The "sin" of homosexuality

NakedClown

cornnifer wrote:

I didn't mean to start an argument, or imply that the homosexual rights movement is completely insignificant. I just do not put it near the same level as other movements such as Black civil rights or women's suffrage.

The sacrifices have not been the same - but the crux of the movement - the ideology that all are created equal and deserve equal rights under our government - are similar.

But I respect that there are different opinions...

fruth

The bible equates two men having sexual relations as sin, not because of the act itself, but because it debases a mans status to that of a woman. in biblical times women did not have rights, and for a man to submit to another man, like a woman should, and be treated like a woman, would be a sin.


In all of Jesus' teachings, he never spoke once about homosexuality. If it was the ultimate sin it's made out to be, don't you think he would have mentioned it...at least one time?

melodious

http://www.kfty.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=34A69C5E-CB67-423D-8DF9-2E24E2BC4AD3

Riot_Rain

id rocks wrote:

I am not a "hardline right", I just happen to think that the answer to your question (one of them) is pretty obvious. I believe the reason this is such a hot button issue is because you are talking about something, the family, that is considered by many to be the bedrock of society. If that is "corrupted" or redifined as something other than the children of our society being raised in a home of a woman and a man (or other potential threats to the family such as cohabitation, epidemic divorce, etc.), then they believe that is less than ideal for the rising generations, and for the basic moral fiber of society. Now, obviously, the other "sins" you mention have much less of an impact on society. Comparitively, not much is going to be affected by millions of people taking the Lord's name in vain, or working on Sunday, etc.

This question seems kind of obvious, so I'm a little worried it is just a bait qustion. But if it is legit, than I say it is just because of the deep impact changing the defined traditional family could have on society as a whole.

People taking the Lord's name in vain = swearing = aggression.

Working on Sunday = 24/7 economy = no rest & reflection.

These two "sins" have a huge impact on society if you ask me.

In my opinion it is too easy to say families with same sex parents have a negative impact on society just because they are of the same sex. Rather than saying the traditional family consists of a man, a woman and their children, I'd like to say the traditional family is centered around, love, respect and tolerance of others.

Yes, families are important, but so is society itself. If we raise our children perfectly, but our brothers and sisters outside the family unit are corrupted/dishonest/aggressive/etc., this is very dangerous as well, if not more dangerous.

angelica

Riot_Rain wrote:

Yes, families are important, but so is society itself. If we raise our children perfectly, but our brothers and sisters outside the family unit are corrupted/dishonest/aggressive/etc., this is very dangerous as well, if not more dangerous.

So very true.

Not to mention that in Christianity for example, one base premise is that: we are all sinners. This means we are all corrupt. We are to humble ourselves and accept salvation by spiritual means. This does not mean we suddenly become non-corrupt--it means we own our corruptness. When we deny our own corruptness, we also deny salvation.

What people tend to do is to deny their own corruption and imperfection by passing it off on the next guy. It doesn't matter what the reason is--the reasons to make the other guy wrong are quite incidental, actually. We've got a bunch of blind people trying to lead one another, while forgetting their own blindness. It's quite ugly at times.

NMyTree

Too bad Jesus never said any of that and the Bible was written by greedy, manipulative men seeking control and wealth.

Otherwise, it makes for good fiction.

melodious

NMyTree wrote:

Too bad Jesus never said any of that and the Bible was written by greedy, manipulative men seeking control and wealth.

Otherwise, it makes for good fiction.

great point.

angelica

Curranpete wrote:

This idea seems to be common here.

Jesus made no mention of paedophilia, nor beastiality, nor did he specifically outlaw us from tying our neighbour to the wheel of a landrover and driving around the block.

This does not mean that Jesus had no opinion on it, however. He mentions in Matthew 5 (17-20) that 'Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.'

This means...

I'm fine with this until we get to: "This means..." What I hear is "this is what I, Curranpete, understand this to mean".

I personally hear this line as meaning something quite different. The Law is the Law forever more (ask farfromglorified and he'll tell you about gravity, universal Law and jumping off of cliffs). The Law IS the Law, "as is", and is different than man's ideas of the law, imo. The prophets did speak truths, and it sounds like Jesus meant to fulfill the divine truths that were told of.

...we can assume that unless specifically revoked, Jesus upholds every part of the law outlined in the old testament.

Apparently you assume as such. I do not.

So yes, Jesus was against homosexuality, the same as he was against child rape and land rover based torture methods. It was just that judging everybody wasn't the point of the gospels.

What is your evidence that Jesus was against homosexuality? Last I heard you were going on an assumption.

I wonder why judging everybody wasn't the point of the gospels.

NMyTree

angelica wrote:

I wonder why judging everybody wasn't the point of the gospels.

Ooops......too much sense......so much sense being made, in such a simple sentence. Oh my.....my head tis' about to explode.

angelica

Now I'm back to square one, where Jesus tells us not to point to the splinter in another's eye when there is a plank in our own eye. Also, it looks like Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. That is interesting in the light that he was here to fulfill the law and the prophets. Fulfill and avoid to me are words with two very different meanings. If Jesus said he would fulfill "the law and the prophets", I wonder if he can be held to his word. And also, it looks like what he did not say or do makes as strong a statement as what he said and did.

NMyTree

I see no proof.

I know....I know.... your interpretation is fact and any one else's is false.

You're right, I'm wrong. Your assumptions=facts

:rolleyes:

cornnifer

angelica wrote:

Now I'm back to square one, where Jesus tells us not to point to the splinter in another's eye when there is a plank in our own eye. Also, it looks like Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. That is interesting in the light that he was here to fulfill the law and the prophets. Fulfill and avoid to me are words with two very different meanings. If Jesus said he would fulfill "the law and the prophets", I wonder if he can be held to his word. And also, it looks like what he did not say or do makes as strong a statement as what he said and did.

Let me start by saying that I am with you on the splinters and planks. Matthew 7 is perhaps my favorite part of the Bible and the part I think sums up the most how we are to react to our fellow man. It is the part I think Cjristians should, perhaps pay most attention to, yet sadly enough, is, perhaps, the most ignored.

That being said, because we don't read in the gospels any direct condemnation from Jesus regarding homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean he CONDONED the practice. It may, perhaps lead us to assume that he didn't speak of it often enough for the eyewitnesses (yes, I said eyewitnesses)responsible for the gospels to record it, but not that he held no oppinion or thought it was completely acceptable. Perhaps matthew 7 sums it up best. We simply are not to judge.

fruth

"At the time it was written, the idea of marriage as something done out of love was not exactly the norm. Women were literally considered to be property. So, the statement in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is in reference to this. For a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman is to place the other man, sexually, in the same position as the woman, thus treating him as property is treated, which is not how men should be treated.

Now, there are a few other areas of the bible where homosexuality is criticized, and again they are almost always read out of context. For example, the statements against homosexuality in Romans have little to do with homosexuality itself and everything to do with differentiating the fledgling religion that would become "Christianity" from the dominant "pagan" religions in the area in which same sex relations were relatively common.

And, remember, we're talking about the time of the Roman Empire here. Homosexual relationships were incredibly well established, even among those who were not biologically homosexual. The same can be said for the Egyptians and the Greeks. Anyone who has studied a little history knows of the Spartan penchant for homosexual relationships among their men."

I read this post on another board having the same discussion, and a light bulb just dinged, and it all made since to me....I could not have said it better myself, so I just copied the post here and credited it.

-originally posted by SecretMethod70 @ tfproject.org.

NMyTree

There are no facts in the Bible, only fiction.

cornnifer

NMyTree wrote:

There are no facts in the Bible, only fiction.

Um... thanks for that...


SHeesh.

fruth

Actually, there are many, many, many, facts in the bible- Off the top of my head here is one.

It says in the bible that you must wait three days before circumcising an infant after birth. Because when babies are born theit blood does not have the ability to clot, and the babies would die....it takes three days to develop the coagulant. Nowadays a shot is given to the babies, but back then, no such luck.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

Let me start by saying that I am with you on the splinters and planks. Matthew 7 is perhaps my favorite part of the Bible and the part I think sums up the most how we are to react to our fellow man. It is the part I think Cjristians should, perhaps pay most attention to, yet sadly enough, is, perhaps, the most ignored.

That being said, because we don't read in the gospels any direct condemnation from Jesus regarding homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean he CONDONED the practice. It may, perhaps lead us to assume that he didn't speak of it often enough for the eyewitnesses (yes, I said eyewitnesses)responsible for the gospels to record it, but not that he held no oppinion or thought it was completely acceptable. Perhaps matthew 7 sums it up best. We simply are not to judge.

I totally agree with you. It MAY lead us to ASSUME....etc. it doesn't NECESSARILY mean he condoned the practise, etc. I would be loathe to put words into Jesus' mouth, one way or the other.

Two things leap to mind for me: first, yes, we're all so 'human' and flawed that to think we are close enough to God to judge is a prospect that is best not undertaken lightly. I say we are all fully entitled to listen to our inner spirit and find what is the truth for us. But the minute we project our ideas onto others, that is about our own judgments of others, and not about the truth.

The other thing is that assumptions and our best guesses must be acknowledged for what they are, including the potential for reading in flaw and distortion. I take this very seriously.

To some it may be obvious that I'm a bit on this tangent about how people see religion at the root of evil--and it's a well-deserved projection, considered what has been done in God's name. When humans are so fallible, and so not-God it's very clear how easy we can distort truths. What prophets have said, and what is God's law is sometimes worlds away from what the masses take and run with. I'm now seeing how people are misconstruing verses with assumptions and other mental processes that further remove the truth from the facts.

angelica

Curranpete wrote:

... I'm sure you can see the problem with assuming that there is a flaw in assumptions: your assumption that assumptions are fallible makes your assumption fallible meaning that it's not only plausible, but in fact probable that your assumption will be wrong; leading us to the conclusion that assumptions are not, in fact fallible, but completely true. Which of course would make your assumption that assumptions are fallible completely true, and then we're in a right tangle.

Nice try. We all know an assumption is different than proof. You showed your process, admitted an assumption, then you concluded by saying: "So yes, Jesus was against homosexuality..." An assumption is fine for your opinion. You're entitled. However, despite the logical show, your conclusion remains an opinion, rather than a process having shown how Jesus was in fact against homosexuality.

This is ground that we've covered before, and I know that what you were in fact looking for was the proof behind the assumption. However it is worth bearing in mind that when we assume to disregard assumptions, or rather absolutely defy absolutes, no rational answer can be found.

If you want to find absolutes where they are not, that is fine. If you have much more to your process--such as guidance of the spirit--that is not logical and rational and pertinent in this type of debate, that I accept as well. I can't discount what you know or what you see. However, considering how the truth is misconstrued, and often, I only accept evident absolutes as absolutes for me. The room for error and the consequences are serious to me.

So then, the proof:

This largely lies in what it means to 'fulfil the law'. If it means to 'bring an end to it', as is often claimed, then we can use this statement to toss aside any semblance of the law. However, if it means 'to actualise', or 'to make whole' as in 'I fulfilled my craving for a donut by eating one'; then the law is still standing, and has been completed by the coming of Christ, who was the embodyment of what the law meant: it's fulfillment.

At this point it is useful to bear in mind that the gospel writers are conveying a message about Christ; this is not just a biography; this is an example from Jesus' life used to show his thoughts so that people may believe.

Due to time constraints, I can't go into too much detail, but in concise form: This quotation falls in the section of Matthew dedicating to proving all of the prophecies Jesus fulfilled, and this is the big kicker: Jesus is not only the fulfiller of prophecies; but the very fulfiller of prophecy itself: He is the explanation of the entire scriptures.

Jesus quotes from the law of Moses, but he also explains the reason it was how it was; and much of it is changed, because Jesus is ushering in God's new era of grace, which is the fulfilment of the law. (the law shows us we've messed up and need God, grace is how we get to him)

Because Jesus is the fulfilment of the law, and not the rebuttal, it is rational to assume to that any law that is not specifically revoked stays the same.

It would be irrational to assume otherwise: the equivalent of saying 'well it was illegal to murder yesterday, but they haven't said anything about it today; so bombs away!'

This is all good and fine as your understanding of the interpretations of the bible that you've been taught. However it means little to me. For me to accept any part requires faith in a fallible human being and what he's been taught by other humans. There are so many leaps of faith, and while I don't say they are wrong, my personal relationship with God and what I learn from it are what I trust 100%.

This has very little to do with judging; rather it's about reading what the Bible says rather than declaring fact on what it doesn't.

It's interesting that no one has been able to prove Jesus' anti-homosexuality stance, and yet entire religions back it. Besides, my thing is that I see a ton of human error around me all the time, I go out of my way to walk that fine line and not be condescending, because I know for me to look down on others in judgment is not my right. So even if homosexuality were wrong, to give one's self permission to talk down to others remains inexcusable.

titefka

oh my God ..what a hard topic"homosexuality and religion":The Church hates the homosexuals but homosexuals do believe in God.If the Church states that homosexuality is abnormal(sickness) and needs some severe treatment so maybe we should get some treatment ,think over our faith in the Church.This topic is a very controvercial one here in Poland and I must say I'm totally ashamed of this situation..and it is not going to change I've resigned of any immediate contacts with the Church after some struggles - my views are so much different,too much and I couldn't stand it.What a pity ..

angelica

Curranpete wrote:

To summarise my last post: There is absolutely no reason to suggest Jesus was for homosexuality: There is nothing in the gospels, or even in any of the epistles that could suggest it. That is fact.

(Should you wish to disprove that fact, you will have to present evidence to the contrary, not merely call it interpretation.)

Given that there is no reason to suggest Jesus was for homosexuality, we must then search for evidence to see whether Jesus was against it:

1. Jesus was a Jew, and upheld the Jewish law. That law outlaws homosexuality. Again, those two points are fact clearly stated in the Bible.

2. Jesus mentions 'pornea' (translated: 'fornication') when he discusses the laws for divorce. The word chosen means the whole of the Jewish law about sexuality; including homosexuality. Jesus cites these laws, and uses them, which means they were true laws, and laws he believed in. Again, that is fact, clearly stated in the Bible.


So, at a glance: My proof is that there is no evidence supporting Jesus being for homosexuality, and two strong evidences showing him being against.

All of these evidences are direct references from the Bible, I have not used verses which are ambiguous or open to interpretation.


Which, I expect, brings us back to your argument that the bible is fallible, and thus the writers could have been mistaken.

However, fallible or not (that's a whole other argument), with no evidence to the contrary and two evidences against, you would need very good evidence to prove that Jesus' stance is different to what's represented. Evidence which I have not seen, nor do I expect to; I need to get back to work.

What I am representing is a rational representation of what the Bible says based on scholarly study and historical information. Whether it is what I have been taught or not is irrelevant; it is a genetic fallacy to declare the information wrong based on where it came from. What is important is the facts at hand.

So if my 'interpretation' is wrong, I suggest you check the verses and show how.

Again, this brings me back to judging. Who would I be to judge you as wrong? Or your view as wrong? I can find technicalities and point to them, and yet I know that is irrelevent in terms of the truth.

I'm a firm believer that we all listen to the inner voice and decide for ourselves what the highest truths are--we all posses the way to LIfe's truths from within, when we choose to listen. And I believe it is important for each of us that we follow whatever path we must to find our own inner truth. I do believe that part of finding our inner truth is in judging for ourselves what is right and wrong within the spirit of truth. And yet, at the same time, I believe we are not equipped to see the truth for others, and for very good reasons.