Homosexuality and The Bible

Keylem

lst wrote: »

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.

Not quite the same thing is it, homosexuality isn't a race!!?

Fanny Cradock

lst wrote: »

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

I haven't read the book myself so I can't comment on it. The talk is quite wide ranging so I couldn't really do it any justice. You'll just have to listen to it. I will admit that I was slightly unnerved listening to it. Though I'm really not sure if this is because I find his remarks objectionable or because I think that he is speaking the truth (or even a little of both).

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Not quite the same thing is it, homosexuality isn't a race!!?

No but its something about you that you cant change.

So the logic is EXACTLY the same.

TylerIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I haven't read the book myself so I can't comment on it. The talk is quite wide ranging so I couldn't really do it any justice. You'll just have to listen to it. I will admit that I was slightly unnerved listening to it. Though I'm really not sure if this is because I find his remarks objectionable or because I think that he is speaking the truth (or even a little of both).

The server is down but its the American Family Association so I can imagine his drivel. From the book review Im expecting him to say that 40 years ago nobody knew any gays, now we know lots, its contagious, we are all gonna get infected and society is gonna die off.....

Really? is being gay THAT appealing to EVERYONE?

PDN

lst wrote: »

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

With all due respect, let's not pretend that Fanny can't be open minded on an issue.

Fanny Cradock

lst wrote: »

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.

I'm saying that I have no definite opinion on whether sexuality - specifically homosexuality - is a result of nature, nurture or a combination of both. Simply because I'm a Christian doesn't mean that I have no option available to me but one.

Given the lack of compelling evidence (at least that I'm aware of) for any definite side, I'm on the fence and happy to stay their until the weight of research pushes me off. If you don't believe me then that is your problem. And I can only assume that you are comfortable second-guessing my responses because you believe Christians should answer in a certain way.

What I want to know is why you think sexuality is not chosen (and here I assume that this refers to any type of concious/ unconscious decision process) given that there is no definitive evidence by your own admission to support this claim? It's not a trick question. I'm not asking so I can back you into a corner. I'm asking because I'm willing to be convinced by the evidence.

Keylem

lst wrote: »

No but its something about you that you cant change.

So the logic is EXACTLY the same.

Perhaps you cannot change who you are but you do have the ability to ABSTAIN from homosexual acts!

Matt: 19:12

Douay-Rheims Bible

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

Fanny Cradock

lst wrote: »

The server is down...

It seems to work fine.

TylerIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given the lack of compelling evidence (at least that I'm aware of) for any definite side, I'm on the fence and happy to stay their until the weight of research pushes me off. If you don't believe me then that is your problem. And I can only assume that you are comfortable second-guessing my responses because you believe Christians should answer in a certain way.

I second guessed your response because previous comments came across as being on the side of the its ok for Christians to discriminate side of the fence.

What I want to know is why you think sexuality is not chosen (and here I assume that this refers to any type of concious/ unconscious decision process) given that there is no definitive evidence to suggest that it is? It's not a trick question. I'm not asking so I can back you into a corner. I'm asking because I'm willing to be convinced by the evidence.

I believe that based on personal experience and on the anecdotal evidence:

1 - Straight people dont choose to be straight.
2 - No Lesbian or Gay man I know chose to be a lesbian or to be gay. The same as no straight person I know chose to be straight.
3 - There is no incentive for gay people to choose to be gay. Indeed if it were a choice (Where a guy can choose to like other girls or guys) it would be much more tempting to be straight.

I dont have research studies to prove it. I could dig up one that suggested that there are certain anatomical differences between gay men and straight men. I don't have them handy but if I was on the fence I would have to say I don't think they were done widely enough to prove anything conclusively. Anecdotally the research concurs with personal experience of gay men, and has proved particularly accurate with regard to a number of "closted" men I know.They were good as an initial examination of the topic, and certainly provide a starting point for further research.

I think a good enough question for you to ask yourself is "did I ever choose to be straight? Did I ever make a conscious decision that it would be a person of the opposite sex that I would grow up to fall in love with and seek to live the rest of my life with them". If not then do you really think a Lesbian or Gay came to that point of their lives and decided "here il go against the grain and choose to have a relationship with someone of the same sex".

TylerIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems to work fine.

Ye its back up now!

philologos

lst: before I respond to you, I have to say there was a typo on my last post. Where I say even alcoholics, I mean even if alcoholics. Keep that in mind.

lst wrote: »

I can assure you that sexuality is not chosen consciously.

I'm not saying of necessity that it is. I am saying that we don't know for sure whether or not people are born with a certain sexuality or not. It could be developed by other factors. It is jumping the gun to make assumptions.

lst wrote: »

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!

See what I said before I started this post. You are assuming that people are of necessity born with a given sexuality. Scientifically we don't know if this is the case.

lst wrote: »

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.

Even if I assume that people are born with a given sexuality, it doesn't follow that it is somehow advantageous to exercise it. I've explained already in this thread why God might say that a marriage between a man and a woman is the best place for sexuality to be expressed. All God's standards are for our own good, its just that we often choose to reject them.

lst wrote: »

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?

If God knows everything there is to know about the universe, and if God genuinely cares for us, God gives us commands for our own good rather than for our detriment. It's nothing to do with culture given that it is brought up in both testaments.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Perhaps you cannot change who you are but you do have the ability to ABSTAIN from homosexual acts!

Like in my example -
White people can abstain from marrying black people.

Matt: 19:12

Douay-Rheims Bible

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.

He that can take, let him take it.

I agree with the text in bold

Gay men are not eunuchs.

What about lesbians? your scripture doesnt cover them?

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

lst: before I respond to you, I have to say there was a typo on my last post. Where I say even alcoholics, I mean even if alcoholics. Keep that in mind.

I'm not saying of necessity that it is. I am saying that we don't know for sure whether or not people are born with a certain sexuality or not. It could be developed by other factors. It is jumping the gun to make assumptions.

And even if its developed by other factors the psychology profession state that its not something that should be changed. The evidence from many of those that have attempted change is that it has seriously damaged their mental health.

.....
Even if I assume that people are born with a given sexuality, it doesn't follow that it is somehow advantageous to exercise it. I've explained already in this thread why God might say that a marriage between a man and a woman is the best place for sexuality to be expressed. All God's standards are for our own good, its just that we often choose to reject them.

Its certainly not advantageous to not exercise it. What reason did you give for stating it to be between a man and a woman?

And regardless of that, Im perfectly happy for the RC Church (and for that matter any church) to restrict marriage in their church to between a man and a woman. I am disgusted that they think they should prevent the civil authorities from allowing the state to Recognize marriage between two individuals who love each other but happen to be of the same sex.

If God knows everything there is to know about the universe, and if God genuinely cares for us, God gives us commands for our own good rather than for our detriment. It's nothing to do with culture given that it is brought up in both testaments.

It would be ludicrous to expect that the Old Testament, after thousands of years and dozens of translations, is exactly the word of God. Indeed whos to say that the people who first wrote it didnt put a personal slant on it. God didnt write it - People Did.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

PDN is right to denounce such reactionary responses, and the argument that it is natural and therefore good is flawed.

A good piece by NT Wright, an excellent theologian, about natural urges and debate regarding homosexuality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs

I would instead say that it is more than just about what is and isn't natural. We all agree that natural urges are often bad. But a committed homosexual relationship is more than just satisfying an urge. It is an expression that resonates with our sense of love, just as deeply as a committed heterosexual relationship. This sense of requited affection and social bonding is unique to homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and is not present in any other relationship, nor is it present in acts of promiscuity, or polygamy, or paedophilia, or drug abuse, or fast-food binging, or killing, or stealing.

The only argument against homosexuality that stands up to scrutiny is that a well-informed interpretation of the Bible supports the claim. Christians must accept that the feelings homosexuals have are identical to heterosexuals, distinct from other urges.

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.

***********************************************************************
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.

TylerIE

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

If thats not comparing homosexuality to the others what is? Mods?

The other relationships obviously can cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties.

The only people affected by gay people who love each other are the two individuals. And they are affected positively! They love each other!

Keylem

lst wrote: »

Like in my example -
White people can abstain from marrying black people.



I agree with the text in bold

Gay men are not eunuchs.

What about lesbians? your scripture doesnt cover them?

Your interpretation of scripture is not exactly correct.

Eunuchs can mean those who are gay/lesbian.

Also the text in bold refers to those who renounce it for the 'Sake of the Kingdom', if they can take it! (Priests, Nuns). you are taking it out of context, to fit your ideals!

philologos

What about lesbians? your scripture doesnt cover them?

Romans 1:26-27 refers to it. Personally it isn't something I have a vested interest in. I'm just trying to follow God as best I can and I hope people will join me in doing so. I've been encouraged to see a few people come to follow Jesus over the past few years and I look forward to seeing more.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Your interpretation of scripture is not exactly correct.

Eunuchs can mean those who are gay/lesbian.

Also the text in bold refers to those who renounce it for the 'Sake of the Kingdom', if they can take it! (Priests, Nuns). you are taking it out of context, to fit your ideals!

I think its your interpretation of eunuchs which is slightly skewed.


Indeed a quick google clarifies that Eunuchs specifically does not refer to LGBT individuals - and suggests that saying it does is LGBT affirming!

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

Romans 1:26-27 refers to it. Personally it isn't something I have a vested interest in. I'm just trying to follow God as best I can and I hope people will join me in doing so. I've been encouraged to see a few people come to follow Jesus over the past few years and I look forward to seeing more.

I was stating that the Eunuch verse didnt apply to lesbians!

Furthermore Romans is one of the VERY few places lesbianism is referred to if Im not mistaken!

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.

I felt physically ill listening to that crap. And had to stop as I started to wretch when he said about the pastor and the lesbians.

The fact that these people make such ABSURD arguments raises very valid questions about ANYTHING that they say.

philologos

lst wrote: »

Furthermore Romans is one of the VERY few places lesbianism is referred to if Im not mistaken!

The Bible isn't a sex-manual, so I'm not surprised that it isn't mentioned frequently. Churches need to deal with how Christianity should affect every area of peoples lives rather than just key issues such as homosexuality or abortion. The Bible involves much more than simply a book telling people what is right and wrong. It also involves the very centre of our relationship with God. To live by Christians is to live with a heart that follows after God Himself.

wolfsbane

-JammyDodger- said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I assume you mean each of those items - discrimination; condemnation; segregation and hatred of individuals is erroneous. Christianity does not teach us to hate the sinner, but it certainly does teach us to discipline those of our church who practice sinner things.
I probably wasn't clear enough in my previous post. I believe that any belief system or institution which doesn't explicitly condemn, let alone condone, any of the above actions (discrimination, etc.) shouldn't be adhered to. Christianity mightn't necessarily condemn homosexuals, but you'd have to agree that, if even indirectly, it encourages discrimination towards homosexuals.

Certainly, in the case of their members. Just the same for members who engage in adultery, incest, etc.

Where the State should discriminate against sexual practices is a difficult matter. Should consenting adults be restricted in any way? I think normally not - but it gets a bit fuzzy in regard to incest.

Quote:
You yourself believe some individuals should face discrimination, condemnation, segregation by the State - at least, that is what I take by your suggesting that their belief systems 'should be scrapped'. I leave 'hatred' for you to comment on.
Scrapped was a bad word to use. People should of course be entitled to their beliefs. I'd just argue against people adhering to institutions or belief systems that encouraged hatred or discrimination, be it religion, nationalism or anything else.

OK. That's libertarian option.

Quote:
Why do you think your moral standards are superior to those of, say, Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Why are you sure that it is not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, but it is immoral to condemn such actions?
It's a good question. I suppose it's subjective and relative. I'd argue that it's not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, within reason, because it's a completely natural and integral part of our life and of our own constitution. Possibly the most natural behaviour of all, a behaviour we've exhibited and practiced for far longer than religion has been around. Condemning such is forbidding that which is most natural of all.

Yes, it comes down to deciding what is properly natural and what is unnatural. Christianity says not all our natural inclinations are good, rather some are perversions from the natural order.

The above isn't a great answer. I definitely have to give it a lot more thought.

Now that's a refreshing comment. I've several such issues running in my head at the minute. All the best for your study.

*****************************************************************************
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! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

The Bible isn't a sex-manual, so I'm not surprised that it isn't mentioned frequently.

Really? With the amount of anti gay rhetoric thats disguised as the word of God it nearly seems that the bible is exactly that!

As you stated, Churchs should remember this too...

philologos

lst wrote: »

Really? With the amount of anti gay rhetoric thats disguised as the word of God it nearly seems that the bible is exactly that!

As you stated, Churchs should remember this too...

The Bible speaks about life in general. Sexuality is a small subset of life, therefore a small subset of the Bible deals with sexuality.

wolfsbane

lst wrote: »

If thats not comparing homosexuality to the others what is? Mods?

The other relationships obviously can cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties.

The only people affected by gay people who love each other are the two individuals. And they are affected positively! They love each other!

The point was to show that being 'in love' does not justify a relationship.

And how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

Do the brother and sister not love each other?


***********************************************************************
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.

Keylem

lst wrote: »

I think its your interpretation of eunuchs which is slightly skewed.


Indeed a quick google clarifies that Eunuchs specifically does not refer to LGBT individuals - and suggests that saying it does is LGBT affirming!

The words GAY and LESBIAN are 20th Century words to decribe sexual orientation, there were no such words in the 1st century, which is why eunuch was used.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

The words GAY and LESBIAN are 20th Century words to decribe sexual orientation, there were no such words in the 1st century, which is why eunuch was used.

Im aware of that. Im saying that my understanding is that theologians believe Eunuch doesnt refer to LGBT individuals. If they do then I believe it gives even less reason for Christians to discriminate, and at some stage in the future would be an interesting thread to pursue.

TylerIE

wolfsbane wrote: »

The point was to show that being 'in love' does not justify a relationship.

And how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

True.

But if you feel the need to advocate for incest, then


how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual hetrosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

PDN

lst wrote: »

Really? With the amount of anti gay rhetoric thats disguised as the word of God it nearly seems that the bible is exactly that!

As you stated, Churchs should remember this too...

Friendly Mod Reminder

Please remember you are in the Christianity forum. We understand that non-Christians hold different opinions, but they are still expected to operate within the Forum Charter.

It is fine to discuss Christian issues, including how homosexuality is compatible (or not) with Christianity, but slurs against the Bible as being something "disguised as the Word of God" is coming very close to contravening the Charter.

Btw, apart from one regular poster who is rather obsessed with the subject, the topic of homosexuality only crops up in this forum when posters from outside raise the issue. Less than 0.1% of the text of the Bible addresses homosexuality and most of us attend churches where it's unlikely we'll hear the subject mentioned from one year to the next.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

.
Saying that LGBT individuals cannot engage in loving sharing relationships giving themselves fully to each other is a lot more of a sactifice.

The sexual love between man and woman involves genuine affective and sexual complementarity, and the gift of fertility - the man gives of himself, and the woman gives of herself. They do not withhold their fertility from the other. The love is fruitful, indeed it may give rise to new human life. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are closed to new life.

lst wrote: »

I can assure you that sexuality is not chosen consciously.

But actions are. Nobody died from not having sex.

lst wrote: »

Worse still churchs dictate that Gay relationships are unequal.

Gay relationships are not equivalent to marriage.

lst wrote: »

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

Perhaps you feel Love for God should be first. But after Love for God?

Some churches unfortunately still do utilize whatever position they do have to

Sexuality may not be a choice, but actions are. You seem to deny the reality of human freedom. People are not animals. They ought not to be slaves to disordered passions.

lst wrote: »

The only people affected by gay people who love each other are the two individuals. And they are affected positively! They love each other!

It is not true love. Love wills the good of the beloved. The best thing that can be said about that couple is they separate and allow the other to live in chaste purity and love of God.