Homosexuality and The Bible

philologos

lst: before I respond to you, I have to say there was a typo on my last post. Where I say even alcoholics, I mean even if alcoholics. Keep that in mind.

lst wrote: »

I can assure you that sexuality is not chosen consciously.

I'm not saying of necessity that it is. I am saying that we don't know for sure whether or not people are born with a certain sexuality or not. It could be developed by other factors. It is jumping the gun to make assumptions.

lst wrote: »

God's standards pertaining to the choices people make are a little more reasonable than saying that God says" your gay but your supposed to ignore that part of you". Your making him sound like a sadist!

See what I said before I started this post. You are assuming that people are of necessity born with a given sexuality. Scientifically we don't know if this is the case.

lst wrote: »

However him saying that "you must not abuse alcohol" sounds a little more reasonable, after all alcohol abuse causes you serious ill health and damages other around you.

Even if I assume that people are born with a given sexuality, it doesn't follow that it is somehow advantageous to exercise it. I've explained already in this thread why God might say that a marriage between a man and a woman is the best place for sexuality to be expressed. All God's standards are for our own good, its just that we often choose to reject them.

lst wrote: »

Bring it a step further and say that God loving and kind. We could see his advice to not abuse alcohol as being for our own good so that we dont hurt ourselves. And on judgement day he says "you shoudlnt have done that, but I was saying that for your benefit because I love you". If an alcoholic has hurt only himself (and has loved and cared for his neighbours and others) over the course of his life do you believe God wont let him into heaven? Is that not plausible? Just as its plausible that the biblical references to homosexuality should be taken in the context of societal needs and cultural beliefs?

If God knows everything there is to know about the universe, and if God genuinely cares for us, God gives us commands for our own good rather than for our detriment. It's nothing to do with culture given that it is brought up in both testaments.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Perhaps you cannot change who you are but you do have the ability to ABSTAIN from homosexual acts!

Like in my example -
White people can abstain from marrying black people.

Matt: 19:12

Douay-Rheims Bible

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.

He that can take, let him take it.

I agree with the text in bold

Gay men are not eunuchs.

What about lesbians? your scripture doesnt cover them?

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

lst: before I respond to you, I have to say there was a typo on my last post. Where I say even alcoholics, I mean even if alcoholics. Keep that in mind.

I'm not saying of necessity that it is. I am saying that we don't know for sure whether or not people are born with a certain sexuality or not. It could be developed by other factors. It is jumping the gun to make assumptions.

And even if its developed by other factors the psychology profession state that its not something that should be changed. The evidence from many of those that have attempted change is that it has seriously damaged their mental health.

.....
Even if I assume that people are born with a given sexuality, it doesn't follow that it is somehow advantageous to exercise it. I've explained already in this thread why God might say that a marriage between a man and a woman is the best place for sexuality to be expressed. All God's standards are for our own good, its just that we often choose to reject them.

Its certainly not advantageous to not exercise it. What reason did you give for stating it to be between a man and a woman?

And regardless of that, Im perfectly happy for the RC Church (and for that matter any church) to restrict marriage in their church to between a man and a woman. I am disgusted that they think they should prevent the civil authorities from allowing the state to Recognize marriage between two individuals who love each other but happen to be of the same sex.

If God knows everything there is to know about the universe, and if God genuinely cares for us, God gives us commands for our own good rather than for our detriment. It's nothing to do with culture given that it is brought up in both testaments.

It would be ludicrous to expect that the Old Testament, after thousands of years and dozens of translations, is exactly the word of God. Indeed whos to say that the people who first wrote it didnt put a personal slant on it. God didnt write it - People Did.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

PDN is right to denounce such reactionary responses, and the argument that it is natural and therefore good is flawed.

A good piece by NT Wright, an excellent theologian, about natural urges and debate regarding homosexuality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpQHGPGejKs

I would instead say that it is more than just about what is and isn't natural. We all agree that natural urges are often bad. But a committed homosexual relationship is more than just satisfying an urge. It is an expression that resonates with our sense of love, just as deeply as a committed heterosexual relationship. This sense of requited affection and social bonding is unique to homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and is not present in any other relationship, nor is it present in acts of promiscuity, or polygamy, or paedophilia, or drug abuse, or fast-food binging, or killing, or stealing.

The only argument against homosexuality that stands up to scrutiny is that a well-informed interpretation of the Bible supports the claim. Christians must accept that the feelings homosexuals have are identical to heterosexuals, distinct from other urges.

An excellent point, Morbert. It does distinguish between mere sexual gratification and emotional love. Certainly all perversions are not alike.

One problem for seeing that as supportive of homosexuality as legitimate is the fact that incest can have the same emotional bonds.

Emotional bonds are no proof of the rightness of any relationship: adultery, incest, homosexuality. I have even heard those engaging in sex with their pets/'animal companions' declare their emotional bonds.

A couple who are 'in love' in an adulterous/incestous/homosexual relationship are just as much sinners as the promiscuous.

***********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

TylerIE

wolfsbane wrote: »

A couple who are 'in love' in an adulterous/incestous/homosexual relationship are just as much sinners as the promiscuous.

If thats not comparing homosexuality to the others what is? Mods?

The other relationships obviously can cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties.

The only people affected by gay people who love each other are the two individuals. And they are affected positively! They love each other!

Keylem

lst wrote: »

Like in my example -
White people can abstain from marrying black people.



I agree with the text in bold

Gay men are not eunuchs.

What about lesbians? your scripture doesnt cover them?

Your interpretation of scripture is not exactly correct.

Eunuchs can mean those who are gay/lesbian.

Also the text in bold refers to those who renounce it for the 'Sake of the Kingdom', if they can take it! (Priests, Nuns). you are taking it out of context, to fit your ideals!

philologos

What about lesbians? your scripture doesnt cover them?

Romans 1:26-27 refers to it. Personally it isn't something I have a vested interest in. I'm just trying to follow God as best I can and I hope people will join me in doing so. I've been encouraged to see a few people come to follow Jesus over the past few years and I look forward to seeing more.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Your interpretation of scripture is not exactly correct.

Eunuchs can mean those who are gay/lesbian.

Also the text in bold refers to those who renounce it for the 'Sake of the Kingdom', if they can take it! (Priests, Nuns). you are taking it out of context, to fit your ideals!

I think its your interpretation of eunuchs which is slightly skewed.


Indeed a quick google clarifies that Eunuchs specifically does not refer to LGBT individuals - and suggests that saying it does is LGBT affirming!

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

Romans 1:26-27 refers to it. Personally it isn't something I have a vested interest in. I'm just trying to follow God as best I can and I hope people will join me in doing so. I've been encouraged to see a few people come to follow Jesus over the past few years and I look forward to seeing more.

I was stating that the Eunuch verse didnt apply to lesbians!

Furthermore Romans is one of the VERY few places lesbianism is referred to if Im not mistaken!

TylerIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I realise that this is fuel to the fire. Earlier Jimi mentioned Michael Brown and I had a little listen to one of his interviews about his recent book. I can't imagine many people not being impacted by what he has to say.

I felt physically ill listening to that crap. And had to stop as I started to wretch when he said about the pastor and the lesbians.

The fact that these people make such ABSURD arguments raises very valid questions about ANYTHING that they say.

philologos

lst wrote: »

Furthermore Romans is one of the VERY few places lesbianism is referred to if Im not mistaken!

The Bible isn't a sex-manual, so I'm not surprised that it isn't mentioned frequently. Churches need to deal with how Christianity should affect every area of peoples lives rather than just key issues such as homosexuality or abortion. The Bible involves much more than simply a book telling people what is right and wrong. It also involves the very centre of our relationship with God. To live by Christians is to live with a heart that follows after God Himself.

wolfsbane

-JammyDodger- said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I assume you mean each of those items - discrimination; condemnation; segregation and hatred of individuals is erroneous. Christianity does not teach us to hate the sinner, but it certainly does teach us to discipline those of our church who practice sinner things.
I probably wasn't clear enough in my previous post. I believe that any belief system or institution which doesn't explicitly condemn, let alone condone, any of the above actions (discrimination, etc.) shouldn't be adhered to. Christianity mightn't necessarily condemn homosexuals, but you'd have to agree that, if even indirectly, it encourages discrimination towards homosexuals.

Certainly, in the case of their members. Just the same for members who engage in adultery, incest, etc.

Where the State should discriminate against sexual practices is a difficult matter. Should consenting adults be restricted in any way? I think normally not - but it gets a bit fuzzy in regard to incest.

Quote:
You yourself believe some individuals should face discrimination, condemnation, segregation by the State - at least, that is what I take by your suggesting that their belief systems 'should be scrapped'. I leave 'hatred' for you to comment on.
Scrapped was a bad word to use. People should of course be entitled to their beliefs. I'd just argue against people adhering to institutions or belief systems that encouraged hatred or discrimination, be it religion, nationalism or anything else.

OK. That's libertarian option.

Quote:
Why do you think your moral standards are superior to those of, say, Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Why are you sure that it is not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, but it is immoral to condemn such actions?
It's a good question. I suppose it's subjective and relative. I'd argue that it's not immoral to have sex with all and anyone willing, within reason, because it's a completely natural and integral part of our life and of our own constitution. Possibly the most natural behaviour of all, a behaviour we've exhibited and practiced for far longer than religion has been around. Condemning such is forbidding that which is most natural of all.

Yes, it comes down to deciding what is properly natural and what is unnatural. Christianity says not all our natural inclinations are good, rather some are perversions from the natural order.

The above isn't a great answer. I definitely have to give it a lot more thought.

Now that's a refreshing comment. I've several such issues running in my head at the minute. All the best for your study.

*****************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

The Bible isn't a sex-manual, so I'm not surprised that it isn't mentioned frequently.

Really? With the amount of anti gay rhetoric thats disguised as the word of God it nearly seems that the bible is exactly that!

As you stated, Churchs should remember this too...

philologos

lst wrote: »

Really? With the amount of anti gay rhetoric thats disguised as the word of God it nearly seems that the bible is exactly that!

As you stated, Churchs should remember this too...

The Bible speaks about life in general. Sexuality is a small subset of life, therefore a small subset of the Bible deals with sexuality.

wolfsbane

lst wrote: »

If thats not comparing homosexuality to the others what is? Mods?

The other relationships obviously can cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties.

The only people affected by gay people who love each other are the two individuals. And they are affected positively! They love each other!

The point was to show that being 'in love' does not justify a relationship.

And how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

Do the brother and sister not love each other?


***********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Keylem

lst wrote: »

I think its your interpretation of eunuchs which is slightly skewed.


Indeed a quick google clarifies that Eunuchs specifically does not refer to LGBT individuals - and suggests that saying it does is LGBT affirming!

The words GAY and LESBIAN are 20th Century words to decribe sexual orientation, there were no such words in the 1st century, which is why eunuch was used.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

The words GAY and LESBIAN are 20th Century words to decribe sexual orientation, there were no such words in the 1st century, which is why eunuch was used.

Im aware of that. Im saying that my understanding is that theologians believe Eunuch doesnt refer to LGBT individuals. If they do then I believe it gives even less reason for Christians to discriminate, and at some stage in the future would be an interesting thread to pursue.

TylerIE

wolfsbane wrote: »

The point was to show that being 'in love' does not justify a relationship.

And how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

True.

But if you feel the need to advocate for incest, then


how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual hetrosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

PDN

lst wrote: »

Really? With the amount of anti gay rhetoric thats disguised as the word of God it nearly seems that the bible is exactly that!

As you stated, Churchs should remember this too...

Friendly Mod Reminder

Please remember you are in the Christianity forum. We understand that non-Christians hold different opinions, but they are still expected to operate within the Forum Charter.

It is fine to discuss Christian issues, including how homosexuality is compatible (or not) with Christianity, but slurs against the Bible as being something "disguised as the Word of God" is coming very close to contravening the Charter.

Btw, apart from one regular poster who is rather obsessed with the subject, the topic of homosexuality only crops up in this forum when posters from outside raise the issue. Less than 0.1% of the text of the Bible addresses homosexuality and most of us attend churches where it's unlikely we'll hear the subject mentioned from one year to the next.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

.
Saying that LGBT individuals cannot engage in loving sharing relationships giving themselves fully to each other is a lot more of a sactifice.

The sexual love between man and woman involves genuine affective and sexual complementarity, and the gift of fertility - the man gives of himself, and the woman gives of herself. They do not withhold their fertility from the other. The love is fruitful, indeed it may give rise to new human life. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are closed to new life.

lst wrote: »

I can assure you that sexuality is not chosen consciously.

But actions are. Nobody died from not having sex.

lst wrote: »

Worse still churchs dictate that Gay relationships are unequal.

Gay relationships are not equivalent to marriage.

lst wrote: »

Let me spell it out
Religion = Choice
Faith = Arguably Not a choice (some would say people are born seeking a faith etc)
Sexuality = Not a choice

Perhaps you feel Love for God should be first. But after Love for God?

Some churches unfortunately still do utilize whatever position they do have to

Sexuality may not be a choice, but actions are. You seem to deny the reality of human freedom. People are not animals. They ought not to be slaves to disordered passions.

lst wrote: »

The only people affected by gay people who love each other are the two individuals. And they are affected positively! They love each other!

It is not true love. Love wills the good of the beloved. The best thing that can be said about that couple is they separate and allow the other to live in chaste purity and love of God.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

The sexual love between man and woman involves genuine affective and sexual complementarity, and the gift of fertility - the man gives of himself, and the woman gives of herself. They do not withhold their fertility from the other. The love is fruitful, indeed it may give rise to new human life. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are closed to new life.

Not all man woman relationships give rise to new human life.

Gay relationships are not equivalent to marriage.

Once the persons get married they are. Why wouldnt they be?

Sexuality may not be a choice, but actions are. You seem to deny the reality of human freedom. People are not animals. They ought not to be slaves to disordered passions.

So because the Bible, depending on the edition you use, may heavily condemn homosexuality, then one should not engage their sexuality?
Furthermore are you calling LGBT individuals disordered?

It is not true love. Love wills the good of the beloved. The best thing that can be said about that couple is they separate and allow the other to live in chaste purity and love of God.

So the Love of LGBT individuals for their partner is not equal to the love of hetrosexual individuals? Where do you get your definition or vast superior knowledge of love?

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Not all man woman relationships give rise to new human life.

Once the persons get married they are. Why wouldnt they be?


So because the Bible, depending on the edition you use, may heavily condemn homosexuality, then one should not engage their sexuality?
Furthermore are you calling LGBT individuals disordered?

So the Love of LGBT individuals for their partner is not equal to the love of hetrosexual individuals? Where do you get your definition or vast superior knowledge of love?

There is no deliberate impediment within the marriage of a man and a woman. If they can't have kids, that is not their fault. Two men can never produce a baby, nor can two women. It's just not possible. And no, reproductive 'technologies' which separate reproduction from the sexual act are not morally permissible.

We Catholics are not 'Bible only-ers'. We go by the entire Word of God, passed on via both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and presented to us authoritatively by the living Magisterium of the Church - the Pope and bishops in union with him. Both the Sacred Scripture and Tradition have constantly condemned homosexual acts as immoral from the beginning. See here

God told us what love was when He died on the cross - it is the complete giving of the self for the good of the beloved. Persons who engage in homosexual acts deny the other person sexual integrity, they damage the health of the other, and they close heaven, by destroying the life of grace in the soul of the other person, as well as themselves.

All persons, equally, are called to holy chastity and purity. Homosexuals are not excluded from this calling to become saints. It is certainly a case of equality of opportunity.

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself?

- Luke 9

By dying to sin, one gains everlasting life.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

God told us what love was when He died on the cross - it is the complete giving of the self for the good of the beloved. Persons who engage in homosexual acts deny the other person sexual integrity, they damage the health of the other, and they close heaven, by destroying the life of grace in the soul of the other person, as well as themselves.

What is your definition of sexual integrity?

How does homosexual sex damage the health of the other? What about homosexual non-sexual relationships?

Surely both of these actually do good for the mental health of LGBT individuals.


Furthermore per your point about LGBT individuals being unable to have children. What about hetrosexual individuals who do not have children, or engage in family planning (contraception) or even those who abstain from sexual relations until they are ready for kids - thats not fully giving yourself?

Donatello

lst wrote: »

What is your definition of sexual integrity?

How does homosexual sex damage the health of the other? What about homosexual non-sexual relationships?

Surely both of these actually do good for the mental health of LGBT individuals.


Furthermore per your point about LGBT individuals being unable to have children. What about hetrosexual individuals who do not have children, or engage in family planning (contraception) or even those who abstain from sexual relations until they are ready for kids - thats not fully giving yourself?

Sexual integrity is sexual activity in accordance with the divine plan. God made sex for marriage. Any sexual activity outside marriage, whether gay or straight, is immoral. Any sexual activity within marriage that is contraceptive is also immoral.

'Homosexual non-sexual relationships'? I've never heard of such a thing. Do you not really just mean good old fashioned friendship?

Contraception is immoral. "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil''. See here.

Good mental health comes from living a holy lifestyle with Jesus Christ at the very core of your being:

I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.

- Galations 2:19-20

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

'Homosexual non-sexual relationships'? I've never heard of such a thing. Do you not really just mean good old fashioned friendship?

Many gay individuals have non sexual relationships, particularly lesbians.

If you are hetrosexual, is it the actual sex that classifies you as such?
For gay or lesbian individuals its the package - not the sex. You love people of the same sex, their personality, their character, the way they walk talk and act, their smell, their outlook and their appearance.

You must not be in touch with many gay people. Your comments do not reflect that LGBT individuals are people just like you - who just want their relationships to be recognised as valid.

Good mental Health has been found in people who do not have Jesus at the core of their being. Indeed anecdotally I can safely say that many of those I know with very poor mental health are very heavily religious.

Indeed many clerics have mental health issues - do you think its possible thats from their vows of chastity? These are the people who have Jesus at the core of their life, yet still are suffering.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

If you are hetrosexual, is it the actual sex that classifies you as such?

You must not be in touch with many gay people. Your comments do not reflect that LGBT individuals are people just like you - who just want their relationships to be recognised as valid.

Good mental Health has been found in people who do not have Jesus at the core of their being. Indeed anecdotally I can safely say that many of those I know with very poor mental health are very heavily religious.

Indeed many clerics have mental health issues - do you think its possible thats from their vows of chastity? These are the people who have Jesus at the core of their life, yet still are suffering.

Men are men, women are women. Sex is for marriage. Until very recently, homosexual was a word for a person who engages in homo-sex acts. It is only fairly recently that for political tactical reasons, the gay lobby adopted homosexuality as an immutable characteristic, rather than a word for somebody who practises those acts.

Just because somebody is a Christian doesn't not mean they do actually live with Jesus as the core of their being. Jesus wants souls on fire, but lots of us are lukewarm. The Church is a hospital for sinners - souls to a greater or lesser extent trying to follow Jesus and be transformed by His grace. I too know many religious people who are not in great shape mentally.

Jesus had suffering at the heart of His mission on earth. He suffered for mankind on the cross. Redemptive suffering.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

Men are men, women are women. Sex is for marriage. Until very recently, homosexual was a word for a person who engages in homo-sex acts. It is only fairly recently that for political tactical reasons, the gay lobby adopted homosexuality as an immutable characteristic, rather than a word for somebody who practises those acts.

Finally you understand! Some men like other men. Some women like other women. Yet the men are still men and the women are still women.

Congratulations!

Perhaps thats why words like gay or lesbian are better used - homosexual implies sex. I only used the word as I was on "your turf" so to speak. And just because the terminology wasnt around 100 years ago doesnt mean it didnt happen - it was just swept under the rug - "hes not the marryin kind", "he looks after his mother", or indeed (and there was research to prove it) the people in question became members of the clergy in order to avoid being expected to marry. Many women had "companions"!

So your problem with gay people is that sex is for marriage.
So therefore allow gay people to get married? If your that worried about preserving marriage would you not be better lobbying your politicians to end the economic benefits of single parenthood?

But im still kinda lost! Your problem with gay people is the sexual acts. But if they dont engage in the sexual acts you dont have a problem? Or do you still have an issue with gay couples who do not engage in sexual acts?

WarnerT

I’m inclined to agree with mcmoustache
Having tried to remain within my church because of my love of God and my love of the Sacraments, I found that once I realised the truth of my love for someone of my own gender I began to question other teachings.

Looking back I think the experiences of God, that transcendent love, that acceptance, that feeling of union with the divine was true but now I find it harder to define, God.
Maybe it's a good thing to find oneself unable to define God, because I think it leaves it more open, more inclusive and is a more humble relationship to the Divine.
That includes for me the image of God as human or a father figure.
Once I stopped seeing God in our image and likeness that seemed to get rid of a lot of the severity, control, unkindness, exclusivity, judgements , punishments and dominance of the mind over the heart.

Christian churches generally don’t have a great history of including women.
Maybe if more women were included there would be more heart.
Maybe the fear of women, or whatever it is that leads to their exclusion, is part of why Christians don’t like homosexual men, as in You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman.
The fear of the feminine may be at the heart of this.
Anyway I know there are LGBT groups who meet together to worship.
Some within their own traditions such as Dignity for Catholics
http://www.dignitycanada.org/
and some creating inclusive Christian Communities like the Metropolitan Community Church http://www.mccnorthlondon.org/
Having tried all of these however I still cant take part in rituals and find the Christian faith as it is practiced, too restrictive of God.

wolfsbane

lst wrote: »

True.

But if you feel the need to advocate for incest, then


how can a relationship between, say, a 50 year old brother and sister 'cause damage to the parties involved or to innocent third parties' in a way a homosexual hetrosexual relationship between 50 year olds would not?

I'm glad you acknowledge this form of incest is justified by your argument for homosexuality.

Christianity does not use the 'no harm done' criteria, so both consensual homosexual and incestuous relationships are stand condemned - because of their opposition to God's will for sexual relationships.

**********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

TylerIE

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm glad you acknowledge this form of incest is justified by your argument for homosexuality.

Christianity does not use the 'no harm done' criteria, so both consensual homosexual and incestuous relationships are stand condemned - because of their opposition to God's will for sexual relationships.

One aspect of Christianity comdemns homsexual relationship.

There are a growing number of others like the MCC linked above who say that loving committed relationships among individuals of the same gender are ok, but believe that the biblical references were mis-translated or refferred to damaging same sex encounters (e.g. masters abusing slaves etc)

philologos

lst wrote: »

There are a growing number of others like the MCC linked above who say that loving committed relationships among individuals of the same gender are ok, but believe that the biblical references were mis-translated or refferred to damaging same sex encounters (e.g. masters abusing slaves etc)

I'd be interested to see their basis for assuming such when warnings to masters not to abuse their slaves are contained in other passages in Scripture (Colossians 4, and Ephesians 6).

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

I'd be interested to see their basis for assuming such when warnings to masters not to abuse their slaves are contained in other passages in Scripture (Colossians 4, and Ephesians 6).

So because its mentioned in Colossians and Ephesians means that its not being referred to elsewhere?

Very flawed logic!

philologos

It's not flawed logic. Why would you mention homosexual acts as a means to talk about slavery? That's the flawed logic as far as I see it. Could you actually present some of the arguments that they use because I don't see how they could get master and slave out of those?

Keylem

lst wrote: »

One aspect of Christianity comdemns homsexual relationship.

Why single out Christianity?

In the old testament God condemned homosexual relationships.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

Donatello

WarnerT wrote: »

Looking back I think the experiences of God, that transcendent love, that acceptance, that feeling of union with the divine was true but now I find it harder to define, God.

Maybe it's a good thing to find oneself unable to define God, because I think it leaves it more open, more inclusive and is a more humble relationship to the Divine.

God is love, not sin. We don't define God. God is being itself. He revealed Himself to us definitively in the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity, His only Son, Jesus Christ.

WarnerT wrote: »

Christian churches generally don’t have a great history of including women.
Maybe if more women were included there would be more heart.
Maybe the fear of women, or whatever it is that leads to their exclusion, is part of why Christians don’t like homosexual men, as in You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman.
The fear of the feminine may be at the heart of this.

Well, over half the canonised saints of the Church are women, and the most esteemed person, after Jesus, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Blessed Virgin Mary is at the heart of the Church. Too bad she gets ignored by too many people, especially by Catholics.

I don't get your logic about fear of the feminine. If we were all afraid of the feminine, we'd all be gay, right, so as to avoid the feminine?

WarnerT wrote: »

Some within their own traditions such as Dignity for Catholics and some creating inclusive Christian Communities like the Metropolitan Community Church. Having tried all of these however I still cant take part in rituals and find the Christian faith as it is practiced, too restrictive of God.

Dignity is not a Catholic group. They call themselves Catholic, but they have been condemned by the Church authorities.

wolfsbane

lst wrote: »

One aspect of Christianity comdemns homsexual relationship.

There are a growing number of others like the MCC linked above who say that loving committed relationships among individuals of the same gender are ok, but believe that the biblical references were mis-translated or refferred to damaging same sex encounters (e.g. masters abusing slaves etc)

They are just totally dishonest propagandists. No honest commentator, believer or not, would offer such a wild interpretation. The NT follows from the OT; constant appeal is made in the NT to OT teaching - and both agree on the issue of homosexuality.

******************************************************************************
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Why single out Christianity?

In the old testament God condemned homosexual relationships.

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

This is the Christianity forum.

Its clear you find that difficult to understand though, after all "thou shalt not judge" seems to be a difficult concept for some based on many of the comments made.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

It's not flawed logic. Why would you mention homosexual acts as a means to talk about slavery? That's the flawed logic as far as I see it. Could you actually present some of the arguments that they use because I don't see how they could get master and slave out of those?

It was common in the period that masters would take advantage of slaves. It is believed by some of the LGBT friendly churchs that some references, particularly those in good old Leviticus, referred to same. Just as they may have been made to ensure survival of the race in times of war disease etc

Keylem

lst wrote: »

This is the Christianity forum.

Its clear you find that difficult to understand though, after all "thou shalt not judge" seems to be a difficult concept for some based on many of the comments made.

Christianity also uses the Old Testament Scripture readings, not forgetting the 10 Commandments, and who's judging, it's God that condemns homosexual acts?

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

Christianity also uses the Old Testament Scriptures, even the 10 Commandments, and who's judging, it's God that condemns homosexual acts?

Funny no mention of homosexuality in the 10 Commandments?

According to some Christian groups, God does not condemn homosexuality - as stated already some groups believe that the Bible does not condemn loving gay relationships.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

This is the Christianity forum.

Its clear you find that difficult to understand though, after all "thou shalt not judge" seems to be a difficult concept for some based on many of the comments made.

We cannot judge final destination for sinners: heaven or hell - that is forbidden judgement. We also cannot judge a person's soul state. Only God can. We can judge actions. Homosexual acts are immoral. Read this: Judgmental: Being Judgmental.

TylerIE

Donnotello wrote:

.....

You didnt reply yet - link

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Funny no mention of homosexuality in the 10 Commandments?

According to some Christian groups, God does not condemn homosexuality - as stated already some groups believe that the Bible does not condemn loving gay relationships.

I'm sure you can justify many things if you stray from the Church.

The fact is, the 10 Commandments cover sexual morality in the 6th and 9th Commandments.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Finally you understand! Some men like other men. Some women like other women. Yet the men are still men and the women are still women.

Congratulations!

Perhaps thats why words like gay or lesbian are better used - homosexual implies sex. I only used the word as I was on "your turf" so to speak. And just because the terminology wasnt around 100 years ago doesnt mean it didnt happen - it was just swept under the rug - "hes not the marryin kind", "he looks after his mother", or indeed (and there was research to prove it) the people in question became members of the clergy in order to avoid being expected to marry. Many women had "companions"!

So your problem with gay people is that sex is for marriage.
So therefore allow gay people to get married? If your that worried about preserving marriage would you not be better lobbying your politicians to end the economic benefits of single parenthood?

But im still kinda lost! Your problem with gay people is the sexual acts. But if they dont engage in the sexual acts you dont have a problem? Or do you still have an issue with gay couples who do not engage in sexual acts?

If the parts don't fit, can you still call it marriage?

Marriage is between a man a woman for life. Marriage is for the procreation of children and the good of spouses. So-called 'gay marriage' fails to meet this two-fold criteria. You cannot redefine marriage. It is given by God.

Single parents deserve some support if they are in need. That has nothing to do with your argument.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

If the parts don't fit, can you still call it marriage?

Marriage is between a man a woman for life. Marriage is for the procreation of children and the good of spouses. So-called 'gay marriage' fails to meet this two-fold criteria. You cannot redefine marriage. It is given by God.

Single parents deserve some support if they are in need. That has nothing to do with your argument.

As John Corvino says - the parts do fit! Honestly! but thats only a tiny part of it. Ask any married couple, or if your married yourself - ask your spouse - is it all about the parts fitting into each other??? Thats only one small facet! And if its the focal point of a relationship then somethings gone wrong!

Aside from Marriage do you have a problem with same sex couples who do not express their love through sex?

Its straying so I wont pursue it here, but did you take any action to prevent the civil partnership bill from passing? Would you aim to prevent same sex marriage from being allowed? If so its hypocrisy and actual real homophobia to support and promote anybody having children outside marriage. If you really felt that Marriage was all important you would be saying that state support should concentrate on married individuals - therefore single parents should get married or else avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

I disagree with both (Single Parents should get support in order to benefit the child), but its funny how when it comes go LGBT Marriage being state sanctioned we are "ruining the tradition", yet its perfectly fine for people to have kids outside marriage and be heavily supported by the state!

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

I'm sure you can justify many things if you stray from the Church.

The fact is, the 10 Commandments cover sexual morality in the 6th and 9th Commandments.

The Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of the 10 Commandments see homosexuality as being included under the 10 Commandments. I certainly dont question that - we know that the RCC likes to publish literature on this topic!

Other Church's dont agree! Shock horror!

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Aside from Marriage do you have a problem with same sex couples who do not express their love through sex?

I've said it before: a non-sexual close relationship between 2 peeps of the same sex sounds like friendship to me.

lst wrote: »

Its straying so I wont pursue it here, but did you take any action to prevent the civil partnership bill from passing? Would you aim to prevent same sex marriage from being allowed? If so its hypocrisy and actual real homophobia to support and promote anybody having children outside marriage. If you really felt that Marriage was all important you would be saying that state support should concentrate on married individuals - therefore single parents should get married or else avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

I disagree with both (Single Parents should get support in order to benefit the child), but its funny how when it comes go LGBT Marriage being state sanctioned we are "ruining the tradition", yet its perfectly fine for people to have kids outside marriage and be heavily supported by the state!

If a single woman or man is having trouble making ends meet, the state can provide some help. Additionally, a family can lose a father or mother. I'm not talking about heavy support like they have in England whereby it's more profitable to have kids outside marriage than in. That's wrong. But the natural family should be supported by the state for the good of society.

TylerIE

Donatello wrote: »

I've said it before: a non-sexual close relationship between 2 peeps of the same sex sounds like friendship to me.

Thats how it was hidden years ago. Im talking about two full blown lesbians who have an intimate relationship that doesnt involve sexual contact, and they have committed to each other to have sexual contact with nobody else as its an exclusive relationship. Its insulting to call their relationship just "friendship". So calling a spade a spade - its a relationship?

Are you saying that a straight couple who have a 15 year relationship prior to getting married and dont engage in sexual practices during this time "just good friends"?

If a single woman or man is having trouble making ends meet, the state can provide some help. Additionally, a family can lose a father or mother. I'm not talking about heavy support like they have in England whereby it's more profitable to have kids outside marriage than in. That's wrong. But the natural family should be supported by the state for the good of society.

Oh the natural family should be supported? But the Irish Benefits system (which is much more generous than the UK one) supports the mother and child who dont have the father present (excluding the small number where the father has died!)? Surely that should be more of a priority for you as thats the position of between 25% and 33% of the children in the country. So the state currently doesnt support the natural family as you call it.

Personally Id rather see State support for single parents but by your standards its an abdomination!

Yet allowing Gay or Lesbian individuals to marry would only mean 10% of the population being treated equally!

Donatello

lst wrote: »

Thats how it was hidden years ago. Im talking about two full blown lesbians who have an intimate relationship that doesnt involve sexual contact, and they have committed to each other to have sexual contact with nobody else as its an exclusive relationship. Its insulting to call their relationship just "friendship". So calling a spade a spade - its a relationship? [Which is it? You said earlier the gay relationship was non-sexual (in which case I said it sounds like friendship), now you say they are having sexual relations. Which is it?]

Are you saying that a straight couple who have a 15 year relationship prior to getting married and dont engage in sexual practices during this time "just good friends"? [I'd be wondering if a) they really hadn't had sex, and b. why they hadn't married sooner. This is starting to get a bit too silly.]

Oh the natural family should be supported? But the Irish Benefits system (which is much more generous than the UK one) supports the mother and child who dont have the father present (excluding the small number where the father has died!)? Surely that should be more of a priority for you as thats the position of between 25% and 33% of the children in the country. So the state currently doesnt support the natural family as you call it.

Personally Id rather see State support for single parents but by your standards its an abdomination! [Where did I say that?]

Yet allowing Gay or Lesbian individuals to marry would only mean 10% of the population being treated equally! [Two gays in a relationship is not marriage. You can't redefine terms like that willy-nilly.]

My comments in red. ^

philologos

lst wrote: »

It was common in the period that masters would take advantage of slaves. It is believed by some of the LGBT friendly churchs that some references, particularly those in good old Leviticus, referred to same. Just as they may have been made to ensure survival of the race in times of war disease etc

How exactly do they explain this? Slaves and masters have nothing to do with those references.