scriptural basis for christian objection to homosexuality

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

No idea who Rock Hudson is lol, but anyway...

We? Humans? The bible is supposed to be the word of god... I am sure this awesome diety could determin if a person was gay or not.

Well, Paul did complain of a "thorn in his side", and constantly asked God to take that affliction away from him. God told Paul His grace was enough. I think God meant to keep Paul humble (otherwise his powerful personality and drive might have damaged God's work).

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cavalier

...What about those societies where homosexuality was commonly practiced? What happened to their instinctive revulsion?

Oh, you mean like Sparta? Greece? Rome? They all got killed off.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Sure, I would agree that it's a good example of mainstream attitudes. It seems though, that Q is using this story to try and back his claim that humankind has a instinctive repulsion to homosexuality.
Though I guess that the people repulsed by homosexuality are in the majority, I object to his claims that figure is over 90%.
I also object to his claim that this repulsion is instinctive and not acquired.

No I'm not. Any farmer who has livestock will tell you that the steer who is acting queer is simply horny and confused, but they'll get over it. He doesn't put them down for mounting another male. But he knows better. Ain't gonna have more baby livestock letting that action continue.

I never stated that 90% objected to anything. What I said was that 10% does not have the right to tell 90% what to think or accept.

I'm gonna point you to preschool children. Girls and boys act differently with each other. Boys tend to be gentler with the girls, and rougher with each other. No one taught them that. It is instinctive. Same with attraction and revulsion.

Funny that the bible doesn't condemn lesbianism like it does male homosexual behavior...I wonder why?

In any event, I think we should agree to disagree on this issue. Neither one one is going to change their way of thought, so it is mute.

v/r

Joshua

[17th Angel]

You sure?

I would say the bible/god doesn't accept any form of being gay. Man or woman.

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Funny that the bible doesn't condemn lesbianism like it does male homosexual behavior...I wonder why?

Joshua

It does, bro. Note Romans 1:18-32. Both gay men and woman are discussed there and are abiding in great and terrible wrath.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

You sure?

I would say the bible/god doesn't accept any form of being gay. Man or woman.

Apparently it never directly addresses women on the issue.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silas

It does, bro. Note Romans 1:18-32. Both gay men and woman are discussed there and are abiding in great and terrible wrath.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I stand corrected. Thank you.

No problem!

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Apparently it never directly addresses women on the issue.

I do not like to say this but look above Silas is correct on this issue...

[bananabrain]

i think a lot of these posts (but definitely not dondi's) have gone really off-topic. i am not terribly interested in what people's personal responses/likes-dislikes might be. i am interested in the integrity of why they feel their religious texts, traditions and authorities support this.

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

it is not enough to follow ceremonial rituals of cleanliness if one is spiritually immoral and thus defiled internally. its not food that causes you to be defiled, but your actions that come from within your heart.

i don't think anyone disagrees with this, as far as i can see jesus is here expressing a point of view that is very much supported by the prophets and by the rabbis who were his contemporaries. i should point out here that the rabbis i mean are more or less those who would have described themselves as "pharisees", but the propagandist paradigm of the "pharisee" as hypocrite belongs to a later period. our sages criticise the "sadducees" in much the same terms - but that's a different argument. either way, jesus, the prophets and the rabbis here are of one mind. however, it's also important to remember that these are not actually rituals of "cleanliness" per se. the words usually translated as "clean" or "unclean" certainly have nothing to do with hygiene. they are to do with spiritual fitness or unfitness to be used in particular ways, but this is a complex system and not easily understood. suffice it to say that a priest or levite who is "clean" can serve in the Temple, a "clean" person may engage in marital relations and communal dining and a "clean" food can be tithed or a "clean" animal sacrificed. "clean" may not be mixed with "unclean". in fact, the best way to understand it is as a system of, as it were, spiritual plumbing. your "pipes" are either "clean" (unblocked) or "unclean" (blocked). your spiritual "pipes" also receive input from and output into your actual "pipes", via eating, sex and various actions. the gateway point from one to another is via immersion in a ritual pool (rather like baptism) after a prescribed time. i hope this makes sense.

in this way one can understand permitted sex to be a linking of two people's "piping" systems, whereas non-permitted sex is when the pipes cannot be properly fitted together for one reason or another, e.g. during menstruation or the forbidden homosexual act. either way it is not really the act per se that is wrong but the context of it - i suppose the difference is that there are no circumstances in which the homosexual act is permitted (at least between men, although ironically enough i believe there may be leeway for heterosexuals!) as opposed to other acts, which may be situationally, relationally or temporally wrong. in this way we harmonise our external actions with the Divine Will.

Originally Posted by Silas

Religion aside. Is this really a topic we have to discuss?

last time i checked, silas, you were not in charge of what gets discussed here on the forum. if you don't want to discuss this, don't discuss it. i am unlikely to miss your input. see you later, matey.

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm sure you have considered that many of the dietary laws commanded by G!D were hygienic in nature in the ancient Jewish culture, i.e. eating pork was just plain unhealthy. They didn't have refrigerators or preservatives that we have today, so I can see the value in G!D keeping His people healthy.

this is a PoV often expressed by those who subordinate the Will of G!D to reason and/or science and, of course, as you correctly surmise, if that's the reason and nowadays you can eat your pork chops and oysters without getting food poisoning there's no reason to keep the commandment. obviously that's not something i agree with, because it is elevating something above the Law and that would be a negation of what we are about. so that is not an argument i can accept.

Since sexual immorality is listed, then it stands to reason that the Noahide might just want to learn what exactly "sexual immorality" consitutes. Where else to go but to the OT and the Mosaic Law. Thus when coming to Leviticus 13:15, we have an understanding that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. It may not be a requirement for Noahides to obey the Law, but we can certainly use it as a guide.

aha! but what you're doing there is jumping to conclusions, big-time styley. the first thing the jewish approach would do is say "and what precisely do we mean by that"? unfortunately, there is never enough detail in the Torah to tell us. for example, by far the worst type of sexual immorality in our terms is what used to be known as "temple prostitution" - and that doesn't really exist any more. in fact there's an extremely strong case for saying that the meaning of "sexual immorality" is so strictly defined that it is hard to consider any consensual activity as qualifying under this heading. moreover, if you are appealing to the noahide law, it is not interpreted by mr noahide-in-the-street, but through the lens and process of halakhah. you can't just make up your own interpretations according to what appeals to you. what is more, it is extremely hard to argue that you should spend any effort on giving homosexuals a hard time while there are still rapists and other sexual exploiters out there. you would have a hard time convincing me that what someone does with their partner in the privacy of their bedroom, which i neither see, approve, nor am involved in, is more important than something which affects me, like a rapist. if you're going to use a guide, you should use the right guide, not make it up yourself.

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
" - Deut. 30:11-14

It is not with the outward observance that G!D wants, but the inward obedience.

in the nicest possible way, you have absolutely failed to appreciate the point i was making. the way we understand this section is that the Law is not something that sits off in some theoretical field somewhere - it is something we are commanded to interpret and understand; but this means *through the prism of tradition* which means via the halakhic process, *not* everyone deciding for themselves what something means. there must be a majority opinion, as it says in the Torah - see exodus 23:2.

as for ezekiel 36:26-28, he is certainly not advocating the abrogation of the practice of the Law in favour of its spirit. no jewish prophet would. they might criticise those who violate its spirit but he (and i) would not concede that the Law was therefore being correctly practiced. the correct practice of the Law *is* informed by its spirit and the two are one.

All the same, if you want to dabble in semantics and call one thing a sin and another thing a tresspass, it is still unpleasing to G!D.

ok, but we are concerned with understanding the unfolding will of G!D - but the fact remains that we consider this an issue between man and G!D not man and man - so it is not up to humans to start poking around in each others bedrooms without a by-your-leave.

Yeah, but animals are not created in the image of G!D

they still have the lower souls - and they are still part of Creation and part of the Design. i stand by my objection.

what do "cultures" have to do with obeying G!D?

we do not believe in a One Right Way. we believe there are many faces to Torah and that someone who has never even heard of Torah can still be a good person as long as they keep the noahide laws. i believe this still constitutes a major difference between us.

Homosexuality, along with all the other things you listed, are but symptoms of a bigger problem: rebellion against G!D.

umph. everyone's got to have priorities. if you'd rather oppress people who are doing nothing that affects you than deal with things that you are actually able to improve then i think you are attempting to preempt the Divine. if G!D really hates gays (which i doubt) then G!D is perfectly able to punish them without your help. on the other hand, G!D is *definitely* relying on us all to save the planet, bring world peace, end hunger and so on. what sort of humans do nothing to help themselves whilst spending their time criticising others?

And that was my point about Sodom and Gomorrah. It wasn't homosexuality, per se, that was the ultimate cause for their destruction, it was the general rebellious unrighteousness, including homosexual behavior, toward God that triggered the judgement upon them. God couldn't find even 10 righteous people among them, save Lot and his family.

good point, although lot and his daughters are hardly righteous - he even offers his daughters to the mob in place of the angels and they themselves are the one who instigate his drunken incest.

incidentally, lesbianism is not mentioned in the Torah, although it is discussed in the Talmud with some disapproval, although not actually forbidden. women are not obliged to marry, although men are, so there is a loophole. the minimalist position is that only actual homosexual penetration is prohibited - but being gay as an intrinsic status does not exist. the halacha is only interested in homosexual activity. interestingly enough, that is more or less what the science seems to be saying.

it seems therefore on the basis of 1 corinthians 6 (thank you Prober) and romans we have a set of pretty comprehensive condemnations of both homosexuality and lesbianism. fortunately for me, these are not jewish texts and there is a big difference in way that judaism approaches this issue.

i'd like to ask if there are any christians here who take a different view of homosexuals other than outright condemnation of the sinner via the sin - i'm not seeing much love here. are there christian texts which refuse to condemn homosexuals out of love and compassion? it strikes me that jesus seems to be far less quick to condemn than some christians seem to be.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[flowperson]

Aside from how the Bible admonishes us to behave in our sexual predelictions, does anybody think that the rapid disappearance of real privacy in all walks of life might be having an effect upon how we all regard sexual practices and behaviors? I'm inclined to believe that this is having a profound effect on western societies at least, notwithstanding what scripture tells us to do and how to behave in sexual matters.

It is my opinion that information in the Book of Enoch in the Apocrypha has a lot to do with what is really going on these days. But of course that was banned by the hierarchy long ago and relegated to secondary status as far as sacred text goes. However, our Slavic brothers and sisters still hold it in high regard. Any thoughts ?

flow....

[Prober]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

it seems therefore on the basis of 1 corinthians 6 (thank you Prober) and romans we have a set of pretty comprehensive condemnations of both homosexuality and lesbianism. fortunately for me, these are not jewish texts and there is a big difference in way that judaism approaches this issue.

i'd like to ask if there are any christians here who take a different view of homosexuals other than outright condemnation of the sinner via the sin - i'm not seeing much love here. are there christian texts which refuse to condemn homosexuals out of love and compassion? it strikes me that jesus seems to be far less quick to condemn than some christians seem to be.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Thoroughly enjoyed your posts, B.

Christians are enjoined from judging others. Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone..."

And the greatest commandments are "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy might...and thy neighbor as thyself."

If we really took this to heart...

[Silas]

"last time i checked, silas, you were not in charge of what gets discussed here on the forum. if you don't want to discuss this, don't discuss it. i am unlikely to miss your input. see you later, matey."


ah...OK. But, didnt I leave my imput a few times? Was that the only thing you could qoute?

[Silas]

Prober

Christians are enjoined from judging others. Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone..."

Right! But, in context of those equally guilty sinners who sort to kill a woman that committed adultery. Didnt Jesus also said to "judge people by their fruits" to know if they are Christian or not? Certianly! Jesus never taught against judging, he taught against judging hypocritically. Jesus, as well as all the Bible, teaches that we must "judge righteous judgement."

And the greatest commandments are "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy might...and thy neighbor as thyself."

The Bible also teaches that if we love people, we'll give them God's means of bring them to salvation - namely, the "offensive sounding" gospel.

If we really took this to heart...

Take context to heart. Its Soooooo important!

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Keep the damn sexual preference to self! Telling the whole world about it and demanding recognition for it...now that is absurd! It's plain rude. if nothing else.

It is obviously a hetero world. I take it reading here you are not indicating that Heteros should keep their preferences to themselves...Surely you don't want the paper to quit printing those pretty engagement pictures, or young lovebirds walking down the street hand in hand...your statement only applies to homosexuals right?

Yo BB, there are plenty of Christian sects/denominations that accept homosexuals as members of thier church and clergy...tis what the riot is about.