Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont remember Jesus ever converting someone from homosexuality to heterosexuality. I dont even remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality being a sin, in fact, I seem to remember Jesus saying something about how we should all love our fellow man...?

Loving your fellow man does not mean approving of everything he does. God loves every homosexual, every atheist, every idolator - and He commands us to do the same.

As for Jesus converting homosexuals: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The New Testament, therefore, clearly speaks about homosexuals being converted through Christ.

I know a number of converted homosexuals. I also know a lot of converted heterosexuals.

Funny how Ruth and Naomi seem to be commended for being lesbians in the book of Ruth.

Only to illiterate buffoons who read their own sexual obsesson into everything else.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.

Sorry I'm going to get really agitated here because you have started comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. They are two different things! I don't think paedolphilia is a choice but acting upon it is. The main difference between both is this:

PAEDOPHILIA IS ULTIMATELY HARMFUL BECAUSE IT HURTS CHILDREN. CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER-AGE AND THUS IT IS ALSO CONSIDERED RAPE.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. IF IT WERE NOT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PAEDOPHILIA AS WOULD HETEROSEXUALITY BE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt people any more than heterosexuality would. You say you don't see it is a valid sexuality but that is nonsense. In fact, it is evident you really know very little about it and probably know very few gay people (if any).

You're understanding of choice is odd. Ok I cannot choose to be gay or not but I can choose to act upon it (i.e. have sexual relations with other men). Rape and murder natural? Em ok... you know you can CHOOSE to rape or murder people or not to do so so comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality to those is a very weak argument. The difference between humans and other species is that humans have a conscience whereas other animals it seems even our close relations the apes are rather different in those ways.

Well you can think whatever you want about homosexuality but the fact is I'm a happy in myself and there's absolutely wrong with me. You're giving a biased Christian view and misunderstanding on something you really don't understand at all.

UU wrote: »

You're giving a biased Christian view and misunderstanding on something you really don't understand at all.

Shock! Horror! Someone giving a biased Christian view in the Christianity forum! Whatever next? Unless someone puts a stop to this then we'll have atheists giving their biased views in the A&A forum!

Down with that sort of thing!

robindch wrote: »

Just a small interjection, but the NT does not say that Jesus "converted" gay men.

It speaks of gay men who were had now become Christians by being washed, justified and sanctified. Paul's doctrine of salvation is clear enough - that unbelievers are converted to faith by Christ. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the New Testament portrays gay men (and heterosexual men) as being converted by Jesus.

robindch wrote: »

Oops. My mistake. I assume you meant "converting homosexuals" in the sense of "converting" men who are gay into men who are not gay.

It's the kind of thing that the fundamentalist Joseph Nicolosi claims he does.

Converting men who used to practice homosexual acts into men who no longer practice homosexual acts.

Atomic no argument will ever stand up against God. He is not diminutive nor is He a whole lot interested in how we think things should be run. Watch how He says He will shake that which says cannot be shaken. He is shaking every economy, every expectation, even the weather. He is turning His world on it's head and you are wasting your time proving it's just a massive coincidence. He will have the last word and you will literally have to eat your words just like they did in Ezekiel only they did it to send out His Word

Moderator's Note

Since other threads are continually dragged off topic in order to discuss homosexuality, let's make an effort to keep this thread on the topic.

Sukikettle - it would be much better if you discussed the topics on hand rather than off-topic preaching at people.

PDN wrote: »

Converting men who used to practice homosexual acts into men who no longer practice homosexual acts.

I see you also know people who've "gone both ways" in a previous post. To me there would seem to be a certain fluidity of sexual preference in individuals through-out nature and humans would seem no different.

But there seems to be a certain bent towards actual homosexual acts as sins in this discussion. My questions are about what according to the Old Testament exactly constitutes a homo-sexual act and there fore a sin.

Now, is it a sin for example two men to live together and love each other? Is it a sin for them to kiss? What I'm asking firstly is: is it only the act of homosexual penetration that is a sin? or is it a sin for two men or two women be "life partners" and live as a couple?

And what specific commandment covers this issue?


Which brings me to my next point. Is the sin of thought greater than the sin of the deed.
Covetousness (the cut-throat of grace and canker of the soul) aside. Is the sin of homosexual lust greater than that of hetrosexual lust. Or beastial or paedophilic lust for that matter? Or does the sin of lust only apply to "thou shall not covet".

And again what specific commandment covers this issue?

Homosexuality would seem to be such a dreadful act and a sin against God and Humanity that I find it particularly queer that there is no specific mention of it in the ten commandments.

It would seem to me that the Old Testament, or the "Desert Book of Common Sense" or "Why we're the Winning Team" as I would consider it.
Has very little to offer in respect to guidance in the intricacies of modern family life It seems to be more concentrated on keeping you from sleeping with the male or female slaves.

I would be very interested to know of the Old Testament advice regarding One Parent Families, Custody Rights, Adoption, Artificial Insemination, Surrogate Families, etc.

studiorat wrote: »

I see you also know people who've "gone both ways" in a previous post. To me there would seem to be a certain fluidity of sexual preference in individuals through-out nature and humans would seem no different.

I think you've probably misunderstood my earlier post, but no matter.

I agree that individuals can be fluid when it comes to which sexual acts they prefer, or choose to indulge in. This depends on peer and societal pressures, fashion, religious beliefs and a host of other factors. That is why I refuse to label anyone as a 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' as if they were hard-wired unchangeable characteristics.

I know guys who participated in homosexual acts as teenagers because it was fashionable in certain circles. I know one particular lad who slept with other guys because it helped him identify with David Bowie. He grew out of that phase and is now happily married (but probably still a bit dim).

Some guys would not normally indulge in homosexual activity but will happily do so when no other sexual relationship is available to them - ie in prison.

I think, given the right circumstances and conditions, that all of us could be persuaded to participate in, and most likely enjoy, either heterosexual or homosexual acts. This does not carry any implication as to the morality of such acts - since I believe that history indicates that given the right circumstances and conditions you can persuade most people to do just about anything, including genocide.

But there seems to be a certain angle towards actual homosexual acts as sins in the discussion.
Now, is it a sin for example two men to live together and love each other? Is it a sin for them to kiss? What I'm asking firstly is: is it only the act of homosexual penetration that is a sin? or is it a sin for two men or two women be "life partners" and live as a couple?

Yes, you are correct that homosexual acts (not inclinations) are what is addressed in Scripture and that should be the focus of our discussions about the morality of homosexuality.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are asking where we should draw the line? I don't think Scripture gives any hard and fast ruling about this - but I think Jesus' words about committing adultery in our hearts can legitimately be applied to other moral issues.

As a married man I believe in being absolutely faithful to my wife in accordance to the promises I made to her and to God on my wedding day. I do not apply this in some Clintonesque fashion purely to penetrative sex. I would consider kissing another woman to be a violation of my marriage vows. The same would apply to lustfully gazing at another woman with my tongue hanging out, or viewing pornography.

Does this mean that it is a sin to be tempted? No - the Bible teaches that Jesus was tempted, but without sin. So I look at this way: if I see a drop-dead gorgeous woman in a short skirt on a Summer's day then all kinds of thoughts might immediately spring into my mind. If I immediately choose to look away, to ask God to help me think of something else, then that is not adultery of the heart. But if I keep on looking, maybe even getting into a better position to get a better eyeful, then that is, in my book, a betrayal of my wife.

So I would translate that into a similar standard as regards homosexual relationships. Anything designed to inflame desires is, in my opinion, not compatible with living life as a Christian.

Of course for non-Christians all of this is moot. They are free to enter into relationships with whoever they like as long as they keep it legal. That is their business and not mine.

As for living as life partners - if no sexual contact is involved then I see no difference between a guy living with his brother or living with a friend. For example, in the Salvation Army you get many more women clergy than men. It is quite common for two women to live and work together pastoring a Salvation Army Corps (church). They may share a close friendship for many years, so much so that they often continue to share a home after retirement. I see nothing improper in that or anything that is inconsistent with Christian faith and practice.

And what specific commandment covers this issue?

Christian living is not primarily about adhering to the letter of commandments. It is about discipleship - doing our best to follow Jesus and to determine God's will and live accordingly.

Which brings me to my next point. Is the sin of thought greater than the sin of the deed.
Covetousness (the cut-throat of grace and canker of the soul) aside. Is the sin of homosexual lust greater than that of hetrosexual lust. Or beastial or paedophilic lust for that matter? Or does the sin of lust only apply to "thou shall not covet".

Again, it depends on whether you are talking about someone fighting a temptation or cherishing a desire.

For example, I know a man who is sexually attracted to young children. He hates this temptation that afflicts him, and he has ordered his life in such a way as to minimise any opportunities for temptation and to ensure that he does not act upon his inclinations. Most people would despise him for having those inclinations in the first place. I think he is one of the most righteous people I know and I respect him very much.

However, if he chose to view child pornography etc, yet refrained from actual acts merely due to a fear of going to prison, that would not be righteous at all.

It would seem to me that the Old Testament, or the "Desert Book of Common Sense" or "Why we're the Winning Team" as I would consider it.
I think it has very little to offer in respect to the intricacies of modern family life and seems to be more concentrated on keeping you from sleeping with the male or female slaves.

I would be very interested to know of the Old Testament advice regarding One Parent Families, Custody Rights, Adoption, Artificial Insemination, Surrogate Families, etc.

Unfortunately there is no Jewish forum on boards.ie - otherwise you could ask that question of someone who bases their morality on the Old Testament.

As a Christian I see the New Testament as being my primary source of moral guidance - which is why I neither keep slaves nor view homosexual activity as being compatible with Christian faith and practice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It does not claim otherwise, what you pick and choose is down to your interpretation of Pauls words.

No, not if language has any objectivemeaning. Paul elsewhere mentions sins that are not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6 - therefore the argument that it constitutes a definitive list of all sins is unsustainable nonsense. Paul also clearly states in that passage that "such were some of you" - in other words he is clearly naming sins that had been committed by some of the Corinthians prior to their conversion.

I dismiss what doesn't square with biology. You don't convert from s asexual preference without major chemical input. "Converted" homosexuals and heterosexuals are not no longer homo- or heterosexual, they just abstain from the acts associated with homo- or heterosexuality. They are in denial, either about what sexual preference they are, or the morality of what sexual acts they want to do.

Now you are addressing a completely different issue - that of orientation.

All I stated was that I know homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been converted (ie have become Christians). I fail to see how that puts them in a state of denial.

I meant the terminolgy used, the way it describes Ruth loving Naomi is written in the same terminology as how Adam loved Eve.

OK, if you're going to make these kind of statements then you need to be prepared to back them up.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam 'loved' Eve. Chapter and verse please?

2. Where in the Book of Ruth does it speak of Ruth 'loving' Naomi?

Because 1 Corinthians 13 (parts 4-7 and 13)is a piece describing love in general, while Ruth 1 (part 16) is Ruth saying to Naomi that she wants to be with her were ever she is, have her god as her god, her people as her people and may god do terrible things to her, if anything but death seperates them. They just don't compare to each other.

They do compare to one another in one important respect - neither mentions sex nor has the slightest sexual connotation.

I thought the whle idea of Jesus coming to Earth was that every sinner deserves to be forgiven and saved. It seems that Paul is putting his own judgement on people, which if I remember Matthew 7 correctedly, thats a no-no

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The whole idea of Jesus coming to earth was so that God, in His mercy, could offer every sinner the undeserved opportunity to repent, be saved, and be forgiven. That's what is known as 'grace' - unmerited, undeserved favour.

BTW - did you actually read that link you provided to Matthew Chapter 7? If you had you would have read these words:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)

an excellent reply, all good points.

PDN wrote: »

I think you've probably misunderstood my earlier post, but no matter.

I agree that individuals can be fluid when it comes to which sexual acts they prefer, or choose to indulge in. This depends on peer and societal pressures, fashion, religious beliefs and a host of other factors. That is why I refuse to label anyone as a 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' as if they were hard-wired unchangeable characteristics.

I think I understood I was probably stretching the context for my own post.
I agree with your point above though. And the David Bowie story made me howl with laughter too!

PDN wrote: »

I think, given the right circumstances and conditions, that all of us could be persuaded to participate in, and most likely enjoy, either heterosexual or homosexual acts. This does not carry any implication as to the morality of such acts - since I believe that history indicates that given the right circumstances and conditions you can persuade most people to do just about anything, including genocide.

True, this more questions the morality of the persuasion and people and reasoning behind that persuasion to commit such acts. However, free will could come into question here. The actual sin of allowing ones self to be convinced as it were.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, you are correct that homosexual acts (not inclinations) are what is addressed in Scripture and that should be the focus of our discussions about the morality of homosexuality.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are asking where we should draw the line? I don't think Scripture gives any hard and fast ruling about this - but I think Jesus' words about committing adultery in our hearts can legitimately be applied to other moral issues.

I disagree, and I feel this the above is contradictory, if there is to be a discussion on morality per se, it should include the imagination. At the end of the day it is in our hearts where we decide our morality, christian or not. So then, how else can one then know what is innocent fantasy and what is temptation?

PDN wrote: »

As a married man I believe in being absolutely faithful to my wife in accordance to the promises I made to her and to God on my wedding day. I do not apply this in some Clintonesque fashion purely to penetrative sex. I would consider kissing another woman to be a violation of my marriage vows. The same would apply to lustfully gazing at another woman with my tongue hanging out, or viewing pornography.

Indeed, but it does again blur the lines of common morality, what one man and his wife may see as a breach of trust and faithfulness others may not.

PDN wrote: »

So I would translate that into a similar standard as regards homosexual relationships. Anything designed to inflame desires is, in my opinion, not compatible with living life as a Christian.

Of course for non-Christians all of this is moot. They are free to enter into relationships with whoever they like as long as they keep it legal. That is their business and not mine.

I'd agree with the first paragraph except it wouldn't limit the statement to solely Christian.
As for the second part, it depends on your concept of legal. And we both know there are plenty of non-christians who would see the morality discussion here as a far from a moot point.

I think it's dismissive to limit the moral values of non-theists to purely legislative and biological values. For the latter I refer you to the quote in my above post. For the former I'll point out that there are plenty of things that I believe to be quite immoral that are still legal.

PDN wrote: »

As for living as life partners - if no sexual contact is involved then I see no difference between a guy living with his brother or living with a friend.

Reminds me of some neighbours when I was growing up. There was a tacit agreement in the community that they were sisters, they were actually a couple and well respected and loved in the area. No-body questioned it, and everybody was happy. They certainly did more good in the area that harm.

PDN wrote: »

Christian living is not primarily about adhering to the letter of commandments. It is about discipleship - doing our best to follow Jesus and to determine God's will and live accordingly.

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity I'd call it.

PDN wrote: »

Again, it depends on whether you are talking about someone fighting a temptation or cherishing a desire.

A very fine line I'd imagine.

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately there is no Jewish forum on boards.ie - otherwise you could ask that question of someone who bases their morality on the Old Testament.

I'm positive there's a few who would have a large dose of OT wisdom in their moral compass and call themselves Christians.

PDN wrote: »

As a Christian I see the New Testament as being my primary source of moral guidance - which is why I neither keep slaves nor view homosexual activity as being compatible with Christian faith and practice.

I'd be a more pluralistic, and see the NT as only one source. Throughout history we've seen that NT moral guidance change in
it's interpretation of what is right and wrong. As I'm sure it's interpretation will develop as society does. Purely because it's core message of love and respect for fellow man is undeniable.

To get back to topic though, I to would see paedophillia as an inability to form bonds with fellow adults amongst other issues and it consequences are harmful to society. And while homosexuality may or may not have physical or mental "causes" it is in my opinion not harmful to society if practiced in mature and respectful manner. Just like any relationship be it gay or straight.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It should be fairly obvious that language is quite subjective, subject to who is using it, their audience, the tone of voice etc. Just look at how many different types of sects in Christianity there are, because people interpret the same piece of language in different ways.

So, you're joining Wicknight in the Humpty Dumpty use of language where words mean whatever you want them to? Where "and such were some of you" doesn't actually mean that some of them were anything at all? Where the plain sense of language can be dismissed merely as someone's interpretation? Such sophistry in a debate is a sign of a desperate argument.

Look at post #176.

I've looked at it - and it's flat out wrong.

Genesis 2:24 does not refer specifically to a sexual union. It refers to a man leaving his former family - and then joining (dabaq) his wife in a new family.

The word dabaq is used 53 times in the Old Testament. Do you want to try to invest it with a sexual meaning in every one of those 53 instances? That could prove very entertaining for all of us.

Here's a few for starters:

a) Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake (dabaq) me, and I’ll die. (Genesis 19:19)

Kindly explain the sexual connotations here. Was Lot afraid that a disaster was going to have sex with him?

b) So all the men of Israel deserted David to follow Sheba son of Bicri. But the men of Judah stayed by (dabaq) their king all the way from the Jordan to Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 2:20)

Wow! Since this uses the same word as that applied to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24 then this must mean that the men of Judah were having sex with David all the way to Jerusalem? That must have been sore!

c) The Philistines closely pursued (dabaq) Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. (1 Chronicles 10:2)

And there I have been thinking that the Philistines just killed Saul and his sons. But I guess you must believe that they raped them?

d) No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep (dabaq) the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. (Numbers 36:7)

OK, my imagination is failing me here. Mark, I'll need you to tell me what the hidden sexual meaning is in this one.

If no-one deserved it, then why would god give it? Does god gain something from it?

Because God is love. He doesn't gain anything from it - which is so alien to our way of thinking that we find it amazing. Hey, you could write a song about it. You could call it 'Amazing Grace'!

And this relates to judging someone how? Matthew 7 still starts with "judge not lest ye be judged". Pauls judging is still a no-no.

You need me to spell it out?

Jesus is using trees as a symbol of people. You can tell who is really converted by looking at their fruit (what their lives produce). We can look at the fruit of the lives of two individuals (say, Christopher Hitchens and Mother Theresa) and we can judge which one had compassion for others and which is a dishonest pompous windbag.

So, when you read Matthew 7 in context, rather than ripping verses out of context, you see that Jesus was not uttering simplistic platitudes but rather giving some carefully thought out instructions as to judgement. These include being aware that as soon as we judge someone then we invite ourselves to be judged by the same measure.

However, I suspect this may be falling on deaf ears as you are probably more interested in setting up a laughable straw man to knock down rather than really exploring what Jesus meant and how Christians can apply that to our lives today.

There - now you can start complaining about how I'm judging you.

studiorat wrote: »

Interesting you choose the good Mother Theresa who continued to perform good works while not feeling the existance of God "neither in her heart or in the eucharist" for nearly as long as Hitchens has been alive.

How strange that so many testify to God in their hearts daily when one such as her should doubt so much yet still preach religion when asked to speak publicly.

Not strange. Faith is more important than feelings. I don't share Mother Theresa's experience, but I admire her for continuing to do what she knew was right even when she didn't feel the blessing of God's presence.

Why do you think Hitchens is dishonest? A wind bag maybe...

I find his claim that Martin Luther King was not really a Christian to be a prime example of dishonest debating tactics. He can't bear to admit that someone admirable was a Christian. In Mother Theresa's case he tried to argue (pretty unsuccessfully) that she was not admirable. Unable to do the same with Rev King he instead tried to deny the man's Christianity. Definitely a dishonest windbag.