Homosexuality and The Bible

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

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.

If an animal can be shown to enjoy the act (however one determines such things) or an adult reports their earlier childhood sexual relationship was a positive thing are these things wrong? Morally neutral? Good? I'm trying to understand why something reported as being positive is wrong from your perspective of (what did you call it?) moral nihilism?

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If an animal can be shown to enjoy the act (however one determines such things) or an adult reports their earlier childhood sexual relationship was a positive thing are these things wrong?

Sorry to intrude here. Whatever about the animal case, certainly the childhood sexual relationship that turned out to have a positive outcome is still wrong as there is no way of knowing a priori whether this relationship will be negative (as is nearly always the case) or positive (as is probably very rare).

Doing something which you know a priori is almost certainly going to have a negative impact is simply wrong.

Fanny Cradock

I agree. But note how I framed my question.

Ash.J.Williams

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree. But note how I framed my question.

I guess if there is a bar/nite club catering for it then it's ok?

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If an animal can be shown to enjoy the act (however one determines such things) or an adult reports their earlier childhood sexual relationship was a positive thing are these things wrong? Morally neutral? Good? I'm trying to understand why something reported as being positive is wrong from your perspective of (what did you call it?) moral nihilism?

The adult in question was a child at the time of the experience, which is why I would not take their testimony as evidence that it was a healthy experience. A reportedly positive experience, in the sense of a pleasant experience, is not always a psychologically healthy experience. A drug user might find drugs pleasant, but be unaware of the damage they are doing to themselves and others around them. So when we look at reports of positive experiences with paedophiles, we have to ask ourselves if these positive experiences are damaging.

Fanny Cradock

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I guess if there is a bar/nite club catering for it then it's ok?

Huh?

philologos

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

As do I, but you seem to think that the results will of necessity show that it is biologically determined.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That seems like an excellent argument for allowing gay marriage.

We are talking from a Christian context here since it is the Christianity forum. For all intents and purposes I would see a marriage as the union between a man and a woman as is mentioned Biblically.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

Welcome to postmodernism. People can have interpretations, but it doesn't mean that they are equally valid. Biblically speaking, Christianity is about glorifying God in every single part of ones life. What kind of God would God be if he was miraculously only incorrect in respect to the areas where we don't want Him to have a say in.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If an animal can be shown to enjoy the act (however one determines such things) or an adult reports their earlier childhood sexual relationship was a positive thing are these things wrong? Morally neutral? Good? I'm trying to understand why something reported as being positive is wrong from your perspective of (what did you call it?) moral nihilism?

It would be some what naive to base a determination of whether the event was positive based on the word of a person who has been sexually abused. They certainly may say that it was the best thing that happened to them. They may also have constant nightmares and suffer from long term depression.

People often try to put a positive spin on traumatic events in their lives as part of a self defense mechanism because it can be too painful view what happened negatively.

The ultimate question of whether something is immoral or not comes down to the question of whether it harms the person, mentally or physically, and if the person is old enough to understand and consent to this harm.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

We are talking from a Christian context here since it is the Christianity forum. For all intents and purposes I would see a marriage as the union between a man and a woman as is mentioned Biblically.

The Bible describes marriage as a commitment to God as well. Would that mean that non-Christians who don't do this should not be considered married?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

The ultimate question of whether something is immoral or not comes down to the question of whether it harms the person, mentally or physically, and if the person is old enough to understand and consent to this harm.

You have lost me here. Apparently you are saying it is okay if it does harm if the person knows it is doing harm and consents to it?? So it is okay for someone to volunteer to be a slave or be tortured or be killed by someone else? It os not a morally wrong thing to do?

Now as for the young or mentally disabled person - if they are not competent to understand it is harming them then it is morally wrong to do so?

How do people know what constitutes "harming another person" ?
How do people know the other person is competent to say "go ahead you are not harming me"?

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible describes marriage as a commitment to God as well. Would that mean that non-Christians who don't do this should not be considered married?

No more than non Christians can't go to heaven. Christianity deals with that by saying people can be in a state of grace but be ignorant of the story of Christ.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible describes marriage as a commitment to God as well. Would that mean that non-Christians who don't do this should not be considered married?

Naturally in a Christian sense as this isn't about law, but about Christian opinion. That's at the very least how I'm regarding this thread.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

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

Indeed. Sex was around long before religion & will be around long after religions crumble.

What's immoral is religious folk telling others how to behave.

antiskeptic

old hippy wrote: »

Indeed. Sex was around long before religion & will be around long after religions crumble.

You'll be a fossilisd old hippy before that day comes around in all likelyhood

What's immoral is religious folk telling others how to behave.

What about the people behind "societies" rules and regulations who insist you behave a certain way on pain of imprisonment. They must be really immoral in your sight.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The Bible describes marriage as a commitment to God as well. Would that mean that non-Christians who don't do this should not be considered married?

I don't recall such a passage in the Bible. Marriage is a God-given mandate, but one need not know Him for it to be valid in His sight.

****************************************************************************
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

Apparently you are saying it is okay if it does harm if the person knows it is doing harm and consents to it?? So it is okay for someone to volunteer to be a slave or be tortured or be killed by someone else? It os not a morally wrong thing to do?

Why would it be wrong to treat someone as they wish to be treated, assuming that it is an informed choice?

Some people (including some Christians) are aroused by masochistic sex. Does this make it wrong? Is it wrong to whip someone who will enjoy the pain?

I really don't see how it is immoral.

ISAW wrote: »

Christianity deals with that by saying people can be in a state of grace but be ignorant of the story of Christ.

You really need to talk with the Christians who argue that you cannot be saved without accepting Jesus Christ etc. and hammer out the facts of this (if there are any - is it all subjective? I would argue that it is).

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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?

The abnormal stuff that keeps happening is from one source - the Fall. If you are asking why God allows it to continue, then all we can say is that in His wisdom He has determined the time is will last. The final Day has been fixed. Then perfection will be restored - only more glorious than before.

In the meantime, God has intervened and ensured this perfect end will be accomplished. He sent His son to redeem fallen men, to prepare them for an eternity in glory. When the last of the elect are saved, then the End will come.

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?

I know nothing from myself, but He has spoken - has revealed all we need to know about Himself and our responsibilities as His children. That revelation is called the Bible. If we treat each other as it demands, no injustice will occur.

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.

That's a good general rule. But it could be shared by paedophiles - at least those who think their victims enjoy the experience. So the justness depends on the quality of the 'I'.

*******************************************************************************
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

wolfsbane

Asry said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The model of Genesis 2 is normative, according to Christ. Later generations varied it, but Christ condemns any variation in the passage above.
Where?

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.” The highlighted text shows the one man, one woman of Genesis 2 is THE model. Departure from it is forbidden. Add to that the specific condemnations of homosexuality in both OT and NT, and you have heterosexual marriage as the only valid model.

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.

I'm not disputing homosexuality's extent. Quite the reverse. I'm saying it is abnormal in God's view, and that's the only one that counts. It is of course not the normal in both animal and humankind, but one could argue that for red hair - and it is not immoral. So the immorally can only be determined from God's word.

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.

Quite so!

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

That's only part of the message. The prime commandment is this: Mark 12:30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. That means thinking and doing all according to His revealed will. Homosexuality is condemned by His word, so we cannot love Him and agree with homosexuality.

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

As Donatello rightly pointed out, this was specifically dealing with 'clean' and 'unclean' foods. When Paul dealt with sexual matters, he spoke quite differently:
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.

********************************************************************************
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

I missed this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.

That is to equate 'healthy' or fulfilling with 'rightness'. What may fulfil in this life, will damn in the next.

The same cannot be said for "inter-species" relationships, as animals cannot give consent.

Depends what one means by consent. They are like children in that they cannot morally consent, but can intellectually do so. Providing affection/pleasure can be enough to gain that 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.

Adulterers claim that relationship. And the incestuous.

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.

That is logical for your position. Which goes to show that 'relationship' is not 'rightness'. To establish the validity of homosexual relationships, one has to do the same for incestuous ones. Many who want the former cannot face establishing the latter.

I appreciate your honesty.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's a good general rule. But it could be shared by paedophiles - at least those who think their victims enjoy the experience. So the justness depends on the quality of the 'I'.

This is true, but most people are not paedophiles, and even most paedophiles know that what they are doing is wrong, but do it anyway - same as most thieves know that their actions are wrong etc. etc.

My personal belief is that those paedophiles who believe that their victims enjoy what they do to them are basically mentally ill, or suffer from a personality disorder as psychopaths do, but I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist so I don't expect others to take my beliefs as authoritative.

Your point about using the Bible as your guide is a little problematic, as there are as many possible interepretations as there are verses. This is why I feel it is more important to be approximately right rather than exactly wrong - I would rather tolerate homosexual relationships and gay marriage under the 'approximate' rule of 'loving others' and risk being wrong on that score, than castigate, blame and make their lives a misery under some 'exactly wrong' interpretations of parts of the Old Testament, and be wrong on that score. Which side do you think Jesus would err on?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You have lost me here. Apparently you are saying it is okay if it does harm if the person knows it is doing harm and consents to it?? So it is okay for someone to volunteer to be a slave or be tortured or be killed by someone else? It os not a morally wrong thing to do?

Yes.

Otherwise being a stunt man would be immoral, as would climbing mount Everest.

ISAW wrote: »

Now as for the young or mentally disabled person - if they are not competent to understand it is harming them then it is morally wrong to do so?

Yes.

I'm struggling to understand the part you are genuinely confused by here?

ISAW wrote: »

How do people know what constitutes "harming another person" ?

Depends on what specifically we are talking about, there is no short answer to that question. Generally harm is assessed as either emotional, mental or physical damage or suffering.

ISAW wrote: »

How do people know the other person is competent to say "go ahead you are not harming me"?

Again no short answer to that question, though I assume you agree there are different standards of assessing competency (for example 3 doctors used a number of examinations to assess that my great uncle was not competent to understand what it meant to sign a legal document when he was in a nursing home once)

ISAW wrote: »

No more than non Christians can't go to heaven. Christianity deals with that by saying people can be in a state of grace but be ignorant of the story of Christ.

That doesn't answer my question. People are saying that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and that homosexual couples in similar partnership should not be considered married.

Marriage though is also defined in the Bible as a commitment to and before God.

So would the Christians here object to non-Christian heterosexual couples who have made no such commitment to God calling themselves "married" on the grounds that this also does not fit the definition of marriage.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Naturally in a Christian sense as this isn't about law, but about Christian opinion. That's at the very least how I'm regarding this thread.

Ah yes, I see your point now, I missed the initial context of your discussion with Monty Burnz about abstinence. You are not in a position to allow gay marriage from a Christian sense, such appeals therefore to limit gay fornication are irrelevant.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah yes, I see your point now, I missed the initial context of your discussion with Monty Burnz about abstinence. You are not in a position to allow gay marriage from a Christian sense, such appeals therefore to limit gay fornication are irrelevant.

I don't see how it is an "appeal" rather than simply saying that this is the base criterion for Christian living. People are free to live in other ways should they choose. Just as I would be free to disobey God, but as a Christian I've chosen not to and indeed am trying continually not to.

That's what this thread concerns.

Asry

wolfsbane wrote: »

Asry said:








As Donatello rightly pointed out, this was specifically dealing with 'clean' and 'unclean' foods.

[/COLOR]

Ha, damn it, I was slightly messing with you when I quoted that. It was my dry idea of a joke

Asry

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Your point about using the Bible as your guide is a little problematic, as there are as many possible interepretations as there are verses. This is why I feel it is more important to be approximately right rather than exactly wrong - I would rather tolerate homosexual relationships and gay marriage under the 'approximate' rule of 'loving others' and risk being wrong on that score, than castigate, blame and make their lives a misery under some 'exactly wrong' interpretations of parts of the Old Testament, and be wrong on that score. Which side do you think Jesus would err on?

I'm completely jumping to the other side of the fence here, but the bible does state very clearly, multiple times, that homosexual sex is both unnatural and morally wrong. See citations throughout this thread. As regards those explicit commands, it's really not open to any interpretation.

Apparently.

I'm planning on learning me some Koine Greek and getting bible study software and translating those passages myself to see any variables/ambiguity in word choices in the original language.

[yes, that's right, I completely just shot myself there but oh well.]

Actually, I have an addition to make to this post. I'm quoting an extract from "Ministry To Persons with a Homosexual Inclination". This is actually a quote of a quote, as it were, as I made my full point in the LGBT forum, about 20 minutes ago. The full post is here. The thread is here.

Extract:

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that
is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has
been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented
as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything
about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the
disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural
ends of human sexuality.

We are all damaged by the effects of sin, which causes desires to become disordered.
Simply possessing such inclinations does not constitute a sin, at least to the extent that they are
beyond one’s control. Acting on such inclinations, however, is always wrong.

wolfsbane

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This is true, but most people are not paedophiles, and even most paedophiles know that what they are doing is wrong, but do it anyway - same as most thieves know that their actions are wrong etc. etc.

My personal belief is that those paedophiles who believe that their victims enjoy what they do to them are basically mentally ill, or suffer from a personality disorder as psychopaths do, but I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist so I don't expect others to take my beliefs as authoritative.

Your point about using the Bible as your guide is a little problematic, as there are as many possible interepretations as there are verses. This is why I feel it is more important to be approximately right rather than exactly wrong - I would rather tolerate homosexual relationships and gay marriage under the 'approximate' rule of 'loving others' and risk being wrong on that score, than castigate, blame and make their lives a misery under some 'exactly wrong' interpretations of parts of the Old Testament, and be wrong on that score. Which side do you think Jesus would err on?

Some things in the Bible are not so clear as others, and disputes will arise over the true meaning. but homosexuality is not one of them. No honest commentator could mistake what the OT and NT teach on the matter. Honest people might disagree with what it says, but will agree that it says it.

There is no wriggle-room on the matter.
******************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!

wolfsbane

Asry wrote: »

I'm completely jumping to the other side of the fence here, but the bible does state very clearly, multiple times, that homosexual sex is both unnatural and morally wrong. See citations throughout this thread. As regards those explicit commands, it's really not open to any interpretation.

Apparently.

I'm planning on learning me some Koine Greek and getting bible study software and translating those passages myself to see any variables/ambiguity in word choices in the original language.

[yes, that's right, I completely just shot myself there but oh well.]

Actually, I have an addition to make to this post. I'm quoting an extract from "Ministry To Persons with a Homosexual Inclination". This is actually a quote of a quote, as it were, as I made my full point in the LGBT forum, about 20 minutes ago. The full post is here. The thread is here.

Extract:

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that
is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has
been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented
as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything
about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the
disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural
ends of human sexuality.

We are all damaged by the effects of sin, which causes desires to become disordered.
Simply possessing such inclinations does not constitute a sin, at least to the extent that they are
beyond one’s control. Acting on such inclinations, however, is always wrong.

Yes, having temptations is not the sin. The person who has them must put them to death. Maybe that means removing any conditioning/behaviour that tends toward such temptation. It certainly means asking God to remove it, or give all necessary grace to overcome.

************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife!

wolfsbane

Asry wrote: »

Ha, damn it, I was slightly messing with you when I quoted that. It was my dry idea of a joke

Monty Burnz

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some things in the Bible are not so clear as others, and disputes will arise over the true meaning. but homosexuality is not one of them. No honest commentator could mistake what the OT and NT teach on the matter. Honest people might disagree with what it says, but will agree that it says it.

There is no wriggle-room on the matter.

So can you please tell me what Jesus said about homosexuality?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is an "appeal" rather than simply saying that this is the base criterion for Christian living.

Sorry, I meant the appeal was that Christians should be happy that gays get married because it stops un-married fornication. That was made by someone else to you. You are not in a position to say Oh ok yes lets do that, since as a Christian you are following what you believe is God's wishes, not deciding things yourself should be this way or that way.

Quo Vadis

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So can you please tell me what Jesus said about homosexuality?

Excellent question.

Matthew 19:4-6
“Haven’t you read,” (Genesis 1:27) he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Genesis 1:27 "From the beginning He made them male and female, and the man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one"

Matthew 10:15 -- "I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

also Matt 11:23; Luke 10:12; Luke 17:29

So Jesus was well aware of the "sin of Sodom" that required God's judgment. (It wasn't "inhospitality" as some "pro-gay" theologians attempt to weakly argue....)

You could also try to weakly argue, that Jesus also never mentioned slavery, abortion, etc. etc. To argue that you cannot believe something Jesus may or may not have clearly said would be to rip out all of the New Testament besides the four gospels

And, last but not least :

Matthew 5:17-19 The Fulfillment of the Law
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.