nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Christianity, its great if you are straight

archdukefranz

I have been quite a committed Christian up until this point... however there is an issue of sexuality which could really mess things up in that regard.
So I'll thank people in advance to take this seriously and deal with it in a respectful manner... the result of this thought process will have a large effect on the rest of my life no doubt. Try not to treat this as an argument but as a quest for a solution... maybe a few can be found and for more than just me

Gender roles is a major thing at the moment in my life..
I started thinking about the fact that God is refered to as male...
there is the whole wives submit to your husbands etc...
This doesn't suit me... I'm a guy, I'm not dominant in a sexual relationship nor do I ever plan to be, I don't see how this effects my ability to serve "God"
Expand that further, does anyone think its ok to cross dress or take on attributes associated with the female gender etc.?
Is part of being a man of God being masculine?

I don't have a well defined sexuality... no real gender preference but quite a number of my friends do so I can imagine what its like I guess.. which leads me to:
Why are there rules surrounding consensual sex?

I'm also confused by lots of other stuff like why you need to get church married before having sex...

But mostly I'm kinda angry... I've spent my entire life growing up as I thought a Christian boy should... and for most of my life I was depressed, I had to restrict my actions to fit in rather than just being myself..
Its like I had a perfectly good 3rd arm... but because it wasn't normal we were all told to hide them... one day I release it and there I feel great...

It just doesn't make sense that God loves me and wants me to be someone else... and its not just not doing a particular action... there is a whole lifestyle I'm heading towards with every step feeling like more freedom..

Anyway if I could get peoples opinions that would be cool...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

If you were making a speech about marriage wouldn't you append "or husband" to the end it "and wife".

I might. But I probably wouldn't see the need to. After all the vast majority of people are heterosexual. I doubt Jesus thought that anyone would use his speeches as justification to stop homosexuals getting married. He probably considered it obvious.

Its the difference between writing "he/she" every time you are talking about someone that could be a man or woman, instead of just writing "he"

Most people understand that when someone says "he" they can be talking about either sex, they don't need the extra clarification.

archdukefranz

Jakkass wrote:

If you were making a speech about marriage wouldn't you append "or husband" to the end it "and wife". So if he had any intention of allowing the possibility of homosexual marriage he would have said "When a man leaves his family so that he can become one with his wife or husband". But it doesn't.... therefore logically we can conclude that Jesus did not allow the possibility of homosexual marriages.

Or that the context he was in only allowed them... Jesus was almost entirely reactionary in his teaching...

If Jesus wanted there to be no homosexual relationships he would have to be super clear on it... because tbh its not something worth spending years and years alone over if its just a possibility.

1. There is nothing explicit that says two men can't become one
2. Two men may not be allowed to get married, however they can still have sex as there is nothing against sex before marriage afaik...
3. I really like point form

philologos

archdukefranz wrote:

1. There is nothing explicit that says two men can't become one

And there is nothing explicit that says two men CAN become one. The use of "wife" implies that the partner is female, as used in Genesis 2 and in the Gospels. That is undeniable.

Also in Romans 1 it explicitly puts it's line on homosexual activity as in Leviticus 18.

Now if we are to put this to a logical thought process. Generally when people get married they have sexual relations afterwards. In most cases. Then why would Jesus encourage something that would lead to sinfulness later on. That makes little or no sense. You can twist the statements that Christ makes as you wish. The facts are that if he wanted to allow homosexuality in the church he would have said it. And the Holy Spirit would have guided the Apostles towards saying it. But that never happened infact Paul came down on homosexuality just as strictly as in the Torah. Surely we can all agree with that.

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

If you were making a speech about marriage wouldn't you append "or husband" to the end it "and wife". So if he had any intention of allowing the possibility of homosexual marriage he would have said "When a man leaves his family so that he can become one with his wife or husband". But it doesn't.... therefore logically we can conclude that Jesus did not allow the possibility of homosexual marriages.

Aren't you putting a lot of emphasis on the absence of two words? Jesus didn't walk around with a stenograph, his words weren't written down later that day or week afaik but upto years later. All this is from the memory of the apostles, maybe they got some stuff wrong and missed out some things or added some things.

I've no opinion either way on whether christianity accepts homosexuality but I would think it would be unwise to base opinions on mere semantical points. Its unlikely the apostle missed Jesus general message of love and forgiveness and important events but its very likely that don't have some specific teachings 100%. Especially when you are aruging on the absence of words not the inclusion. Is it really a case of 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'?

Not to mention the problem of mistranslation.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

And there is nothing explicit that says two men CAN become one. The use of "wife" implies that the partner is female, as used in Genesis 2 and in the Gospels. That is undeniable.

In 91% of cases the "wife" would be female. It would get rather silly if every time someone mentioned husband and wife they also put in "husband and husband" for the 9% of the population who are gay. It would turn into a sketch from "The Life of Brian"

I mean by your logic the Bible explicitly tells everyone they cannot be vegetarian, since Jesus never says you can be a vegetarian and everyone in the Bible is described eating meat all the time.

Jakkass wrote:

Also in Romans 1 it explicitly puts it's line on homosexual activity as in Leviticus 18.

That was Paul, not Jesus.

Jakkass wrote:

You can twist the statements that Christ makes as you wish.

Er, isn't that what you are doing because you don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married.

Jakkass wrote:

The facts are that if he wanted to allow homosexuality in the church he would have said it.

That is a pretty big assumption. Are you seriously saying that unless Jesus mentions something he didn't want us to do it (see vegetarianism above)?

Jesus never said you can fly a kite, so therefore you can't do that either

Besides the idea that homosexuals cannot get married flies in the face of the very thing you claim Jesus was teaching, love.

But sure what do I care. Its up to archdukefranz to do what he believes Jesus would have wanted.

archdukefranz

This may shed some light on the biblical issues of homosexuality

Ananel on GaiaOnline wrote:

We should cover a few things first:
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don’t feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.
3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.

Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul’s writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God’s will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That’s all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the ‘bottom’ partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul’s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the ‘top’ partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one’s neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one’s innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was ‘on bottom.’ Such a position degrades the citizen’s status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that “shameful lusts” meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman’s understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don’t argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.

archdukefranz

Jakkass wrote:

And there is nothing explicit that says two men CAN become one. The use of "wife" implies that the partner is female, as used in Genesis 2 and in the Gospels. That is undeniable.

So? A man can become one with a woman? Fantastic.. they can have a family.
A man can also love another man, they can live together.. and there is nothing in the Bible that says they can't have sex or pay taxes together.

Nevyn

archdukefranz wrote:

There isn't another place where I can bring this up for discussion on morality

You could try humanities or spirituality if you wished.

philologos

archdukefranz wrote:

So? A man can become one with a woman? Fantastic.. they can have a family.
A man can also love another man, they can live together.. and there is nothing in the Bible that says they can't have sex or pay taxes together.

We are told to keep to the rulings of sexual immorality in the Torah if you look to Acts 15.

archdukefranz

Thaedydal wrote:

You could try humanities or spirituality if you wished.

Sorry I meant morality within a biblical context..

Jakkass wrote:

We are told to keep to the rulings of sexual immorality in the Torah if you look to Acts 15.

Acts 15 is long... and I've read through it but can't find anything like that

please in the future specify verses too so it doesn't take so long

dan719

But honestly you know the 'Christian answer' to your ultimate query (can a practising homosexual consider themselves christian) is no. At least according to literal interpretation of the bible. I am certainly not criticising you, as I'm 'out and proud' as it were. But really you have to decide whether or not your own internal moral compass is sufficent, i.e do you believe in a ridiculous vengeful god or a personal god, or perhaps no god at all?

philologos

Acts 15:4-5 wrote:

When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.’

The apostles and believers met in Jerusalem to discuss the relevance of the Law of Moses in Christian worship and particularily among the new Gentile believers.

Acts 15:19-21 wrote:

Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled* and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.

This says that they should keep away from fornication. Now since the topic is in relation to the Law of Moses, we can conclude that he is referring to Leviticus 18 in terms of fornication. Now homosexual activity is included in that section.

[Deleted User]

archy wrote:

This may shed some light on the biblical issues of homosexuality

I posted it a while back, noone was impressed.

archdukefranz

Jakkass wrote:

The apostles and believers met in Jerusalem to discuss the relevance of the Law of Moses in Christian worship and particularily among the new Gentile believers.

This says that they should keep away from fornication. Now since the topic is in relation to the Law of Moses, we can conclude that he is referring to Leviticus 18 in terms of fornication. Now homosexual activity is included in that section.

Some translations agree with you... others don't...

King James Version
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

American Standard Version
15:20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.

Bible in Basic English
15:20 But that we give them orders to keep themselves from things offered to false gods, and from the evil desires of the body, and from the flesh of animals put to death in ways against the law, and from blood.

Darby's English Translation
15:20 but to write to them to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.

Douay Rheims
15:20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Noah Webster Bible
15:20 But that we write to them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from lewdness, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Weymouth New Testament
15:20 Yet let us send them written instructions to abstain from things polluted by connexion with idolatry, from fornication, from meat killed by strangling, and from blood.

World English Bible
15:20 but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

Young's Literal Translation
15:20 but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood;

archdukefranz

oh and something else I noticed.. in Acts 15:19....
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

How odd

Agent J

Question from the studio audience....

Who are the gentiles in context?

BrianCalgary

archdukefranz wrote:

oh and something else I noticed.. in Acts 15:19....
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

How odd

Gentiles are I always thought, non-Jews.

Acts 15:19 is a call to stop or not start the practice of making Gentiles become Jews before they could become Christian. ie, get circumcised.

When you become a Christian God will work in you to stop you from sinning as you become transformed into the image of Christ.

Agent J

So could a christian be considered a gentile or is it someone who is non jewish & non christian?

Zombrex

Agent J wrote:

Question from the studio audience....

Who are the gentiles in context?

Gentile in Greek means "belonging to a tribe" and is closely related to the Hebrews word "goyim", which means "nations"

In the context of the New Testament it was spoken by the Jews to describe people belonging to tribes/nations external to the Hebrew tribes.

Its kinda like the way we would say "Bloody Europeans!" to refer to people from the continent. Technically we are also European (in the way that the Jews are also a tribe/nation), but in the context of the above it is clearly talking about Europeans who aren't us.

Zombrex

Agent J wrote:

So could a christian be considered a gentile or is it someone who is non jewish & non christian?

Yes, non-Jewish Christian would have been considered a gentile in the context that it was used.

philologos

archdukefranz wrote:

Some translations agree with you... others don't...

I quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. But anyhow. Look at most of those translations. They use either the word "fornication" or "sexual immorality". NRSV is used in most mainline theological colleges now in research and is renowned for it's accuracy.

Agent J

So to expand on it further.

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

I assume in that case it doesnt apply to christians.

Zombrex

Agent J wrote:

So to expand on it further.

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

I assume in that case it doesnt apply to christians.

No, it does. Most Christians were Gentiles. Only a handful of Jews actually decided to be Christians and follow Jesus.

What they are basically saying is that we shouldn't make it difficult for non-Jewish people who want to become Christians. The Jews were already considered righteous, they are now debating which of the old Jewish customs it is necessary for a gentile to follow to join this club, as it were.

The recognized that if they demanded that the gentiles follow all the Jewish traditions they would not get very far. So they debated over which must be followed and which could be discarded.

Remember to people like Paul all this was simple a continuation of the Jewish faith.

The types of debates of Paul and the apostles after Jesus died are the main reason some Christians reject Paul, believing that he hi-jacked Jesus' religion and tried to turn it into his own. Of course others believe that Paul was inspired by God directly, so nothing he declared was contrary to God's wishes.

BrianCalgary

Agent J wrote:

So could a christian be considered a gentile or is it someone who is non jewish & non christian?

A Samarian, for example, could become a Christian, yet they'd still be a gentile.

So I would asy that any non-Jew would be a gentile, Christian or not.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote:

In 91% of cases the "wife" would be female. It would get rather silly if every time someone mentioned husband and wife they also put in "husband and husband" for the 9% of the population who are gay. It would turn into a sketch from "The Life of Brian"

This one?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

No, it does. Most Christians were Gentiles. Only a handful of Jews actually decided to be Christians and follow Jesus.

What they are basically saying is that we shouldn't make it difficult for non-Jewish people who want to become Christians. The Jews were already considered righteous, they are now debating which of the old Jewish customs it is necessary for a gentile to follow to join this club, as it were.

The recognized that if they demanded that the gentiles follow all the Jewish traditions they would not get very far. So they debated over which must be followed and which could be discarded.

Remember to people like Paul all this was simple a continuation of the Jewish faith.

The types of debates of Paul and the apostles after Jesus died are the main reason some Christians reject Paul, believing that he hi-jacked Jesus' religion and tried to turn it into his own. Of course others believe that Paul was inspired by God directly, so nothing he declared was contrary to God's wishes.

At the council of Jeruslaem both Peter and Paul argued against Jew first, Christian next type of conversion. They argued against a group of men who felt that you had to become a JEw and observe all that it entailed.

I know of no Christian that rejects Paul. Enlighten us?

philologos

Paul and Barnabas were chosen to preach God's word to the Gentiles. Chosen by the Apostles. So they were given adequate authority.

Sangre

Jakkass wrote:

I quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. But anyhow. Look at most of those translations. They use either the word "fornication" or "sexual immorality". NRSV is used in most mainline theological colleges now in research and is renowned for it's accuracy.

Isn't 'sexual immorality' a rather vague term?

If could be anything from sex outside marriage to anal sex by married couples to rape/sexual abuse.

Paul and Barnabas were chosen to preach God's word to the Gentiles. Chosen by the Apostles. So they were given adequate authority.

They needed authority to preach the word of God?

philologos

Sangre wrote:

Isn't 'sexual immorality' a rather vague term?

If could be anything from sex outside marriage to anal sex by married couples to rape/sexual abuse.

This is why one needs to look at the context of Acts 15. It was based on the Pharisees in Jerusalem saying that all who convert need to be circumcised. This led to further discussion of the Law of Moses. The elements of the Law of Moses to be kept are listed. Sexual immorality would be referring to sexual immorality in the Law of Moses since that is what the Apostles are discussing.

archdukefranz

Jakkass wrote:

I quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. But anyhow. Look at most of those translations. They use either the word "fornication" or "sexual immorality". NRSV is used in most mainline theological colleges now in research and is renowned for it's accuracy.

Anyone know the greek for that word and can translate properly?