Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jor-el

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?

2,645 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

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?

I hope you've been a good Christian and killed lots of gay people then! After all, God is telling you to do it...don't show this to Irrelevant, he'll load up his shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

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!

I learnt a new phrase today - carte blanche

What about the other two?

I hope you've been a good Christian and killed lots of gay people then! After all, God is telling you to do it...don't show this to Irrelevant, he'll load up his shotgun.

It doesnt specify who should kill them so why do you assume the Bible instructs its readers to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

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

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

Thankfuly, we do live in a democracy.

But to be hoonest, anyone that uses that passage as an arguement is saying 'here's my belief, it says we should kill gay people' which does not make you come off very well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

It doesnt specify who should kill them so why do you assume the Bible instructs its readers to do that?

Oh so you do agree they should die..so long as the blood isn't on your hands? C'mon...this is the WORD of GOD...someone has to carry out his word..right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

Oh so you do agree they should die..so long as the blood isn't on your hands? C'mon...this is the WORD of GOD...someone has to carry out his word..right?

If God wants to punish your for being gay then I'm sure he's more than capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

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.

I'm afraid I'm really not sure about that argument. By not mentioning anything about an issue, he was condemning it? Anything he didn't specifically approve of, he disapproved of? Most of the things that are attributed to him in the Bible are his views on specific matters, particularly the way that religion had become institutionalised and how the priests had become mighty and powerful.Those things he did comdemn strongly, and so he spoke out about them. Are you really trying to say that anything he wasn't specifically quoted as approving of, he condemned? Not even that he had no particular views about it one way or the other? And really, even if he did take for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God, that's really not the same as saying that he disapproved of it strongly enough to condemn people for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

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").

Well that's your choice to do.

The Q document? What's that?

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?

Perhaps you can explain why homosexuals are created and their sexuality is an inbuilt trait and why god would NOT sanction them?

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

Ah

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?

No I don't expect you to give a dogmatic answer. What I do expect, is for you to realise what a sticky situation it makes and how making victims sinners does not come off very well. And that's just one example of the sort of situation that it makes. Making victims sinful is like saying a victim is guilty for a crime committed against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

Thankfuly, we do live in a democracy.

But to be hoonest, anyone that uses that passage as an arguement is saying 'here's my belief, it says we should kill gay people' which does not make you come off very well.

I'd be more concerned with your afterlife than the controversies written in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

If God wants to punish your for being gay then I'm sure he's more than capable.

I'm not gay, I'm defending people that are because they have a right not to be talked about like they're some inferior race by people like you. C'mon, be fair now...the Bible says they should surely die a horrible death. Isn't that why people were burning "witches"? Because the good book told them to...

If God made us in his image, and it's been proven being gay is what you're born with - and it is proven - then does this mean that God is part homosexual? :w00t:

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I'd be more concerned with your afterlife than the controversies written in the Bible.

I'm more concerned with the here and now, since my idea of the afterlife i better than yours (which is a catch all eternal death for non-christians).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

I'm not gay, I'm defending people that are because they have a right not to be talked about like they're some inferior race by people like you. C'mon, be fair now...the Bible says they should surely die a horrible death. Isn't why people were burning "witches"? Because the good book told them to...

If God made us in his image, and it's been proven being gay is what you're born with - and it is proven - then does this mean that God is part homosexual? :w00t:

You arent born gay its a decision to act on 'strange lusts'

I see it as a weakness in the mind in the same way that those who give into peer pressure are weak. No will power and a willingness to let oneself have such bizare thoughts to begin with.

Edited by Giant Killer B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

You arent born gay its a decision to act on 'strange lusts'

I see it as a weakness in the mind in the same way that those who give into peer pressure are weak. No will power and a willingness to let oneself have such bizare thoughts to begin with.

And what proof do you have of this? Spoiler: biblical nonsense is not proof.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

And what proof do you have of this? Spoiler: biblical nonsense is not proof.

Are you trying to tell me you have so little control over your thoughts, desires and actions you dont think you should be held accountable by God for your homosexuality?

You have free will, I advise you to learn how to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pop It and Shove It

Are you trying to tell me you have so little control over your thoughts, desires and actions you dont think you should be held accountable by God for your homosexuality?

You have free will, I advise you to learn how to use it.

You have little control over your sexuality...this has been proven time and time again.

I asked you for proof, remember? I can give you plenty that is contrary to what you're saying...in fact I've already posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I learnt a new phrase today - carte blanche

What about the other two?

I accept the validity of the other two references. I only commented on the first two because they were used inappropriately.

P.S - glad to add to your learning :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

I'm afraid I'm really not sure about that argument. By not mentioning anything about an issue, he was condemning it? Anything he didn't specifically approve of, he disapproved of? Most of the things that are attributed to him in the Bible are his views on specific matters, particularly the way that religion had become institutionalised and how the priests had become mighty and powerful.Those things he did comdemn strongly, and so he spoke out about them. Are you really trying to say that anything he wasn't specifically quoted as approving of, he condemned? Not even that he had no particular views about it one way or the other? And really, even if he did take for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God, that's really not the same as saying that he disapproved of it strongly enough to condemn people for it.

I think with an issue like this, the only type of relationship sanctioned by God in the Bible was marriage. Jesus at no time changed the definition of marriage, and at no time extended any type of moral acceptance of homosexuality (though he ate with tax collectors and "sinners", so he may very well have dined with such people). It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that Jesus therefore condoned it. Maybe he was agnostic on the issue. But since he didn't come out and address it, while specifically addressing heterosexual marriage, I cannot justify such agnosticism on his part.

This isn't to say that everything Jesus doesn't speak of he by his silence condemns. This is a very specific issue that is worthy of such idea because of his choice to preach about heterosexual marriage and divorce, without ever saying a peep about other types of sexual relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glorybebe

And what proof do you have of this? Spoiler: biblical nonsense is not proof.

Exactly. IMO, it is not a choice. Otherwise after the abuse I suffered from my ex would have 'turned me gay', but, no, I don't find women attractive, I still find (some) men attractive. It is something they are born with. I am friends with a lesbian couple and they are wonderful, caring and open hearted women. To look at them and think they deserve to die because they don't fit in with Christianity's view makes me ill. Until we stop with all the hatred and anger over something that doesn't directly affect us, we will never be a healthy society. Does what gay people do in their beds really affect you? Really? Or is it your own curiosity that bothers you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Hi Sheri,

You quoted a text that is oriented specifically to the sociological aspect of this discussion, and in that respect it is the norm. The term being used by me is not being used in the sociological context but the biological context.

Within the biological context, it is considered a natural but also deviant form of sexuality that has no apparent evolutionary survival benefit. Although there are some proposals that try to address this issue.

http://www.pbs.org/w.../evolution.html

How can you call something natural yet at the same time a deviance. It doesn't compute. IMO I think this is where you are in your cognitive quest of trying to find a way to be 'true' to your religion and accepting of something other then hetero.. it seems to me you need to have a "biological" reason for homosexuality in order for it to be valid in your mind. (Of course this is just what I think and I could be wrong)

I hate to break it to you but "hetero" is not the cats meow of sexuality my friend-- it is one of four. It would be like me arguing that as a female I am better then you because males have very little part in the female ability to carry a life to term and give birth. It would be as if I was saying since you are a male and therefore you can never have the experience of growing a life inside of you, so you have no real biological survival use or importance. These arguments are elitist, ignorant, and non productive. IMO Wouldn't you agree?

Here is a link for you,

http://www.kinseyins...ak-hhscale.html

There is no 'sexual' norm per say Jor el, it can be a tough concept to wrap ones mind around. One can be any of the four variations (or not) at different times in their lives. This would all be considered normal in the study of Human Sexuality.

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

“It is a characteristic of the human mind that tries to dichotomize in its classification of phenomena….Sexual behavior is either normal or abnormal, socially acceptable or unacceptable, heterosexual or homosexual; and many persons do not want to believe that there are gradations in these matters from one to the other extreme.”

Bottom line is there are 4 sexual expressions and not one is more normal then the other. That is the whole story biologically.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.