Homosexuality and The Bible

yawha

Donatello wrote: »

How come there are mad levels of promiscuity among the homosexual community, much greater than among heterosexual fornicators?

Do you have stats to back this up?

Also, what does it matter? Promiscuity is an entirely separate issue. Or is your point that non-promiscuous homosexual activity is ok?

mcmoustache

I don't know why I'm following this thread but I think I'm feeling PDN's exasperation. The bible is clear on this. Whatever about whether it's right or wrong ethically, the bible states that homosexual acts are a sin. Donatello has provided sources. I don't see how this can be up for discussion in a Christian context.

If a person is gay or bi, could they not try Humanism instead? It's like Christianity without God and the bible .

smokingman

Donatello wrote: »

How come there are mad levels of promiscuity among the homosexual community, much greater than among heterosexual fornicators?

Don, first off: nearly all of my gay friends are far more faithful to their partners than any of my hetero friends so I find it offensive you would post such lies.

Secondly, I think you should just come out and be done with.

A phrase often attributed to the historical Jesus is "he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

mcmoustache

Keylem wrote: »

Catholic christians (I'm sure it's much the same in all other christian denomiations), whether gay or straight are meant to remain celibate until marriage, but many don't!

I don't think that gay sex is allowed when they're married. And I don't think they can get married either in most denominations.

I know that there are clerics willing to marry gay couples but I do find it quite odd. I'm not Christian and I'm in favour of gay marriage but homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible.

I never thought I'd be in so much agreement with the Christians here. I don't think that the beliefs of Christians are right but homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God (I don't believe in God btw). I don't see how anyone can read the bible and think that homosexual acts can be allowed according to it.

mcmoustache

Donatello wrote: »

How come there are mad levels of promiscuity among the homosexual community, much greater than among heterosexual fornicators?

I'm not sure about how true this is. Anecdotally, I know more promiscuous heteros than homos and I know plenty of both sets. Does that mean that the straights are more promiscuous?

philologos

-JammyDodger- wrote:

Christianity mightn't necessarily condemn homosexuals, but you'd have to agree that, if even indirectly, it encourages discrimination towards homosexuals.

It depends on what you mean by discrimination. As I've mentioned already in Christianity the same standard is given by God for all people. Sexual acts outside of a marriage are universally forbidden.

Where I am inclined to agree with you on is that Christians simply don't do enough to help people in their churches deal with their inclinations, they simply just say don't. But that isn't really enough I don't think. A bit of compassion could go a longer way than just saying that it is wrong. I can understand that it is difficult for some, but I am saying it needn't be difficult. Indeed, I suspect that many other passages in the Bible are difficult for other people as well. An alcoholic who has been drinking excessively for many years might find it absurd that the Bible will say don't get drunk.

I'll be back to your longer post when I get some more time.

Keylem

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't think that gay sex is allowed when they're married. And I don't think they can get married either in most denominations.

I know that there are clerics willing to marry gay couples but I do find it quite odd. I'm not Christian and I'm in favour of gay marriage but homosexuality and Christianity are incompatible.

I never thought I'd be in so much agreement with the Christians here. I don't think that the beliefs of Christians are right but homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God (I don't believe in God btw). I don't see how anyone can read the bible and think that homosexual acts can be allowed according to it.

I was referring to celibacy until marriage as per the Catholic Tradition, not gay marriage, (I should have worded it better.) I totally disapprove of gay marriage, and I am not anti-gay as I have family members who I love, who are 'actively' gay.

Apogee

PDN wrote: »

It is a good logical argument. It is not equating homosexuality with theft or paedophilia, nor is it comparing them. It simply skewers some very poor and fluffy thinking by pointing out where the same bad logic can take you.

Yet, with eye-watering predictability, someone starts bleating nonsense about "Oh, but you're comparing gays to paedophiles! How dare you! I'm so offended."

What the hell is wrong with this country's education system? Don't they treat kids to think properly any more? Are we condemned to a future of people getting offended because they can't grasp a simple logical argument?

I wouldn't mind so much if this was a one off, but it isn't. It happens every bloody time. And the crying shame is it derails threads and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion about Christianity and homosexuality.

Yeah, the biblical literalists and fundamentalists on this forum are all slaves to logic. There's absolutely no attempt to draw any sort of comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia - absolutely none whatsoever.

underclass wrote: »

Homosexuality and paedophilia are both sexual perversions.

rant and rave wrote:

While RCC doctrine condemns homosexual acts RCC Bishops tacitly accept homosexual acts between clergy. If the Bishops cannot act on their own belief system and remove active homosexual priests from the ministry then is it no wonder that they see child abuse as a trivial issue and offer succour and protection to sex offenders.

philologos wrote:

Thought provoking: What about incest, bestiality, or paedophilia where this could be argued?

JimiTime wrote: »

I can believe Paedophilia to be wrong and be peaceloving. I can believe orgies to be wrong and be peaceloving, and I can believe homosexuality to be wrong and be peaceloving.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

This is not to say that all homosexuals are abusers, nor is it about scape-goating an entire group of people, just to say that most of the abuse was of a predatory homosexual nature.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

PDN wrote: »

Without implying any moral equivalency - what about paedophiles, those who are into bestiality, those who want to indulge in threesomes, or those who want to sleep with a different woman each night?

Ultravid wrote: »

Peter Tatchel wants the homosexual age of consent lowered. I was sickened by what I read on his own website. It is sheer hypocricy on the one hand to condemn priestly abuse (which it should be condemned) but on the other hand, to ask for the lowering of the age of consent... so that young people can be preyed upon by homosexual men. Right, that makes perfect sense...:rolleyes: So I guess, that way, some of the clerical sex abuse could actually have been morally acceptable? Right... This is now in the realms of NAMBLA. SICK. Yet this is the cutting edge of the gay rights agenda in the UK.

Linus67 wrote: »

I think that a lot of homosexuals joined the church just so they could have easy access to little boys. Maybe paedophilia is the next stage of homosexuality.

philologos

Apogee - I can't find where I said what you've attributed to me on this thread. I suspect it may be from a previous discussion.

Found the post. It seems you ignored the red text:

N.B - I am not implying that homosexuality is the same as any of these three things, I am merely saying that this quote is applicable to incest, bestiality and paedophilia. I repeat, I am not saying that homosexuality is the same as these things.

The response was to this post:

It means love, and acceptance of that love.
If two people love each other regardless they should be allowed get married.
The 'pressure group' argument is irrelevant unless love is involved.

I said, that in cases of incest or paedophilia it could be argued that there is genuine love in the relationship. I never once claimed they were morally equivalent.

PDN

philologos wrote: »

Apogee - I can't find where I said what you've attributed to me on this thread. I suspect it may be from a previous discussion.

Found the post. It seems you ignored the red text:

Probably better not to feed the troll, or to confuse it with facts or context.

Fanny Cradock

I assume, Apogee, you did a search under the keywords "homosexuality and paedophilia" for all the major Christian posters on this forum.

If you had of bothered to read my post (rather than just copying and pasting) then you would have noted that I was specifically denying the claim from an atheist poster that 1 Kings 17:1-24 was "a fairly explicit homosexual story" between Elisha and a boy.

Nowhere did I equate homosexuality to pederasty.

I find your attempts to misrepresent what I said to be an offensive and underhanded slur.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

How come there are mad levels of promiscuity among the homosexual community, much greater than among heterosexual fornicators?

If your a genuinely hetrosexual male you really dont get out much or associate with many hetrosexual males under 40!

They are just as "preconscious" if not more so!

TylerIE

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't know why I'm following this thread but I think I'm feeling PDN's exasperation. The bible is clear on this. Whatever about whether it's right or wrong ethically, the bible states that homosexual acts are a sin. Donatello has provided sources. I don't see how this can be up for discussion in a Christian context.

If a person is gay or bi, could they not try Humanism instead? It's like Christianity without God and the bible .

Some Christians feel that the various passages in the bible are to be taken in the context they were written. E.g. the passages on shellfish and clothing of two different materials were applicable but no longer apply.

Others feel that there has been a selective TRANSLATION of the bible. Some versions of the Bible have much less references to homosexuality than the King James or other popular versions. Indeed the King James Version was translated for King James... who I understand was widely believed to have gay relationships... which were socially disapproved of so when translating his bible they made sure to include as many condemnations as possible.

And similarly should we not say that Christians should just try Christianity. If they have a problem with homosexuality just dont engage in homosexuality - rather than preaching against it! If they dont have a problem they can do what they want!

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by discrimination. As I've mentioned already in Christianity the same standard is given by God for all people. Sexual acts outside of a marriage are universally forbidden.

Where I am inclined to agree with you on is that Christians simply don't do enough to help people in their churches deal with their inclinations, they simply just say don't. But that isn't really enough I don't think. A bit of compassion could go a longer way than just saying that it is wrong. I can understand that it is difficult for some, but I am saying it needn't be difficult. Indeed, I suspect that many other passages in the Bible are difficult for other people as well. An alcoholic who has been drinking excessively for many years might find it absurd that the Bible will say don't get drunk.

I'll be back to your longer post when I get some more time.

The alcoholic wasnt born an alcoholic. Its obvious that its harming him and possibly others around him.

Au contraire nobody chooses to be gay. If society would grant LGBT individuals the right to live their lives like equal citizens, including the freedom to develop a committed relationship based on love, there wouldnt be a problem.

kaylem wrote:

I was referring to celibacy until marriage as per the Catholic Tradition, not gay marriage, (I should have worded it better.) I totally disapprove of gay marriage, and I am not anti-gay as I have family members who I love, who are 'actively' gay.

I totally disapprove of white people being allowed to marry black people, I am not anti-white people, as I have family members who I love, who are "actively" white.*

*Above given for demonstration purposes only. Of course different races should be allowed marry.

philologos

lst wrote: »

The alcoholic wasnt born an alcoholic. Its obvious that its harming him and possibly others around him.

We don't know scientifically as to whether or not sexuality is biologically determined. However, even being an alcoholic is a choice who is to say that they won't find the standards that God gives us in respect to alcohol absurd?

PDN

lst wrote: »

And similarly should we not say that Christians should just try Christianity. If they have a problem with homosexuality just dont engage in homosexuality - rather than preaching against it! If they dont have a problem they can do what they want!

So do you feel that Christian leaders should not therefore preach against anything?

(I could cite examples, but then I'd have to put up with some semi-literate half-wit shrieking that I'm equating homosexuality with what ever example I might use )

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

So do you feel that Christian leaders should not therefore preach against anything?

(I could cite examples, but then I'd have to put up with some semi-literate half-wit shrieking that I'm equating homosexuality with what ever example I might use )

When they are preaching against something that

- Hurts or negatively affects no third parties
- is beneficial for the two parties involved
- is not proven or even remotely likely widespread damage to society

and this preaching causes:

- young children to think from an early age that if they are gay its really bad
- young LGBT individuals to grow up feeling they have to play straight
- individuals who belong to the church to actively campaign against LGBT individuals (e.g. through opposing marriage equality)
- decreased feelings of self worth
- a decrease in the value of relationships of LGBT individuals

and is based solely on the a biblial belief that if people engage in these activities they will not be allowed into heaven then no they shouldnt be doing so.

Substitute homosexuality for alcoholism, drug use, paedophilia, domestic violence, spousal abuse, racism, ageism or anything else and one could understand the church's preaching - because all of these things do have negative effects in everyday life.

PDN

lst wrote: »

Substitute homosexuality for alcoholism, drug use, paedophilia, domestic violence, spousal abuse, racism, ageism or anything else and one could understand the church's preaching - because all of these things do have negative effects in everyday life.

Or, substitute the church's teachngs against idolatry. Or rabbis teaching their members not to eat bacon.

It is perfectly right and proper for leaders of any religion to instruct their members in the tenets of their faith. And, if those tenets include prohibitions against certain behaviours, then those religious leaders would be failing in their duties if they kept silent on those issues.

You as an individual hold certain beliefs and opinions. I have no right to dictate to you that you should abandon those beliefs, or that you should be gagged and forbidden to express your beliefs. Equally, I have no right to demand that a rabbi should keep silent about eating bacon, and you have no right to demand that Christians should keep silent about sexual acts outside of marriage (which includes homosexual acts).

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

Or, substitute the church's teachngs against idolatry. Or rabbis teaching their members not to eat bacon.

It is perfectly right and proper for leaders of any religion to instruct their members in the tenets of their faith. And, if those tenets include prohibitions against certain behaviours, then those religious leaders would be failing in their duties if they kept silent on those issues.

You as an individual hold certain beliefs and opinions. I have no right to dictate to you that you should abandon those beliefs, or that you should be gagged and forbidden to express your beliefs. Equally, I have no right to demand that a rabbi should keep silent about eating bacon, and you have no right to demand that Christians should keep silent about sexual acts outside of marriage (which includes homosexual acts).

The Church's teaching on idoltry do not damage anybody. A Rabbis instructions on eating bacon do not damage anybody (apart from perhaps a slight reduction in meat sales by a butcher, but he could do substitute products instead, and perhaps even earn more money from them). People can choose to engage in either. People do not choose to be gay.

And while I can see that the church may want to instruct its members I would have more time for them if all they did do was instruct their members, particularly if they reminded their members that its not their (the members) place to judge.

However religious organisations dont restrict themselves to their members. Furthermore their teachings to their members do damage the children of the members, who unfortunately dont have the choice on whether or not they get to listen to their sexuality being abused. Their teachings tell these children that another child who has two mammys is living in a house of sin.


Is that right or acceptable?

With every right comes responsibility - freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to not cause injury or harm to others.

PDN

lst wrote: »

People do not choose to be gay.

I didn't choose whether I liked bacon or not.

Whether I eat bacon or not is a choice. I can choose to act upon my bacon-liking inclination or not.

And while I can see that the church may want to instruct its members I would have more time for them if all they did do was instruct their members, particularly if they reminded their members that its not their (the members) place to judge.

However religious organisations dont restrict themselves to their members.

Some religious organisations do, some don't. That is why such sweeping blanket generalisations do little to facilitate discussion.

When was the last time the Quakers tried to force their beliefs on you?

Furthermore their teachings to their members do damage the children of the members, who unfortunately dont have the choice on whether or not they get to listen to their sexuality being abused. Their teachings tell these children that another child who has two mammys is living in a house of sin.


Is that right or acceptable?

It is right and acceptable that religions should teach their members, in love, what the beliefs of that religion are. I certainly wouldn't support telling a child something about another child living in 'a house of sin'. But it is right to teach what the church considers to be sin. For example, I would teach children in our church that we should not worship statues - but I wouldn't say. "Your friends are living in a house of sin because they have a statue of Mary in the hallway."

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

I didn't choose whether I liked bacon or not.

Whether I eat bacon or not is a choice. I can choose to act upon my bacon-liking inclination or not.

Someones sexuality is far more intrinsic than a like for a certain type of food.
Do the Rabbis go round telling the govenment to ban bacon? If you never tasted bacon as a child would you still like it or want to eat it? Would your passion for bacon exist if Ireland was a vegetarian state? It was something you developed as you grew up.

One can be raised a Jew, and never fed bacon. They wont know the taste of bacon so they wont miss it. It probably wont affect them negatively.
One can be raised a catholic, and never exposed to homosexuality. If they are gay they are still gonna be gay.

Furthermore preaching that eating bacon is wrong will not significantly damage the self worth of any member of the congregation. They know its a choice that if they want to be of this religion, they cant eat bacon. They wont suffer. Saying that LGBT individuals cannot engage in loving sharing relationships giving themselves fully to each other is a lot more of a sactifice.

Some religious organisations do, some don't. That is why such sweeping blanket generalisations do little to facilitate discussion.

When was the last time the Quakers tried to force their beliefs on you?

Fair point. When even a significant minority of Churches force their beliefs its becomes a problem.
Incidentally my understanding is that quakers accept LGBT individuals as they are, and the quakers I do know have a lesbian couple who are a core part of their church group.

The experience in Ireland is that the RC Church pushes its opinions. Similar experiences have been found in the UK when it comes to LGBT issues. And in the States.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

We don't know scientifically as to whether or not sexuality is biologically determined. However, even being an alcoholic is a choice who is to say that they won't find the standards that God gives us in respect to alcohol absurd?

I can assure you that sexuality is not chosen consciously.

God's standards pertaining to the choices people make are a little more reasonable than saying that God says" your gay but your supposed to ignore that part of you". Your making him sound like a sadist!

However him saying that "you must not abuse alcohol" sounds a little more reasonable, after all alcohol abuse causes you serious ill health and damages other around you.

Bring it a step further and say that God loving and kind. We could see his advice to not abuse alcohol as being for our own good so that we dont hurt ourselves. And on judgement day he says "you shoudlnt have done that, but I was saying that for your benefit because I love you". If an alcoholic has hurt only himself (and has loved and cared for his neighbours and others) over the course of his life do you believe God wont let him into heaven? Is that not plausible? Just as its plausible that the biblical references to homosexuality should be taken in the context of societal needs and cultural beliefs?

PDN

lst wrote: »

Someones sexuality is far more intrinsic than a like for a certain type of food.

It might be in your very subjective opinion. I could equally argue that my faith is far more intrinsic than anyone's sexuality.

Do the Rabbis go round telling the govenment to ban bacon?

No, and neither do I go around telling them to ban gay sex.

God's standards pertaining to the choices people make are a little more reasonable than saying that God says" your gay but your supposed to ignore that part of you". Your making him sound like a sadist!

Some people have an inclination towards homosexual activities, others have different inclinations. It's hardly sadism to ask people to exercise a bit of control over their own actions.

The experience in Ireland is that the RC Church pushes its opinions. Similar experiences have been found in the UK when it comes to LGBT issues. And in the States.

Agreed. But, there again, I'm not a Catholic.

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

It might be in your very subjective opinion. I could equally argue that my faith is far more intrinsic than anyone's sexuality.

You cannot reasonably argue that you were born with a belief that there was a God and that from birth you believed he said do not do ABCD and E. Sex and sexuality are a hugely intrinsic part of a person. For people raised in a community of faith or exposed to faith, that faith may also be a hugely intrinsic part. That faith condemning LGBT individuals can not possibly be. For those with no exposure to Religious Faith over their entire lives, do they develop faith to the same God with the same rules?

No, and neither do I go around telling them to ban gay sex.

Worse still churchs dictate that Gay relationships are unequal.

Some people have an inclination towards homosexual activities, others have different inclinations. It's hardly sadism to ask people to exercise a bit of control over their own actions.

Its certainly nowhere far from it making someone LGBT, but stating that they are to live their lives as a gay or lesbian individual who cannot develop loving complete relationships with someone of the gender they desire.

Agreed. But, there again, I'm not a Catholic.

You asked do the Religious Organisations force their beliefs.

PDN

lst wrote: »

You cannot reasonably argue that you were born with a belief that there was a God and that from birth you believed he said do not do ABCD and E. Sex and sexuality are a hugely intrinsic part of a person. For people raised in a community of faith or exposed to faith, that faith may also be a hugely intrinsic part. That faith condemning LGBT individuals can not possibly be. For those with no exposure to Religious Faith over their entire lives, do they develop faith to the same God with the same rules?

Your definition of intrinsic is intriguing. But I think your emotions are making rational discourse a bit difficult here.

Different people hold different views with differing intensity. The position that "my preferences/inclinations in this area are so important to me that your preferences/inclination in another area cannot be as important to you" is extremely unconvincing.

Some people feel their religion is the most important thing in their lives. Others feel being a vegetarian is. Others feel their sexual orientation is. As a secularist I respect all these people's rights to their opinion, but I reject the view that anyone should say "My feelings are more important than yours because mine are to do with my sexuality."

Worse still churchs dictate that Gay relationships are unequal.

Churches, thank God, are not in a position to dictate anything in society.

They are in a position to state their beliefs, and to set their own rules and standards of membership within their organisation. Which is how it should be.

You asked do the Religious Organisations force their beliefs.

No, I don't think I did.

You made such an assertion, and I said that it is dangerous and unhelpful to make such generalisations. Some religious organisations do, and some don't.

Fanny Cradock

I realise that this is fuel to the fire. Earlier Jimi mentioned Michael Brown and I had a little listen to one of his interviews about his recent book. I can't imagine many people not being impacted by what he has to say.

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

Your definition of intrinsic is intriguing.

Im glad

But I think your emotions are making rational discourse a bit difficult here.

As someone who is a moderater I would have thought that when posting as a normal user you should know better than to make such a comment. Not only is it personal its highly provocative. Indeed what appears to be happening here is that my rational points are proving that nobody has the right to discriminate, label, demean, or discourage LGBT individuals from living their lives.

Different people hold different views with differing intensity. The position that "my preferences/inclinations in this area are so important to me that your preferences/inclination in another area cannot be as important to you" is extremely unconvincing.

Let me spell it out
Religion = Choice
Faith = Arguably Not a choice (some would say people are born seeking a faith etc)
Sexuality = Not a choice

Some people feel their religion is the most important thing in their lives. Others feel being a vegetarian is. Others feel their sexual orientation is. As a secularist I respect all these people's rights to their opinion, but I reject the view that anyone should say "My feelings are more important than yours because mine are to do with my sexuality."

Sexual orientation is not the most important part of the lives of most gay people I know. Their love for their partner may be. Do you think that Love should be the most important part of someones life? Perhaps you feel Love for God should be first. But after Love for God?

Equality is however a hugely important part of the lives of many people I know, particularly straight people.

Churches, thank God, are not in a position to dictate anything in society.

They are in a position to state their beliefs, and to set their own rules and standards of membership within their organisation. Which is how it should be.

Some churches unfortunately still do utilize whatever position they do have to damage LGBT individuals. The anecdotal experiences of my local politicians unfortunately prove this.

No, I don't think I did.

If you say so, my understanding was that you did.

Fanny Cradock

lst wrote: »

Sexuality = Not a choice

Can you expand on this? Are you saying that sexuality is determined at the genetic level?

I ask this as somebody who has no particular stance.

TylerIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you expand on this? Are you saying that sexuality is determined at the genetic level?

I ask this as somebody who has no particular stance.

With all due respect lets not pretend your on the fence.

Im saying that Sexuality is not chosen. Nobody that I know chose to be gay, just like you never chose to be straight... simples.

I will not state that "sexuality is determined at the genetic level" because as yet research has not proven that. There is however some research that states its not. And some that states it is.

TylerIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I realise that this is fuel to the fire. Earlier Jimi mentioned Michael Brown and I had a little listen to one of his interviews about his recent book. I can't imagine many people not being impacted by what he has to say.

Do you care to give a brief summery. I glanced at the book review but dont want to jump to conclusions?