Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It's far more likely that either contemporaneous authors didn't write down what Jesus said about sex, or else, what they did write was subsequently edited out by people who had more sympathy for Paul's distinctly unenlightened views.

Thank you for that bit of 100% biased supposition based on zero evidence. It pretty well confirms my opinion of how some atheists think and why they post in this forum.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Jakkass wrote:

If Jesus was looking to speak on the law and sexuality, He would have done so in the Gospels.

It's far more likely that either contemporaneous authors didn't write down what Jesus said about sex, or else, what they did write was subsequently edited out by people who had more sympathy for Paul's distinctly unenlightened views.

Thank you for that bit of 100% biased supposition based on zero evidence. It pretty well confirms my opinion of how some atheists think and why they post in this forum.

None of the gospels contain direct quotations from Jesus on the topic of sex (see here, for example), so the options are that either (a) Jesus did say something and it was either (1) not written down, or (b) it was written down, but subsequently removed, or (b) Jesus really didn't say anything about sex (in which case, as a religious preacher, he would have been pretty much unique in choosing not to talk about it).

While you might find two of these three options uncomfortable, the absence is certainly interesting and worth some speculation which rises above the catty.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

None of the gospels contain direct quotations from Jesus on the topic of sex

Really?

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32) (Also quoted in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18)

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' " (Matthew 15:19-20) (Also quoted in Mark 7:21-22)

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:8-9)

"Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matthew 19:18-19) (Also quoted in Luke 18:20)

the absence is certainly interesting and worth some speculation which rises above the catty.

The absence, like your speculation, exists only in your own head. I don't think it's catty to point that fact out.

The fact is, Robin, that you have no idea whatsoever what Jesus taught about homosexuality. Therefore to say that it is 'more likely' that his teaching was ommitted in preference to the more 'unenlightened' views of Paul is without any foundation whatsoever.

You are doing what you have a habit of doing. You think of the explanation that will prove the most unpalatable to Christians and on that basis alone, without a single shred of supporting evidence (indeed in this case you ignore the evidence and make a totally false statement about a non-existent absence of Jesus teaching about sex), you post it on here with the sole and express intent of riling the natives. That is trolling pure and simple, and I find it disappointing that a moderator of one forum chooses to behave that way in another forum. It does you, or your cause, no credit whatsoever.

amen

Because the teaching of the New Testament says so

could you tell me where?

PDN

amen wrote: »

could you tell me where?

Where what?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

robindch wrote:

None of the gospels contain direct quotations from Jesus on the topic of sex

Really?

Yep, really!

While the quotes you provided -- which are included, btw, in the page I linked to above -- certainly do refer to sex, the gospels do not contain any direct quotes from Jesus on the topic we were discussing, which was homosexuality alone. Hence my comment.

PDN wrote: »

The fact is, Robin, that you have no idea whatsoever what Jesus taught about homosexuality. Therefore to say that it is 'more likely' that his teaching was ommitted in preference to the more 'unenlightened' views of Paul is without any foundation whatsoever.

Given that Jesus preached in Matthew 22:37-40 that, above all other rules, people should love god and love each other as much as themselves, I'm inclined to suspect that Jesus valued love above the preaching of the moral depravity of homosexuality. In this, Jesus would have appeared radical within the confines of the jewish tradition of which he was a part. And Jesus certainly was radical in many respects, so it seems at least plausible that he maintained radical views here too.

As above, we have three options to consider when we note that Jesus doesn't address homosexuality. These are that he (a) did not talk about it, so there was nothing to record; (b) did talk about it, but didn't have it recorded, (c) did talk about it, had it recorded, but subsequently removed.

(a) seems unlikely, given that most religious preachers discuss homosexuality at some point during their careers. Which leaves either (b) and (c) as the most likely options.

PDN wrote: »

You are doing what you have a habit of doing. You think of the explanation that will prove the most unpalatable to Christians and on that basis alone, without a single shred of supporting evidence [...] you post it on here with the sole and express intent of riling the natives. That is trolling pure and simple, and I find it disappointing that a moderator of one forum chooses to behave that way in another forum. It does you, or your cause, no credit whatsoever.

I certainly do not post here with the sole or express "intent of riling the natives" and I'm a touch disappointed that you misinterpret me so badly.

You're entirely free to disagree or not with the evidence-based view I presented above, and I'm sure it would make for an interesting debate. Either way, it would certainly be more polite and probably make for a more enjoyable experience all around if you would aim for the argument rather than the messenger

uncleoswald

Jakkass wrote: »

Leviticus is valid where it deals with moral laws. Legal and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

it's precisely because Jesus didn't elaborate upon it that I can't determine that He had no issue with sexual immorality.

Forgive my ignorance, I am not all that knowledgeable on the subject. But are you basically saying that because Jesus didn't comment directly on homosexuality, what is written in the OT in Leviticus is still valid but since he did contradict (may not be the right word) what is in the OT with regard to ceremonial laws and food that what is in written in the OT on these matters can be disregarded?

Sealclubber

God hates gays, he told me last night in a dream.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, your not the first to post such rib-tickling witticisms. I let your first regrettable post slide, but I now see that the puerile crud needs to be corked. So, you have two choices:

1) Stick by the charter;
2) Bugger off.

Sealclubber

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, your not the first to post such rib-tickling witticisms. I let your first regrettable post slide, but I now see that the puerile crud needs to be corked. So, you have two choices:

1) Stick by the charter;
2) Bugger off.

Ouch, slap on the wrist. Fair enough. Could one of the religious among you explain to me why a dude having sex with another dude is sinful, and why it's anyone else's business when they're not harming anyone. And "because Jesus said so" isn't really what I'm looking for, I really want to know what people find so fundamentally repulsive about it.

mehfesto2

Just out of curiosity, why are some Bible quotes followed more than otheres? Here is not the first time Ive encountered people quoting why homosexuality is a sin. However, if you are reading the bible literally, do you to believe in things such as:

Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed
~Leviticus 20:9

Exodus 35:2 :
"For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death."

I mean logic should dictate that if you believe one thing to be true based on it being in the bible, all things in the bible must be true and be held as deeply as any other. I just dont get this.

philologos

The death penalty is no longer applicable for sins in Christianity, as Christ has died in our place for our sins. Just as we have been forgiven, we should offer others that same chance of forgiveness.

This is the Christian understanding, the former is the Jewish understanding.

Fanny Cradock

Sealclubber wrote: »

Ouch, slap on the wrist. Fair enough. Could one of the religious among you explain to me why a dude having sex with another dude is sinful, and why it's anyone else's business when they're not harming anyone. And "because Jesus said so" isn't really what I'm looking for, I really want to know what people find so fundamentally repulsive about it.

Firstly, it might be helpful to you to understand that not all Christians seek to impose their beliefs about homosexuality on others, especially if these people aren't Christians. Anecdotally I believe that this can be said of about any of the Christian I know.

As for somebody finding homosexual acts repulsive, I'm not sure this is a result of Christianity. It seems that homophobia springs eternal in mankind irrespective of any one factor. I have gay friends - more like acquaintances - and I don't find them repulsive and I don't dwell on what happens between the sheets. Indeed, I would support civil marriage between gay couples, and I'm not the only Christian to say this.

As for why Christianity deems homosexual acts (note the difference from being gay) to be sinful, I guess the short answer is that we believe that God decreed that a union between man an a woman to be proper. This, of course, opens a huge range of question, but maybe they have already been discussed here.

Rondolfus

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, can I add this question :

IF homosexuality is viewed as a sin, could I not say that because we are all born sinners, we are all, by default, sort of homosexual?

If Paedophiles are viewed as sinners, could I not say that because we are all born sinners, we are all, by default, sort of paedophiles??

HMMMMM I dont think that logic brings us to a place we want to be now does it.....

prinz

I'm after having more than enough to drink tonight, and I know I shouldnt drink post, but had to add something here. I came home not so long ago and have been watching Queen DVD's ( plus bad karaoke and even worse dancing ) since. Do i have a horrible attitude to Freddie Mercury because he was bi/homosexual, absolutely not, the man is one of my few idols. Do i believe he was a sinner, absolutely, am I a sinner? absolutely. Do i think Jesus could save us both, fingers crossed. Never got the chance to experience his talent in the flesh, but it's certainly on my wish list to God.

not going to add anymore but I really do get sick of the 'Christians are homophobic bigots' attitudes after a while.

ironingbored

PDN wrote: »

We've had this debate before ad neauseam in this forum, and most non-Christians disagree with my view that homosexual acts are a choice & that nobody is born a homosexual.

It is quite sad that such opinions prevail in 2009. A couple of things:

1) If you truly believe that homosexuality is a choice then it is obvious you do not know anyone who is gay.

2) What you say goes against all scientific study into sexual orientation.

3) You may have discussed this topic "ad neauseam" [sic] but it is quite obvious you have failed grasp the facts.

4) Something that happens in nature cannot be unnatural. What is unnatural is not having any sex whatsoever with whomever.

prinz

ironingbored wrote: »

It is quite sad that such opinions prevail in 2009. A couple of things:

1) If you truly believe that homosexuality is a choice then it is obvious you do not know anyone who is gay.

2) What you say goes against all scientific study into sexual orientation.

3) You may have discussed this topic "ad neauseam" [sic] but it is quite obvious you have failed grasp the facts.

4) Something that happens in nature cannot be unnatural. What is unnatural is not having any sex whatsoever with whomever.

When they find the "gay gene" let me know. Until then, nature v. nurture is wide open.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

When they find the "gay gene" let me know. Until then, nature v. nurture is wide open.

It may be still a wee bit open, but you're failing to recognise that the odds on nuture winning are dropping everyday:P

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

It may be still a wee bit open, but you're failing to recognise that the odds on nuture winning are dropping everyday:P

How so? Personally I would consider the odds to be rising every day.

ironingbored

prinz wrote: »

When they find the "gay gene" let me know. Until then, nature v. nurture is wide open.

There are still a number of theories into the precise factors determining sexual orientation including genes, prenatal hormones and brain structure.

What can be utterly discounted is the notion that homosexuality is somehow a lifestyle choice or manifests itself as a result of environmental factors.

I have always been very suspicious of those who are virulently opposed to homosexuality. I think it may have something to do with being afraid of their true Kinsey scale score.

prinz

ironingbored wrote: »

What can be utterly discounted is the notion that homosexuality is somehow a lifestyle choice or manifests itself as a result of environmental factors.

Why can it be utterly discounted? . You are disregarding one explanation for something which has yet to be explained, how open minded of you.

ironingbored wrote: »

I have always been very suspicious of those who are virulently opposed to homosexuality. I think it may have something to do with being afraid of their true Kinsey scale score.

Hilarious. I presume you hold the same idea about people who are virulently opposed to God.

ironingbored

prinz wrote: »

Why can it be utterly discounted? . You are disregarding one explanation for something which has yet to be explained, how open minded of you.

What can be utterly discounted is that we are all born 100% heterosexual and somehow subsequently deviate according to environmental factors.

I know science is funny sometimes in that it can disregard one hypothesis based on all available evidence while endeavouring to gather the evidence the other way.

Are you saying you believe that the manifestation of homosexuality is derived from one's environment?

prinz wrote: »

Hilarious. I presume you hold the same idea about people who are virulently opposed to God.

Homosexuality is a reality. God is not.

prinz

ironingbored wrote: »

Are you saying you believe that the manifestation of homosexuality is derived from one's environment?

Until something is shown to the contrary then why not? I am big enough to admit that we don't know. So, just lke you accept the reality as it suits you, I will do likewise. Both perfectly legitimate.

ironingbored wrote: »

Homosexuality is a reality. God is not.

Lord, thy one-liners are as good as thy tricks, you truly are an all-round family entertainer.

pts

I just came across this YT video, created by http://www.marriagequality.ie
As far as I know it hasn't been posted before, I'm a curious what the locals make of the argument made in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Morbert

prinz, if it was found that homosexuality was a natural tendency, stemming from genetics and biology, would it affect your view on it?

prinz

Morbert wrote: »

prinz, if it was found that homosexuality was a natural tendency, stemming from genetics and biology, would it affect your view on it?

No.

ironingbored

Morbert wrote: »

prinz, if it was found that homosexuality was a natural tendency, stemming from genetics and biology, would it affect your view on it?

prinz wrote: »

No.

prinz wrote: »

Why can it be utterly discounted? . You are disregarding one explanation for something which has yet to be explained, how open minded of you.

Ehm....pot....kettle....anyone?

mehfesto2

pts wrote: »

I just came across this YT video, created by http://www.marriagequality.ie
As far as I know it hasn't been posted before, I'm a curious what the locals make of the argument made in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

That's a sweet little video. Makes a great point too. There should be no reason why Gay civil marriage should not be allowed in Ireland. But we are still a very Conservative country, unfortunately.

Gay people are not inherently evil. There is one difference between gay people and straight people - sexual preference. I find it ridiculous that certain passages of the bible are used to excuse biggotry, when others oare disreagarded out of hand.

prinz

ironingbored wrote: »

Ehm....pot....kettle....anyone?

How so? I have a view of homosexuality that is not dependant on the "cause" of homosexuality. My opinion is not related to whether it is nature or nurture, it is just as valid either way.

You on the other hand are completely ruling out one poossible explanation of the origin of homosexuality based on no facts whatsoever, because it suits you.

Apples and oranges.

elekid

prinz wrote: »

I really do get sick of the 'Christians are homophobic bigots' attitudes after a while.

I understand where you're coming from but if someone said:

"I believe worshipping the christian god is an immoral act and it would be better if the people who identified as christians refrained from worship. It's possible to love god without actually praying, attending mass or reading a bible. Being christian is a choice anyway, a matter of nurture and societal factors, so there's no reason they couldn't just worship a different god instead. That just what I believe. Oh, but I have nothing against christians, I love the sinner not the sin"

Would you be impressed?
Would you believe that last part?
How would you feel if some of the most respected figures in society started saying stuff like that?
Would you feel that such a message could help spread violence, hatred and intolerance towards people engaging in christian acts?
Would you feel that as long as the person saying it sincerely believed it, you'd be ok for this message to be spread to impressionable people, or people who are just looking for excuses to commit violent acts towards christians?
How would you feel if that view or belief was a considered as a factor in deciding whether christians should have similar but lesser rights to other citizens?

Earlier responses on this thread have made me see how unlikely it is that christians will ever change their view on homosexual acts but I'd just like to see if they at least understand where people who argue against that view and cry homophobia are coming from (btw, I don't think individual christians are necessarily homophobic, it's just the message can really comes across that way).

prinz

elekid wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from but if someone said:

"I believe worshipping the christian god is an immoral act and it would be better if the people who identified as christians refrained from worship. It's possible to love god without actually praying, attending mass or reading a bible. Being christian is a choice anyway, a matter of nurture and societal factors, so there's no reason they couldn't just worship a different god instead. That just what I believe. Oh, but I have nothing against christians, I love the sinner not the sin"

Would you be impressed?
Would you believe that last part?
How would you feel if some of the most respected figures in society started saying stuff like that?
Would you feel that such a message could help spread violence, hatred and intolerance towards people engaging in christian acts?
Would you feel that as long as the person saying it sincerely believed it, you'd be ok for this message to be spread to impressionable people, or people who are just looking for excuses to commit violent acts towards christians?
How would you feel if that view or belief was a considered as a factor in deciding whether christians should have similar but lesser rights to other citizens?

People are free to have/share and express that opinion. You'll find many do that right here in this forum. Other countries have many restrictions on public expressions of religion etc, I am perfectly ok with that. If someone tells me I am a moron, brainwashed into believing in a fictitious God, good for them. If that person managed to get elected/be a respected member of society I still have no problem with it.

mehfesto2

prinz wrote: »

People are free to have/share and express that opinion. You'll find many do that right here in this forum. Other countries have many restrictions on public expressions of religion etc, I am perfectly ok with that. If someone tells me I am a moron, brainwashed into believing in a fictitious God, good for them. If that person managed to get elected/be a respected member of society I still have no problem with it.

Would you mind if it directly affected you personally?
i.e. you couldn't get married?

prinz

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Would you mind if it directly affected you personally?
i.e. you couldn't get married?

........ ok in whatever hypothetical parallel universe, I don't know. Probably not

philologos

elekid wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from but if someone said:

"I believe worshipping the christian god is an immoral act and it would be better if the people who identified as christians refrained from worship. It's possible to love god without actually praying, attending mass or reading a bible. Being christian is a choice anyway, a matter of nurture and societal factors, so there's no reason they couldn't just worship a different god instead. That just what I believe. Oh, but I have nothing against christians, I love the sinner not the sin"

Just to leave the above for context to what I am about to answer:

elekid wrote: »

Would you be impressed?

What is there to be impressed about?

elekid wrote: »

Would you believe that last part?

I believe that someone could show compassion for me without sharing my beliefs. I think many Christians have demonstrated that they do genuinely care about people of LGBT orientation without agreeing with their views.

elekid wrote: »

How would you feel if some of the most respected figures in society started saying stuff like that?

I'd keep on following God if I felt that it was truly right.

elekid wrote: »

Would you feel that such a message could help spread violence, hatred and intolerance towards people engaging in christian acts?

No. A moral disagreement generally doesn't involve violence on most other issues, so why should it in the case of Christianity or homosexuality. Christianity has a history of aversion against it before it was accepted in any society, as Judaism has.

elekid wrote: »

Would you feel that as long as the person saying it sincerely believed it, you'd be ok for this message to be spread to impressionable people, or people who are just looking for excuses to commit violent acts towards christians?

This message doesn't encourage violence in the slightest. It's a disagreement. Are you saying that if I have a disagreement with how a public service such as refuse collection is carried out, that I am inciting hatred against the bin collectors or my local council? - Think about it. This argument is absurd.

elekid wrote: »

How would you feel if that view or belief was a considered as a factor in deciding whether christians should have similar but lesser rights to other citizens?

The issue isn't with equality. It's with definition. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman both by the Supreme Court in judicial issues, and in the Civil Registrations Act of 2004. LGBT activists want to change what a marriage is.

Most of those who disagree with marriage, do agree with finding some other way to accomodate LGBT relationships. Although some people act as if this isn't the case at all.

elekid wrote: »

Earlier responses on this thread have made me see how unlikely it is that christians will ever change their view on homosexual acts but I'd just like to see if they at least understand where people who argue against that view and cry homophobia are coming from (btw, I don't think individual christians are necessarily homophobic, it's just the message can really comes across that way).

I can't change the Bible, or the Gospel. It is God's not mine.

JimiTime

For those who believe Christians are bigots and homophobic, what do you think should be done to those who continue to hold to Gods moral code? Are there any actions that you wish were taken against institutions, or people for believing that God is our moral source? Or do you feel that the namecalling is enough? I.E. That eventually it will stick, so that to say you are a Christian has similar conotations to calling oneself a racist?

Morbert

What is the Biblical stance on remarriage (i.e. marriage after a divorce)? I read a Bible passage somewhere recently that Jesus considered it an act of adultery. Is this true? Did I misread it (I'll dig it up soon)?

prinz

Morbert wrote: »

What is the Biblical stance on remarriage (i.e. marriage after a divorce)? I read a Bible passage somewhere recently that Jesus considered it an act of adultery. Is this true? Did I misread it (I'll dig it up soon)?

Does this have any relevance to the subject matter of the thread, or are you just clutching at straws?

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

What is the Biblical stance on remarriage (i.e. marriage after a divorce)? I read a Bible passage somewhere recently that Jesus considered it an act of adultery. Is this true? Did I misread it (I'll dig it up soon)?

Marrying again after being divorced isn't permitted generally, with the exception of marital infidelity / sexual immorality:

Matthew 19:9 wrote:

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery.

mehfesto2

JimiTime wrote: »

For those who believe Christians are bigots and homophobic, what do you think should be done to those who continue to hold to Gods moral code? Are there any actions that you wish were taken against institutions, or people for believing that God is our moral source? Or do you feel that the namecalling is enough? I.E. That eventually it will stick, so that to say you are a Christian has similar conotations to calling oneself a racist?

But nobody holds god's moral code in totality. It's selective - picking and choosing. There are passages of the bible that have become redundant in todays world e.g.-

MARK 12:18-27
(paraphrased)
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

And even in Leviticus, who is cited mostly in the movement against Civil Rights, there are passages on stoning people who have sex during menstruation.

If we acknowledge that a mistake was made by this author regarding killing, why can we not deisregard his beliefs on homosexuality. He is obviously fallable.

How can one hold some beliefs and not others from the bible and expect not to be viewed as homophobic?


I don't feel that Christians need to suffer (name calling, action taken), but merely that Gay people should be entitled to their civil rights.

Love one another as I have loved you.

philologos

mahfesto2: Please read the rest of the thread. The issue about stonings has already been explained more than once.

Indeed, love one another as God has loved us. God has loved us to ensure that we follow His path, which is the best path for life. Surely we as Christians should want people to follow His ways rather than the ways of the world which are sinful?

mehfesto2

Jakkass wrote: »

mahfesto2: Please read the rest of the thread. The issue about stonings has already been explained more than once.

Indeed, love one another as God has loved us. God has loved us to ensure that we follow His path, which is the best path for life. Surely we as Christians should want people to follow His ways rather than the ways of the world which are sinful?

Okay, stoning aside then why is there not moral uproar regarding sex during the female period? Why do we hold some bible truths more than ohers? Why do we not shun men with one only testicle - as they will never be permitted into the kingdom of heaven, anyway? (Deuteronomy 23:1)

I just want to know why some truths are stronger than others? Surely if one truthg is held all should be held with equal importance?

JimiTime

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I don't feel that Christians need to suffer (name calling, action taken), but merely that Gay people should be entitled to their civil rights.

Sorry, my question was for those who called Christians or Christianity, 'homophobic' or 'bigoted'. If you don't believe this, then my question was not directed at you.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Marrying again after being divorced isn't permitted generally, with the exception of marital infidelity / sexual immorality:

Hmmm... The law permits people who are divorced to marry again, yet homosexuals are not allowed to marry. This seems odd to me, and it implies that the attitudes against homosexuality are not simply motivated by religion, but also by a subtle prejudice.

prinz: Your post to me makes no sense.

philologos

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Okay, stoning aside then why is there not moral uproar regarding sex during the female period? Why do we hold some bible truths more than ohers? Why do we not shun men with one only testicle - as they will never be permitted into the kingdom of heaven, anyway? (Deuteronomy 23:1)

Misinterpreting the commandment. Deuteronomy 23:1 concerns who is eligible for the Aaronite priesthood to serve the sacrifices to God in the Jewish Temple. There is a parallel verse in Leviticus that gives us context to this:
It does not exclude these people from being a part of Israel. See Leviticus 21:16-23.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I just want to know why some truths are stronger than others? Surely if one truthg is held all should be held with equal importance?

People have also explained this to you. The circumstances have changed between the time when the Israelites were led by Moses into Israel, and the time when Jesus led both Jew and Gentile from the slavery to sin.

The Jewish Covenant or agreement included certain rites and practices that are no longer applicable to Christians in the New Covenant. Jesus made clear that the Pharisees had ignored the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23).

Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament have explained to us which laws are to be retained in the New Covenant, and which have been fulfilled.

Christianity is different from Judaism.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Hmmm... The law permits people who are divorced to marry again, yet homosexuals are not allowed to marry. This seems odd to me, and it implies that the attitudes against homosexuality are not simply motivated by religion, but also by a subtle prejudice.

I'm failing to see what makes sense from your post.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman in Christianity. It doesn't refer to homosexual unions at all.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm failing to see what makes sense from your post.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman in Christianity. It doesn't refer to homosexual unions at all.

It presumably doesn't refer to divorcee unions either. I inferred that such a union, like a homosexual union, is actually an act of adultery.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

It presumably doesn't refer to divorcee unions either. I inferred that such a union, like a homosexual union, is actually an act of adultery.

Christ said that one should not marry again until 1) their partner dies, or 2) they are divorced on the grounds of sexual immorality, in that quote.

The Pharisee asks him if one can divorce his wife for any cause. So if both are divorced on the grounds of number two, or if both are widowed, or if one is divorced on the grounds of number two and the other is widowed it is entirely acceptable.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Christ said that one should not marry again until 1) their partner dies, or 2) they are divorced on the grounds of sexual immorality, in that quote.

The Pharisee asks him if one can divorce his wife for any cause. So if both are divorced on the grounds of number two, or if both are widowed, or if one is divorced on the grounds of number two and the other is widowed it is entirely acceptable.

Many divorce because they simply stop loving one another, or because they fight, or because one party is abusive. Their marriage breaks down without any death or sexual immorality. The law permits such divorcees a civil marriage, even though it is not permitted according to Christianity. Surely this means that the civil definition of marriage is not wholly determined by religious marriage.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Many divorce because they simply stop loving one another, or because they fight, or because one party is abusive. Their marriage breaks down without any death or sexual immorality. The law permits such divorcees a civil marriage, even though it is not permitted according to Christianity. Surely this means that the civil definition of marriage is not wholly determined by religious marriage.

Did I say the civil definition was?

We are discussing Christianity and it's attitude towards homosexuality if you read the thread title.

The civil definition in law is that marriage is between a man and a woman however, both in declarations by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Constitution, and in the Civil Registrations Act of 2004.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Did I say the civil definition was?

We are discussing Christianity and it's attitude towards homosexuality if you read the thread title.

The civil definition in law is that marriage is between a man and a woman however, both in declarations by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the Constitution, and in the Civil Registrations Act of 2004.

Hence my response

Morbert wrote:

This seems odd to me, and it implies that the attitudes against homosexuality are not simply motivated by religion, but also by a subtle prejudice.