Homosexuality and Scripture

Oh, I see now. God burned Sodom and Gomorrah because the elders stole the church's pens.

No, but God condemns us becuse, while we find it easy to repent of "big" sins like adultery and fornication, we continue to be slaves to "little" sins like petty theft, borrowing money and not repaying it, speeding, cheating on your taxes, getting to work at 8:05 and putting down 8:00, etc.

We think our excrement has no oder, while its stench drives others away from wanting to have our faith. Why do you think Jesus told us to remove the plank from our own eyes before removing the speck from our brother's eyes? By us rationonizing our sins as "little", we continue to remain slaves to sin. Better for us to be fornicators and admit to it than to be pen stealers and deny it.

[ September 18, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I think that here we have the key differnce between the moderate/liberal interpretation of Scripture and the fundamentalist/conservative one. I don't think the paraenetic texts in Scripture represent "God's eternal will" as a moral code. They represent specific applications of general principles - and it is the task of the interpreters to determine what those general principles are and how to apply them now.

For me, following the example of Jesus, the two underlying general principles of all right behavior are loving God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus clearly placed these principles over the letter of the law, and I think it behooves us to do the same.

It's not a lifestyle, it's a sexual orientation. Christianity can do this by recognizing that the big whopping three passages that perhaps deal with homosexuality are not addressing committed, monogamous relationships. (See Scroggs' <i>Homosexuality and the New Testament</i> for a much more detailed approach to this than has been done here. Hurcombe's <i>Sex and God</i> is also a good resource on this topic and general topics relating to the Bible and human sexuality.) Even if those passages were as explicitly opposed to all homosexual acts as some claim, that does nothing more than put them in the same category as the New Testament texts that clearly endorse slavery. In that case, we simply write them off as Paul's cultural baggage and untenable within the larger commands of Jesus.

OK, how about this one: Sexual acts which have the potential to create children should not take place outside of a marriage contract. Sexual acts which either party views as reflecting close intimacy should not take place outside of committed relationships.

The concepts of monogamy and sex exclusively in marriage are not universally affirmed in the Old Testament. Look specifically at Tamar and Ruth, both of whom made it into the genealogy of Jesus. I think they are healthy concepts and endorse them, but I'm not juvenile enough in my reading of the Bible to believe that the Bible endorses them exclusively.

God clearly allowed and blessed polygamy and extramarital sex in the line of Jesus, so I don't see this as much of a challenge. As for homosexuality, it's not addressed by the authors of Scripture in the context of healthy, committed relationships. The authors of Scripture seem to have held hrhema's opinion that those relationships don't exist (just as they couldn't conceive of a world without slavery) and so they wrote from that perspective. That doesn't mean we should do the same in either case.

Joshua

[ September 18, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

Joshua,
I asked you about this topic elsewhere, and you may have answered, but I happened to look here first today. My question is answered.

You can't write off the Scripture, when it declares that homosexuals / sodomites (along with adulterers and fornicators and a host of others)will NOT enter the kingdom of heaven (see Corinthians and Galatians), as "Paul's cultural baggage." Also, please do not make the arrogant assertion that Paul endorses slavery. That is not the case. He is just living within the context of it. There is a huge difference there, my friend.

Now I see why you can so heartily recommend Mr. Godsey's book - everything is relative for you all, and there is no standard. Is that too harsh a statement?

Rev. G

 

Okay, no one's asked, and I gotta know... Rev G, when you refer to "sodomites" I assume you're referring to those who engage in anal intercourse. Are you saying that married couples who engage in anal intercourse are doomed to the same fate as homosexuals? What about oral sex? Is that also forbidden for married couples to engage in?

 

...please do not make the arrogant assertion that Paul endorses slavery. That is not the case. He is just living within the context of it. There is a huge difference there...

On this point I agree. I think the same applies with Paul in regards to the ban on women preachers. But that's a different topic altogether.

 

Post-it,

Interesting how you use the OT to defend abortion prior to 4-5 months, but you don't use the OT to condemn homosexuality.

 

So, how does this (saying a homosexuality is not a sin) please God? Do you think God thinks that it(homosexuality) is ok? You must. But why? What reasons can you give that would make one think that God thinks homosexuality is not a sin? That has yet to be explained.

Yeah yeah yeah...it's an orientation...just so long as you redefine orientation to include premarital sex, extramarital affiars, pedophilia and necrophilia. Do you wish to redefine those in that way?

This is absurd, and I think you know it. What about the committed, monogamous premarital couple? The committed, monogamous one living person one dead person? The committed, monogamous 34 year old and the 12 year old? The point is, as it has always been, that there can be no system of morals which says that homosexuality is not a sin that also excludes the above. If you say homosexuality is ok, you allow these others. It is just that simple. Post-it claimed conviction of the heart (via Holy Spirit) and not harming someone. He failed to prove this or give it valid justfication. Now you are doing something simliar and you can also offer no valid justfication.

So let me get this straight....you now say:

1. if an act can produce kids...wait till marriage
2. if a person (subjective) feels it is wrong...wait till marriage
3. otherwise, game on.

Does 1 take into consideration infertile couples? They have no possibility for children so are they allowed to have sex before marriage?

2 is a putrid explanation for something which really demands a much more thoroughly though out idea. 2 allows any single person/couple to engage in whatever sex act they choose if they feel likek it (ie, not wrong)...as long as it can't produce children. Where did you get the idea that 'produce children' is the delimiter between right and wrong for 1 BTW? Seem arbitrary, like most of the moral code you present.

Simple concept. Not everything in the bible is encouraged by God. This a common mistake atheists make when debasing the bible. I am suprised you made this one. Think of the NT divorce principle. Why did Moses endorse divorce? Hardness of what? That's right, heart.

You have now reduced moral principles to the society in which one lives. So, because our socieyt endorses the following we (Christians) should be allowed to do them:

Premarital sex
Pornography
Divorce
Lying
Drug use
......

The list goes on...

You need a better position otherwise you are no better than the world. Actually, it would appear your moral code is of the world.

In Christ,
jason

 

Jason,

I don't see an easy way to cut and paste our various comments so I'll just respond as best I can without quoting.

First, I don't understand why homosexuality wouldn't be pleasing to God. Two people who love each other festablishing a commited and exclusive relationship seems like a celebration of the love of God to me.

Secondly, you're decision to lump homosexuality in with pedophilia and necrophilia hardly seems conducive to intelligent dialogue on the subject. None of the unhealthy behaviors you describe are inherent to homosexuality, and all of them are likewise present among heterosexuals as well.

To address your third point, your assertion that "can be no system of morals which says that homosexuality is not a sin that also excludes the above" is patently absurd. Any moral system that recognizes that sex should only take place between equally consenting, adult partners can easily exclude pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. The only shift in your sexual ethics that I am recommending is saying that the genitalia of the parties involved is irrelevant.

On your fourth point, there is nothing "arbitrary" about my moral code at all. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't make it arbitrary or poorly thought out. The sexual ethics of most cultures have three primary concerns:

- provision for the needs of children
- maintaining the integrity of ancestral lineage
- protecting a father's/husband's property rights regarding the women who were in his posession

I simply provided an argument based on that which addressed the parameters you specified.

As for whether or not God "blessed" sexual promiscuity and polygamy - I think the authors of the Hebrew Bible clearly believed that God did.

As for "reducing moral principles to the society in which we live" - morality is a product of society. It's not the principles that we are discussing, however, but rather the specific application of those principles.

Joshua

[ September 19, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

The point is...this EXACT same case can be made for just about any type of relationship. Pedophilia, premarital sex, Polygamy (more than two people love each other). This has left it open to what even you would consider wrong.

Exactly! So...if they are present in all...all either are good(including pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia) or all either are bad UNLESS we are told which of them is good and which of them is bad! Don't you see this? You even admitted it in the above post!

But WHY? Why should it take place only between two consenting adults? I am asking the obvious to make you think about this. You are picking and choosing that which is right and wrong, but you don't have anything to base it upon.

So we are back to the sexual ethics of cultures then? Ok...I'm going to go out and sleep with as many women as possible since that is deemed good in america today. No? You think this would be wrong? Why? It is the sexual ethics of this culture.

See, this is where you make your mistake. You have just said morals are product of society, not God. No my friend, morals CAN'T come from society as then we would have a world were killing Jews is good, raping small children is acceptable and aborting babies is an alright thing to do. I am pretty sure you think at least two of those three are bad, though you have no right to ever say so to anybody who practices it in their own society (by your own words).

You must first realize that societies can't define morals. This is actually a pretty obvious point to make, but I have to stress it. Society is not the judge of right and wrong. We cannot get our morals from society.

jason

 

Jason,

We are going to keep arguing in circles around each other here. There are strong reasons to argue for healthy sexual ethics outside of pretending that the various ethical sytems presented by the biblical authors are written by God.

People do not need a mandate from God to determine ethical behavior. There are plenty of perfectly functional ethical systems that developed without exposure to Judaism or Christianity. Likewise, there are plenty of ethical systems that exist independently of Christianity.

Christianity is not not about ethics. You can find that anywhere. Christianity is about finding reconciliation with God through the sacrifice of Jesus.

Joshua

 

I don't understand your point. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are only terms to describe the genitalia of the partners involved in a sexual relationship. Necrophilia, bestiality, and, pedophilia are about aberrant sexual behaviors that involve one partner taking advantage of the other. Why do you keep insisting that the latter three are analogous to homosexuality?

It's a valid question, and I don't understand why you think I haven't thought about it before. All ethical decisions are about picking and choosing what is right or wrong based upon general principles. Consent is a key issue in sexual relationships because with out it one of the parties invairably feels violated and often develops an unhealthy relationship with the other party.

Joshua

 

So the biblical records are not what God intended them to be? Sex in the bible is not what God wanted?

Secondly, I am not arguing cirlces. I am trying to actually nail down what you think you believe. I can't believe I have actually had to do this to a Christian, but I have resorted to using the atheist/agnostic arguments FOR a God on a Christian. I never thought there would come a day when I would have to use these arguments on someone claiming to be a Christian.

You fail to realize that right and wrong is not an arbitrary concept. That is why they can be developed outside Judaism and Christianity. Only a universal guidline can develop this. That is also how we know when one of these systems gets twisted and goes awry...because we have a standard (universal) to judge by.

The truth is written on our hearts.

I just don't get you. You seemingly do anything to avoid having to admit that certain behaviors are wrong.

Christianity is about reconciliation, but it is also about ethics. I personally think Christianity is about life more than anything. Life being composed of reconciling and following Jesus(IE Keeping the commandments). To throw away the second (keeping the commandments) leaves you with a fake christianity...on without a personal God, without a loving God. For only a loving God would give us guidlines by which to live our lives to the fullest...an impersonal God would say..."go do whatever...I don't care". The second is what you would like us to have.

jason

 

Why would you say one takes advantage of another? When I was 14 years old (I wasn't a christian) if some 22 year old woman came to me and asked me out and we started having sex...I would have been thrilled. This is not taking advantage of me...I would have enjoyed it. How is this an 'aberrant sexual behavior' then?

I can lump them together because all forms of sexual deviancy are just that...sexual deviancy. Just as I can lump grand theft auto together with petty theft or illegally transferring funds from one bank account to another as stealing.

Lastly, you have failed to make me do otherwise. You can't support the idea that homosexuality is not deviant and not wrong. You can only give vague notions of feelings and what the culture we live in is doing. This is insufficient.

So my above example is not sexually wrong then? What if I was 10 and she was 50 and I still wanted it? Are you going to argue I couldn't "really" have wanted it? You can't do that because you use an arbitrary destinction.

What if someone sleeps with their dead wife (Disgusting, I know). Say they worked something out before hand, consent has already been granted. These are two adults who know full well what they are doing ..but her last wish was this and he will fulfill it after her death.

Consent has been granted in both cases, and yet, both are still wrong.

What else do we have then? Like I said before, you leave everything open to the individual. Nothing (universally) can be sexually wrong in your system. It is all up to the individual...and yet...even you would say that certain things are wrong. Contradiction, redo your system.

jason

 

Jason,

I'm trying to figure out why you simply cannot comprehend that there are several ethical systems in which there are clear definitions of right and wrong and where homosexuality does not fall into the "wrong" category. It's as if, in your mind, as soon as someone says that homosexuality is OK they apparently have no ethical code whatsoever.

Here, without any excess verbage, is the essence of the issue:

Take any ethical system that addresses human sexuality and make one change: the genitalia of the people involved is irrelevant. Keep all the other sexual mores and restrictions.

Why shouldn't this change be made? What difference does it make? In my opinion, making that change doesn't affect the underlying principles of Christianity or the ethical system through which they are presented at all.

Joshua

 

Not "no ethical code", just a worldy one. You have this.

These people also have an internally inconsistent system that fails on many levels. Generally, these people do not recognize this (the system's faults) because they either have not thought about it or are too wordly to recognize it.

How about:

Take any ethical system that addresses human sexuality and make one change: the age of the people involved is irrelevant. Keep all the other sexual mores and restrictions.

or

Take any ethical system that addresses human sexuality and make one change: the number (only 3 or greater) of the people involved is irrelevant. Keep all the other sexual mores and restrictions.

or

Take any ethical system that addresses human sexuality and make one change: the marital status of the people involved is irrelevant. Keep all the other sexual mores and restrictions.

then...to use your last statement:

Why shouldn't this change be made? What difference does it make? In my opinion, making that change doesn't affect the underlying principles of Christianity or the ethical system through which they are presented at all.

The point is, Joshua, you are tyring to fit your own wordly thoughts into something that is not of this world. You cannot seem to grasp that you are not the judge, you are not the creator. You don't get to decide what is right and what is wrong. That has already been done for us. Adding to it, changing it and twising it will not make it so just because you want it that way.

jason

 

BTW. This statement above tells me something about you. When you said 'several' you implied 'several valid'. This is not the case. We have the worldy system and the Godly system. God hates the worldy system and the world hates the Godly system. Which is right? I am going with God.

jason

 

How to be a very good liberal Christian:

1. Be Proabortion.

2. Fight for Homo rights to continue in sin as a Christian? and also for maritial rights with all the fringe benefits plus adopt and raise little girls and boys.

3. Don't believe that ALL of the Bible is God's Word.

4. Define what parts of the Bible, if any, are right.

I'm sure there are many more good points to add to the above.

God Bless.........Alex

 

How to be a very good Fundy Christian:

1. Since we can't stone to death, homosexuals and witches anymore, we will just make them wish we had. And remove any of their children from them so they don't turn them gay.

2. Extrude certain parts of God's Word and ignore the rest. So be anti-abortion!

3. Define what parts of the Bible to act on. So pick and choose which sins to hold over peopls heads.

:rolleyes: Alex, I think you should check the blackness of your pot.
signed Mr. Kettle.

[ September 20, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Rev. Joshua said:

Why shouldn't this change be made?

Because you have endorsed a thing detestable to a holy and righteous Creator (Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9-10); what is more, you have called it "ethical."

Believe it or not, it really is as simple as that.

 

I am going to wade in here again because I want to deal with the fact that Joshua and POst it says that Homosexuality does not hurt any one.

There are thousands of men and women who are Bi-sexual. They hurt families. They destroy relationships. They pass death sentences to spouses and their own children through sexual diseases such as AIDS. They don't care who they hurt to satisfy their sexual addiction.

I had a friend in Houston who married a young man who claimed to be a Christian. Her and her sister was out eating lunch at a Wendy's when a guy came to their table and tried to flirt with them. My friend told the guy to beat it but he wouldn't leave. She told him she was a married woman and he told her he did not believe her but she pulled out of wallet a picture of her husband. She said the guy went very white and stumbled out of the restaurant. She just thought he had got the message. Two weeks later she came home early from work and went into the bedroom and found this same guy in bed with her husband having sex. She was devastated. They had only been married six months. It took her years to recover and a long time before she would trust men. Her husband told her that when he was 13 years old his parents traveled a lot because they were wealthy so they left him in the care of two men servants. These guys would take him to sports events and fishing. His parents did not show him any love and attention but these men gave him attention. During one fishing trip these two men taught him about homosexual sex.
Yes he had attraction to women but also for men.

That is one example. I know of gay person after gay person who got married to hide their sexual orientation. They had children. Then they decided to come out of the closet and destroy their family. Children now not only having to deal with divorce but with the fact that their mother or dad was different. Having to deal with the taunts of other kids. The fights they feel
the have to engage in to protect their feelings.
No harm being done here.

What about the spouse who not only was cheated on but has to deal with their own sexuality or their own identity because of this. No harm here.

Joshua and Post it why don't both of you go and explain to babies and little children why they have to die of AIds because their dads thought it was ok to have homosexual affairs then come home and got their moms pregnant now themom is either dead or dying and the innocent child has to suffer. Please tell them there is no harm.

Go to the AIDs units and watch these men die. Then tell me there is no harm in this. Go and talk to those who are dying of Aids because of a blood transfusion or because their gay doctor or dentist was careless. Talk to those who thought they were in a monogamous gay relationship and now are dying of AIDS. Yes, these things happen in a hetersexual relationship but the amount of
incidents are 60% lower than gay relationships.

Go to a cemetary in Forestburg, TX and dig up my mother in law and tell her there is no harm in this kind of relationship when one of her daughters destroyed a marriage of 17 years to all of the sudden start having lesbian affairs with various women. THis daughter was her moms main caretaker and she began to serious neglect her moms care. She charged over $100,000 on her moms credit cards flying her gay lover down from Canada and paying her expenses. Motel rooms. She would take trips on her moms cc. She stole her moms money that was to pay for her medicine and medical bills and help pay for someone to take care of her during the day so her family could work. The poor woman at 78 years old had to put her home which was paid off up as collateral to get a loan to be able to keep her bills paid, to get her medicine etc.

This same daughter left her mom with her estranged husband to go to a gay and lesbian rally in Chicago and the woman had a heart attack and no one had the power of atty over her except this one daughter who found it more important to chase after her gay lover at a rally. The poor woman ended up having three heart attacks over all this daughter did to her. Why was it she would never do this in a heterosexual relationship and was a loving caring woman who loved her mom and would never have hurt her but as soon as she got mixed up in lesbianism her personality changed and she became this very evil person. I guess there was no harm in all of this?