Homosexuality vs. Mildew

Graces7

The thread caught my eye on my way to other boards.. The discussion seems to have moved since the posts I was reading.

So many hang ups re Leviticus etc, and so little reading of what Jesus teaches.

Mosaic Law was the Old Covenant; God's loving provision for a people on the move, in tents, in a hot country. Detailled and strict perforce, as disease was a real factor.

Jesus is the New Covenant.

He teaches that He has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.

And He, in His love, redefines and replaces many large sections of Mosaic law as they are not relevant to His people in the face of His Gift of Himself.

So out go the strict dietary laws; and this is reaffirmed in Peter's dream.. Nothing is unclean.

Out go also the strict hygiene laws; the superficial and often hypocritical ritual washing.

And the Sabbath laws.

And the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" .."Love thine enemies... do good to those who persecute you.."

And the death by stoning for adultery; see John 8 for that. "Go and sin no more..." Remember that...

So much is made of the idea that Jesus does not condemn homosexual sex ( always I wonder why folk avoid His words re eunuchs...)

Had he wanted to revoke and replace the existing Mosaic sexual laws, He would have done so as clearly as He did other whole sections of Jewish law.

He does not.

In fact His whole life on earth reaffirms the basis and bedrock of the society He created. Man and woman producing children.

He comes to earth into a family; Mary and Joseph.

He affirms marriage at Cana.

And He moves among families freely. Ordinary families.

Because the man/woman relationship in marriage is the bedrock of society. For the Israelites, for us.

Man/woman is the only way to produce childen and sound family life also the stronghold of the wold He created.

And read the Didache also...

Sexual immorality means simply any sexual act outside marriage between man and woman. see John 8 again.

And see that text also for Jesus not condemning but teaching... He never says that she has not sinned.

A sexual sin.

And what the poster said re "modern relationships" is *****

Modern casuistry at work there.
In a world of sexual idolatry and where secular, amoral psychology teaches that unless we are sexually active we are not healthy.

A ridiculous idea and invalid. we are not animals

we have choice and there is no compulsion to enter into a sexual and physical relationship with anyone.

There can be and are deep friendships that are all the deeper because thay are not sexual.

Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus is it valid that sexual activity is an essential act of life.

THAT is the modern thinking.

What people confuse also is the distinction between sin and sinner.

One old lady we talk with is now in favour of active gays because she thinks it is wrong that they are abused and attacked.

Of course it is wrong to discriminate in that or any way.

But to aver the teachings of Jesus is not to discriminate. It too often to said to be that... that dreadful word homophobic..

The example I have used with her is a man we both know who is gay. it is clear. I worked alongside him on a retreat; ate and chatted, listened to his woes. As I would anyone.

But had he raised the issue of his sexuality, my response would have been kind but clear.

I have no idea re his private life... why should I? That is his business, his decison.

But i will not treat anyone as less than a child of God.

As Jimitime says, God is the final judge.

For me, the teachings and life of Jesus are clear and unequivocal, and He alone is Lord.

They and he are my lodestone; my pattern, my "recipe" and in them alone in any peace and joy.

"If you love Me you will keep my commandments.."

That is above and beyond all else.

Blessings and peace.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this a reference to 'the sun stands still'? for if it is, the bible 'never' tries to tell its readers that the sun goes round the earth. The context has nothing to do with teaching about the cosmos, but rather intended to describe Gods power, and his delivering Israels enemies into their hands. Whereas the law concerning homosexuality, is aimed at telling you that homosexuality is immoral.

Well that is some what circular reasoning. How did you conclude that the Bible isn't trying to tell us the sun goes around the Earth, or that the Bible is trying to tell us homosexuality is immoral? You reach those conclusions based on your interpretations of these passages. Thus it makes little sense to use those conclusions in support of your interpretation.

Plenty of people have put forward that the Bible is telling us facts about nature, and thus when it describes the sun it is accurately describing what was happening.

Anyway my point is that for as long as there have been religious text people have been arguing over the "correct" interpretation of said religious texts, and dismissing others with different interpretations as being dishonest or biased, which is why they don't see the perfectly "clear" interpretation.

I wouldn't be so rash to dismiss interpretations different to your own as being the result of dishonesty or bias.

As Calvin said about the heliocentric notions of his time

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

Are you motivated by a spirit of dishonesty and bitterness to accept the Earth moves around the Sun? Or do you simply think Calvin got his interpretation wrong and take a different interpretation informed by modern evidence and understanding?

Of course simply because Calvin did this doesn't mean that you don't have the correct interpretation about homosexual, or that these people are not agenda driven.

But I can't help wonder if in a hundred years Christians will look back on homosexuality and the attitudes of Christians today the same way Christians look aback at Calvin?

I guess God will answer all questions eventually

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

To this and your previous to me, I ask if words have any meaning?

Words have meaning but I wouldn't be so rash to assume this meaning is always accurately represented by said words

Which, on a side, is on reason why I'm highly skeptical that an omnipotent deity would choose to communicate with us through books, but that is probably a discussion for another thread.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If none of the Bible can be certain of interpretation, can any communication? Are we expected to make sense of your posts here? Or is their meaning up for grabs to anyone who wants to understand it whichever way?

I think anyone who spends more than a few hours on Boards.ie will see plenty of examples of the flaws in human communication, from posts being misunderstood to posters putting down the wrong words to convey the meaning they wish to convey.

While an omnipotent being would certainly not mistakenly use the wrong words he can't unfortunately ensure we interpret his words as he meant them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't think any reasonable person would permit such abuse of language.

How are they going to stop it? Plenty of times you have completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say to you, and no doubt vice-versa.

We clarify positions through dialog, but unfortunately there is no on going dialog with the Bible (unless you are a Catholic I guess)

Ultimately, as I said to Jimi, all will be clarified when you meet God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The promoters of 'Christian' homosexuality and 'Christian' non- marital heterosexual practice are just making it up as they go along.

A charge put forward by anyone who has ever disagreed with someone else's interpretation of a holy book.

It is so common it is almost pointless. Everyone thinks everyone else is interpreting something wrong.

Do you care that lots and lots of Christians believe you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly? I doubt it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Words have meaning but I wouldn't be so rash to assume this meaning is always accurately represented by said words

Which, on a side, is on reason why I'm highly skeptical that an omnipotent deity would choose to communicate with us through books, but that is probably a discussion for another thread.



I think anyone who spends more than a few hours on Boards.ie will see plenty of examples of the flaws in human communication, from posts being misunderstood to posters putting down the wrong words to convey the meaning they wish to convey.

While an omnipotent being would certainly not mistakenly use the wrong words he can't unfortunately ensure we interpret his words as he meant them.



How are they going to stop it? Plenty of times you have completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say to you, and no doubt vice-versa.

We clarify positions through dialog, but unfortunately there is no on going dialog with the Bible (unless you are a Catholic I guess)

Ultimately, as I said to Jimi, all will be clarified when you meet God.



A charge put forward by anyone who has ever disagreed with someone else's interpretation of a holy book.

It is so common it is almost pointless. Everyone thinks everyone else is interpreting something wrong.

Do you care that lots and lots of Christians believe you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly? I doubt it.

I have respect for an opponent's argument if it is logical by his own premises. I may not agree with his premises and so also his conclusions, no matter how logical they were worked out. But I have no right to make his argument say what it does not, especially not to make it appear to support my premises.

The 'Christian' gay lobby should take an honesty pill and abandon any pretence at following the Bible. There is hope for the open sinner, but none for the hypocrite.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Graces7

WN wrote"But I can't help wonder if in a hundred years Christians will look back on homosexuality and the attitudes of Christians today the same way Christians look aback at Calvin?"

The Laws on homosexuality go back many thousands of years. Period. They are Divine law.

Nothing less. Strong and steadfast.

After all what you are trying to justify is that tiny and insignificant physical act called sex..

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have respect for an opponent's argument if it is logical by his own premises.

What is illogical by its own premises of the "gay lobby" argument?

Zombrex

Graces7 wrote: »

The Laws on homosexuality go back many thousands of years. Period. They are Divine law.

And people used to once say the same thing about slavery ....

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

Graces7

Jefferson is not God.

But then you will argue white is black and vice versa. For the sake of it.

A waste of time then.

Wicknight wrote: »

And people used to once say the same thing about slavery ....

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

liamw

Graces7 wrote: »

The Laws on homosexuality go back many thousands of years. Period. They are Divine law.

Nothing less. Strong and steadfast.

Hmm so if a Law goes 'back many thousands of years', then it is correct to abide by it now? Or is it just those laws as described by your chosen holy book? What exactly is your criteria...

After all what you are trying to justify is that tiny and insignificant physical act called sex..

Are you saying it's wrong to be homosexual just because there is no desire to engage with the opposite sex? Although it may seem paradoxical, did it ever occur to you that the gene/s to promote homosexual behaviour has been selected just like the genes that make you want to have sex.
(Example paper)

You are making a Darwinian argument there which is quite strange...

It all comes back to what your holy book says right? IS the whole bible the divine word of god, or only certain parts of it?

Graces7

liamw wrote: »

Hmm so if a Law goes 'back many thousands of years', then it is correct to abide by it now? Or is it just those laws as described by your chosen holy book? What exactly is your criteria...



Are you saying it's wrong to be homosexual just because there is no desire to engage with the opposite sex? Although it may seem paradoxical, did it ever occur to you that the gene/s to promote homosexual behaviour has been selected just like the genes that make you want to have sex.
(Example paper)

You are making a Darwinian argument there which is quite strange...

It all comes back to what your holy book says right? IS the whole bible the divine word of god, or only certain parts of it?

The genetic theory bears no weight. We have choice to follow our instincts and thus what you call genetic, or to follow the teachings of Jesus.

We inherit traits; we learn in our life in Jesus to deny or affirm these, and we do that joyfully in our love for Jesus.. Because He is Lord. His will not ours

Please do not twist what i say to conform to some ideas of yours.
I have no agenda re Darwin etc.

And if you do not know and love Jesus, then little any of us say will make any real "sense" to you.

So no point arguing. You know our ways and our beliefs.

Graces7

liamw wrote: »

Hmm so if a Law goes 'back many thousands of years', then it is correct to abide by it now? Or is it just those laws as described by your chosen holy book? What exactly is your criteria...



Are you saying it's wrong to be homosexual just because there is no desire to engage with the opposite sex? Although it may seem paradoxical, did it ever occur to you that the gene/s to promote homosexual behaviour has been selected just like the genes that make you want to have sex.
(Example paper)

You are making a Darwinian argument there which is quite strange...

It all comes back to what your holy book says right? IS the whole bible the divine word of god, or only certain parts of it?

I missed one very salient point. So did you.

Physical sexual activity is not compulsory or necessary.

It is not ever the tendency ; any more than heterosexual attraction is.

it is the act itself; that tiny and trivial act called sex.

Any sexual activity outside Christian marriage.

So the "orientation" matters little.

Unless you allow it to consume your life to the extent that many seem to; and THAT is "disordered". As is the desire to publicise private life.

I am old now; there are friends of decades and we have never once discussed what some would call our "sex lives" Why should we? there are many much more interesting and important things in life.

Miracletown

Please don't make the issue of homosexuality purely about sex either though. Human sexuality is a lot more than the physical act of sex which is why I've heard celibate nuns say that they are deeply in touch with their sexuality.

Homosexual relationships, whether you believe them to be right or wrong, are no more about sex than heterosexual relationships. You could argue that gay men have more sex than straight couples but research also shows that lesbians have less sex than straight couples.


For those who argue that it is all about sex, would you be okay with me saying that your relationship with your husband or wife is based purely on sex? Or that sex is the only difference between your partner and your friends? On a very primitive level I suppose you could say it is but practically it's not. We aren't animals and love and romantic relationships involve a lot more than lust. Even people who aren't Christians recognise that and know the difference between a slutty one night stand and the beginning of a relationship.

While the orientation itself may be acceptable, in my experience, most Christians believe that not acknowledging that as a struggle is a sin. I doubt anyone who believes homosexual sex is wrong would be okay with two lesbians sitting on a sofa cuddling and holding hands even if they were not sexually active. It's unlikely they would object if it was a straight couple.

Once again if you believe that gay relationships are wrong whatever the context then fair enough but let's not enhance the myth that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex. It does nothing to further the truth and it adds to a negative stereotype of gay people which is not necessary.

Michaelrsh

number10a wrote: »

First of all, I am not trolling. I have a genuine question. Why is homosexuality condemned by most Christian denominations, yet mildew is not?

I'll elaborate; homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus 18:22. Mildew is also looked down upon with much the same contempt in Leviticus 14:33-57. This is the same book of the Bible. Yet, why is it that nowadays we don't have Christian churches calling upon us to vacate our houses for a week if we find mildew in it and clean it with bird's blood, yet a man cannot sleep with another man? Why is one rule from the same book blatantly ignored, while another one enforced to the letter?

There are other examples of ignored rules from Leviticus, such as the ban on pork and ostrich meat. But the mildew one stands out as one of the most ridiculous rules I've ever come across.

What the hell is Mildew?

liamw

Graces7 wrote: »

I missed one very salient point. So did you.

Did I? I'm just saying your decision should not be based on Darwinian principles in any way, and even if it was, you'd be wrong about homosexuality.

Physical sexual activity is not compulsory or necessary.

Nothing is in the strictest sense.

It is not ever the tendency ; any more than heterosexual attraction is.

Sexual lust or desire is an evolved trait. We have a 'tendancy' to want to have sex if that's what you want to call it.

it is the act itself; that tiny and trivial act called sex.

The act itself is just an extension of the phenotype above. Think you're getting off topic now.

Any sexual activity outside Christian marriage.

So the "orientation" matters little.

Huh?

I am old now; there are friends of decades and we have never once discussed what some would call our "sex lives" Why should we? there are many much more interesting and important things in life.

What's your point? Aren't you against homosexuality???

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

Please don't make the issue of homosexuality purely about sex either though. Human sexuality is a lot more than the physical act of sex which is why I've heard celibate nuns say that they are deeply in touch with their sexuality.

Homosexual relationships, whether you believe them to be right or wrong, are no more about sex than heterosexual relationships. You could argue that gay men have more sex than straight couples but research also shows that lesbians have less sex than straight couples.


For those who argue that it is all about sex, would you be okay with me saying that your relationship with your husband or wife is based purely on sex? Or that sex is the only difference between your partner and your friends? On a very primitive level I suppose you could say it is but practically it's not. We aren't animals and love and romantic relationships involve a lot more than lust. Even people who aren't Christians recognise that and know the difference between a slutty one night stand and the beginning of a relationship.

While the orientation itself may be acceptable, in my experience, most Christians believe that not acknowledging that as a struggle is a sin. I doubt anyone who believes homosexual sex is wrong would be okay with two lesbians sitting on a sofa cuddling and holding hands even if they were not sexually active. It's unlikely they would object if it was a straight couple.

Once again if you believe that gay relationships are wrong whatever the context then fair enough but let's not enhance the myth that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex. It does nothing to further the truth and it adds to a negative stereotype of gay people which is not necessary.

You are stereotyping the reactions of others here wildly.

Cuddling in the way you describe is is sexual per se. And it would be embarassing if any couple acted like that publically.

No one is saying that any relationship is simply about sex; again that is your misinterpretation.

Religious celibacy is an entirely separate matter altogether. You are totally misunderstanding what was said there; nothing to do with homosexuailty either.

Graces7

One point here only

No we are not all seeking active sex.

That is where your understanding fails completely.. so that discussion becomes impossible.

Your basic tenet is invalid...

Who brought Darwin into this? Certainly not me! REALLY!

liamw wrote: »

Did I? I'm just saying your decision should not be based on Darwinian principles in any way, and even if it was, you'd be wrong about homosexuality.



Nothing is in the strictest sense.



Sexual lust or desire is an evolved trait. We have a 'tendancy' to want to have sex if that's what you want to call it.



The act itself is just an extension of the phenotype above. Think you're getting off topic now.



Huh?



What's your point? Aren't you against homosexuality???

liamw

Graces7 wrote: »

One point here only

No we are not all seeking active sex.

That is where your understanding fails completely.. so that discussion becomes impossible.

Your basic tenet is invalid...

Who brought Darwin into this? Certainly not me! REALLY!

Let's back up then. Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? Don't just say 'it's in the bible'. Why, in your opinion is it in the bible?

g5fd6ow0hseima

This thread is hilarious.

Seriously, who cares about homosexuality?

Also why has there been 8 pages of discussion on the matter?

This is the year 2010, and some of you people are dragging up biblical quotes, in order to discuss the issue of homosexuality.

I dont wish to troll, but this is just hilarious.

Fanny Cradock

Your amusement is noted. Though I suspect that the irony that an atheist started this thread is lost on you.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

You are stereotyping the reactions of others here wildly.

Cuddling in the way you describe is is sexual per se. And it would be embarassing if any couple acted like that publically.

No one is saying that any relationship is simply about sex; again that is your misinterpretation.

Religious celibacy is an entirely separate matter altogether. You are totally misunderstanding what was said there; nothing to do with homosexuailty either.

I disagree. I haven't stereotyped anyone and I made no accusations. I just think there's some things that are important to be kept in mind during discussions like this and I think my point did have some validity.

Regardless of your opinion on cuddling I think you got my point. If they held hands? If they sent text messages to each other with love you at the end and smiled when they got them? Either way there is a point where you would accept that behaviour coming from a heterosexual couple but not a homosexual one. It is not simply an objection to sexual acts.

I actually don't understand why you have a problem with my post because I don't see how it undermines your beliefs in any way.

Graces7

liamw wrote: »

Let's back up then. Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? Don't just say 'it's in the bible'. Why, in your opinion is it in the bible?

Please read my previous posts; I am not going to repeat myself over and over for the sake of argument.
This has been explained time and again.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

I disagree. I haven't stereotyped anyone and I made no accusations. I just think there's some things that are important to be kept in mind during discussions like this and I think my point did have some validity.

Regardless of your opinion on cuddling I think you got my point. If they held hands? If they sent text messages to each other with love you at the end and smiled when they got them? Either way there is a point where you would accept that behaviour coming from a heterosexual couple but not a homosexual one. It is not simply an objection to sexual acts.

I actually don't understand why you have a problem with my post because I don't see how it undermines your beliefs in any way.

What I would or would not hyothetically "accept" whatever that means, is a total red herring. ( I am not in the habit of reading text messages anyways; that is what I mean by your approach and method; it all reads like role playing.)

And I think that you know that..

And yes it is as others have said.

do you really think that anything you say could ???undermine my beliefs?? That these are issues that all of us here have not thought and prayed on deeply and over many years?

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

Christian views on homosexual behaviour come from the New Testament, not from Leviticus.

Just to be clear, doesn't it only come from St. Paul, and not anywhere else in the New Testament?

P.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your amusement is noted. Though I suspect that the irony that an atheist started this thread is lost on you.

An athiest started it?, and?

I was referring to the 8 pages of posts, not to who started the thread. To me, it shows that homosexuality is very much an issue within christianity. If it was not, the whole thread would never have warranted so much attention in the first place.

I guess im wrong though.

Graces7

oceanclub wrote: »

Just to be clear, doesn't it only come from St. Paul, and not anywhere else in the New Testament?

P.

No; that is not so.

Please read my first post in this thread. Jesus affirms Mosaic ie Old Testament law where sexuality is concerned. ie Leviticus stands.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

What I would or would not hyothetically "accept" whatever that means, is a total red herring. ( I am not in the habit of reading text messages anyways; that is what I mean by your approach and method; it all reads like role playing.)

And I think that you know that..

And yes it is as others have said.

do you really think that anything you say could ???undermine my beliefs?? That these are issues that all of us here have not thought and prayed on deeply and over many years?

I don't get what you mean about the roleplaying thing but I don't think it matters anyway as you seem to think I'm trying to argue something that I'm not.

I've already said that I respect and understand the Christian position on immorality and homosexuality and I'm not trying to change that. Why would I be trying to undermine your beliefs and why would I think that you haven't put prayer and thought into them? Nothing I have said has indicated that.

I also believe that in discussing homosexuality we have to make an effort to not misrepresent the gay community. Don't try and turn what I'm saying into hostility. The only change I want to see is better relations between the church and the gay community.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

I don't get what you mean about the roleplaying thing but I don't think it matters anyway as you seem to think I'm trying to argue something that I'm not.

I've already said that I respect and understand the Christian position on immorality and homosexuality and I'm not trying to change that. Why would I be trying to undermine your beliefs and why would I think that you haven't put prayer and thought into them? Nothing I have said has indicated that.

I also believe that in discussing homosexuality we have to make an effort to not misrepresent the gay community. Don't try and turn what I'm saying into hostility. The only change I want to see is better relations between the church and the gay community.

In what way? your last sentence I mean?

The fact that you use "the gay community" says it all really. it becomes a ghetto that no one can manage.

Many homosexuals simply quietly integrate, living celibate and holy lives, making no fuss re tiny issues like sexuality.

oceanclub

Graces7 wrote: »

No; that is not so.

Please read my first post in this thread. Jesus affirms Mosaic ie Old Testament law where sexuality is concerned. ie Leviticus stands.

Neither Jesus or St Paul said anything against slavery. Indeed, St Paul returned a slave to their owner, in contravention of Deuteronomy:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

So, by your own logic, slavery is allowed.

P.

antiskeptic

Kenny Red Jeans wrote: »

This thread is hilarious.

Pride comes before a fall..

Seriously, who cares about homosexuality?

Seriously? Lot's of people - including homosexuals

Also why has there been 8 pages of discussion on the matter?

See above.

This is the year 2010, and some of you people are dragging up biblical quotes, in order to discuss the issue of homosexuality.

That's because some of us, Christians an no, are examining the Christian view of homosexuality. Given that Christianity is based on what's written in the Bible, the fact it's 2010 is neither here nor there

I dont wish to troll, but this is just hilarious.

Fair enough. I don't wish to say you're unintelligent, but this post of yours was unintelligent.

Zombrex

Graces7 wrote: »

Jefferson is not God.

Neither are you, so I'm sure you will appreciate when you say

The Laws on homosexuality go back many thousands of years. Period. They are Divine law. Nothing less. Strong and steadfast.

that doesn't mean very much. You could simply be as wrong in your understanding of the Bible, as I imagine you believe Jefferson was.