Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

[shadowhive]

Irrelevent, this'll be the last post I make to you. Largely because you decide to ignore most point I make to you. If you will listen and take what I say on board instead of ignoring it we may have something to discuss.

First, we don't live in a theocracy. We live in a secular society where no religion has control over society. Religious freedom ensures that people are free to practice their beliefs, but it does not mean they are free of criticism, especially when those beliefs are being used as a weapon against others

Second, it's easy to say someone isn't born gay when you are not. You were born straight. You never had to question it, you were never told by others that it was wrong. You just accepted it and you did so easily. The thing is, you can't put yourself in the position of a gay person. You can't concieve it and so, you write it off.

Third, we are smarter than people of jesus's day. We have a greater knowledge and undertanding of the world around us than they ever did. To not take that on board is a very grave mistake.

Of course it's offensive, but it seems you don't care not to be. You have a negative view of gay people, most likely as a result from your religious belief and lack of understanding. But instead of trying to actually understand you just stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la. That's why your beliefs get called mindless. You follow what the bible says and ignore anything that contradict it. That sounds pretty mindless to me.

[Mr Right Wing]

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

Homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christainity, Islam and Judism.

That means only God can grant you forgiveness but you must give up your sin and be trully repentive to get it. Are you strong enough to overcome your sin and do that?

If not you dont even get puragtory you're off straight to hell.

[Space Commander Travis]

its funny, they can say whatever they like about God, about jesus, about those in the bible...and we christians have to sit and listen to there mindless dribble..time and time again..there basless arguments, but you call em on it, give only a fraction back or just repeat there words back and hold on! when are you going to stop insulting christians shadow and others?? athiests included...no, we sit and have to listen to your tripe... invading our threads and insulting our instituions...if your better or smartter or know more offer a greatter teaching than Jesus did, offer a greater life course..,or even defeat my points in this thread..your not born gay..sorry thats rubbish and you know it.. .the only thing gays represent is there own backsides..oh , is that offensive? refere to my previous statements..slander be dammed. thats dribble..

irony there, considering how much, if not mindless, then certainly irrelevant dribble has been put forward as "Christian" doctrine & dogma by people who really have taken very little notice of anything that Jesus said about anything, and prefer to base their entire doctrines on the opinions of those who wrote about a whole lot of things, not all, in fact sometimes very little, of which have anything to do with the views or teachings of Jesus?

[Space Commander Travis]

Homosexuality is a mortal sin in Christainity, Islam and Judism.

That means only God can grant you forgiveness but you must give up your sin and be trully repentive to get it. Are you strong enough to overcome your sin and do that?

If not you dont even get puragtory you're off straight to hell.

Says, in the words of the playground, who? Can you find any remarks by Jesus* on the subject?

* the one who, it's easy to forget, "Christianity" is suppsoed to be based on

[Frank Merton]

I think, in general, that promiscuous sex is undesirable and that relationship sex -- preferably within legal marriage -- is to be preferred. I think this is the worldwide view of all religions.

Of course homosexual marriage is not generally possible, so the homosexual has the difficult task of maintaining a relationship without social and legal confirmation. (With the advance of divorce heterosexual couples are finding this steadily more difficult too).

This does not mean that promiscuous sex is bad in of itself, but only that the chances of it doing harm in the end are greater. In karmic terms, the net pluses of love and sharing in all sex can be more than offset by the dangers and emotional problems often associated with promiscuous (and especially exploitive) sex -- not that *spam filter* does not require care too.

[darkmoonlady]

Using the bible to justify prejudice is still prejudice because the bible is interpreted in vastly different ways by even christians themselves otherwise there would not be different denominations. So to say that the bible says it's wrong is more an extension of PEOPLE being wrong and just using the bible to attempt to validate their own personal prejudices.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Says, in the words of the playground, who? Can you find any remarks by Jesus* on the subject?

* the one who, it's easy to forget, "Christianity" is suppsoed to be based on

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

[freetoroam]

lets let him speek..

?, sorry, you are a person with an honorary doctorate, so is there some hidden meaning to this?

[Frank Merton]

Sin is not "sin, plain and simple." That is a distorted -- even perverted -- concept. Murder is a worse sin than theft. Lying for profit is a worse sin than lying to protect someone's feelings. In the balance scale of life we are constantly brought to choose between evils -- even to stay alive we must kill.

[darkmoonlady]

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

Strange then how many christians then believe divorce is perfectly acceptable and no one is going to hell for it but if you are in a committed gay relationship you're doomed to hell.

[Space Commander Travis]

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

Surely if he thought it was a Sin against God that would have been the time to slip in a mention, to back up what had been said in the OT. I really don't know if you can use not saying something in approval of something as evidence that he considered it to be a bad thing. Anyway, if he was talking about marriage, then obviously he would talk about male-female relationships, wouldn't he.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Sin is not "sin, plain and simple." That is a distorted -- even perverted -- concept. Murder is a worse sin than theft. Lying for profit is a worse sin than lying to protect someone's feelings. In the balance scale of life we are constantly brought to choose between evils -- even to stay alive we must kill.

In practical terms, you are correct. Some sins have greater physical consequences. If I am angry at my brother, I sin and then I can apologise to him and make amends. If I murder my brother, I go to jail for the next 20 years and never fix my life up properly. However, in spiritual terms, both are deemed sinful, and therefore are handed judgement by God (for the wages of sin is death, if you believe Romans 3).

[+Link of Hyrule]

Strange then how many christians then believe divorce is perfectly acceptable and no one is going to hell for it but if you are in a committed gay relationship you're doomed to hell.

Divorce is not perfectly acceptable By Jesus' own words, a person who divorces, unless they then remain celibate for life they turn their partner into an adulterer. One man I went to university with was 24. He'd been married and divorced and had pledged to remain celibate for the rest of his life because he wanted to stay true to God.

I don't personally know a single Christian who says divorce is ok in God's eyes. It's a sin, and I will agree that a divorced couple can receive forgiveness for their sin, but it is in anyway ok, certainly not "perfectly acceptable".

If you know any Christian that believes otherwise, then they are a liberal Christian who has chosen not to believe Jesus' own words.

[shadowhive]

Matthew 19:1-15, Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. He only mentions heterosexual union between a man and woman in lifelong monogamous relationships. Divorce your wife, and you turn her into an adulteress. Nothing is mentioned here about homosexuality. If Jesus thought it was acceptable surely here would be the place to say "oh, for the record, two men can live together as can two women and be right in God's eyes". He even had justification if he said that he was "fulfilling the law on marriage".

But no. I argue that by not condoning it, by virtue of his his silence he condemns it.

Just a thought. Of course, I don't believe it a "mortal sin" that's a nice Catholic word that I think has blurred the issue - sin is sin, plain and simple.

How long after the fact were those words written down? If the bible had been written by Jesus, or even during his lifetime, those words would probably carry some weight, but the fact that it was done much later.. .well.

As a second thing. At the time only hetrosexual people could marry and get divorced. So why would he mention homosexuality in a discussion about something wouldn't apply to them anyway?

I do wish jesus had said something clearly one way or the other, but as such all we're left is he didn't say anything about it which some take to mean 'he said nothin, so it's ok' but you take to mean 'by virtue of his silence it's not'.

[shadowhive]

I don't personally know a single Christian who says divorce is ok in God's eyes. It's a sin, and I will agree that a divorced couple can receive forgiveness for their sin, but it is in anyway ok, certainly not "perfectly acceptable".

If you know any Christian that believes otherwise, then they are a liberal Christian who has chosen not to believe Jesus' own words.

I think a christian would deem divorce as being acceptable if there was abuse involved. If someone was in an abusive marriage divorce would be the acceptable solution as opposed to keeping that person in a situation where they could be abued, harmed and possibly raped or killed. Jesus may have said divorce was bad but most people would say that such ause was much worse and damn what anyone, even jesus, says.

That's one of the things where the real world come in and makes things not all as black and white as the concept of sin would like to make out.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Surely if he thought it was a Sin against God that would have been the time to slip in a mention, to back up what had been said in the OT. I really don't know if you can use not saying something in approval of something as evidence that he considered it to be a bad thing. Anyway, if he was talking about marriage, then obviously he would talk about male-female relationships, wouldn't he.

You made my point for me, he was talking about marriage - you know, the only relationship God allows sex with! Since gays could not get married, they were not in a God-sanctioned relationship. Unless Jesus taught something to change that, which he did not.

That said, the Old Testament says very little about homosexuality in a relational setting. The only references come from Leviticus 18 and 20, and it's a little known fact that these passages are actually about homosexual sex in the context of idol worship (a common practice in neighbouring cultures at the time of writing). So Jesus didn't need to "back up" the Old Testament, it said little on the matter except - Genesis speaks of a man and a woman leaving their homes and joining together to become one flesh. No mention of male and male leaving their homes or female and female leaving their homes to become one flesh. Jesus quotes that very same Genesis passage in Matthew 19.

As I said, by virtue of silence, he condemns it. It was a non-issue for him, so much so that he simply took it for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God.

The problem with this is you're interpreting the Bible in a certain way by saying that Jesus condemns something...because he never mentioned it? He also never mentioned a lot of things, so there must be a lot more sins in life than we care to acknowledge.

In the context of Matthew 19 this is quite a bit different. Consider also that elsewhere in the Bible it does condemn it (Romans 1:26-27, for example - granted, it's Paul's writings rather than Jesus, but it does not in any way contradict Jesus' message from Matthew 19). But to an extent you are absolutely right - there are more sins out there not specifically mentioned by Jesus or even by the Bible. Paedophilia is not explicitly addressed. However, by referring to any sexual act outside of marriage, we can fill in the gap and say that this obviously includes prepubescent children (no one in the Bible ever married a prepubescent simply so they could justify bedding a child, they married at 13 or 14 years old, the earliest age possible to start making babies to keep the tribe strong).

[+Link of Hyrule]

How long after the fact were those words written down? If the bible had been written by Jesus, or even during his lifetime, those words would probably carry some weight, but the fact that it was done much later.. .well.

Oral tradition of the Jesus story was in circulation very shortly after the events. Remember that the earliest believers were Jews, who were used to the oral tradition of many many Rabbi's (compiled around 200 AD into the Mishnah). They were therefore used to memorising the teachings of their Rabbi's. Compared to the Jews, the Christian tradition only had one teacher, and once you had several Jews to learn it by rote (it was not like a story you'd tell at the pub that would get told differently every time) then you had a tradition - Jesus often spoke the same sermon several times to different crowds, so the followers of Jesus had plenty of time to rote learn his teachings (the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew vs the Sermon on the plains in Luke - same sermon different locations, sceptics argue it's the same story and therefore a "contradiction", believers argue that Jesus like all preachers had several "favourites" he kept away for rainy days, either could be true, or oral tradition could have simply kept the details and changed the non-essential nature that was the location).

It's strange to our modern ideas, but in the ancient world, people trusted the spoken word far more than the written word. Only 5% of the people could actually read, so it's actually someone something of a minor miracle that the writings of Jesus are as early as they are.

As a second thing. At the time only hetrosexual people could marry and get divorced. So why would he mention homosexuality in a discussion about something wouldn't apply to them anyway?

I do wish jesus had said something clearly one way or the other, but as such all we're left is he didn't say anything about it which some take to mean 'he said nothin, so it's ok' but you take to mean 'by virtue of his silence it's not'.

Because God sanctions no other relationship BUT marriage, so if he didn't speak of it he must therefore not have recognised its legitimacy.

I think a christian would deem divorce as being acceptable if there was abuse involved. If someone was in an abusive marriage divorce would be the acceptable solution as opposed to keeping that person in a situation where they could be abued, harmed and possibly raped or killed. Jesus may have said divorce was bad but most people would say that such ause was much worse and damn what anyone, even jesus, says.

That's one of the things where the real world come in and makes things not all as black and white as the concept of sin would like to make out.

I tend to agree, abuse is probably a valid reason for divorce. I doubt God would demand a person stay in a relationship that was potentially harmful. Of course, they still have the option not to remarry. I do think perhaps if you look at the marriage covenant outlined in Ephesians 5, Paul lays out the expectations of husbands and wives. Husbands are to "love their wives", in the same manner as Christ loved the church. I don't recall Jesus ever bashing the church in the head. What I remember is Jesus lay down his life, died for her with humility and honour.

If we think of these words in Ephesians 5 to be a form of "contract" between a husband and wife, it could potentially be argued that if a man is not honouring his side of the bargain, then should the woman be expected to honour her side (thus nullifying the contractual obligations of both). I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't disagree with it either, it's an issue I've been thinking about on and off for some time without a real answer popping forth. So take it or leave it as you like it.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[MarkmBha]

Look. The Bible has been re-written so many times so "The Church" will have more power over people. It is hard to say that this is the word of God.

As for homosexuality, there are over 300 species of animals which practice it. Mankind is just one.

[shadowhive]

Oral tradition of the Jesus story was in circulation very shortly after the events. Remember that the earliest believers were Jews, who were used to the oral tradition of many many Rabbi's (compiled around 200 AD into the Mishnah). They were therefore used to memorising the teachings of their Rabbi's. Compared to the Jews, the Christian tradition only had one teacher, and once you had several Jews to learn it by rote (it was not like a story you'd tell at the pub that would get told differently every time) then you had a tradition - Jesus often spoke the same sermon several times to different crowds, so the followers of Jesus had plenty of time to rote learn his teachings (the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew vs the Sermon on the plains in Luke - same sermon different locations, sceptics argue it's the same story and therefore a "contradiction", believers argue that Jesus like all preachers had several "favourites" he kept away for rainy days, either could be true, or oral tradition could have simply kept the details and changed the non-essential nature that was the location).

It's strange to our modern ideas, but in the ancient world, people trusted the spoken word far more than the written word. Only 5% of the people could actually read, so it's actually someone something of a minor miracle that the writings of Jesus are as early as they are.

Perhap it' why it' 'strange to our modern ideas' that I can't trust such a thing as being a reliable and accurate account.

Because God sanctions no other relationship BUT marriage, so if he didn't speak of it he must therefore not have recognised its legitimacy.

That still, as always, simply makes no sense in practical terms.

I tend to agree, abuse is probably a valid reason for divorce. I doubt God would demand a person stay in a relationship that was potentially harmful. Of course, they still have the option not to remarry. I do think perhaps if you look at the marriage covenant outlined in Ephesians 5, Paul lays out the expectations of husbands and wives. Husbands are to "love their wives", in the same manner as Christ loved the church. I don't recall Jesus ever bashing the church in the head. What I remember is Jesus lay down his life, died for her with humility and honour.

If we think of these words in Ephesians 5 to be a form of "contract" between a husband and wife, it could potentially be argued that if a man is not honouring his side of the bargain, then should the woman be expected to honour her side (thus nullifying the contractual obligations of both). I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't disagree with it either, it's an issue I've been thinking about on and off for some time without a real answer popping forth. So take it or leave it as you like it.

Only 'probably' a good reason for divorce?

I think it's not a clear thing at all. Like I say, it's one of those real world things that's not black and white. I don't think expecting people not to remarry is particularly fair, especially if they were the victim of an abusive relationship.

[Mr Right Wing]

Look. The Bible has been re-written so many times so "The Church" will have more power over people. It is hard to say that this is the word of God.

As for homosexuality, there are over 300 species of animals which practice it. Mankind is just one.

Be careful not to be led astray people -

Lev 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev 20:12 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.

Cor 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.

Rom 1:26-28 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

Do I need to sight more Biblical references?

[shadowhive]

Lev 20:12 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.

How many christians do you see promoting this? And if you killed a gay person would you be able to say 'I'm following Lev 20:12' and get let off for it?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Look. The Bible has been re-written so many times so "The Church" will have more power over people. It is hard to say that this is the word of God.

An oft-repeated claim, yet I see you produce no proof of this re-writing! The fact is, with the glut of ancient textual sources, we have enough detail to accurately reconstruct what the autographs likely said. The claim that the Bible has been re-written so many times is a lie, I'm not sure where it began. Neither is it a "translation of a translation of a translation of a translation" as is also sometimes bandied about (I've even seen some people put a text through Google translate, from one language into another, and then another, and then another, and then back to the original, show the new text and think this proves their claim - all our modern translations are based off the same Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, except perhaps the joke Bibles like the Aussie Bible or the Trekkie favourite Klingon Language Version of the Bible).

As for homosexuality, there are over 300 species of animals which practice it. Mankind is just one.

Arguing that other species exhibit homosexual tendencies does not therefore validate it for humans. It does denounce the claim that it is not "natural", for obviously it exists in nature. But many things exist in the animal kingdom that we would never find acceptable for a human. Now, in saying this I'm not arguing that homosexuality IS like these other things (cannibalism, as just one example) I'm simply pointing out the flaw in pointing to nature and saying "it's in nature therefore acceptable for humans".

[Mr Right Wing]

How many christians do you see promoting this? And if you killed a gay person would you be able to say 'I'm following Lev 20:12' and get let off for it?

It isnt about promoting it because we live in a Democracy.

Its about recognising its a sin and not making the mistake yourself.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Perhap it' why it' 'strange to our modern ideas' that I can't trust such a thing as being a reliable and accurate account.

I've looked a little into the process that was oral tradition, and while you don't trust it, I do. Considering Christianity was a grassroots movement aimed at the poor and destitute (ie, the least likely to be able to read) it's quite remarkable that it was less than 15 years before the first writing about Jesus (from Paul), and 20 years from the first "sayings gospel" (the hypothetically sound "Q document").

That still, as always, simply makes no sense in practical terms.

Perhaps you can explain exactly why it makes no sense the son of God would not mention homosexual relationships as being ok if God the Father didn't sanction them?

Only 'probably' a good reason for divorce?

I use the word "probably" not to cast doubt, but simply to point out what I tend to believe.

I think it's not a clear thing at all. Like I say, it's one of those real world things that's not black and white. I don't think expecting people not to remarry is particularly fair, especially if they were the victim of an abusive relationship.

That's your choice to believe that. I honestly don't have any one-shot fantastic answers to give. Sometimes sin makes sticky situations for all parties, even those who are the victims. Do you honestly expect me to be able to give a dogmatic answer to something so tough as this?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Be careful not to be led astray people -

Lev 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev 20:12 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.

Cor 6:9 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.

Rom 1:26-28 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

Do I need to sight more Biblical references?

And be careful you do not overstep the extent to which you can use Leviticus. Consider that the two passages you quoted from Leviticus are actually references to idol worship, a common practice of neighbour cultures to the Jews used homosexual sex in their ritual worship of their gods, and Leviticus condemns the Hebrews if they do that. You can't use these two passages as carte blanche attacks against homosexuality!