Homosexuality and the Bible - Thumpers welcome

[Lincoln]

Lust in whatever form is sin. People should have control of their bodies. There bodies should not control them. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are required to control their lust. God forbids sex outside of marriage. Therefore sexually active people of whatever orientation are committing sin unless they are married. But the sin of Sodom is clearly spelled out:

Ez:16:48: As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
Ez:16:49: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Ez:16:50: And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Ez:16:51: Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done.
Ez:16:52: Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.

The warning for people who call themselves Christian should be obvious. God said (above) that their sins were worse than the sins of Sodom. So I do not think that the efforts of the churches should be directed so much toward homosexuals but toward their own repentance.

[Lincoln]

Also I tend to agree with Akka. People do not decide just to have faith someday. It is much deeper than that.

[Caligastia]

For those who are interested, there is a difference between evil, sin, and iniquity. Without recognising these differences there will arise much confusion whenever we attempt a discussion about sin.

EVIL, SIN, AND INIQUITY

It was the habit of Jesus two evenings each week to hold special converse with individuals who desired to talk with him, in a certain secluded and sheltered corner of the Zebedee garden. At one of these evening conversations in private Thomas asked the Master this question: "Why is it necessary for men to be born of the spirit in order to enter the kingdom? Is rebirth necessary to escape the control of the evil one? Master, what is evil?" When Jesus heard these questions, he said to Thomas:

"Do not make the mistake of confusing evil with the evil one, more correctly the iniquitous one. He whom you call the evil one is the son of self-love, the high administrator who knowingly went into deliberate rebellion against the rule of my Father and his loyal Sons. But I have already vanquished these sinful rebels. Make clear in your mind these different attitudes toward the Father and his universe. Never forget these laws of relation to the Father's will:

"Evil is the unconscious or unintended transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Evil is likewise the measure of the imperfectness of obedience to the Father's will.

"Sin is the conscious, knowing, and deliberate transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Sin is the measure of unwillingness to be divinely led and spiritually directed.

"Iniquity is the willful, determined, and persistent transgression of the divine law, the Father's will. Iniquity is the measure of the continued rejection of the Father's loving plan of personality survival and the Sons' merciful ministry of salvation.

"By nature, before the rebirth of the spirit, mortal man is subject to inherent evil tendencies, but such natural imperfections of behavior are neither sin nor iniquity. Mortal man is just beginning his long ascent to the perfection of the Father in Paradise. To be imperfect or partial in natural endowment is not sinful. Man is indeed subject to evil, but he is in no sense the child of the evil one unless he has knowingly and deliberately chosen the paths of sin and the life of iniquity. Evil is inherent in the natural order of this world, but sin is an attitude of conscious rebellion which was brought to this world by those who fell from spiritual light into gross darkness.

"You are confused, Thomas, by the doctrines of the Greeks and the errors of the Persians. You do not understand the relationships of evil and sin because you view mankind as beginning on earth with a perfect Adam and rapidly degenerating, through sin, to man's present deplorable estate. But why do you refuse to comprehend the meaning of the record which discloses how Cain, the son of Adam, went over into the land of Nod and there got himself a wife? And why do you refuse to interpret the meaning of the record which portrays the sons of God finding wives for themselves among the daughters of men?

"Men are, indeed, by nature evil, but not necessarily sinful. The new birth--the baptism of the spirit--is essential to deliverance from evil and necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven, but none of this detracts from the fact that man is the son of God. Neither does this inherent presence of potential evil mean that man is in some mysterious way estranged from the Father in heaven so that, as an alien, foreigner, or stepchild, he must in some manner seek for legal adoption by the Father. All such notions are born, first, of your misunderstanding of the Father and, second, of your ignorance of the origin, nature, and destiny of man.

"The Greeks and others have taught you that man is descending from godly perfection steadily down toward oblivion or destruction; I have come to show that man, by entrance into the kingdom, is ascending certainly and surely up to God and divine perfection. Any being who in any manner falls short of the divine and spiritual ideals of the eternal Father's will is potentially evil, but such beings are in no sense sinful, much less iniquitous.

[Sava]

The Bible is a collection of myths and parables which is not meant to be taken literally. People wrote the bible, not God. The Bible is not the word of God either. Most of the morals that the Bible teaches are good. But unfortunately, too many sheep believe in the Bible literally.

[Robert Plomp]

Akka le Vil:
there's a difference between "being in love with" and "loving someone"

"being in love with" can pherhaps be described as the teenage feeling you got when you became exited about someone.

It's certainly possible to love someone on purpose.
The thing with bad-mariages is oftenly not that there is no love, but that there is no purpose to love.

"being in love" always stops one day (might come back now and than of course) but you rationally have to chose to love someone to truly love someone for a longer period.

Conclusion: don't mix up 'being in love with' and 'loving'
I'm not sure, but in dutch we have two different words for that: "verliefd zijn" = 'being in love with' and 'houden van' is plain 'loving someone'.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Thucydides
Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

Isn't Leviticus the same book that has some screwy laws about selling your kids into slavery or drilling holes in your slaves' ears or something like that?

[TheStinger]

Christanity is a pick and mix religion

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by Caligastia
For those who are interested, there is a difference between evil, sin, and iniquity. Without recognising these differences there will arise much confusion whenever we attempt a discussion about sin.

Where is this from?

[loinburger]

Urantia book, I'm guessing.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

God makes man inherently evil.

Man shows God he can fight the inherent evil.

Man gets into the kingdom of heaven.

NOTE: Nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality referred to as "evil".

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan


Where is this from?

The Urantia Book.

Loinburger guessed it.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So why do animals die?

Death is due to the way biology works. Infants just born have been killed. What was their sin Ckweb? Is being born a sin?

That sort of ridiculous claim is why I say there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible.

Sin has more affects than simply the person who commits the sin. Sin, as a metaphysical reality, brought about corruption, which affected all the world. Sin has repercussion and consequence.

Moving away from the religious for moment . . . have you ever watched those Star Trek or other Sci-Fi shows that inevitably have storylines about changing one small action in history? They always appeal to that illustration about how a stone causes a ripple effect.

This is how the sin of one begins to effect others and the surroundings; continued sin only compounds the effect. In the end, everything suffers as a result; even God in the person of Jesus on the Cross.

Originally posted by Ethelred
The Bible says we are evil. Thats not a choice if its inherent.

Oh and if we are god's creation WHY are we evil? Why are we punished for being as we were created?

The Bible says we are "very good" too (Gen 1 and elsewhere). We are evil by what we do not by who we are.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Not if Jehovah has chosen to create us that way. Think about the consequences of these claims sometime.

We are born sinful.

We are inherently sinful

The world is sinful

Jehovah created us

Jehovah created the world

Whose fault is all that evil then, the creator or us?

These claims of evil have NEVER made one bit of sense.

To use your inaccurate term, "Jehovah" made humanity very good. Any corruption that exists in humanity and creation is the result of the entrance of sin and evil into the world made possible by "Jehovah's" allowance that humanity ought to have a will.

Your system of statements do not follow.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Tick tock. I am still waiting for this revalation. At fifty-one I have to think Jehovah is dragging his metaphorical feat. And I can't reject something I have no reason to believe in. I can't reject Jehovah untill he reveals himself. He still looks exactly like a myth.

Revelation comes in all sort of different ways and forms and I will not presume to know when, where, and how God will reveal himself to you. He may have done so already and you have refused to accept what you have seen or heard. I am not the judge.

Also, why aren't witnesses of any value to you? You have rejected the statements of many witnesses in your lifetime; that much I can determine just from this forum.

Originally posted by Ethelred
So Jehovah has chosen to reject all members of the human that likes logic and reason and only accepts people that that takes things on faith no matter how illogical like claims that Jehovah is good we are his creation and we are inherently evil. That makes so much sense.

You know as well as I do that I did not say that. You are misusing my statement to serve your ends and it comes out as an attempt to ridicule me and my faith in the process. This is what I meant awhile back by "slight ad hominen attacks."

Originally posted by Ethelred
This is false. Completely. I and many others do NOT function on faith. We need reason. You are claiming that Jehovah rejects us for using the mind you claim he gave us. Again that makes no sense.

That you don't function on faith doesn't preclude that you can. So, it was not a false statement. There are people who simply can not function on logic or reason.

Also, I am not implying that he rejects you for using your mind. Again, you are clearly making a negative statement out of my affirmative and your negative does not equal my affirmative. I said God accepts people on faith. That does NOT mean he rejects people on reason or logic.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Ethelred definitly agrees with him. Christianity does not hold up well as this discusion on evil shows very clearly.

You read what you read . . . a forum is not my test for how well Christianity holds up. And, your discussion does not prove what you think it does. It makes opinions.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I would say that once we are forgiven, our sins are taken away, yet we still die, but we don't go to hell. In that sense, death equates to hell.

Huh?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Already addressed by Ethelred - basically, it cannot be our fault that we sin if we are born with a sin nature we don't deserve, and are created with a predisposition to sin. Further, when the Bible says that all people will sin, no matter what, there is no choice in the matter.

Simply because the Bible says something does not make it "prescriptive" as you are suggesting. In the case of the sinfulness of humanity, the Bible is descriptive. It makes an observation.

We have predispositions towards all sorts of things; the law and society, however, still holds us accountable for acting on any predispositions that law or society perceives as wrong. Predisposition does not negate choice, responsibility, or accountability.

Originally posted by David Floyd
6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

It's a significant difference in discussions such as this one that rely on careful semantics.

Originally posted by David Floyd
I don't see that this logically follows. A person who grows up a Hindu would not be looking for a revelation, probably would not recognize it if it came, and is secure enough in his beliefs that a competing religion is not going to win him over.

You are thinking in terms of religious affiliation, which is why I corrected your statement that people must be Christian. Salvation is not dependent on religious affiliation. If Hindu responds to the authentic revelation that exists in his own culture, time, place, and religion, or which God specially reveals to him/her, then s/he is saved through Jesus (whether they know about Jesus or not).

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just as some people have trouble with logical and reasoned decisions, others have trouble with decisions based upon faith alone. I am one of the people in the latter category, and I fail to see how God could manifest himself in a way such that logic and reason are useless and in fact point the other direction, when he created us with those two qualities.

Both you and Ethelred seem to have ignored my parenthetical statement that Christians do not eject logic and reason. It is just that faith is the more significant mode through which God reveals himself. That people have difficulty with faith does not mean they are not capable of faith. Unlike logic and reason, where there are simply people who are not capable of it . . .

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Thucydides
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals...none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

FYI, it is worth noting that the Greek words used in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 for "male prostitutes" and "homosexuals" are highly specialized terms that refer to the specific Greek culture practice of teachers taking young boys as apprentices and as a part of tutoring the young boys were expected to perform sexual activities for their masters. So, in that respect, 1 Cor 6:9-10 is misused as a blanket prohibition against homosexuality; it only refers to specific cultural practice.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The warning for people who call themselves Christian should be obvious. God said (above) that their sins were worse than the sins of Sodom.

Huh? Christians are not in view in Ezekiel!! Judah is the one being condemned in that passage. Even so, I could agree that it has some applicability. Personally, I agree that Christians should not focus on anyone sin but should concentrate on the message of grace through Christ Jesus.

On homosexuality, I take the position of Lambeth Conference. The resolution on sexuality from the 1998 Lambeth Conference stated: "This conference, in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage." At the same time, the conference also committed itself to "listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and...assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ." So, agree with you Lincoln that any lust or act of sexual relations outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman is sin.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
The Bible is a collection of myths and parables which is not meant to be taken literally. People wrote the bible, not God. The Bible is not the word of God either. Most of the morals that the Bible teaches are good. But unfortunately, too many sheep believe in the Bible literally.

And it was so by a Savan fiat!

[Boris Godunov]

The problem with Biblical references to homosexuality is that they really aren't.

The modern understanding of sexual orientation really didn't even begin to come into being until the late 19th century. Before that, there was no concept that people could actually be, for whatever reason beyond their control, "oriented" towards the same gender in terms of physical attraction. It was assumed that people who engaged in such acts were heterosexuals behaving in unnatural ways. Well, yes, for a heterosexual, it would unnatural.

The word "homosexual" didn't even exist until then, so any Biblical translation that uses the word is practicing a deliberate distortion and should be tossed out.

Now, if you also factor in the association of homosexual acts to pagan cultures and rituals, it is easy to see why the Biblical admonition against such acts exist, as they viewed it like idolatry.

Now (except for an increasingly small minority of people), we know better and realize that many people are simply not heterosexual and that their natural feelings of attraction are to the same gender. We know that gays, by and large, seek relationships exclusively with the same gender. And gays are entering into long-term, monogamous unions blessed by their churches.

So, like all those other silly Biblical injunctions in Leviticus, we can see that the prohibitions against "homosexuality" are out of date and not relevant to our world anymore.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by ckweb


Huh? Christians are not in view in Ezekiel!! Judah is the one being condemned in that passage. Even so, I could agree that it has some applicability. Personally, I agree that Christians should not focus on anyone sin but should concentrate on the message of grace through Christ Jesus. *snip*

Yes, of course the passage was not referring to Christians. But you must agree that the things that were writen by the prophets have application to the present day "people of God" (or Christians) today. The Old Testament is not just an interesting story that only applied to people who are long dead. And the present day corrpution in the churches cannot escape the censure of Jesus to the Pharisees simply because he was addressing a specific group of religious hypocrites. The pattern is the same and God requires that which is past. In that sense Jeremiah and Ezekiel are like modern day prophets if you know what I mean.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by red_jon

I know that in the New Testament Jesus never mentions homosexuality.

Jesus does mention homosexuals. He says some are born eunuchs and some are made so by men.

He doesn't however condemn homosexuals.

Jesus doesn't seem to have been very interested in sexual morality at all. Certainly nowhere near the degree of some of his later followers.

Jesus hardly mentions the subject of sex at all. He saves a woman caught in adultery and clearly thinks fidelity in marriage is important but that's about it.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The problem with Biblical references to homosexuality is that they really aren't.

The modern understanding of sexual orientation really didn't even begin to come into being until the late 19th century. Before that, there was no concept that people could actually be, for whatever reason beyond their control, "oriented" towards the same gender in terms of physical attraction. It was assumed that people who engaged in such acts were heterosexuals behaving in unnatural ways. Well, yes, for a heterosexual, it would unnatural.

The word "homosexual" didn't even exist until then, so any Biblical translation that uses the word is practicing a deliberate distortion and should be tossed out.

Now, if you also factor in the association of homosexual acts to pagan cultures and rituals, it is easy to see why the Biblical admonition against such acts exist, as they viewed it like idolatry.

Now (except for an increasingly small minority of people), we know better and realize that many people are simply not heterosexual and that their natural feelings of attraction are to the same gender. We know that gays, by and large, seek relationships exclusively with the same gender. And gays are entering into long-term, monogamous unions blessed by their churches.

So, like all those other silly Biblical injunctions in Leviticus, we can see that the prohibitions against "homosexuality" are out of date and not relevant to our world anymore.

A sound liberal argument . . . I would differ with you on certain points but I respect that your position is carefully stated and thought-out.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Yes, of course the passage was not referring to Christians. But you must agree that the things that were writen by the prophets have application to the present day "people of God" (or Christians) today. The Old Testament is not just an interesting story that only applied to people who are long dead. And the present day corrpution in the churches cannot escape the censure of Jesus to the Pharisees simply because he was addressing a specific group of religious hypocrites. The pattern is the same and God requires that which is past. In that sense Jeremiah and Ezekiel are like modern day prophets if you know what I mean.

Hence, I stated, "Even so, I could agree that it has some applicability."

I'm sorry if I was a little sharp. Being a student of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, one of my pet peeves is taking the Old Testament out of context, which happens all the time in sermons and other popular literature (i.e. Prayer of Jabez). So, I'm a little defensive on that issue. The context of a passage should always be observed first.

[Sava]

See this is what's wrong with this new testament, Protestant Christianity... I wasn't born into sin, and I don't need a savior. The whole idea is repulsing. God created us into a world of sin where we are guilty until proven innocent? Dirty until cleansed? Sinful until saved? It's all a bunch of bullcrap. It's silly notions like this that drive fundmentalism in the world. Islam isn't the only religion that gets twisted to serve some selfish psychotic end.

Even if I don't believe in Christianity, and it turns out that it is the TRUE religion (when I die and meet God, etc) I doubt he's going to care whether I believed in this crap anyways. He's probably going to be concerned with my actions on Earth and whether or not I'm a good person. Christianity and the Bible, Judiasm and the TOrah, Islam and the Qu'Ran... it's all a creation of man. Not God...

[Jon Miller]

so many people here do not understand Christianity

Jon Miller

Lev 18;22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

[Boris Godunov]

Lev 19:19Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed: neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

If you've worn polyesther, you are an abomination.

Lev19:27Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Lev19:28Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am Jehovah.

Shave your beard? Got a tattoo? Abomination.

How about this gem:

Lev21:17Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 21:18For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous, 21:19or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed, 21:20or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or is scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21:21no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of Jehovah made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 21:22He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy: 21:23only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I am Jehovah who sanctifieth them.

So God doesn't want people born with deformities to be equal, how nice.

Shall I bother bringing up the passages that ban eating shellfish, instruct you on how to buy and sell your slaves, or how women who go into a temple while having their period must be stoned?

[Alexander's Horse]

Its really hopeless to quote the old testament to justify a Christian position on homosexuality. Firstly Jesus said the old law had passed away and if hadn't passed away it had been outrageously misinterpreted. Secondly, the old testament sexual laws were really heavily influenced by an overt racialism, strongly linked to reproduction. So for example incest was okay as long as it maintained the hereditary line! Homosexuality seems to have been condemned mainly because it would not lead to children.

Jesus was more interested in the quality of relationships, the "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you" principle. This is not as easy as it sounds and covers gays as much as heterosexuals. So if you treat people/sexual partners with respect then I don't see any evidence Jesus had a problem with homosexuality. If you treat other people as sex objects however, whether you are gay or straight, then Jesus disapproves of that, in the strongest terms.

[Dan Severn]

*thump*

Fags are gay; they go to hell.

*thump*



Seriously, though, I fail to see how one's relationship with the eternal spirit is related to the nature of his nooky. It's revolting to me, but it's really none of my business. Some are like that. The kind of person you are has much more relevance than the people you find attractive.

[Alexander's Horse]

The only people that Jesus really criticises in the New Testament is people who judge and condemn other people. He has no time for people like that. In fact he says whenever you judge and condemn another person in God's eyes the only person you judge or condemn is yourself.

Some of you so-called Christians should think about that.

The Jesus that I know spent his whole life lifting people up, healing them, helping them, inspiring them and making them feel good about themselves. I just don't see any way Jesus would be into condemning homosexuals or homosexuality.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
or how women who go into a temple while having their period must be stoned?

Sing

Everybody must get stoned



Make sure you are nearly incomprehensible when you sing it or you won't sound like the original.

[Alexander's Horse]

The only New Testament figure I recall who had a problem with homosexuals was Saint Paul - and that probably was a form of self loathing because I strongly suspect Saint Paul was gay and in the closet.