Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

robindch · 31-08-2009 1:58pm

PDN wrote: »

You are entitled to disagree with our beliefs as Christians, but all this load of tosh about homophobia only serves to hinder any sensible discussion about those disagreements.

The problem that I and no doubt many other non-christians have with christians' attitudes towards gay men and women is that christians want to apply rules which are specific to their religious denominations to people who are not members of their religious denominations.

If christians said that is was morally wrong for chrisitan men to engage in gay sex, then I'm sure that most of the heat would leave the debate.

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 1:59pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So, let me get this straight.

It nowhere states that marriage must be between a man & woman.

Does it state anywhere that homosexual acts are a sin?

Yes, it states that all over the place (assuming that you interpret man "lying" with another man as homosexual sex, which in fairness most would).

It states this though in the context of sex external to marriage though, as the Bible appears to have no concept of a homosexual marriage.

Korasa · 31-08-2009 2:00pm

I hate to jump back into the middle of conversation but i pose a bit of a question.
What gives anyone else the right to judge someone for who they are? I'm a catholic, i said this above and i don't see anything wrong with what homosexuals do, they live there lives. I just find it slightly annoying that people judge others for the sake of a God who has never directly.....examined the situation. Jesus never brought it up, nothing in the ten commandments relates to it explicitly, everything in the bible in regards to it were written by men not gods.
So again, why judge and do you beleive you hold the right too?

Turtwig · 31-08-2009 2:00pm

Jakkass wrote: »

: Originally Posted by Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Really, I thought it was...

at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh

philologos · 31-08-2009 2:02pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Really, I thought it was...

Two separate quotations. The first quote Jesus uses is from Genesis 1:26, the second is from Genesis 2:24.

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 2:06pm

PDN wrote: »

LOL. A non-Christian asks a question, gets the answer they're looking for from an atheist with an abysmal track record of uunderstanding Scripture, and then accuses Christians of hypocrisy.

Jesus on marriage: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Anyone, other than a legalist looking for a non-existent loophole, will see that Jesus saw marriage as something between a man and a woman.

Er, didn't I just say that? :rolleyes:

The Bible never says that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, in the same way it never says women shouldn't drive heavy machinery while drinking. It appears to have no concept of a homosexual marriage, and as such nothing to approve or disapprove of. Any time marriage is referenced it is referenced in relation to a man and a woman.

Plenty of Christians interpret this to mean that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, that other forms of marriage are inappropriate or against God's wishes.

Others don't. They see the that simply as a product of its time, but take the over all message of love and companionship and apply it to a modern context when homosexuals are seeking to get married.

I find it hilarious that you guys get hot and bothered over this, considering how many times you guys use the same argument to explain various things in the Bible and how they relate to modern context when the specifics are modern and do not relate exactly to the passages in the Bible.

PDN wrote: »

It is unreasonable to assume that he should insert an extra clause in there for the benefit of those 2000 years in the future when some people want to abandon a definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and replace it with something else.

Isn't that the point.

Why would the Bible go to the bother of saying "and then a man marries a woman (except the 10% of homosexuals who marry a member of the same sex)" every time it references marriage. It references marriage in the common context that most people understand it, but it never specifically outlaws homosexual marriage (and considering it outlaws a whole host of specific things does this not seem a bit off if God doesn't nto want men marrying women?)

Is it not a totally reasonable thing to conclude then that God has no issue with someone taking the spirit of marriage and applying it in modern contexts?

PDN wrote: »

No serious historian or scholar should entertain such a silly notion.

Ah, the no true Scots man argument. I've nothing against homosexuals but if any of them try and interpret the Bible as allowing homosexual marriage they are being dishonest swines!. Wonderful PDN :rolleyes:

Turtwig · 31-08-2009 2:07pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Two separate quotations. The first quote Jesus uses is from Genesis 1:26, the second is from Genesis 2:24.

My bad...apologies:o

Dublin_Gunner · 31-08-2009 2:10pm

In fairness PDN - I'm not looking for ANYTHING to support my own viewpoint, and not knowing Wicknight, how am I to know what his/her beliefs are?

I'm merely asking questions, and seeking the answers, in order to try and understand what I believe to be hypocrisy.

Others have come and answered the questions since, and I have thanked them for it, just as I have thanked you for your post on the last page.

I'm still a little dumbfounded, as the quotes that have been posted here do not attack the subject of homosexuality. They do, consider the subject of heterosexual marriage but they are far from conclusive.

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart-ar$e.

I just want to know why the Christian church seems to have their views on homosexuality.

eightyfish · 31-08-2009 2:13pm

Jakkass wrote: »

The links you provided last time, merely showed that homosexuality takes place within nature, it doesn't prove that it is biologically determined. I find this quite dishonest.

As for gay brains being structured differently, you are quite aware that ones brain structure can change without it being biologically determined?

The article says this:

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

I'm more inclined to take a science magazine's view than yours.

As to your first point - if gay sex exists in nature, this surely ads weight to the argument that it is biologically determined and anturally occuring.

robindch · 31-08-2009 2:14pm

Jakkass wrote: »

That depends on how ambiguous you consider Pauline theology on homosexuality to be.

Of all of Paul's prose on sex, his views on gay men are probably the least ambiguous. He's clearly repulsed by what they do, and in this, he's no different to many men.

However -- and I feel almost embarrassed in having to point it out -- there's a lot more to how men interact with each other than just putting their private bits into each other, and to say the very least, Paul doesn't address a bit of it.

If you think that Paul's views on gay men and women form a cohesive whole, then I'd suggest having another read of him, or perhaps having a word with a gay man or woman.

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 2:15pm

Malty_T wrote: »

It sort of does that marriage must be between a man and woman, though.

I really doesn't.

If I tell a story about a man leaving his parents and marrying a women there is no implication that I disapprove of a man leaving his parents and marrying a man.

If my (hypothetical) child asks me what marriage is and I say "Its when a man and woman get married" that doesn't mean I am saying men shouldn't marry.

The Bible has no concept of a homosexual marriage. That is not really surprising, most cultures had no concept of homosexual marriages until very recently.

People will read into these stories what they wish. If people already think that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman they will see the Bible supporting that view.

If they are looking for a view that finds a modern concept like homosexual marriage they will find that the Bible never says don't do it.

It is the wonderful thing about the Bible when it isn't being explicate, it means what ever the heck you want it to mean. Just look at slavery. God never actually says he approves of slavery does he. God never actually tells the Israelites to rape the women of captured tribes does he. Etc etc etc :pac:

equivariant · 31-08-2009 2:16pm

robindch wrote: »

The problem that I and no doubt many other non-christians have with christians' attitudes towards gay men and women is that christians want to apply rules which are specific to their religious denominations to people who are not members of their religious denominations.

If christians said that is was morally wrong for chrisitan men to engage in gay sex, then I'm sure that most of the heat would leave the debate.

I disagree with this position. There are many people whom I care about that are christians and I do not like to see those people victimised. Also, intolerance and discrimination are bad regardless of whether or not the victims are restricted to a certain section of the population. Moreover, since christianity is (unfortunately in my view) so widespread at this point in history, it becomes correspondingly more important to argue against bad behaviour within christianity, regardless of one's own beliefs.

An analogy - would you argue that the fraud committed by many evangelical preachers is any less objectionable, merely because the victims were people who had voluntarily signed up to that particular religious viewpoint?

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 2:18pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I would like to see the answer to that as well since I've been attacked for being a liar.

I imagine the responses are going to be exactly like my one above, no it doesn't but that is a common interpretation based on the fact that it only references heterosexual marriage when discussing marriage.

We will see I guess :pac:

philologos · 31-08-2009 2:23pm

eightyfish wrote: »

I'm more inclined to take a science magazine's view than yours.

As to your first point - if gay sex exists in nature, this surely ads weight to the argument that it is biologically determined and anturally occuring.

I believe I also cited an article explaining different reasons why homosexuality might take place in nature. Increasing fertility was one of these reasons.

You're being dishonest in saying that there is a consensus amongst scientists that sexuality is biologically determined.

We really don't know for sure. I'm looking forward to see what progress research like this does make in the future.

Turtwig · 31-08-2009 2:30pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe I also cited an article explaining different reasons why homosexuality might take place in nature. Increasing fertility was one of these reasons.

You're being dishonest in saying that there is a consensus amongst scientists that sexuality is biologically determined.

We really don't know for sure. I'm looking forward to see what progress research like this does make in the future.

The citation war has begun:P

eightyfish · 31-08-2009 2:31pm

Jakkass wrote: »

You're being dishonest in saying that there is a consensus amongst scientists that sexuality is biologically determined.

You call me dishonest? I never said that.

You said that there is no evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined.

I simply pointed out that there is, at least, some evidence, according to New Scientist. This nullifies your point.

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 5:22pm

Does it matter?

lugha · 31-08-2009 6:46pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Does it matter?

I suppose if it could be established that nature rather than nurture determines one’s sexual orientation you are in a better position to fend of those who would argue that a good psychiatrist might set you straight?

equivariant · 31-08-2009 7:58pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart-ar$e.

I just want to know why the Christian church seems to have their views on homosexuality.

I too would be very interested in the answer to this question as it is has a rather large bearing on the issue of christian discrimination against gay people. It is not acceptable to just assume that this is implicit because of the socially accepted norms of the time. If christians are going to argue that morality derived from the bible is absolute across space and time, then clearly such assumptions about conventions cannot be allowed.

PDN · 31-08-2009 8:32pm

robindch wrote: »

The problem that I and no doubt many other non-christians have with christians' attitudes towards gay men and women is that christians want to apply rules which are specific to their religious denominations to people who are not members of their religious denominations.

If christians said that is was morally wrong for chrisitan men to engage in gay sex, then I'm sure that most of the heat would leave the debate.

You are confusing and conflating two different ideas:
a) Christians want to apply their rules to others (false).
b) Christians see certain acts as immoral irrespective of who commits them (true).

People who are not Christians have the right to choose whatever behaviour they wish (with obvious exceptions such as when they hurt others). They can pray to statues, sleep with their girlfriends, amuse themselves with vacuum cleaners, gossip, watch porn, get drunk or commit homosexual acts. None of that is any of my business and I have no wish to enforce any of these standards on them.

However, I still have a perfect right to view any or all of these acts as immoral. You, Robin, equally have the right to disapprove of any of my actions. Providing we don't attempt to enforce our views on each other then that should be cool.

PDN · 31-08-2009 8:52pm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart-ar$e.

I just want to know why the Christian church seems to have their views on homosexuality.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8–11)

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:26–28)

lugha · 31-08-2009 8:58pm

PDN wrote: »

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Are you not being selective? You defer to the authority of the bible to acknowledge the sin but decline to adopt the recommended punishment. Or am I misinterpreting something?

Turtwig · 31-08-2009 9:10pm

lugha wrote: »

Are you not being selective? You defer to the authority of the bible to acknowledge the sin but decline to adopt the recommended punishment. Or am I misinterpreting something?

I was under the impression that Leviticus's so called "law's" weren't followed by Christians?
Perhaps PDN will clarify, as my biblical knowledge is long gone, but I hope to revive it

Turtwig · 31-08-2009 9:12pm

PDN wrote: »

amuse themselves with vacuum cleaners

Dang, you do have a fascination with vacuum cleaners:P

wolfsbane · 31-08-2009 9:22pm

Malty_T wrote: »

I was under the impression that Leviticus's so called "law's" weren't followed by Christians?
Perhaps PDN will clarify, as my biblical knowledge is long gone, but I hope to revive it

Let me butt in.

If the law was only in Leviticus we would question its applicability today. But the law against homosexuality is part of the New Covenant age just as much as of the Old, as PDN's NT texts show.

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 9:32pm

PDN wrote: »

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

:rolleyes:

PDN · 31-08-2009 9:32pm

lugha wrote: »

Are you not being selective? You defer to the authority of the bible to acknowledge the sin but decline to adopt the recommended punishment. Or am I misinterpreting something?

Malty_T wrote:

I was under the impression that Leviticus's so called "law's" weren't followed by Christians?
Perhaps PDN will clarify, as my biblical knowledge is long gone, but I hope to revive it

Christians view much of the Levitical law as fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer applicable today. Pretty much anything that is obviously ceremonial (circumcision, dietary laws, sacrifices etc). For the most part these are specifically identified as no longer applying to Christians.

Other parts of the Levitical law are obviously moral, for example ptohibitions against murder, theft, incest and bestiality. Again, for the most part we find these things are condemned and portrayed very negatively in the New Testament.

So are homosexual acts to be considered a ceremonial matter or a moral issue? Obviously the New Testament will help us to understand that. Does the New Testament say, "Now that Jesus has gone to the Cross let no man judge you on matters such as gay sex." Or does it speak of homosexuality in negative terms? The answer, I believe, is clear to anyone who isn't trying to shoehorn the Scriptures into their own preconceived set of values, or just pursuing an ideological vendetta against Christians.

As for the punishment side of things, that is straightforward enough. The laws of Leviticus were originally given to a desert people, surrounded by hostile enemies, and in a nomadic setting. So, while God's ideas of right and wrong don't change, people's circumstances do. So we do find the New Testament agreeing that children should be obedient to their parents. But nowhere do we find the New Testament advocating that disobedient teenagers should be stoned.

So, the Christian approach to homosexual behaviour is entirely consistent with the principles of biblical interpretation that we apply to other areas. Non-Christians are entitled to disagree and hold different views, I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise, but I think accusations of selectivity are unfair and inaccurate.

Zombrex · 31-08-2009 9:48pm

The other side of that argument -

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

PASSAGES 5 AND 6
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
THE MYSTERY OF "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI"

Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Moses holding the ten commandmentsPaul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

Also see

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Turtwig · 31-08-2009 9:50pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me butt in.

If the law was only in Leviticus we would question its applicability today. But the law against homosexuality is part of the New Covenant age just as much as of the Old, as PDN's NT texts show.

I'm well aware of that, I was just responding to Leviticus's quote saying that a homosexual shall be put to death.

lugha · 31-08-2009 10:20pm

PDN wrote: »

Christians view much of the Levitical law as fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer applicable today. Pretty much anything that is obviously ceremonial (circumcision, dietary laws, sacrifices etc). For the most part these are specifically identified as no longer applying to Christians.

Other parts of the Levitical law are obviously moral, for example ptohibitions against murder, theft, incest and bestiality. Again, for the most part we find these things are condemned and portrayed very negatively in the New Testament.

So are homosexual acts to be considered a ceremonial matter or a moral issue? Obviously the New Testament will help us to understand that. Does the New Testament say, "Now that Jesus has gone to the Cross let no man judge you on matters such as gay sex." Or does it speak of homosexuality in negative terms? The answer, I believe, is clear to anyone who isn't trying to shoehorn the Scriptures into their own preconceived set of values, or just pursuing an ideological vendetta against Christians.

As for the punishment side of things, that is straightforward enough. The laws of Leviticus were originally given to a desert people, surrounded by hostile enemies, and in a nomadic setting. So, while God's ideas of right and wrong don't change, people's circumstances do. So we do find the New Testament agreeing that children should be obedient to their parents. But nowhere do we find the New Testament advocating that disobedient teenagers should be stoned.

So, the Christian approach to homosexual behaviour is entirely consistent with the principles of biblical interpretation that we apply to other areas. Non-Christians are entitled to disagree and hold different views, I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise, but I think accusations of selectivity are unfair and inaccurate.

Well this presents another problem. You are in a position to give such an informed answer because you have had inclination and opportunity to study the bible in depth. No doubt you will acknowledge that there have been many people down the ages who have embraced Christianity and who would have been fortunate to have a bible or even access to one, much less the opportunity to acquire the knowledge of it that you have done. They would have to rely on their own reading and (mis)interpretation of it as I have done. My point is that if some learning is required to properly interpret the bible then any lessons to be learnt from it are not completed contained between its covers. Which surely undermines any absolute claims made for it?
On a related not, what is the spiritual dividend to be gained from studying the bible in depth, given again that the opportunity to do so is largely in the providence of the more well to do? Surely there can be no advantage that would be denied to someone who did not have the same opportunity?

Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

Comments