Homosexuality and The Bible

Monty Burnz

Terrlock wrote: »

Your Buddhist monk that hasn't sinned is exactly that Hypothetical, there isn't one.

You can't possibly know that for a fact - unless you are God?

Terrlock wrote: »

The message of the Gospel is a simple one to understand, and yes everyone in the world shall hear it, and if there are not interested that is there choice to make.

Hear it in how much detail? In what context? Is it fair that someone who hears an off-hand comment that 'Jesus saves' is condemned to hell, while someone who grows up in a Christian family in a Christian community goes to heavan?

Terrlock wrote: »

The Bible is the word of the lord and proves itself that it comes from the Lord and transcends time itself.

The Koran makes the same claim. Who to believe?

Terrlock wrote: »

I know no other book that comes close to the miracles, the details, the science, the advance encryption systems and authentication systems that the Bible contains in the very way the text is written.

Well, the Koran makes the same claim for a start.

Monty Burnz

philologos wrote: »

This assumes that sexuality is biologically determined.

And all the evidence seems to show that it is. You are aware that some animals have been shown to engage in homosexual behaviour too - why did God make them do that? Is it some sort of joke?

philologos wrote: »

As for God creating homosexuals, I believe He just created people male and female.

With no sexuality?

Quo Vadis

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), a behavior is not rendered acceptable simply because someone is born with an urge to act on it.

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And all the evidence seems to show that it is. You are aware that some animals have been shown to engage in homosexual behaviour too - why did God make them do that? Is it some sort of joke?

Yes, I am. I've mentioned it earlier in this thread. There are many things that animals and humans do, this doesn't mean that they are hardwired to do them.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

With no sexuality?

Everyone has some form of sexual inclination. Whether or not this is developed as life goes on or something hardwired isn't clear scientifically at present. Even if they were, people sometimes have to moderate said inclinations.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But why would god create homosexuals (in nature as well as in human kind) only to send them to hell for doing what he made it natural for them to want to do?

It doesn't appear to breach Christianity's simple golden rules: honour God, and don't do things that harm others. Or the Ten Commandments either for that matter.

God made man perfect (Adam & Eve). Their sin meant their children were born with a sinful nature. Just how that sinful nature expresses itself varies with the individual - bad temper, deceit, greed, malice, sexual deviancy, etc. We all have bits of that in our nature; each has more of one than another.

Does that mean we are not responsible for controlling our particular sinful desires? Not at all. The apostle tells us we are to put to death the old nature - daily.

However, I'm not convinced sexual deviancy is something we are born with. It could be a learned response, a sinful response to our environment. Others may have a major responsibility in causing us to go down that road, but the choice is still ours.

It does break God's commands, therefore it does dishonour Him. We were made for 'one man, one woman for life' relationships. Everything else is a deviancy from His will.

*****************************************************************************
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Monty Burnz

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), a behavior is not rendered acceptable simply because someone is born with an urge to act on it.

True. But if the behaviour is harmless and consensual, then deciding that it is not acceptable is simply a social construct. Burping loudly at the dinner table is not acceptable in some cultures, in others it is. But it is a natural behaviour, and it is harmless (although perhaps not consensual ).

Secular society looks at various acts - theft, murder, fraud, rape etc. - and determines that harm is being done to people and therefore these behaviours are not welcome and may be punished. It looks at others - burping, singing in the shower, gay sex, poor dress sense - and recognises that no harm is being done, there is no injured party, and so these behaviours are not punished.

Personally I don't like bad singing, people dressing badly, burping etc. but I don't think that these people are committing sins and would certainly not like to think that an all-merciful God would punish people for these acts.

And the studies regarding whether homsexuality is a natural in-born behaviour may be 'inconclusive' at the moment, but if and when scientific consensus emerges that it is an innate part of a human being, will you change your view on its sinfulness?

Monty Burnz

philologos wrote: »

Yes, I am. I've mentioned it earlier in this thread. There are many things that animals and humans do, this doesn't mean that they are hardwired to do them.

Are you arguing that some animals have been reared in a gay home or something? I'm genuinely confused here. Surely everything that animals do is hardwired, or are we ascribing free will to them?

philologos wrote: »

Everyone has some form of sexual inclination. Whether or not this is developed as life goes on or something hardwired isn't clear scientifically at present. Even if they were, people sometimes have to moderate said inclinations.

When it does become scientifically clear, will your view change? And why should people moderate harmless inclinations?

Donatello

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And all the evidence seems to show that it is. You are aware that some animals have been shown to engage in homosexual behaviour too - why did God make them do that? Is it some sort of joke?

With no sexuality?

Little animals might do that when they are stressed, like when in captivity, or whatever.

Some monkeys too. But the whole of creation has fallen, so monkeys sometimes misbehave. There's nothing worse than a badly behaved monkey.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does break God's commands, therefore it does dishonour Him. We were made for 'one man, one woman for life' relationships. Everything else is a deviancy from His will.

With all due respect, this is pure opinion, unsupported by the Bible. And if he intended only male-female relationships, why did he create men who are not attracted to women at all? Again, is this his idea of a joke?

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

Little animals might do that when they are stressed, like when in captivity, or whatever.

Some monkeys too. But the whole of creation has fallen, so monkeys sometimes misbehave. There's nothing worse than a badly behaved monkey.

Animals have been observed to engage in homosexual behaviour in the wild. Back to the drawing board for you.

Donatello

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Animals have been observed to engage in homosexual behaviour in the wild. Back to the drawing board for you.

Aye but there are good reasons for that. Somebody posted about beetles, male beetles, who did this because it increased their chances of reproductive success.

Penguins are sometimes affected in captivity.

Some cheeky monkeys do this as well, along with dolphins.

Regardless of what fallen creation does, why bring animals into it? Female hedgehogs sometimes eat their own children if they are disturbed. Female spiders of some species eat the male after mating. Male lions sometimes kill all the cubs when they take over a pride. I'm not sure comparing ourselves with what animals do is the best way forward, do you?

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

I'm not sure comparing ourselves with what animals do it the best way forward, do you?

It certainly is the best way forward if we are debating whether certain behaviours are natural or unnatural. If it happens in nature, it is natural. Homosexual behaviour is seen in nature, therefore it is natural. QED.

Donatello

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It certainly is the best way forward if we are debating whether certain behaviours are natural or unnatural. If it happens in nature, it is natural. Homosexual behaviour is seen in nature, therefore it is natural. QED.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is good. it is natural for people to get angry. It is natural for people to get violent. it is natural for people to hit other people. It is natural for people to kill each other. Natural, it's all natural. But is it good?

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

Just because something is natural does not mean it is good. it is natural for people to get angry. It is natural for people to get violent. it is natural for people to hit other people. It is natural for people to kill each other. Natural, it's all natural. But is it good?

No. And I don't think that anybody is arguing that all that is natural is good. But if you look at my posts above, you will see that I make a distinction between natural and harmful, and natural and harmless. If it's natural and doesn't hurt anybody, then how is it wrong?

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It does break God's commands, therefore it does dishonour Him. We were made for 'one man, one woman for life' relationships. Everything else is a deviancy from His will.
With all due respect, this is pure opinion, unsupported by the Bible.

I'm sure you are familiar with both the OT and NT condemnation of homosexuality, so I assume you mean We were made for 'one man, one woman for life' relationships is the bit that is unsupported by the Bible.

We have the word of Christ against breaking the marriage bond of male and female, in which He established the original model as the only acceptable model:
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

We have the exemplary model elders are to exhibit:
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

And if he intended only male-female relationships, why did he create men who are not attracted to women at all? Again, is this his idea of a joke?

Men who are not attracted to women are abnormal. Whether they have no sex drive or have a deviant sexual attraction, that is not how man was created. It is a consequence of Adam's fall, that fallen passing on to each of us. And, No, our propensity to sin is not a joke. It is our shame.

*****************************************************************************
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sure you are familiar with both the OT and NT condemnation of homosexuality, so I assume you mean We were made for 'one man, one woman for life' relationships is the bit that is unsupported by the Bible.

We have the word of Christ against breaking the marriage bond of male and female, in which He established the original model as the only acceptable model:
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

We have the exemplary model elders are to exhibit:
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

I have read these quotes repeatedly and for the life of me I cannot see where it says that we were 'made for one man, one woman relationships'. The first is about divorce, and the second instructs that bishops should have one wife. That is it.

Incidentally, it seems the Catholic Church does not take Timothy too seriously.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Men who are not attracted to women are abnormal. Whether they have no sex drive or have a deviant sexual attraction, that is not how man was created. It is a consequence of Adam's fall, that fallen passing on to each of us. And, No, our propensity to sin is not a joke. It is our shame.

Men who have red hair are abnormal. Midgets are abnormal. Women with tiny breasts are abnormal. People who like jazz are abnormal. Train spotters are abormal. Rugby fans are abnormal.

Abnormal is simply a pejorative term for 'different to the majority'. We are all abnormal in some ways. And they clearly are 'how man was created' unless you are postulating that these people were not created by God?

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sure you are familiar with both the OT and NT condemnation of homosexuality, so I assume you mean We were made for 'one man, one woman for life' relationships is the bit that is unsupported by the Bible.

We have the word of Christ against breaking the marriage bond of male and female, in which He established the original model as the only acceptable model:
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

We have the exemplary model elders are to exhibit:
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
I have read these quotes repeatedly and for the life of me I cannot see where it says that we were 'made for one man, one woman relationships'. The first is about divorce, and the second instructs that bishops should have one wife. That is it.

The model of Genesis 2 is normative, according to Christ. Later generations varied it, but Christ condemns any variation in the passage above.

The bishop's qualifications are again the model for a Christian: a one woman man.

OK, let me add one more:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

The remedy for sexual desires that can't be contained is marriage of one man to one woman. Just like in Genesis 2.

Incidentally, it seems the Catholic Church does not take Timothy too seriously.

I agree. They make their own rules, like the Pharisees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Men who are not attracted to women are abnormal. Whether they have no sex drive or have a deviant sexual attraction, that is not how man was created. It is a consequence of Adam's fall, that fallen passing on to each of us. And, No, our propensity to sin is not a joke. It is our shame.
Men who have red hair are abnormal. Midgets are abnormal. Women with tiny breasts are abnormal. People who like jazz are abnormal. Train spotters are abormal. Rugby fans are abnormal.

Abnormal is simply a pejorative term for 'different to the majority'. We are all abnormal in some ways.

Different does not mean abnormal. God made man with differing abilities, for example. Abnormal is that which is outside God's intended form.

We could say red hair is different, something God allowed for in His perfect design. But grey hair and baldness are more likely to be abnormal, being associated with decay leading to death. God did not make man to die.

But the most serious abnormality is the moral one. Sexual deviancy, malice, greed, etc. are degenerations from God's created norm.

And they clearly are 'how man was created' unless you are postulating that these people were not created by God?

We are not created today, at least not in the same sense as Adam & Eve. Our nature now is that which came from Adam after the Fall. It is not that which he had before the Fall.

****************************************************************************
Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Different does not mean abnormal. God made man with differing abilities, for example. Abnormal is that which is outside God's intended form.

Again, this is really confusing. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but abnormal stuff keeps happening to his creation? Is he like me when I try to program stuff - a load of bugs creep in?

And of course you presume that you or any other human can know 'God's intended form'. Does the idea that you can know the mind of God not seem a little arrogant? Is it not possible that you do not fully understand the complexity of his plan, and sin in ignorance against your fellow man by treating them unjustly?

Personally, I play it safe and treat everyone as I would like to be treated. I'll leave the judging of complex stuff to someone else.

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you arguing that some animals have been reared in a gay home or something? I'm genuinely confused here. Surely everything that animals do is hardwired, or are we ascribing free will to them?

I don't see why it is unreasonable to suggest that animals make decisions. Besides as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread if you read it there are considerable differences between homosexual activity in animals from that in humans. I gave an example of how beetles use it to increase fertility. Far from the same reason exhibited in humans.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

When it does become scientifically clear, will your view change? And why should people moderate harmless inclinations?

You mean if the research is in your favour? I don't see what difference it would make. Many people have sexual desires that they have to control rather than exercise. It would be inappropriate for me to exercise my sexuality at every opportunity even if it is biologically determined. There is no reason to believe that this isn't true in other cases.

Monty Burnz

philologos wrote: »

You mean if the research is in your favour?

How do you mean, 'in my favour'??

Asry

wolfsbane wrote: »

Monty Burnz said:

The model of Genesis 2 is normative, according to Christ. Later generations varied it, but Christ condemns any variation in the passage above.

Where?

I can't see how being LGBT is abnormal. 2/3rds of my friends are LGBT. Everyone knows someone who is. Unless you're living in a cave in a field somewhere.

And yes, by all means - promiscuity is a bad thing. It could lead to disease or death, not to mention emotional or psychological trauma. Not all LGBT people are promiscuous, just the way not all heterosexual people are, and believe you me, I've known some incredibly skanky hetero people in my time.


Does the entire message not boil down to
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. -John 13:34


Something else: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. - Romans 14:13-14

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

Where?

I can't see how being LGBT is abnormal. 2/3rds of my friends are LGBT. Everyone knows someone who is. Unless you're living in a cave in a field somewhere.

And yes, by all means - promiscuity is a bad thing. It could lead to disease or death, not to mention emotional or psychological trauma. Not all LGBT people are promiscuous, just the way not all heterosexual people are, and believe you me, I've known some incredibly skanky hetero people in my time.

Does the entire message not boil down to
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. -John 13:34

Something else: Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. - Romans 14:13-14

Sexual immorality is widespread. There is nothing new in that.

Loving one another means to will the good of the other. Sin is not good for anyone, and therefore we must admonish sinners. Indeed, that is one of the spiritual works of mercy, along with instructing the ignorant. There are two kinds of judgement: judging a person's soul state and final destination (heaven or hell), and judging the actions of oneself or another sinner. The latter is not forbidden judgement; it is necessary discernment between what is good and what is evil.

The latter passage you quoted refers to foods, not to sexual behaviours or impurity.

[9] For to this end Christ died and rose again; that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. [10] But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? or thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. [11] For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. [12] Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself. [13] Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother's way. [14] I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. [15] For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Remember that Scripture is interpreted authoritatively by the Church, not through private interpretation:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
- 2 Pt. 3

See here.

Morbert

I missed this post.

wolfsbane wrote: »

An excellent point, Morbert. It does distinguish between mere sexual gratification and emotional love. Certainly all perversions are not alike.

One problem for seeing that as supportive of homosexuality as legitimate is the fact that incest can have the same emotional bonds.

Emotional bonds are no proof of the rightness of any relationship: adultery, incest, homosexuality. I have even heard those engaging in sex with their pets/'animal companions' declare their emotional bonds.

A couple who are 'in love' in an adulterous/incestous/homosexual relationship are just as much sinners as the promiscuous.

Yes, an emotional bond is not an automatic test for the healthiness of a rleationship, but my point was homosexuals in committed relationships aren't simply scratching an itch. They are engaged in a relationship that, religious beliefs aside, is no more or less healthy than a heterosexual relationship.

The same cannot be said for "inter-species" relationships, as animals cannot give consent. I reiterate: The issue is not merely the strength of emotion a person feels, but the relationship that can develop from two people's commitment towards each other.

I personally find incest gross (and I'm sure 99% of people feel the same), but that is not enough for me to condemn such relationships. The only reason I am opposed to incestuous relationships is the potential for lethal genes to become active in children. I can think of no other immediate objection.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

Remember that Scripture is interpreted authoritatively by the Church, not through private interpretation:

We are the Church.

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How do you mean, 'in my favour'??

You said:

When it does become scientifically clear, will your view change?

You mean if to begin with. Secondly, even if it were scientifically clear that this were the case it still doesn't mean that acting upon every single sexual desire that we might have is acceptable. We all have inappropriate desires from time to time, we just have to control and manage them in an acceptable way.

In my case it means waiting until marriage for sexual activity. That seems more reasonable to me than not waiting in a number of ways.

Living for God means living for Him in everything. Giving over every part of your life to Him and entrusting it in His care and for His service.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I can think of no other immediate objection.

And is that a cause of concern for you?

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And is that a cause of concern for you?

No.

Monty Burnz

philologos wrote: »

You mean if to begin with.

No, I meant 'when'. I think that science will be able to resolve this question one way or another in time.

philologos wrote: »

Secondly, even if it were scientifically clear that this were the case it still doesn't mean that acting upon every single sexual desire that we might have is acceptable. We all have inappropriate desires from time to time, we just have to control and manage them in an acceptable way.

I don't believe that I argued that that is acceptable.

philologos wrote: »

In my case it means waiting until marriage for sexual activity. That seems more reasonable to me than not waiting in a number of ways.

That seems like an excellent argument for allowing gay marriage.

philologos wrote: »

Living for God means living for Him in everything. Giving over every part of your life to Him and entrusting it in His care and for His service.

...in your interpretation. You will understand that your interpretation is as valid for you as the next person's is for them.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

No.

If for example, somebody reported having a positive sexual experience with a paedophile (and there are a minority of people who report that their childhood sexual experiences with an adult "have advanced their sexual self-determination, not overwhelmed them" - see Paul Okami for more on this) then what?

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If for example, somebody reported having a positive sexual experience with a paedophile (and there are a minority of people who report that their childhood sexual experiences with an adult "have advanced their sexual self-determination, not overwhelmed them" - see Paul Okami for more on this) then what?

Well I don't believe a child is mature enough to give consent, or to evaluate whether or not an experience was psychologically positive and healthy. An act of paedophilia, positive or otherwise, is something I would always be opposed to.

I will admit that I was only thinking of estranged cousins/siblings cases when I wrote the last post. I would be opposed to father/mother/aunt/uncle and daughter/son/nephew/niece relationships due to any possible coercion or grooming that may occur during childhood.