Alcoholism vs sexual orientation

I dont usually like comparisons of a homosexual orientation to alcoholism, but Jack Black recently asked a question about homosexuality that is easier to explain if such a comparison is made. However, before getting into the question and my response, I need to define where the comparison between alcoholism and homosexuality may have some validity, and where the comparison fails.

In both cases there are believed to be genetic factors that contribute to a predisposition toward the condition. There are also in utero biochemical factors, and behavioral factors in one's upbringing. No one of these factors alone is likely to cause the condition, but their presence is cummulative.

Very few people, if any, have every such factor in their background, but the more of these factors in a person's history, the greater the likelihood he will have the condition. There may also be a particular event in a person's life which triggers the condition. That's the similarities. Now the differences.

In the case of alcoholism, there is always a trigger event. In fact, the trigger event is always accompanied by a bout of drunkenness since that is what steers the the condition into alcoholism rather than some other addictive behaviour.

In the case of homosexual orientation, the combination of factors sometimes seems to be enough, and there is often no trigger. Many gays know from their earliest memories, long before they became sexualized, that they are different from other children. Likewise, although there are no alcoholics who have never gotten drunk, there are many, many gays who have never had sex.

Finally, many of the same churches that condemn homosexuality also discourage all drinking of alcohol. I am not certain why they choose to do so, but if it is because of Romans 14:13-15 and Romans 14:21("Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." and "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."), then it is done with the best of intentions.

There's a saying about good intentions.

Now I am ready to look at Jack's question. I will first answer that question as though he asked it about alcoholics rather than gays. Then I will show that there is (despite his assumption to the contrary) a similar answer when it is gays asked about.

Jack asked: "Are you condoning Homosexual relationships? If you are, (and this goes for everyone here) please provide Scripture that reveals unequivocally that God ALSO condones it, from either the OT or NT"

Translating this to alcohol, the question becomes: "Are you condoning drinking alcohol? If you are, (and this goes for everyone here) please provide Scripture that reveals unequivocally that God ALSO condones it, from either the OT or NT"

A complete and Biblical answer requires making certain distinctions that some dogmatic Christians choose not to aknowledge. An alcoholic is not always the same as a drunkard, and drinking wine is not always the same as committing an act of drunkenness.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom. Other verses, from Genesis 9 to Revalation 17 and 18 condemn drunkenness. None of them condemn the wine itself, or the drinking of it in moderation under appropriate circumstances.

I want to look at two passages in particular. First, in 1 Timothy 5:3, Paul specifically tells Timothy to drink some wine for his health. This is just after saying that church leaders should not be "given to wine." (1 Timothy 3:3 and 1 Timothy 3:8). In verse 8 he makes it clear that he is talking about being given to too much wine, that is, drunkenness.

The other passage is John 2:1-11 (the marriage feast at Cana). In this passage Jesus actually creates the wine for the celebration. He creates the wine because the host has run out. The passage does not tell us why the host ran out, but it would have been very embarassing if the news had spread. It might even have jeopardized the marriage. It might have been that the host was inexperienced and underestimated the average amount of wine a guest would be expected to drink. It may be that he ran out of money -- that he was hosting a party beyond his means. It could have been that there were too many party crashers. We just don't know. It could even have been that the bride's uncles Tom, Dick and Harry grabbed up three wineskins each and proceeded to get rip-roaring drunk. Whatever the reason, the Gospel does not think it worth mentioning. But we can't take the fact that the Gospel does not quote Jesus as telling the guests to enjoy the wine, but not to overdo it as an indication that no one became drunk.

Similarly, when we come back to homosexuality. In Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, the Bible condemns an action it refers to as "man-lying" (shakav zakur), and in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, Paul refers to those who commit this sin as "man-bedders" (arsenokoitai). These four verses are the only four passages in the entire Bible that condemn this activity, at least under this name.

Romans 1:26-27 describes a sin that seems to bear some resemblence to what many people assume was condemned as "man-lying." The full description, from "For this cause God gave them up" to "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet," is the language of consequence, not cause; of punishment, not crime. Paul borrowed the word picture from a chapter in Plato about what we would today recognize as addiction. If he is talking about "man-lying," (or even if he is not exactly talking about "man-lying") Paul is comparing this sin to drunkenness. A sinful excess that has brought much destruction down on the sinner even without outside interference.

Many conservative Christians associate "man-lying" with all "homosexual acts" and condemn all gays as "man-bedders." Just as we had to separate moderate drinking from drunkenness, and alcoholics from drunkards, we need to separate acts of affection from "man-lying" and gays from "man-bedders."

Just as we found that the Bible not only permitted but encouraged moderate drinking of wine in acceptable circumstances, once the separation from drunkenness was achieved. We will find that acts of affection, such as holding hands, hugging and kissing are acceptable once we separate them from "man-lying."

And there is no doubt whatsover that many conservative Christans see these acts of affection as "homosexual acts" and even more conservative Christians while accepting that they are not themselves "homosexual acts" can be taken as proff that "homosexual acts" are taking place in private.

And yet the Bible describes David as kissing and hugging Jonathan. Jesus kissed his disciples, including Judas, and even "spooned" with the beloved desciple during the Last Supper according to John. Paul tells the Romans, the Corinthians (in both letters) and the Thessalonians to greet one another with a "holy kiss."

I'm sure that there are a lot of conservative Christians who will object at this point that there is a huge gap from a friendly hug or a kiss of fellowship and a**l s*x (assuming man-lying is simply the same as a**l s*x, which is not entirely clear). Likewise, there is a big gap between a glass of wine at a wedding or a thimbleful of wine added to your morning OJ and public drunkenness. In neither case does the Bible describe exactly when enough is enough, and any more is sin. It is left for each individual's conscience, guided by the teachings of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the indwelling of the Spirit to determine that for himself.

No one wants to comment on this? Does that mean you concede that the challenge has been met? If so I expect that there will be no more claims that the Bible condemns gays, and never "condones" their acts.

Thank you.

So is Pharasaism, my friend. Guess which one Jesus Christ sopoke out against in His earthly ministry.

It's all His word , so He spoke against both. But at least you acknowledge that the acts are sinful. Fornication is fornication so there really is no need to try to justify it by comparing it to anything else.