Homosexuality and The Bible

mcrdotcom

I have a blog, which I am trying to format as a discussion blog.

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/homosexuality-and-the-bible/

So basically I was hoping for some feedback etc... and also I would like to hear your views on the topic.

It is about homosexuality and the bible.

EDIT: This was in the LGBT section, now it is here, so I hope that people on the other side of the argument can respond. I would like to make it clear that all views will be equally respected. Also, responses will be used in the next blog, hopefully 2 from each side.

Everything is explained in the blog.

Thanks

Sir Ophiuchus

Don't say "sexual preference" right before explaining how being gay is not a choice. The correct term is "sexual orientation". Being lesbian or gay is a sexual orientation. The reverse cowgirl is a sexual preference.

mcrdotcom

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Don't say "sexual preference" right before explaining how being gay is not a choice. The correct term is "sexual orientation". Being lesbian or gay is a sexual orientation. The reverse cowgirl is a sexual preference.

Ah, point taken, shall change that. Thank you

wonderfulname

You confuse me, I'm sorry to say I couldn't follow it, probably more a reflection on my tiredness than anything though. The big thing that stuck with me was the "state in America...planning to ban any reference to homosexuality before middle schooling, in school." You should have done a post on that - very interesting (if mildly depressing) topic... might steal that one for myself...

For anyone who wants to know more on that story: link

OP, 2 things, one, you should provide more information, so as people can come to a conclusion as you ask, concrete facts and quotations as opposed to your own assumptions. Two, the username, MCR.com? Or something completely different? Words may as well be running around the screen for me today...

philologos

You should really post this on the Christianity forum. It could be good to discuss, and that's the main place you're going to get the most contribution from a Christian perspective.

There are few things that you bring up here that the LGBT forum charter doesn't permit (such as speculating on whether or not sexuality is biologically determined or talking about the Bible could be perceived as Bible-bashing) that could restrict contribution on a few points. Needless to say as someone who does believe that all sexual relations outside of marriage falls short of God's standard (or is a sin) I wouldn't agree with much of your post.

I do agree with some of it however, I believe that churches disproportionately condemn homosexual relations above other sin. I also don't believe that I am any more or any less a sinner than anyone else. I don't believe that churches should deny that sin is sin however. I recognise that sin is undesirable an aim to change my ways and to repent of my sin, to turn back on it and start afresh.

Edit: Your argument also presents a misunderstanding as to the Levitical laws, and what Jesus taught in respect to them, and indeed how Jesus' life, death and resurrection changes Christian perception of the Jewish law which is why bringing this to the Christianity forum could really help.

Links234

The bible is very homoerotic in parts, I think.

TylerIE

From the blog

To begin, I am myself a heterosexual person. I have no problem what so ever with homosexual people, and I have many friends of this orientation

Splitting hairs but I do read a lot of the pro and anti gay rants from the States.

Its generally the strong anti-gay pro Christian people who keep referring to "homosexuality".

Id probably state that "I have no problem with LGBT individuals" if I had to state anything...

However as my old English teacher used to say - when people say "no problem" it brings up the issue of a "problem".

So it might be even more desirable to say "While I am straight or hetrosexual I see all people as being equal regardless of sexual orientation." Saying you have "no problem" suggests that its normal or that its expected that you would have a problem.

I didnt take that literal interpretation for it, however for someone whos only coming to terms with their sexuality, then terminology can be REALLY important.

I dont mean to appear rude however as your probably going to alienate the Christian side regardless, Id be careful with your terminology in order to avoid alienating the LGBT community also.

Otherwise the Gay Christian Network and youtube can provide some interesting source material for discussion and research.

mcrdotcom

philologos wrote: »

You should really post this on the Christianity forum. It could be good to discuss, and that's the main place you're going to get the most contribution from a Christian perspective.

There are few things that you bring up here that the LGBT forum charter doesn't permit (such as speculating on whether or not sexuality is biologically determined or talking about the Bible could be perceived as Bible-bashing) that could restrict contribution on a few points. Needless to say as someone who does believe that all sexual relations outside of marriage falls short of God's standard (or is a sin) I wouldn't agree with much of your post.

I do agree with some of it however, I believe that churches disproportionately condemn homosexual relations above other sin. I also don't believe that I am any more or any less a sinner than anyone else. I don't believe that churches should deny that sin is sin however. I recognise that sin is undesirable an aim to change my ways and to repent of my sin, to turn back on it and start afresh.

Edit: Your argument also presents a misunderstanding as to the Levitical laws, and what Jesus taught in respect to them, and indeed how Jesus' life, death and resurrection changes Christian perception of the Jewish law which is why bringing this to the Christianity forum could really help.

Honestly, I was very unsure as to where I should post this, and I saw this section and thought that the mods would move it if they thought it was in anyway offending or against the rules.

philologos

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Honestly, I was very unsure as to where I should post this, and I saw this section and thought that the mods would move it if they thought it was in anyway offending or against the rules.

It's just I don't think you will get much input from a Christian perspective this way. There are topics which are (understandably I guess, people won't want to see critiques of homosexual activity in the LGBT forum) forbidden for discussion in the LGBT forum which could hinder a full discussion on this topic. I think it is a good catalyst for discussion.

mcrdotcom

wonderfulname wrote: »

You confuse me, I'm sorry to say I couldn't follow it, probably more a reflection on my tiredness than anything though. The big thing that stuck with me was the "state in America...planning to ban any reference to homosexuality before middle schooling, in school." You should have done a post on that - very interesting (if mildly depressing) topic... might steal that one for myself...

For anyone who wants to know more on that story: link

OP, 2 things, one, you should provide more information, so as people can come to a conclusion as you ask, concrete facts and quotations as opposed to your own assumptions. Two, the username, MCR.com? Or something completely different? Words may as well be running around the screen for me today...

I was planning to discuss that, and I may open it up in the next post, however, I just don't know much about the law itself. However, as I mention in the post, this is a learning curve for me to better my blogging I go along.

Also, it is mcr.com, it is the username I have used for years and years, and nobody has ever ever ever gotten it right!

Finally, I don't own a bible and I could not find the exact quotations, however, I am doing my best to have them for clarification in the next post, and in the future I hope the blogs will be much better. This one was just to test, and I didn't want to put tonnes of time into something that was going nowhere.

Thank you very much for the input

mcrdotcom

philologos wrote: »

It's just I don't think you will get much input from a Christian perspective this way. There are topics which are (understandably I guess, people won't want to see critiques of homosexual activity in the LGBT forum) forbidden for discussion in the LGBT forum which could hinder a full discussion on this topic. I think it is a good catalyst for discussion.

Is there any chance a mod could move this over?

I think I have a lot of response from the LGBT side now (because I have a few friends who are gay) and on this forum.

So, if it is possible to move the thread with these posts still remaining that would be wonderful, but if not, I will just start one up there myself.

mcrdotcom

lst wrote: »

I dont mean to appear rude however as your probably going to alienate the Christian side regardless, Id be careful with your terminology in order to avoid alienating the LGBT community also.

I don't take it as rude. All constructive criticism is accepted with open arms, thank you.

I honestly did not think that it would be seen in an offensive way by anyone, and I will change that.

Also, I have no intention of alienating anyone. Obviously, with my beliefs, my views are going to seem like that, but I hope that I can have an equal balance in my response post, from Christian people and LGBT people.

mcrdotcom

DubArk wrote: »

Yes you’re trying to get a discussion going………. Not a bad thing normally. But here I feel we’re just a little bible weary….. Those Christians are relentless really; it’s like a religion to them you see.
Fact= I’m gay.
Fiction= Christianity.

Well I like a controversial topic. I really like discussion, and if everyone can respect everyone, then it should be fine.

Also, I would ask anyone with a wordpress account, please subscribe and comment, I promise it will improve

rainbow kirby

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Is there any chance a mod could move this over?

Done.

philologos

mcrdotcom wrote: »

Finally, I don't own a bible and I could not find the exact quotations, however, I am doing my best to have them for clarification in the next post, and in the future I hope the blogs will be much better. This one was just to test, and I didn't want to put tonnes of time into something that was going nowhere.

biblia.com provides a number of translations in English and allows you to compare translations. Indeed, I think it has a few commentaries too.

For indepth study into the Bible I would suggest looking into getting a concordance such as Strongs (I think this can be found online) or looking into Biblical commentaries which can also be found online. John Wesleys and Matthew Henry's are quite good.

Commenting on stuff like this will require good referencing and good knowledge of the context in which passages are written. If one is going to write about the Bible, it is fair that one should have a general knowledge of what it is saying.

philologos

Just to bump this briefly briefly, it could be great if some of us could give the OP some of our thoughts on this topic.

Donatello

I'm Catholic which means I believe what the Church teaches about this moral issue.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states thus:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You can read more about the Catholic teaching here:

Homosexuality

With further commentary here:

I know many gays and lesbians who are very nice persons. So why should they be rejected by the Catholic Church?

Only the Church teaches the complete truth about human sexuality. The truth which liberates rather than enslaves. The world would have it that persons are slaves to their sexual urges, like animals. The Church, on the contrary, holds the dignity of man created in the image of God as a permanent value and espouses holy chastity, which brings human sexuality into the plan of redemption, which leads to wholeness of the person, in the model of the perfect man, Jesus Christ.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

I know many gays and lesbians who are very nice persons. So why should they be rejected by the Catholic Church?

Funny how if you got to the "Who writes this page" link on that site the author seeks donations as though a donation to him is doing great good for the world.

Like a lot of the Conservative Politicans, including some of our own, I find these sites seem to offer a selective interpretation, that feeds a radical right, who subsequently are delighted to pay or donate to those who support their views.

wolfsbane

mcrdotcom wrote: »

I have a blog, which I am trying to format as a discussion blog.

http://mcrdotcom.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/homosexuality-and-the-bible/

So basically I was hoping for some feedback etc... and also I would like to hear your views on the topic.

It is about homosexuality and the bible.

EDIT: This was in the LGBT section, now it is here, so I hope that people on the other side of the argument can respond. I would like to make it clear that all views will be equally respected. Also, responses will be used in the next blog, hopefully 2 from each side.

Everything is explained in the blog.

Thanks

Hi, mcrdotcom

From the blog:

There is, as far as I am aware, three references to this topic in the bible. It is mentioned in the old testament (I am not going over all the references in the bible because this blog ended up 1000+ words), a long side the part that says you cannot wear clothing with wool more than once or something like that. Yet, most Christian people do wear wool, when they so wish.

I chose this reference because I think it beautifully shows how the bible can be taken completely out of proportion. If some person were to suggest it sinful to wear wool at any given time of day, I am sure you would think it absurd… Just like I think it is absurd to tell a person that they cannot act of their sexual orientation.

Yes, homosexuality was condemned in the OT, as were many things. Some of them were moral in nature, some were symbolic. For example, murder in the former class, wearing mixed fabrics in the latter.

The question of where homosexual activity lies in that can be partly assessed from both the penalties attached and the level of condemnation levelled.

It was a capital offence, and it was listed as a substantial reason behind Sodom - and other people's - destruction.

But the clearest condemnation of homosexuality is in the NT. Fro example, Paul lists it as a prime judgement on idolaters:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 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, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And with other grave sins:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Also, is it not true that Jesus loved sinners? He died for our sins, yet, the church will denounce homosexuality as an abomination, even though, we all sin on a daily basis, and they do not denounce the majority of these sinning people ? I believe it should be taken along side every verse in the bible, in the same proportion, which means, although you probably shouldn’t do it as a Christian, you do it anyway and God will forgive you. The church does not publicly denounce those who steal, yet, today I stole that which I was forbidden to, a biscuit belonging to my mother. Should I be held accountable before God in relation to this clear breach in the ten commandments? I do not think so.

Every unrepented sin will land you in hell. And any church calling itself Christian ought to condemn every sin. As to denouncing the sinner, we do so - warning every man that all sin brings one to hell. We denounce the thief, the adulterer, the liar, etc.

Now, if a Christian falls into any sin we call him to repent. If he refuses, we treat him as an unbeliever.

Our sexual orientation is determined by the chemical reactions in our brain, and none of us can be held accountable for this. I do not choose to be heterosexual, I just am, like a homosexual is just gay.

To what extent our behaviour is linked to our brain chemistry, I do not know. But I do know we are responsible for acting on any evil thought/desire. I will be accountable for my actions, be they overt immorality or lustful thoughts.

The excuse of 'orientation' is not accepted (by most) for the paedophile, yet he too says, 'I just am'. So orientation (real or imagined) is not the issue. The issue is this: Is the embraced desire/act sinful or not? The Bible says it is.

As an atheist I accept all religious people in society, even though their beliefs are contrary to my own, and I would hope the church would do the same.

I accept homosexuals likewise. That is, I believe them to be perverted in their practice, but that is between them and God. Just as for heterosexuals, provided it is consenting adults, they should have the civil freedom to their beliefs and practices.

I go further - I love homosexuals. I feel sad that they are estranged from God and heading for hell, and I evangelise them as I can. Same goes to for all sorts of sinners. Yes, even the paedophile and murderer. These two I would punish for their sins, unlike the homosexual and fornicator, but I still seek their salvation.

So, in general, to sum up, I have no problem with homosexuals, I think people are very selective in what they pay close attention to in the bible,

Yes, they can be. Selective excusing of our own sins, and hearty condemnation of others' sins. But an honest commentator will certainly acknowledge what the Bible condemns as grave sins, as distinct from lesser ones. Murder is not in the same level as gossip, but both are wicked actions.

So, in general, to sum up, I have no problem with homosexuals, I think people are very selective in what they pay close attention to in the bible, and in the end, we are who we are, and we cannot change that.

As above: we can change that. As Paul points out: And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.



****************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Funny how if you got to the "Who writes this page" link on that site the author seeks donations as though a donation to him is doing great good for the world.

Like a lot of the Conservative Politicans, including some of our own, I find these sites seem to offer a selective interpretation, that feeds a radical right, who subsequently are delighted to pay or donate to those who support their views.

If you don't like that link, dismiss it. I only provided it because it helps, imho, to put the Church's doctrine in everyday language and application. As I see it, his writings on homosexuality are completely in accordance with the Catholic Church doctrine on homosexuality. If you find anything on his site contrary to Catholic faith and morals, you should write to him.

You might prefer to concentrate on the official Church teaching as found in the Catechism.

mcrdotcom

I would like to thank everyone for their input.

I may not believe in what the Christian side is saying, however, I do respect your views.

I will be replying to 4 responses in a blog on Friday night, and I will post the link here.

Fanny Cradock

Unbelievable (it's a UK radio programme) ran a discussion between two gay Christians and their very differing opinions of what it means to be gay and Christian. They also did another two shows entitled Homosexuality and the Bible and Homosexuality and the Church.

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unbelievable (it's a UK radio programme) ran a discussion between two gay Christians and their very differing opinions of what it means to be gay and Christian.

Those wolves at 'Courage' - the UK group - took the name used by a faithful Catholic group for those with homosexual attractions in the USA called Courage. The UK branch of Courage had to use the name EnCourage. Unwary persons could mistakenly think that 'Courage' UK were a faithful apostolate, having heard of the excellent work done by Courage in the USA.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Those wolves at 'Courage' - the UK group - took the name used by a faithful Catholic group for those with homosexual attractions in the USA called Courage. The UK branch of Courage had to use the name EnCourage. Unwary persons could mistakenly think that 'Courage' UK were a faithful apostolate, having heard of the excellent work done by Courage in the USA.

This is where it gets nasty - Courage US is "reorientation therapy", which at best is widely reported to be ineffective, and is likely psychological torture

Encourage UK appears at a glance to promote RC teaching? chaste lives etc?

Whats wrong with the UK group.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

This is where it gets nasty - Courage US is "reorientation therapy", which at best is widely reported to be ineffective, and is likely psychological torture

Encourage UK appears at a glance to promote RC teaching? chaste lives etc?

Whats wrong with the UK group.

No, you are thinking of NARTH. Courage USA does the same sort of work as EnCourage UK.

Many experts in the USA and those who've been helped, would not agree with your comments on therapy.

From the Courage UK website:

In accordance with main-line evangelical thinking on the issue, during the early 1990s, Courage ran a succession of discipleship programmes with a view to helping people ‘come out’ of homosexuality. However, practical experience proved this to be a counter-productive approach. Through our years of pastoral experience, it became increasingly imperative to listen to the Holy Spirit afresh and pursue further scriptural study on the issues. The result is that we have come to recognise that God supports and blesses sincere committed relationships between gay people (for whom a heterosexual relationship is inappropriate).

Wolves they are then.



"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
-- Mt. 7

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

No, you are thinking of NARTH. Courage USA does the same sort of work as EnCourage UK.

Many experts in the USA and those who've been helped, would not agree with your comments on therapy.

I thought the UK Courage group promoted homosexuality? Their intro page is a bit ambiguous. It seems they are an Evangelical group - I had thought they were a group of 'Catholic' dissenters. If I have called Courage UK wolves in error, I apologise and retract my comments. But I'm still not sure if they are promoting homosexuality or chaste living.

Apologies for the mis-understanding. Your link was to Encourage in the UK not Courage UK so I assumed you were seeing encourage as being awful.

Courage in the US is I understand often associated or works with "conversion" therapists.

However the "experts" you mention in the US are not recognised by the professional bodies in their field as being correct in their "research" and approach to reparative therapy.

Indeed when I read one of the most authoritive pieces backing reparitive therapy it stated that those who had been "converted" to hetrosexuality were those from strong Christian Backgrounds, who felt it was unacceptable to be gay and that they must become straight. Almost ALL still had regular same-sex attractions. Few admitted to acting on them but most still had them.

Assuming you have kids do you really want a "converted" gay man marrying your daughter (or niece/ young female cousin if you have no kids)

TheReverend

Its sad that in this day and age people still think being LGBT is a "sin" or "wrong".

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Apologies for the mis-understanding. Your link was to Encourage in the UK not Courage UK so I assumed you were seeing encourage as being awful.

Courage in the US is I understand often associated or works with "conversion" therapists.

However the "experts" you mention in the US are not recognised by the professional bodies in their field as being correct in their "research" and approach to reparative therapy.

Indeed when I read one of the most authoritive pieces backing reparitive therapy it stated that those who had been "converted" to hetrosexuality were those from strong Christian Backgrounds, who felt it was unacceptable to be gay and that they must become straight. Almost ALL still had regular same-sex attractions. Few admitted to acting on them but most still had them.

Assuming you have kids do you really want a "converted" gay man marrying your daughter (or niece/ young female cousin if you have no kids)

Courage USA = Good
EnCourage UK - Good
Courage UK = Bad

There's a lot of political and ideological objections to the work of the likes of NARTH among the APA. But it's an open marketplace - if people want to avail of their services, let them. In the end, the truth will prevail and vindicate those wrongly accused.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Courage USA = Good
EnCourage UK - Good
Courage UK = Bad

There's a lot of political and ideological objections to the work of the likes of NARTH among the APA. But it's an open marketplace - if people want to avail of their services, let them. In the end, the truth will prevail and vindicate those wrongly accused.

Often people are forced by friends or family into going to these services.

And equally as bad they promise cures for desperate people and instead at best rip them off, and likely cause them massive damage.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Often people are forced by friends or family into going to these services.

And equally as bad they promise cures for desperate people and instead at best rip them off, and likely cause them massive damage.

You don't know any of that. Have you been to one? If not, then all you've heard is hearsay from the very people who object so strongly, on ideological grounds, to the work of NARTH. Let people make their own choices about their mental care. Some psychologists say homosexuality is healthy and normal, others say it makes you sad and offer to help.

This is good background reading.

lst

lst wrote: »

Often people are forced by friends or family into going to these services.

And equally as bad they promise cures for desperate people and instead at best rip them off, and likely cause them massive damage.

But the root cause is still religion. I mean, if some segments of Christianity didn't condemn homosexuality people wouldn't feel forced to try and change themselves, and if people didn't feel forced to try and change themselves organisations that sold the "cure of homosexuality" wouldn't exist.

I've still never heard a compelling reason as to why homosexuality is actually condemned. I know it's mentioned in the Bible, but that's not the root of my concern (as an aside, there's plenty more condemned in the Bible that doesn't get the same disdain as homosexuality does). To get a little bit philosophical: why would God create a person gay (and he does, it's not a lifestyle choice before somebody jumps in with that), yet condemn him from acting upon his nature. You can say it's a test for him, yet it seems an unfair test when others aren't subjected to the same.

The only answer I ever get is that "we can't know the mind of God", or some such variant guised in more elaborate language.