Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

eightyfish

homer911 wrote: »

No, We are all sinners. Period. Only Jesus was without sin.

I stand corrected - what I meant was that only christians, who have repented for the sins they have, will be saved. Everyone else, as long as they don't repent, is doomed.

(Maybe we should stop this one here - for fear of derailing the thread with theology.)

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

You're not homosexual Jakkass so making a comparision to your life is irrelevant. The hatred of oneself comes from the acknowledgement that the gay is constantly doing wrong only they cannot help themselves it is a form of temptation yes, but is an innate one almost impossible to ignore good luck with trying to ignore it.

I actually found it difficult to turn away from many of my sins, I still find it difficult to turn from many of the sins that I still struggle with. I don't hate myself for what I have done in the past, and I don't think anyone should. I don't even think that Christianity promotes this.

As such I think my post was valid.

Turtwig

eightyfish wrote: »

Being gay is not the same as being a christian. You are born one, you acquire the other..

Nonsense! The lord decided homosexuality was sin. If people were to have no choice in the matter by being born that way, then that would make the lord unjust!:eek: As we know that is clearly impossible we conclude that no one is born a homosexual.

Also we have some recent research to back it up

C'mon science .

Hmm, now I know why Christianity is mostly against research in genetics:p

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't change Christianity, because it isn't mine to change!

You may not have written or edited the founding texts, but as you implied yourself, you certainly interpret them as you wish:

Jakkass wrote: »

Mordeth wrote:

so the reason you're sure your version of christianity is the right one for you is that it's the one you're most familiar with?

No. It suits my interpretatation.

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

Hmm, now I know why Christianity is mostly against research in genetics:p

Ey?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I actually found it difficult to turn away from many of my sins, I still find it difficult to turn from many of the sins that I still struggle with. I don't hate myself for what I have done in the past, and I don't think anyone should. I don't even think that Christianity promotes this.

As such I think my post was valid.

In fairness though what is asked of you is a lot less than is what is asked of a homosexual man. You can still have a life long physical relationship with someone you love. Homosexuals are told that they can't, this is sinful. They must give up this aspect completely and view their desire to have this as being wrong.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

You may not have written or edited the founding texts, but as you implied yourself, you certainly interpret them as you wish:

That depends on how ambiguous you consider Pauline theology on homosexuality to be.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that people are born homosexual.

There is growing evidence. Also this. At least there is some evidence, so to say there isn't any is not true.

Also, to suggest that people are not born gay is, in my opinion and in the true sense of the word, ignorant. Any gay person you meet will tell you it is something you are born with. Also there are certain idiosyncrasies which are possessed by gay people and these are evident in some cases from a very early age. A lot of gay people will tell you that if they could choose, they would be straight, becasue being gay makes like much more complicated.

equivariant

PDN wrote: »

No, Jimitime was making the very valid point that, for most people, the word 'homophobic' carries connotations of fear, hatred, and even violence. However, if you try to redefine that word to label everyone a homophobe who doesn't clap their hands and declare gay sex to be the best thing since sliced bread, then you are indeed using it as a weasel word.

Now who is putting words in whose mouth. I made very clear the definition of homophobia (I will return to your cherrypicking accusation later).

No, I don't try to argue in that way at all. What I said had nothing to do with following orders, and I'm disappointed that you would twist my words so dishonestly.

What I said is that the Bible reveals who is saved and who isn't. It is not the job of the Christian Church to enforce that on anyone, nor does the Church have the power to grant or withhold salvation.

Now this is real sophistry, isn't it. The "bible reveals who is saved and who is not", therefore christianity cannot be homophobic, since we are only following the bible. So you are attempting to distinguish between christianity and the bible in order to justify behaviour that the majority of society deems unacceptable. If we can apply that type of reasoning, then any behaviour is acceptable as long as it can be attributed to some revealed document. This is either deliberate sophistry or just laziness. No serious defender of christianity would argue that something is acceptable just because a literal reading of the bible says so.

You are free to disagree with me, but please refrain from falsely putting words into my mouth.

I never quoted anyone as saying that 'I was just following orders' - I was merely pointing out the commonalities between your argument and this longstanding justification of bad behaviour. I stand by that observation. Many wicked people throughout history have argued in the way that you have - by trying to distinguish themselves from the set of rules that they were allegedly just following. Note, I am not accusing you of wickedness, so please don't take that as an ad hominem attack. I am merely pointing out some commonalities.

Openly acknowledging your prejudices does not save you from committing sophistry. You are arguing that someone is being discriminated against because Christianity believes their actions prevent them receiving something that you don't even believe exists. That IMHO fully meets the definition of "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."

First, I don't believe that atheism is a "prejudice". However, that may be an argument for another thread. Homophobia, on the other hand, is I believe a prejudice.

To the accusation of sophistry. My argument was not unnecessarily subtle. Nor did I attempt to obscure some fact relevant to the argument. Regarding the accusation of fallaciousness - where exactly is the fallacy? I considered a definition of the word "homophobia" and then by applying the churches own rules, came to the conclusion that christian dogma satisfied this definition. In what way is that argument fallacious. I can accept that you may dispute my interpretation of christian dogma. However, that does not render my argument fallacious. Your accusation of sophistry is without foundation.

What I make of that is that you cherrypicked a definition to suit yourself.

Seeing as Merriam-Webster is one of the most widely used dictionaries in the world, it is hardly "cherry-picking". It was the first online dictionary to which I referred and that it is the reason why I adopted that definition. Moreover, when I suggested that definition, nobody objected to it then. I, for the sake of honesty, decided to point out the difference with the OED - hardly the actions of a cherry-picker. Moreover, if you want to adopt the OED definition, I will still argue that christian dogma fits that particular bill as well.

lugha

robindch wrote: »

You may not have written or edited the founding texts, but as you implied yourself, you certainly interpret them as you wish:

Great. So we may have a solution in sight! Christians cannot discount what the bible dictates to them, but it seems there is some wriggle room in that we can persuade them to revise how they interpret the bible?

Zombrex

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Where exactly is it written that a marriage must be between a man and woman, in scripture?

It doesn't.

That is an common interpretation given that it never mentions marriage in any other context than between a man and a woman.

There are Christian groups, albeit in the minority, who see no issue with homosexuals getting married, or homosexual sex inside marriage, they take the position that not every single thing is going to be specifically mentioned in the Bible and that the over all message (marriage is about love and companionship) is retained in a homosexual marriage.

eightyfish

<snip>
slight misunderstanding
</snip>

PDN

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

PDN - to a comment you made on the first page I think; How could you, as a Christian, state that homosexuality is tolerated, yet in the same breath say its practices are condemned in the New Testament?

Surely, they are one and the same, and this is merely another blindingly obvious statement of hypocrisy

No, my position on homosexuality is one I have made abundantly clear in many threads on this board. Unfortunately it frequently gets drowned out by the hysteria of some non-Christian posters who appear unable to discuss this subject without hurling insults and making sweeping generalisations.

Being a homosexual, as in feeling attracted to someone of the opposite sex, is not sinful. No more than it is sinful to feel attracted to anyone of the opposite sex.

Homosexual acts should be tolerated in society. I support a secular society with complete separation of church and state, and those who choose to engage in homosexual acts should be afforded the same legal protections as anyone else. They deserve to be protected from insults, from discrimination, and from any threats. I have no right to expect non-Christians to abide by my standards, just as I would find it intolerable for a Jew or a Muslim to force me to observe their standards about eating pork.

Homosexual acts are considered by Christians to be sinful. Sin is defined by Christian theologians as a transgression against God's laws and commands. Therefore, according to Jews, eating a bacon sandwich is a sin. It's not a case of demonising or hating anyone, nor is it saying that anyone is evil or nasty. I see a practising homosexual as being no worse, and no more deserving of hell than any heterosexual. In fact, considering my own colourful past, I think my own actions in life are much worse, and more deserving of hell, than the vast majority of homosexuals.

According to Christian teaching, salvation is a process whereby we acknowledge our sinfulness and, due to Christ's death on the Cross, accept the free gift of undeserved salvation (the technical term for this undeserved gift is 'grace' - Amazing grace indeed!). Part of this salvation process is repentance, which does not just mean feeling sorry, but also includes making a sincere effort to abide by God's standards and to abstain from the stuff that God says is contrary to his will.

This means that, as Christians, we can't do just whatever takes our fancy. I might feel attracted to a woman that I'm not married to, but shagging her will definitely fall under a biblical definition of sin. In fact, engaging in extra-marital sex is incompatible with Christian faith and practice. This does not mean that we are discriminating against those who engage in unmarried sex - nor are we phobic about them (shackingupphobia?) we simply believe that you can't be a Christian while simultaneously breaking God's rules.

You are entitled to disagree with our beliefs as Christians, but all this load of tosh about homophobia only serves to hinder any sensible discussion about those disagreements.

Dublin_Gunner

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't.

That is an common interpretation given that it never mentions marriage in any other context than between a man and a woman.

There are Christian groups, albeit in the minority, who see no issue with homosexuals getting married, or homosexual sex inside marriage, they take the position that not every single thing is going to be specifically mentioned in the Bible and that the over all message (marriage is about love and companionship) is retained in a homosexual marriage.

Thanks you. That is what I had assumed. I'm no scripture scholar, but I couldn't find anything related to it either.

Another sign of hypocrisy there then.

They follow the bible, but only when it suits, and feel free to make stuff up that gives their viewpoint.

So, let me get this straight.

It nowhere states that marriage must be between a man & woman.

Does it state anywhere that homosexual acts are a sin?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I do, the difference is these denominations follow mainly the teachings of Jesus , does Jesus express any views re homosexuality??

They certainly don't follow the teachings of Jesus when it comes the authority of scripture. Neither do they hold to the teachings of Jesus about hell. They basically stick to the nice and fluffy stuff and ignore anything might make them seem dogmatic and upset the PC brigade.

No, Jesus doesn't appear to have said anything about homosexuality. The historic Christian position is that all scripture is inspired by God, not just the bits that record the actual words of Jesus.

Martin Luther King, for example, based much of his fight against racial segregation on the words of the Old Testament prophets and the words of the apostles.

philologos

eightyfish: I believe I dealt with these articles before on another thread quite consistently. B][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61255748&postcount=16"]1[/URL][/BB][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61276407&postcount=93"]2[/URL][/B The links you provided last time, merely showed that homosexuality takes place within nature, it doesn't prove that it is biologically determined. I find this quite dishonest.

As for gay brains being structured differently, you are quite aware that ones brain structure can change without it being biologically determined?

Dublin Gunner: I believe Wicknight has misinformed you:

Matthew 18:4 wrote:

He answered, 'Have you not read that the one who made them in the beginning "made them male and female", and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and two shall become one flesh".

Genesis 2:24 wrote:

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

I personally hate talking about this topic.

equivariant

Jakkass wrote: »

God's standard is defined in Christian scripture. If one doesn't repent, one will be subject to God's judgement. The only way one can achieve salvation is through repentance.

If I had sinned, in any way as a heterosexual while remaining unrepentant, I would be subject to the same judgement.

There is nothing discriminatory about it if all are subject to the same conditions of judgement.

Of course it is discriminatory if the conditions of judgement themselves are discriminatory. Imagine a job interview panel, where one of the conditions of appointment was "appointee must not be homosexual". Could the interview board then argue that they are not discriminatory just because the publicly announced conditions are the same for everyone?

PDN tries to argue around this point by saying that Christians are only there to follow the revealed word of god and therefore cannot be judged based on the contents of that revealed document. However, that is sophistry as in any civilized society people cannot abdicate responsibility for their own actions or beliefs based on some supposedly authoritative document or set of rules. Of course, beliefs on their own will do no harm. However, when those beliefs lead directly to discriminatory behaviour and are used as justification for badness, then there is a problem.

Turtwig

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It nowhere states that marriage must be between a man & woman.

Does it state anywhere that homosexual acts are a sin?

It sort of does that marriage must be between a man and woman, though.

As for homosexual acts a sin all I'm aware is of it being in Leviticus (which Christians don't really follow)

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

eightyfish: I believe I dealt with these articles before on another thread quite consistently. B][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61255748&postcount=16"]1[/URL][/BB][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61276407&postcount=93"]2[/URL][/B The links you provided last time, merely showed that homosexuality takes place within nature, it doesn't prove that it is biologically determined. I find this quite dishonest.

As for gay brains being structured differently, you are quite aware that ones brain structure can change without it being biologically determined?

A jeez c'mon, I can't grow an extra frontal lobe now can I??
If I am born a psychopath, I cannot change that wiring...

PDN

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Thanks you. That is what I had assumed. I'm no scripture scholar, but I couldn't find anything related to it either.

Another sign of hypocrisy there then.

LOL. A non-Christian asks a question, gets the answer they're looking for from an atheist with an abysmal track record of uunderstanding Scripture, and then accuses Christians of hypocrisy.

Jesus on marriage: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Anyone, other than a legalist looking for a non-existent loophole, will see that Jesus saw marriage as something between a man and a woman. It is unreasonable to assume that he should insert an extra clause in there for the benefit of those 2000 years in the future when some people want to abandon a definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and replace it with something else.

No serious historian or scholar should entertain such a silly notion.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

You are entitled to disagree with our beliefs as Christians, but all this load of tosh about homophobia only serves to hinder any sensible discussion about those disagreements.

The problem that I and no doubt many other non-christians have with christians' attitudes towards gay men and women is that christians want to apply rules which are specific to their religious denominations to people who are not members of their religious denominations.

If christians said that is was morally wrong for chrisitan men to engage in gay sex, then I'm sure that most of the heat would leave the debate.

Zombrex

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So, let me get this straight.

It nowhere states that marriage must be between a man & woman.

Does it state anywhere that homosexual acts are a sin?

Yes, it states that all over the place (assuming that you interpret man "lying" with another man as homosexual sex, which in fairness most would).

It states this though in the context of sex external to marriage though, as the Bible appears to have no concept of a homosexual marriage.

Korasa

I hate to jump back into the middle of conversation but i pose a bit of a question.
What gives anyone else the right to judge someone for who they are? I'm a catholic, i said this above and i don't see anything wrong with what homosexuals do, they live there lives. I just find it slightly annoying that people judge others for the sake of a God who has never directly.....examined the situation. Jesus never brought it up, nothing in the ten commandments relates to it explicitly, everything in the bible in regards to it were written by men not gods.
So again, why judge and do you beleive you hold the right too?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

: Originally Posted by Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Really, I thought it was...

at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Really, I thought it was...

Two separate quotations. The first quote Jesus uses is from Genesis 1:26, the second is from Genesis 2:24.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

LOL. A non-Christian asks a question, gets the answer they're looking for from an atheist with an abysmal track record of uunderstanding Scripture, and then accuses Christians of hypocrisy.

Jesus on marriage: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Anyone, other than a legalist looking for a non-existent loophole, will see that Jesus saw marriage as something between a man and a woman.

Er, didn't I just say that? :rolleyes:

The Bible never says that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, in the same way it never says women shouldn't drive heavy machinery while drinking. It appears to have no concept of a homosexual marriage, and as such nothing to approve or disapprove of. Any time marriage is referenced it is referenced in relation to a man and a woman.

Plenty of Christians interpret this to mean that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, that other forms of marriage are inappropriate or against God's wishes.

Others don't. They see the that simply as a product of its time, but take the over all message of love and companionship and apply it to a modern context when homosexuals are seeking to get married.

I find it hilarious that you guys get hot and bothered over this, considering how many times you guys use the same argument to explain various things in the Bible and how they relate to modern context when the specifics are modern and do not relate exactly to the passages in the Bible.

PDN wrote: »

It is unreasonable to assume that he should insert an extra clause in there for the benefit of those 2000 years in the future when some people want to abandon a definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and replace it with something else.

Isn't that the point.

Why would the Bible go to the bother of saying "and then a man marries a woman (except the 10% of homosexuals who marry a member of the same sex)" every time it references marriage. It references marriage in the common context that most people understand it, but it never specifically outlaws homosexual marriage (and considering it outlaws a whole host of specific things does this not seem a bit off if God doesn't nto want men marrying women?)

Is it not a totally reasonable thing to conclude then that God has no issue with someone taking the spirit of marriage and applying it in modern contexts?

PDN wrote: »

No serious historian or scholar should entertain such a silly notion.

Ah, the no true Scots man argument. I've nothing against homosexuals but if any of them try and interpret the Bible as allowing homosexual marriage they are being dishonest swines!. Wonderful PDN :rolleyes:

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Two separate quotations. The first quote Jesus uses is from Genesis 1:26, the second is from Genesis 2:24.

My bad...apologies:o

Dublin_Gunner

In fairness PDN - I'm not looking for ANYTHING to support my own viewpoint, and not knowing Wicknight, how am I to know what his/her beliefs are?

I'm merely asking questions, and seeking the answers, in order to try and understand what I believe to be hypocrisy.

Others have come and answered the questions since, and I have thanked them for it, just as I have thanked you for your post on the last page.

I'm still a little dumbfounded, as the quotes that have been posted here do not attack the subject of homosexuality. They do, consider the subject of heterosexual marriage but they are far from conclusive.

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart-ar$e.

I just want to know why the Christian church seems to have their views on homosexuality.

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

The links you provided last time, merely showed that homosexuality takes place within nature, it doesn't prove that it is biologically determined. I find this quite dishonest.

As for gay brains being structured differently, you are quite aware that ones brain structure can change without it being biologically determined?

The article says this:

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

I'm more inclined to take a science magazine's view than yours.

As to your first point - if gay sex exists in nature, this surely ads weight to the argument that it is biologically determined and anturally occuring.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

That depends on how ambiguous you consider Pauline theology on homosexuality to be.

Of all of Paul's prose on sex, his views on gay men are probably the least ambiguous. He's clearly repulsed by what they do, and in this, he's no different to many men.

However -- and I feel almost embarrassed in having to point it out -- there's a lot more to how men interact with each other than just putting their private bits into each other, and to say the very least, Paul doesn't address a bit of it.

If you think that Paul's views on gay men and women form a cohesive whole, then I'd suggest having another read of him, or perhaps having a word with a gay man or woman.

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

It sort of does that marriage must be between a man and woman, though.

I really doesn't.

If I tell a story about a man leaving his parents and marrying a women there is no implication that I disapprove of a man leaving his parents and marrying a man.

If my (hypothetical) child asks me what marriage is and I say "Its when a man and woman get married" that doesn't mean I am saying men shouldn't marry.

The Bible has no concept of a homosexual marriage. That is not really surprising, most cultures had no concept of homosexual marriages until very recently.

People will read into these stories what they wish. If people already think that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman they will see the Bible supporting that view.

If they are looking for a view that finds a modern concept like homosexual marriage they will find that the Bible never says don't do it.

It is the wonderful thing about the Bible when it isn't being explicate, it means what ever the heck you want it to mean. Just look at slavery. God never actually says he approves of slavery does he. God never actually tells the Israelites to rape the women of captured tribes does he. Etc etc etc :pac:

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

The problem that I and no doubt many other non-christians have with christians' attitudes towards gay men and women is that christians want to apply rules which are specific to their religious denominations to people who are not members of their religious denominations.

If christians said that is was morally wrong for chrisitan men to engage in gay sex, then I'm sure that most of the heat would leave the debate.

I disagree with this position. There are many people whom I care about that are christians and I do not like to see those people victimised. Also, intolerance and discrimination are bad regardless of whether or not the victims are restricted to a certain section of the population. Moreover, since christianity is (unfortunately in my view) so widespread at this point in history, it becomes correspondingly more important to argue against bad behaviour within christianity, regardless of one's own beliefs.

An analogy - would you argue that the fraud committed by many evangelical preachers is any less objectionable, merely because the victims were people who had voluntarily signed up to that particular religious viewpoint?

Zombrex

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I would like to see the answer to that as well since I've been attacked for being a liar.

I imagine the responses are going to be exactly like my one above, no it doesn't but that is a common interpretation based on the fact that it only references heterosexual marriage when discussing marriage.

We will see I guess :pac:

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

I'm more inclined to take a science magazine's view than yours.

As to your first point - if gay sex exists in nature, this surely ads weight to the argument that it is biologically determined and anturally occuring.

I believe I also cited an article explaining different reasons why homosexuality might take place in nature. Increasing fertility was one of these reasons.

You're being dishonest in saying that there is a consensus amongst scientists that sexuality is biologically determined.

We really don't know for sure. I'm looking forward to see what progress research like this does make in the future.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe I also cited an article explaining different reasons why homosexuality might take place in nature. Increasing fertility was one of these reasons.

You're being dishonest in saying that there is a consensus amongst scientists that sexuality is biologically determined.

We really don't know for sure. I'm looking forward to see what progress research like this does make in the future.

The citation war has begun:P

eightyfish

Jakkass wrote: »

You're being dishonest in saying that there is a consensus amongst scientists that sexuality is biologically determined.

You call me dishonest? I never said that.

You said that there is no evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined.

I simply pointed out that there is, at least, some evidence, according to New Scientist. This nullifies your point.

Zombrex

Does it matter?

lugha

Wicknight wrote: »

Does it matter?

I suppose if it could be established that nature rather than nurture determines one’s sexual orientation you are in a better position to fend of those who would argue that a good psychiatrist might set you straight?

equivariant

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart-ar$e.

I just want to know why the Christian church seems to have their views on homosexuality.

I too would be very interested in the answer to this question as it is has a rather large bearing on the issue of christian discrimination against gay people. It is not acceptable to just assume that this is implicit because of the socially accepted norms of the time. If christians are going to argue that morality derived from the bible is absolute across space and time, then clearly such assumptions about conventions cannot be allowed.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

The problem that I and no doubt many other non-christians have with christians' attitudes towards gay men and women is that christians want to apply rules which are specific to their religious denominations to people who are not members of their religious denominations.

If christians said that is was morally wrong for chrisitan men to engage in gay sex, then I'm sure that most of the heat would leave the debate.

You are confusing and conflating two different ideas:
a) Christians want to apply their rules to others (false).
b) Christians see certain acts as immoral irrespective of who commits them (true).

People who are not Christians have the right to choose whatever behaviour they wish (with obvious exceptions such as when they hurt others). They can pray to statues, sleep with their girlfriends, amuse themselves with vacuum cleaners, gossip, watch porn, get drunk or commit homosexual acts. None of that is any of my business and I have no wish to enforce any of these standards on them.

However, I still have a perfect right to view any or all of these acts as immoral. You, Robin, equally have the right to disapprove of any of my actions. Providing we don't attempt to enforce our views on each other then that should be cool.

PDN

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

So I'll ask once again, if anyone knows, does it explicitly state, anywhere in the bible, that marriage MUST be between a man & woman, and secondly, does is explicitly condemn homosexual acts anywhere?

I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart-ar$e.

I just want to know why the Christian church seems to have their views on homosexuality.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8–11)

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:26–28)

lugha

PDN wrote: »

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Are you not being selective? You defer to the authority of the bible to acknowledge the sin but decline to adopt the recommended punishment. Or am I misinterpreting something?

Turtwig

lugha wrote: »

Are you not being selective? You defer to the authority of the bible to acknowledge the sin but decline to adopt the recommended punishment. Or am I misinterpreting something?

I was under the impression that Leviticus's so called "law's" weren't followed by Christians?
Perhaps PDN will clarify, as my biblical knowledge is long gone, but I hope to revive it

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

amuse themselves with vacuum cleaners

Dang, you do have a fascination with vacuum cleaners:P

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

I was under the impression that Leviticus's so called "law's" weren't followed by Christians?
Perhaps PDN will clarify, as my biblical knowledge is long gone, but I hope to revive it

Let me butt in.

If the law was only in Leviticus we would question its applicability today. But the law against homosexuality is part of the New Covenant age just as much as of the Old, as PDN's NT texts show.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

:rolleyes:

PDN

lugha wrote: »

Are you not being selective? You defer to the authority of the bible to acknowledge the sin but decline to adopt the recommended punishment. Or am I misinterpreting something?

Malty_T wrote:

I was under the impression that Leviticus's so called "law's" weren't followed by Christians?
Perhaps PDN will clarify, as my biblical knowledge is long gone, but I hope to revive it

Christians view much of the Levitical law as fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer applicable today. Pretty much anything that is obviously ceremonial (circumcision, dietary laws, sacrifices etc). For the most part these are specifically identified as no longer applying to Christians.

Other parts of the Levitical law are obviously moral, for example ptohibitions against murder, theft, incest and bestiality. Again, for the most part we find these things are condemned and portrayed very negatively in the New Testament.

So are homosexual acts to be considered a ceremonial matter or a moral issue? Obviously the New Testament will help us to understand that. Does the New Testament say, "Now that Jesus has gone to the Cross let no man judge you on matters such as gay sex." Or does it speak of homosexuality in negative terms? The answer, I believe, is clear to anyone who isn't trying to shoehorn the Scriptures into their own preconceived set of values, or just pursuing an ideological vendetta against Christians.

As for the punishment side of things, that is straightforward enough. The laws of Leviticus were originally given to a desert people, surrounded by hostile enemies, and in a nomadic setting. So, while God's ideas of right and wrong don't change, people's circumstances do. So we do find the New Testament agreeing that children should be obedient to their parents. But nowhere do we find the New Testament advocating that disobedient teenagers should be stoned.

So, the Christian approach to homosexual behaviour is entirely consistent with the principles of biblical interpretation that we apply to other areas. Non-Christians are entitled to disagree and hold different views, I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise, but I think accusations of selectivity are unfair and inaccurate.

Zombrex

The other side of that argument -

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

PASSAGES 5 AND 6
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
THE MYSTERY OF "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI"

Now what do the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 say, first, about God, and then about homosexuality? These are the last two places in the Bible that seem to refer to same-sex behavior. We can combine them because they are so similar.

Moses holding the ten commandmentsPaul is exasperated. The Christians in Ephesus and Corinth are fighting among themselves. (Sound familiar?) In Corinth they're even suing one another in secular courts. Paul shouts across the distance, "You are breaking God's heart by the way you are treating one another."

Like any good writer, Paul anticipates their first question: "Well, how are we supposed to treat one another?" Paul answers, "You know very well how to treat one another from the Jewish law written on tablets of stone."

The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

Also see

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me butt in.

If the law was only in Leviticus we would question its applicability today. But the law against homosexuality is part of the New Covenant age just as much as of the Old, as PDN's NT texts show.

I'm well aware of that, I was just responding to Leviticus's quote saying that a homosexual shall be put to death.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Christians view much of the Levitical law as fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer applicable today. Pretty much anything that is obviously ceremonial (circumcision, dietary laws, sacrifices etc). For the most part these are specifically identified as no longer applying to Christians.

Other parts of the Levitical law are obviously moral, for example ptohibitions against murder, theft, incest and bestiality. Again, for the most part we find these things are condemned and portrayed very negatively in the New Testament.

So are homosexual acts to be considered a ceremonial matter or a moral issue? Obviously the New Testament will help us to understand that. Does the New Testament say, "Now that Jesus has gone to the Cross let no man judge you on matters such as gay sex." Or does it speak of homosexuality in negative terms? The answer, I believe, is clear to anyone who isn't trying to shoehorn the Scriptures into their own preconceived set of values, or just pursuing an ideological vendetta against Christians.

As for the punishment side of things, that is straightforward enough. The laws of Leviticus were originally given to a desert people, surrounded by hostile enemies, and in a nomadic setting. So, while God's ideas of right and wrong don't change, people's circumstances do. So we do find the New Testament agreeing that children should be obedient to their parents. But nowhere do we find the New Testament advocating that disobedient teenagers should be stoned.

So, the Christian approach to homosexual behaviour is entirely consistent with the principles of biblical interpretation that we apply to other areas. Non-Christians are entitled to disagree and hold different views, I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise, but I think accusations of selectivity are unfair and inaccurate.

Well this presents another problem. You are in a position to give such an informed answer because you have had inclination and opportunity to study the bible in depth. No doubt you will acknowledge that there have been many people down the ages who have embraced Christianity and who would have been fortunate to have a bible or even access to one, much less the opportunity to acquire the knowledge of it that you have done. They would have to rely on their own reading and (mis)interpretation of it as I have done. My point is that if some learning is required to properly interpret the bible then any lessons to be learnt from it are not completed contained between its covers. Which surely undermines any absolute claims made for it?
On a related not, what is the spiritual dividend to be gained from studying the bible in depth, given again that the opportunity to do so is largely in the providence of the more well to do? Surely there can be no advantage that would be denied to someone who did not have the same opportunity?