Falling in Love With Boys

In my excur­sions across the web today, I hap­pened upont his quote on a blog:

Or, for that mat­ter, where does it say “Thou shalt not fall in love with oth­er boys”? Oh, that’s right, it does­n’t. So why do con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian groups and par­ents think they have the right to force a young boy into a reha­bil­i­ta­tion pro­gram for some­thing that doesn’t require reha­bil­i­ta­tion? Per­haps we should estab­lish a rehab camp for those who breed mules or wear mixed-fiber cloth­ing. Accord­ing to most Protes­tant min­is­ters, ‘a sin is a sin is a sin.’ That makes every­one wear­ing cot­ton-poly­ester blend both bad­ly-dressed and just as bad as homo­sex­u­als! Who knew?!

Yes, the per­son who wrote that para­graph is a homo­sex­u­al, and he hap­pens to be one that I “know” from a par­tic­u­lar forum I am active on. And regard­less of how intel­lec­tu­al­ly supe­ri­or many athi­est­s/ag­nos­tic­s/Bible-mock­er­s/etc. claim to be com­pared to God-fear­ing Chris­tians, they prove the Scrip­tures true when they them­selves are unable to inter­pret and under­stand its sim­ple teach­ings. As the Lord says, “But the nat­ur­al man does not receive the things of the Spir­it of God, for they are fol­ly to him; and he can­not know them because they are spir­i­tu­al­ly dis­cerned; but the spir­i­tu­al dis­cerns all things, and *he* is dis­cerned of no one” (1 Corinthi­ans 2:14–15, Darby). 

That being said, let’s look at what this blog­ger had to say:

“Or, for that mat­ter, where does it say ‘Thou shalt not fall in love with oth­er boys’? Oh, that’s right, it does­n’t.” Indeed, the Scrip­tures do not con­tain that com­mand. How­ev­er, the Scrip­tures also do not con­tain the com­mand, “Thou shalt not drink schnapps vod­ka.” Does this mean it’s okay to do so? The Scrip­tures say enough on the sub­ject with­out giv­ing that exact com­mand for us to know right.

Sim­i­lar­ly, though the com­mand “Thou shalt not fall in love with oth­er boys” is nev­er explicite­ly giv­en, we are told enough in the Scrip­tures to assume that the com­mand is implied and that its vio­la­tion is still sin.

For this rea­son God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the nat­ur­al use into that con­trary to nature; and in like man­ner the males also, leav­ing the nat­ur­al use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one anoth­er; males with males work­ing shame, and receiv­ing in them­selves the rec­om­pense of their error which was fit. Romans 1:26–27, Darby

Both men and women were leav­ing the “nat­ur­al use” of the oppo­site gen­der. Males were with males, females with females, “work­ing that which is unseem­ly” (v. 27, KJV).

Notice that love isn’t even in the pic­ture here. Homo­sex­u­al­i­ty is still sin­ful regard­less of how “lov­ing” it is. I put lov­ing in quotes because it is impos­si­ble for a homo­sex­u­al to have true love toward anoth­er of the same gen­der, for love “rejoiceth not in iniq­ui­ty, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Corinthi­ans 13:6).

God is love (1 John 4:8) and God is judge (2 Tim­o­thy 4:1); there­fore, love can­not be rede­fined to include that which is evil, that which God will judge.

So, let’s redo the com­mand, for it isn’t ade­quate: “Thou shalt not lust after oth­er boys.”

Is it wrong to love oth­er men (or women, for you lady read­ers out there)? I’d say, no, and I have Scrip­ture to back that up.

In the con­tro­ver­sial pas­sage of 2 Samuel 1:26, King David laments over the death of Jonathan, “I am dis­tressed for thee, my broth­er Jonathan: very pleas­ant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was won­der­ful, pass­ing the love of women.”

Of course, homo­sex­u­al advo­cates a‑plenty use this verse as jus­ti­fy­ing their rebel­lion. How­ev­er, David said it was the “love” of Jonathan which passed that of women. Love is again defined for us in 1 Corinthi­ans 13 and it does not include sex­u­al activ­i­ties. David is not here or any­where else claim­ing that Jonathan was a bet­ter “part­ner” than women were to him. I have friends–guy friends–who I love and some of them rec­i­p­ro­cate more­so than some women. No homo­sex­u­al­i­ty nec­es­sary, just healthy Chris­t­ian love. Indeed, “let us love one anoth­er: for love is of God,” states the Apos­tle John in 1 John 4:7.

So it is pos­si­ble for men to love men (and women to love women) inso­far as they are not aban­don­ing the nat­ur­al use of the oppo­site sex. Men mar­ry women. Women mar­ry men. Men do not mar­ry men. Women do not mar­ry women. Men lay with women. Women lay with men. Men do not lay with men. Women do not lay with women. To vio­late the very clear pat­tern of Scrip­ture is to drift off into the dan­ger­ous way of Sodom and Gomor­rah (Jude 7).

“So why do con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian groups and par­ents think they have the right to force a young boy into a reha­bil­i­ta­tion pro­gram for some­thing that doesn’t require reha­bil­i­ta­tion?” The pro­gram in ques­tion is an over­ly author­i­ta­tive, unbib­li­cal camp. The meth­ods described are not found in Scrip­tures and thus can­not be called Christian.

How­ev­er, until the son (or daugh­ter) is mar­ried, they are direct­ly respon­si­ble to their par­ents who are the God-ordained author­i­ties over them; inso­far as parental com­mand is not caus­ing a vio­la­tion of bib­li­cal prin­ci­ples, they ought to be obeyed.

I also want to point out that reha­bil­i­ta­tion can do lit­tle to help with sin. It may be able to break a habit of sin; what it can­not do is remove the desire to sin, nor can it remove the con­se­quences of past sin.

Only belief in Jesus Christ and accep­tance of His blood sac­ri­fice can remove the stain of sin, recre­ate in us a new heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), and exempt us from the judg­ment to come based sole­ly on the imput­ed right­eous­ness of the Lord Jesus.

There is no oth­er way to gain for­give­ness than through Him.

Per­haps we should estab­lish a rehab camp for those who breed mules or wear mixed-fiber cloth­ing. Accord­ing to most Protes­tant min­is­ters, ‘a sin is a sin is a sin.’ That makes every­one wear­ing cot­ton-poly­ester blend both bad­ly-dressed and just as bad as homo­sex­u­als! Who knew?! The most con­cise reply I can give to this is that this would only apply to nation­al Israel. No Chris­t­ian was ever giv­en the Jew­ish Law; rather, the Law of Christ applies–to love the Lord our God and to love our neigh­bors as ourselves.

And as I already point­ed out, love rejoic­es not in evil.

Be not deceived in the gob­bledy­gook of homo­sex­u­al-rights-activists; rather, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman