosexuality”), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
– 1 Corinthians 6:9
… the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites (again, ESV has “men who practice homosexuality”), for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God …
– 1 Timothy 1:9-11
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful …
– Romans 1:22-27
The argument in Romans is that homosexuality is unnatural, “against nature,” and unnatural in the Bible never means merely “not what is found in nature,” because “what is found in nature” is also corrupted:
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
– Romans 8:20-22
Rather, what is truly “natural” is what God designed and intended nature to be. All else is corruption. Paul is implicitly harking back to Genesis chapter 2.
***
An Aside About Paul, the New Testament, and Women
The argument in the chart goes on like this: “Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man. Shall modern-day churches live by all of Paul’s values?”
First off, will we ever get over the idea that New is automatically better than Old? The idea that “modern-day churches,” simply by virtue of existing at the present time, are somehow better than the historical churches of Paul’s day, or any other day in history, or that Paul’s values, being 1st-century Jewish values, are worse than “modern values,” is just silly. The date of an idea has nothing to do with an idea being good or bad. It is totally irrelevant. It is the lie of progressivism. C.S. Lewis called it “chronological snobbery.”
And as for Paul’s stance on women, yes, he did say that women should be silent … while learning! Not, as this chart seems to suggest in cutting off what Paul actually said, “at all times no matter the context.” Here is what Paul actually said:
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
– 1 Timothy 2:11-12
The context of these verses is church conduct, how a church should operate and run itself, especially in regard to teaching. I do admit, though, that these verses rub my culturally democratic/egalitarian senses the wrong way; but I also know the issue is not as clear-cut as, “Oh, well, crazy old sexist, chauvinist Paul, we don’t have to listen to him!”
For starters, what are we to make of all the house churches that seem to be in the homes of women? There was Priscilla, whom Paul calls his co-worker in Christ Jesus, who, along with Aquila, hosted a church at her house (Romans 16:3-5). There was the house church hosted by Nympha in Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). And there was Lydia’s house church (Acts 16:40). These women must have had some kind of authority over everyone who met in their houses, even if only as hostesses. And there was Junia:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
– Romans 16:7
Junia was “of note among the apostles.” She had notoriety. She had respect. According to N.T. Wright (see the videos below), she may even have been an apostle, not on the level of the Twelve, but still a messenger and preacher of the gospel of Jesus.
Romans 16:1 is even more telling:
I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself (Paul) also.
A woman is a “servant of the church,” and Paul commends her to his readers, which of course include men, even telling them to “assist her in whatever business she has need of you.”
So, clearly, this is not a one-off “Paul is sexist” issue. There is way more nuance to it than that.
For reference to a much better authority:
There are differences between the sexes, and they are good and God-made, and the fact that differences exist in no way points to one sex being “better” than the other.
Suddenly I’m reminded of a poem:
Comparisons
If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the town beside the country,
And if I set the man beside the woman,
I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.– G.K. Chesterton
***
“Jesus Never Uttered a Word About Same-Sex Relationships”
I saved this objection for last because it is the most overused and simply misguided one in the attempt to make a case for homosexuality not being a sin. It assumes some sort of discontinuity between Jesus and Paul, or else between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, when there is none whatsoever between either pair.
Let me state that plainly again: There is no contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul.
Paul was an Apostle. That is an official title, and this is what it means:
Old English apostol “messenger,” especially the 12 witnesses sent forth by Jesus to preach his Gospel, from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos “messenger, person sent forth,” from apostellein “send away, send forth,” from apo- “from” (see apo-) + stellein in its secondary sense of “to send,” from PIE *stel-yo–, suffixed form of root *stel- “to put, stand,” with derivatives referring to a standing object or place (see stall (n.1)). Compare epistle.
The current form of the word, predominant since 16c., is influenced by Old French apostle (12c.), from the same Late Latin source. Figurative sense of “chief advocate of a new principle or system” is from 1810. Apostles, short for “The Acts and Epistles of the Apostles,” is attested from c. 1400.
Paul was, to put it in English, a “messenger sent forth” by Jesus. A messenger does not create his own message to pass along; a messenger delivers the message of the person who sent him with the authority of the message’s author. The authority comes from the messenger’s sender, not in the messenger himself. And Paul’s sender was the resurrected Jesus himself:
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
– Galatians 1:11-12
So Paul is preaching what Jesus revealed to him, which includes Paul’s teachings on homosexuality (see above). In addition, Peter confirms that Paul is writing Scripture in his letters to the various churches of the New Testament:
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
– 2 Peter 3:14-16
(Apparently Paul’s words were being twisted to say things they actually do not even while he was still alive.)
Furthermore:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
So, it is not Paul, it is not merely Paul’s opinions, but rather God Himself, who teaches and is speaking to us through both the Old and the New Testaments.
***
Nevertheless, it is true that nowhere in the four Gospel accounts does Jesus state flat-out that homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because of His audience, the Jews. Telling the Jews that homosexuality is sin would be redundant. They already knew that. There was no need. Paul, on the other hand, is the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” to the Greeks and Romans, cultures in which homosexuality was an issue, and through Paul God declares homosexuality to be a sin.
Most importantly, Jesus speaks positively about the union of one man with one woman, as per Matthew 19:4-6 (see above). Jesus is the Word by which God made all creation, which includes the functioning of creation, which includes the male and female distinction and the fact that men are for women and women for men.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
John 1:1-4
It is such a shallow and un-examined thing to say “Jesus never said a word about homosexuality,” and just leave it at that. An intellectually honest look at the Bible doesn’t allow us to leave it at that.
***
“If it is Possible … Live Peaceably with All Men.”
If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
– Romans 12:18
How can Christians live this verse today, in the atmosphere the Supreme Court’s ruling has created? I think we will have to be better Christians than we have ever been. I think we must become more Christ-like than ever (a good idea in any situation). We must be as gentle as Jesus in telling fellow sinners of their sins and their need for repentance, but also as unwavering as Jesus in not giving one inch to any softening of the full teachings of the Bible.
The sad thing is that all this consternation, all this anger and vitriol, might have been avoided had the federal government not gotten its hooks into the idea of marriage in the first place. We might have had peace, as far as the law of the United States is concerned, if the government had not decided that marriages were only legitimate if spouses had marriage certificates bestowed on them by the government. Without the need for marriage licenses, homosexual couples would never have had anything in the law to fight against.
And by the way, how is it fair that single men and women pay higher taxes than married couples, just because they are not married? Where is the logic in that?
“My tax status should not be based on my dating ability.”
***
What I Hope I Have Shown
What I hope I have done here is show that the argument cannot be made that the Bible, anywhere or in any sense, condones homosexuality, whether it be prostitution or rape or a committed relationship or anything. I am arguing against my fellow Christians who think otherwise. What I am not doing is making the argument that all homosexuals in the United States or anywhere should be forced to live by biblical, Christian principles. God is not interested in forced converts. I think the best way to sum up my thoughts would be like this:
Homosexual men and women who are not Christians: Do what you want. You have not placed yourself under the teachings of the church or of the Bible, and it is not my place nor the place of any Christian (or any member of any other religion) to force you to do otherwise.
Homosexual men and women who call themselves Christians: If you can honestly, truthfully, have a real relationship with God while living as unrepentant homosexuals, then who am I to say you need to change? But to do so you will have to ignore a lot of the Bible, and I don’t know of any Christian who ignores the Bible and yet has a meaningful, saving knowledge of and relationship with God.
One might object that God loves us just the way we are, accepts us as we are, and while that is true, God also expects us to repent from sinning, and if we have made sinning part of who we are (and we all have), then we must change. It is more correct to say “God accepts us in spite of the way we are.” We are all sinners in need of grace. We will not be allowed to stay that way. It may not seem fair to ask that you give up a lifetime of sexual pleasure and/or companionship, but if it is done in an honest attempt to repent from sin and follow Jesus, look at what you get in return:
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
– John 11:25-26
But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those
who love Him.”– 1 Corinthians 2:9
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
– 1 John 3:2
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.” And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.”
– Revelation 21: 3-7
These verses are just a small sample of all the glorious, astounding things waiting for those who believe in and love Jesus. You may have to give up, what, 80-90 years of sexual pleasure, if that? And in return you gain eternal life and joy and love from the God Who is love and is the inventor of joy. What is 80 years compared with that?
edge of legible 
Pingback: Response to the Response to the Nashville Statement | edge of legible