Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anal sex is very unsanitary, as is the foreplay involved, and exposes them to faeces-borne disease and loosing/rupture of the anal passage;

Only if done properly :pac:

All those things are equally associate with heterosexual sex, so what is your issue specifically with homosexuality?

cooperguy

I believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Devore made a good point by the way(even if people were dismissing it). How are any of us supposed to know gods intentions and who is arrogant enough to think they do? Also how are any of us inspired enough to know whether god created homosexuality or not? The evidence seems to suggest that it is natural considering it happens in many different species? Oh and I should probably say that I am Christian

Also does anybody want to take up the points raised in this video. I know its only a TV show but it raises a good point (ignore the first minuteish):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because that law was given to a nation, and a specific nation at that - Israel - and was part of its theocratic institution..

So the story goes. Thats a presumption on your part.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would make bestiality and paedophilia natural too.
The Christian use of the term means: that which God intended for man and animals in their pre-Fall state.
I differ on your belief in what science has 'proved'. But even if it had, that would also establish bestiality and paedophilia as a natural and intrinsic part of our society and our species. And indeed murder, rape and robbery.

A series of presumptions and biased samples, none of which stand up to scrutiny.

JimiTime

Nodin wrote: »

Certainly sex between wildly different species or between the sexually immature and mature is seen as abnormal in nature and society, based on inequality between parties.

Ok. So you agree that the 'desire' to have sex with children or animals, or even objects, is abnormal?

Its again not comparing like with like.

Actually, from a normality point of view it is. If we accept that Paedophilia is 'abnormal', it means we have decided what is 'normal'. So, what is normal?

JimiTime

Nodin wrote: »

So the story goes. Thats a presumption on your part.



A series of presumptions and biased samples, none of which stand up to scrutiny.

Why don't you make a proper point, rather than indulge in blasé non responses?

DeVore

I really dont think you want to ask me questions like that hahaha, you'll end up with a book!

I'm not going to put my God in a neat box for you, I barely know enough about him myself and I certainly lack the talent to tell you about it, I'm still very much working it out.

But you have things backwards. *whatever* created everything, thats my God. I dont believe in a meddlesome, mischievous God would interacts with us on a daily basis.

As a source of "morality" the bible is a joke. A bad joke played on us by people who intended well and were simply abused and manipulated by people with their own agendas.

I am much more likely to look to my moral compass for my morality and temper that with humanity and read books by the likes of Carl Yung and Russell. I have also read the bible and took quite a bit from it too. Unfortunately I took the bits that rarely get promoted by the hardline right, you know the "love your neighbour as yourself" and "do onto others" etc.

Though it occurs to me that those two quotes are somewhat dodgy in a topic about homosexuality.

I find it breathtaking that people are capable of the arrogance of saying ... "I'm so much more awesome at understanding God then you are, let me explain it to you". Those people need to get a good hard grip on themselves and the rest of us need to walk away from Mac-Religion and work it out for ourselves.
Most of the people who want to "explain" the bible to us, want to do so to further their specific agendas. As in this thread.


DeV.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote:

The Christian objection is based on God's moral system, which you reject.

'Some christians object based on their reading of what they suppose to be Gods moral system' would be closer to the truth. Given the notorious lack of agreement on what that is amongst believers, let alone everyone else, I wouldn't be getting too het up on it as a basis for a system.

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok. So you agree that the 'desire' to have sex with children or animals, or even objects, is abnormal??

With children and animals it certainly is. "objects" would depend on a number of factors. However, as an object cannot feel or experience emotional or physical distress, its not a subject of concern.

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, from a normality point of view it is. If we accept that Paedophilia is 'abnormal', it means we have decided what is 'normal'. So, what is normal?

Selecting a sexual preference which goes outside the boundaries of species and human sentience, and another which focuses on the sexually immature and then comparing them to acts between informed consenting persons of age is not comparing like with like. Its taking a biased sample in order to ask a loaded question.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

We don't get their consent for many things we do with them, at least until we encourage them to cooperate. I take it you have no problem with training dogs to lead the blind, or rescue earthquake victims, etc? I'm sure they would rather initially roam the fields and chase cats.

But you object to bestiality on the basis that any consent is not as full as that between humans. I don't see how you have one rule for rescue and one rule for sex.

Are you actually equating something as trivial as sexual gratification with the rescuing of a human life? Of course these things are not equivalent. Bestiality potentially inflicts needless suffering on an animal. Rescuing a human or leading a blind person is not needless. Even if the suffering were equivalent, the justifications are very different.

Please tell me you don't need a book to help you differentiate between sex and saving a human life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Christian objection is based on God's moral system, which you reject.

And yet somehow my morals are intact. Amazing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anal sex is very unsanitary, as is the foreplay involved,

That depends on the hygiene and exact practices of both parties.

wolfsbane wrote: »

and exposes them to faeces-borne disease and loosing/rupture of the anal passage;

Again, a risk. But rupture of the vagina and damage to the penis are calculable risks of heterosexual sex. As are a number of other injuries, depending on how rough the partners are. Does God abhor light S&M as much as homosexuality?

Exposure to disease and injury are not unique or automatic consequences of homosexual sex.

wolfsbane wrote: »

homosexuality often involves multiple partners and the associated STD risk that goes with that.

Surely this is an argument against promiscuity rather than homosexuality? We're not talking about promiscuity here.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But as I said, my objection is not based on it being 'harmful', but on it being immoral.

That is not a reason in itself. You've put aside your reason in favour of dogma. In doing so, you promote a culture that harms a fraction of our population, that would deny them happiness at no cost to you. If I write it in a book and tell you God said it perhaps you'll regard that as immoral. I doubt it, but thankfully you are in the minority.

JimiTime

Nodin wrote: »

Selecting a sexual preference which goes outside the boundaries of species and human sentience, and another which focuses on the sexually immature and then comparing them to acts between informed consenting persons of age is not comparing like with like. Its taking a biased sample in order to ask a loaded question.

No, its taking an example that most people are abhorred by, and pointing out that there are sexual appetites that are abnormal. If we accept that there are abnormal sexual appetites, then we must accept that there is a normal one. It counters the arguement that sexual normality is subjective. If its subjective, then all sexual desires must be considered normal.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If its subjective, then all sexual desires must be considered normal.

All sexual desires are considered normal to the person who wants to carry them out.

All sexual desires are considered abnormal to the person who is repulsed by them and who want no one to do it.

That includes God. At the end of the day its just God's opinion that homosexuality is abominable. An opinion that has been formed with apparently little justification.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

All sexual desires are considered normal to the person who wants to carry them out.

Thats the point. All sorts of weird and vile acts can be considered normal to those perpetrating them.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats the point. All sorts of weird and vile acts can be considered normal to those perpetrating them.

Exactly. So you thinking something is "normal" (penis, vagina) is ultimately neither here nor there, same with God.

It is all just opinion.

You need to look at why we should allow something or not allow it. Whether we think something is normal or not is irrelevant to that.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. So you thinking something is "normal" (penis, vagina) is ultimately neither here nor there, same with God.

It is all just opinion.

You need to look at why we should allow something or not allow it. Whether we think something is normal or not is irrelevant to that.

I've already clarified that normality and morality are different. To me it is obvious what the normal sexuality is. Whether its moral or not is a different discussion, one which as you stated earlier, is probably a waste of time debating.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

All sexual desires are considered normal to the person who wants to carry them out.

Debatable! If you ever have the misfortune to watch those true crime programmes on Discovery the perpetrators of sexual crimes are often acutely aware that their desires are abnormal.

--amadeus--

(Sorry, long post)

JimiTime wrote: »

If we accept that there are abnormal sexual appetites, then we must accept that there is a normal one.

In the interests of a little more light and a little less heat lets run with this for a while. Now temporarily setting aside the bible, for a second could we agree that "normal" sexuality would involve monogamy between two consenting adults in a loving and mutually respectful, equal relationship?

I'm fairly happy for people to have sex lives that go well beyond this but I would imagine that the vast bulk of the population - any population - would agree that the above is a fair basis for judging a "normal" relationship. Bestiality and paedophilia both clearly fall outside this definition and to continue to equate them to the norm is really just distorting the argument.

And of course the definition above happily includes homo or heterosexual couples, so we are all happy

Back to the bible (again). If the law on stoning homosexuals was a specific law for a specific country then perhaps someone could give an indication of where it is condemned generally.

Because Genesis 1&2 simply talks about male~female relationships. It doesn't mention homosexuality but since it's talking about going forth and multiply why would it? Simple absence cannot be a condemnation.

Now Genesis 19 has the men of Sodom demanding men for sex from Lot. But since Lot offers up his virgin daughters to them instead I don't think we can take that seriously! Jude 1:17 references "gross immorality" in Sodom and Gomorrah but again this is not explicit about homosexuality. Indeed there would seem to be a very good case that the judgement was based on promiscuity of all kinds rather than simple homosexuality.

Matthew 15 and Mark 7 condemn porneia but that can be rendered as sexual impurity rather than specificly homosexuality.

Naturally we would have to mention Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Now this is (and I am up for correction on this) Paul rather than God speaking, am I correct? Also worth pointing out that there are translations indicating that he was condemning temple prostitution rather than normal gay sex.

And finally Cornithians 6, where a word that is used nowhere else in the bible crops up (arsenokoitēs for the curious). Because of it's obscurity it has been argued about extensively and this passage is now widely held to simply ban anal sex because it's unclean.

So the bible seems quite light on the outright condemnation and there are many passages that can be read as explicitly pro gay (I can list them if you like ) so maybe getting out and loving your neighbour (male or female) is a great christian thing to do after all!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ikky Poo2 said:

Christians do not hate homosexuals, rather they seek ot save them from their sin. Many homosexuals however do seem to be violently opposed to Christians.


It's never healthy to disagree with God. Something about thinking you are wiser than He, that leads to disaster.


No, it was asked in the post to DeVore you replied to.


Indeed it does.


True too.

But I asked DeVore those questions because he seemed to reject the Bible as the source of morality, claiming he is an agnostic - yet he asserted that God created everything, that homosexuality was created by God , etc.

Many Christians DO hate homosexuals - look at the Phelps family. And there are many others, but nowhere near that extent. I have plenty of gay friends, some of whom think of themselves as Christian - but none of them hate any religion. If anything, they're the most tolerant people I know. I preume to comes from the persecution.

Disagreeing with someone is not in the slightest bit disrespectful. I disagree with you, but I still respect your opinions. I'm also of the opinion that the Bible is deliberately open to interpretation, and therefore promotes debate.

Obviously, I can't speak for DeVore, but if you accept my points that Genesis tells us that God created everything, and we are all equal in his eyes, then homosexuals and hetrosexuals are equally entitled to his love?

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

I've already clarified that normality and morality are different. To me it is obvious what the normal sexuality is. Whether its moral or not is a different discussion, one which as you stated earlier, is probably a waste of time debating.

Not really. Point to the harm. If it outweighs the good then we know what end of the moral spectrum we're talking about.

Oh, look at that. Homosexuality is morally good.

Fanny Cradock

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Many Christians DO hate homosexuals - look at the Phelps family. And there are many others, but nowhere near that extent. I have plenty of gay friends, some of whom think of themselves as Christian - but none of them hate any religion. If anything, they're the most tolerant people I know. I preume to comes from the persecution.

Disagreeing with someone is not in the slightest bit disrespectful. I disagree with you, but I still respect your opinions. I'm also of the opinion that the Bible is deliberately open to interpretation, and therefore promotes debate.

Obviously, I can't speak for DeVore, but if you accept my points that Genesis tells us that God created everything, and we are all equal in his eyes, then homosexuals and hetrosexuals are equally entitled to his love?

In fairness, the Phelps' are not at all representative of Christians in large. One doesn't have to be Christian to hate gay people - Muslims, Asians, Irish, non-believers etc., etc. are quite susceptible to this hatred too.

It reminds me of the recent reported rise in attacks on redheads. For instance, I happen to know of one guy who has been subjected to verbal abuse and has even suffered assault on more than one occasion of the colour of his hair. And all this from strangers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness, the Phelps' are not at all representative of Christians in large. One doesn't have to be Christian to hate gay people - Muslims, Asians, Irish, non-believers etc., etc. are quite susceptible to this hatred too.

It reminds me of the recent reported rise in attacks on redheads. For instance, I happen to know of one guy who has been subjected to verbal abuse and has even suffered assault on more than one occasion of the colour of his hair. And all this from strangers.

Oh, I know - I was responding to Wolfbane's comments that Christians don't hate homosexuals. The Phelps', I accept, are extremist, but amongst some Christians, there IS hatred.

Fanny Cradock

Indeed! I would agree that some Christians (as well as others) encourage homophobia. This said, I've never encountered anyone who turned homophobic after they became a Christian.

cooperguy

--amadeus-- wrote: »

(Sorry, long post)

So the bible seems quite light on the outright condemnation and there are many passages that can be read as explicitly pro gay (I can list them if you like ) so maybe getting out and loving your neighbour (male or female) is a great christian thing to do after all!

As a matter of interest could you quote 1 or 2. It would be interesting to see

DeVore

"normal" is a question of statistics. The majority of men my age drive a car, I dont, therefore I am abnormal in that respect. "normal" as a concept is almost facitiously trivial and certainly not very interesting.

Morality is a far more complex idea. For me at the heart of it is the ability to repeat an action with reasonable frequency without impinge on my fellow humans. In this respect "murder" is immoral but homosexuality isnt. This is my expression of the moral compass I was born with. YMMV

DeV.

--amadeus--

cooperguy wrote: »

As a matter of interest could you quote 1 or 2. It would be interesting to see

DISCLAIMER: The bible is a work that is open to many, many, many interpretations. The following could be read / translated differently by people with agendas...

The most celebrated endorsement of homosexuality in the bible is probably the book of Ruth, a touching tale of lesbian love between Naomi and her widowed daughter in law Ruth. During the tale we hear Ruth telling Naomi ""Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me." (Ruth 1:16-17 NKJV)". Interestingly he same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned. (link)

During the Book of Samuel we hear of David and Jonathon. There has long been controversy over the exact nature of thier relationship but I feel that it is clear from 2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women" is pretty unambiguous.

There is also an incident in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 17:1-24) where Elijah brings a dead boy back to life. We know that the bible is rich in symbolism and imagery and this particular tale can be read as a fairly explicit homosexual story. For example "When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.”(2 Kings 4:32-35; TNIV). A very persuasive argument is put forward by Timothy R. Koch where he interprets the earlier laying on of a staff as a phallic symbol and teh passage quoted as referring to an act of homosexuality (with teh sneezes refering to ejaculation)

Moving to the New Testament we have Matthew 8 and Luke 7. Here we are told of a centurion's servant who is sick and about to die. Jesus then heals the man.

However the term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais. This word has multiple meanings - servant can be one as can child or son. However the term can also refer to a homosexual partner (as in works by Thucydides, Plato and Plutarch). The centurion has an unusual degree of concern for a servant and so a case can certainly be made for substituting "boyfriend" for "servant" at which point the tale makes more sense. And Jesus healing a partner in a homosexual relationship would - in my eyes - indicate something of a seal of approval!

The well known claims of a relationship between Jesus and John deserve a mention as, even if they are controversial, they wouldn't still be around if there wasn't some weight to them.

I am sure that there are more, but these will do for starters

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

No, its taking an example that most people are abhorred by, and pointing out that there are sexual appetites that are abnormal. If we accept that there are abnormal sexual appetites, then we must accept that there is a normal one. It counters the arguement that sexual normality is subjective. If its subjective, then all sexual desires must be considered normal.

Not at all. You seem to be fixated on this notion of "normal". In truth its whats harmful or blatantly exploitative and one sided thats frowned upon. What grown individuals do with themselves and others is really a matter for them.

AtomicHorror

Nodin wrote: »

Not at all. You seem to be fixated on this notion of "normal". In truth its whats harmful or blatantly exploitative and one sided thats frowned upon. What grown individuals do with themselves and others is really a matter for them.

Quite right. Putting one's life on the line for the safety of others is something that few people do. Statistically abnormal. Abhorrent? Rubbish.

Normality has no simple correlation with morality. Natural and unnatural are meaningless concepts. All we're left with is harm and benefit, which are based on the shared values of society.

So I'll ask again: in what way does the harm associated with homosexuality outweigh the benefit? Because it really looks like it does not at all. All you're left with is the authority of scripture.

Fanny Cradock

--amadeus-- wrote: »

There is also an incident in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 17:1-24) where Elijah brings a dead boy back to life. We know that the bible is rich in symbolism and imagery and this particular tale can be read as a fairly explicit homosexual story. For example "When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the LORD. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy's body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes.”(2 Kings 4:32-35; TNIV). A very persuasive argument is put forward by Timothy R. Koch where he interprets the earlier laying on of a staff as a phallic symbol and teh passage quoted as referring to an act of homosexuality (with teh sneezes refering to ejaculation)

It is very much about interpretation. However, I am baffled as to how the above passage could be considered a description (let alone an endorsement) of homosexuality. And this confusion is coming from somebody who, as a Christian, doesn't particularly have an opinion on homosexuality.

The story in Kings goes as follows:

A Shunammite woman went out of her way to welcome 'The Man of God', Elisha, into her house, setting up a room for his use. Actually, the term 'us' is used which implies that the generosity extended to more than just Elisha.

In return for the kindness Elisha asked if he could perhaps have a word with the King. However, after wrestling the truth out of her, it appears as if her hearts desire was to have a child. Elisha later prophesied that she would become pregnant - "you will hold a son in your arms." - and so she did.

After a time - and it appears that this is a number of years later, for the boy is now old enough to speak the words, 'My head! My Head!' when he becomes sick - the boy suddenly becomes mortally ill and later dies in his mothers arms.

The passage you have reproduced and claimed to be a sexual act is actually the description of a miracle. In this description there is no suggestion of any sexual intent upon the part of Elisha towards the child.

And while the process of preforming the miracle may seem unusual (one could justifiably ask the question, 'what is the correct process involved when bringing someone back from the dead?'), arriving at the conclusion that it is endorsing homosexuality (or paedophilia) is like claiming that, based on the tactile nature of a chiropractor's work in manipulating the bones, it is really a sexually motivated profession.

Zombrex

I'm wondering how many Christians here personally believe homosexual acts are wrong (independently of God), and how many just believe this is so because God says so, where as if he didn't they wouldn't have a problem with it?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm wondering how many Christians here personally believe homosexual acts are wrong (independently of God), and how many just believe this is so because God says so, where as if he didn't they wouldn't have a problem with it?

I'm still wondering personally the same thing about you: if God said nothing, where would you stand?

LATE EDIT - Apologies - I thought I was replying to Wolfbane!!

--amadeus--

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The passage you have reproduced and claimed to be a sexual act is actually the description of a miracle. In this description there is no suggestion of any sexual intent upon the part of Elisha towards the child.

And while the process of preforming the miracle may seem unusual (one could justifiably ask the question, 'what is the correct process involved when bringing someone back from the dead?'), arriving at the conclusion that it is endorsing homosexuality (or paedophilia) is like claiming that, based on the tactile nature of a chiropractor's work in manipulating the bones, it is really a sexually motivated profession.

Ahh but its not me making the claim it's him! Page 8 is where he starts specifically on the Elisha story.

TBH I have no particular axe to grind on this front - scripture is of no relevance to me or my life. However I find it irritating that some passages are isolated and used as sticks to condemn when other passages are ignored. My point on the above post was really just a kind of "you can read this either way" one.

cooperguy

--amadeus-- wrote: »

However I find it irritating that some passages are isolated and used as sticks to condemn when other passages are ignored.

Thats why I posted the clip from the West Wing a page or two back but everybody decided to ignore it