The "sin" of homosexuality

NakedClown

Curranpete:

So this goes back to my original question: why do people, who use their religious beliefs as backing, view this "sin" as so much more unacceptable than other sins and worthy of turning this "group" into almost a second class of citizens?

No one has given me an answer I believe to be legitimate.

(The "because the homosexuals turned it into an issue" argument doesn't hold water with me, as I stated before. I respect people's right to believe that, but I disagree with it.)

cornnifer

chiefojibwa wrote:

jeebus didn't mention it because he took it up the ass.

he was a browneye witness, so to speak.

Why are you wasting time posting here? Certainly someone as hilarious as you should be tearing up the comedy clubs in between shoots for your new sitcom. Funny, funny stuff.

angelica

Curranpete wrote:

Angelica:

I understand that you believe all truth is accessible through our inner selves, but my inner self firmly believes that this is not the case; and that our inner desires and beliefs are completely fallible, and often lead us down the wrong path.

To use an example: My girlfriend and I have been going out for one year today, (I've actually just returned from a trip to go boating) and we've decided to hold off on doing anything sexual until we (possibly) get married.

Now I know this makes sense, because having been in a sexual relationship before, I know the scars that it tore, and I can see the effect those scars have had on my life since. My inner truth, as it were, knows that it would be a mistake to make that mistake again.

But when we're together, every part of my body rattles against that decision, and suddenly my 'inner truth' is telling me the complete opposite to what I know.


So, in that situation, as in countless others, my thoughts from within are leading me down the wrong path, and often contradict each other: so they are not trustworthy.

I instead choose to put my trust in the words of God, because they come from the only one who is infallibly trustworthy. Those words come from without, and show me what is right even though my desires may fall a different way.

To summarise: My body and my mind are at war with each other, and whether I trusted it or not, I know from experience that my beliefs that come from within are unreliable, and clouded by all manner of situations. Only the word of God is free from those, and thus I can trust that.


It is because of that that I call judgement. Not as a judge, but as a lawyer. Rather than declaring sentence and condemning people, I show the law that stands, and endeavour to show them the correct course of action. I point people towards the law, I do not decide it.

Are you saying you call your lust your inner truth? I didn't say we consult our inner desires. The inner truth is none other than the Holy Spirit. The word of God is in us, when we choose to listen and to dedicate ourselves to it.

I have been in a celibate relationship for 8 years (the old "until marriage" deal, too--I totally get the damage irresponsible sex causes), so I can empathise, for sure. The bottom line is I know the difference between truth and lust; between intellect and spirit; between emotions and spirit. It's not always easy to learn to discern such differences, I grant you. However, when we hand the power over to those we've deemed our authority figures, we compound the problem. First off, since they are human, too, they have the exact same challenges discerning truth as we do. Also, to turn our back on God within us, I've heard and learned personally, has farrrrrr-reaching ramifications. It may seem to be the easy route to accept what the religious authority figures tell us but ultimately, that is different than listening to God, who you and I know has a voice inside us.

I completely agree beliefs are fallible, hence I do not rely on the intellect and what I've been taught by human intellect to be true. The one Truth shines, when one chooses to open to it. KNOWing is different than believing. It seems that people are more busy these days denying inner truth than opening to it, though, if what people are saying in this thread is any indication.

What I propose is an integration of sorts: where we keep an open heart and mind and listen to what others tell us is the word of God. And at the same time we can accept that the way we can truly discern the level of Truthfulness of any source is by honing of our somewhat-neglected, maligned and abused, but amazingly miraculous inner voice of Truth within. If we choose to give up our inner voice of Spirit by acuiescing to the voice of another, and they lead us down the wrong path, we're accountable for our lack of faith in Spirit. And if we cannot see, much less recognise the voice of Spirit within, to me, it's an indicator that it's time to begin focussing on, and consciously activating the dormant voice of God within. Like anything, it first takes acknowledgement, then commitment, and then practise. When it is engaged it is thrilled to help us manage our challenges. When it is not engaged, it awaits our free will choice to engage so it can empower us on our perfect-for-us path.

brainofPJ

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.

He didn't have to speak directly on every single subject. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth. That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality.

angelica

brainofPJ wrote:

He didn't have to speak directly on every single subject. Jesus declared that God's Word is truth. That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality.

I endorse God's word on homosexuality, too. Just not infallible (edit: whoops, I meant "fallible") humanity's negative judgements of it.

brainofPJ

angelica wrote:

I endorse God's word on homosexuality, too. Just not infallible humanity's negative judgements of it.

"disgraceful sexual appetites", "detestable thing", "men kept for unnatural purposes", "Abhor what is wicked, cling to what is good"

you mean judgements on the individual, right?

angelica

I brought this from the link in harmless_little_f***'s homosexuality thread, because it was so appropriate for here:



"There are many Hebrew mores most straight christians are breaking

Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:

1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.

2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.

3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.

4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?

5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?

6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?

7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.

8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."

9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?

10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.

11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!

13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!

14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."

brainofPJ

i'll be back...

wife wants to see Superman....booo

angelica

brainofPJ wrote:

i'll be back...

wife wants to see Superman....booo

Enjoy.

angelica

brainofPJ wrote:

"disgraceful sexual appetites", "detestable thing", "men kept for unnatural purposes", "Abhor what is wicked, cling to what is good"

you mean judgements on the individual, right?

Yeah, I mean I accept God's word, but not the judgment of my neighbour with the plank in his/her eye. My relationship with God is between God and I, and no one else.

NakedClown

Curranpete wrote:

Naked Clown

I think this question might be better understood if we looked outside of the west for a second:

I am involved in work that takes place in Arua, Uganda; where there is a massively growing church full of Christians spreading the gospel so quickly that there simply aren't enough well trained leaders to go around anymore.

Because of this, the teaching has fallen apart in many ways, as people who do not know enough about the message of Christ are being put in a position of leadership, and thus are inserting their own cultural values into the Christian message.

In Uganda, one of the main problems in the church is that women are treated like dirt; many men have 3 or 4 wives, and think nothing wrong of it, even Christian men. Fathers are not expected to have to look after children (that is the womans job) and women are considered completely substandard.

We are involved in work over there to show sexual equality, and teach church leaders the gospel so that they may better understand and teach the men in the church how to treat women.

Now, when the women's rights movement starts there (which it will), many Christians will be up in arms against it; not because of Christian values, but because they do not know enough about the gospel, and thus are allowing their own cultural ideas to fill the gaps.


The situation is slightly different in the west, because homosexuality is a sin, while being a woman is not. But the Christian reaction bears many similarities:

In America and England, there are a huge number of churches and people who attend church because it's what you do, and do not fully understand the gospel, so they are allowing their own values to fill the gaps.

The gospel teaches that all men are equal, and all men are sinful. End of story. So homosexuals are sinning, just like everybody else. No more, no less.

As a Christian, it is justifiable to say that you do not want homosexuals to be able to get married: that is a statement of your belief based on what God says.

But, as a Christian, it is not justifiable to consider homosexuals second class citizens, or to call their sin greater than any other.


People are using their own prejudices to fill the gaps in a gospel they don't fully understand. That is why 'Christianity' is being seen to severely attack homosexuals.

Well said - and a logical theory. It's a shame that that is the way things are, but I guess this is the way of the world...

onelongsong

NakedClown wrote:

No - I see what you guys are saying... I just disagree with it.

What homosexuals are doing is similar to the way african americans fought for their civil rights back in the day...

But for every one that is shouting for their rights, there are five screaming about how awful homosexuality is...

That's just the way I see it...

i thought it was white union soldiers fighting and dying for african american rights during the civil war. and a white president too. and it was IKE'S wife fighting for their civil rights while he was president. during the '60's when we accepted everyone as equal; we (the younger generation) helped blacks obtain that equality.

melodious

Originally Posted by chiefojibwa
jeebus didn't mention it because he took it up the ass.

he was a browneye witness, so to speak.

got to admit, extremely witty.....;).

chiefojibwa wrote:

not trying to be funny. i think jeebus was a homo...i mean look at the hair!

either that or a goddamn hippie...same difference.

or could it be that je'sus comes in this form of a browneye witness????



sorry i couldn't resist....

NakedClown

onelongsong wrote:

i thought it was white union soldiers fighting and dying for african american rights during the civil war. and a white president too. and it was IKE'S wife fighting for their civil rights while he was president. during the '60's when we accepted everyone as equal; we (the younger generation) helped blacks obtain that equality.

This is getting to be a different topic...

but come on - the black community achieved some/most of this themselves. It's not like "we" just decided to let them in the club all of a sudden. They fought for it, too...

chopitdown

angelica wrote:

This may be the meaning of what the link you provided was about. And I can understand what this rationale is about. I'm quite big on holding people accountable, myself. The problem is, we all have planks in our eyes at all times, and for me to say to someone what they are doing is wrong is condescending. The Jesus I know and Love does not advocate standing above anyone ever. Hence people who tell others they are sinners come off as intolerant. I've met many Christians who come off as good representations of the Jesus-mindset when they seek to help in love--they are not judging or condescending or hinting at intolerance that may exist in their hearts. So, If someone like the earlier poster is getting feedback that he/she is intolerant, that is the opposite of speaking in Love.

As Ed Roland of Collective Soul (whose father was a preacher) says in the song "Blame" : "When Truth is your reason lay the blame on me". Or "When Love is your constant lay the blame on me."

Once one is even hinting at intolerance and insensitivity, one has stepped out of Truth and Love.

I'll only somewhat disgree with the last statement. I think you can be intolerant, of sin, and be in truth and love. Discipline and love can go hand in hand. Discipline is the result of being intolerant of judgemental of an action.

angelica wrote:

To me the meaning is very much changed, because the original sentence shortened, implies we must only speak the truth in love. The full sentence explains how when we do so, we grow up in all things into him, which to me sounds like we personally flourish in our Christ-consciousness. It is about us being loving and truthful, not about condemning someone else.

I agree we should flourish in Christ consciousness and it is about being loving and truthful. Sometimes love is manifested in disciplining. But i agree it is not our job to condemn. But i feel it is the responsibility of Christians to help each other. Sometimes help is asking the tough questions

angelica wrote:

I accept what other people believe and I support people doing the best that they feel they can within the spirit of Love and Truth.

Once people, going by their flawed human perspective, begin to throw around judgment and words like sin, new sin can flow--the sin of not raising one up, but rather putting them down in the false name of building them up. Being told one is intolerant towards homosexuals is a BIG sign of this error (again referring to what the person who originally brought up this point said).

In my opinion (for what it's worth) it depends on who's telling you you're being intolerant and in what way. If i think it's a sin to practice homosexuality that's not being intolerant that's having an opinion about an issue. If i say i won't work / eat / talk with a homosexual then that is intolerant and not christ like. We'd most likely agree that cheating on a spouse is adultery; therefore a sin...is that being intolerant?

angelica

chopitdown wrote:

I'll only somewhat disgree with the last statement. I think you can be intolerant, of sin, and be in truth and love. Discipline and love can go hand in hand. Discipline is the result of being intolerant of judgemental of an action.

I agree we should flourish in Christ consciousness and it is about being loving and truthful. Sometimes love is manifested in disciplining. But i agree it is not our job to condemn. But i feel it is the responsibility of Christians to help each other. Sometimes help is asking the tough questions

In my opinion (for what it's worth) it depends on who's telling you you're being intolerant and in what way. If i think it's a sin to practice homosexuality that's not being intolerant that's having an opinion about an issue. If i say i won't work / eat / talk with a homosexual then that is intolerant and not christ like. We'd most likely agree that cheating on a spouse is adultery; therefore a sin...is that being intolerant?

I fully support each person deciding for themselves what they believe regarding homosexuality being a sin.

My main reason for opposing judgement on others is because I know they psychological principles behind the human shadow--the plank in our eyes. The plank in our eyes, or our filters through which we judge others is always about us. We can not possibly understand or define another human being--all we do when we judge is show our opinion and our judgments. There is a lot of psychological stuff about how when we learn to heal and forgive our own inner issues, we learn to understand the issues of others and therefore are rendered unable to judge. When one gets to that place of understanding, one is actually truly in truth.

I love God; I've had numerous spiritual experiences. When religion is about judging and losing sight of what the prophets really told us, it's not about God, it's about human arrogance. Its about forgetting that the BASE premise to accepting Jesus as our saviour is accepting we are fully human and flawed.

I can understand bumbling around in the world and learning with our brothers and sisters, and judging along the way. I've been there--and still am half the time. The thing is, we're accountable for anytime we step out of that constant of Love and degrade another human being in any way, and will be called to account for that. I fully respect and support people having their very personal beliefs and growing and learning in Love and the spirit of truth.

onelongsong

angelica wrote:

I fully support each person deciding for themselves what they believe regarding homosexuality being a sin.

My main reason for opposing judgement on others is because I know they psychological principles behind the human shadow--the plank in our eyes. The plank in our eyes, or our filters through which we judge others is always about us. We can not possibly understand or define another human being--all we do when we judge is show our opinion and our judgments. There is a lot of psychological stuff about how when we learn to heal and forgive our own inner issues, we learn to understand the issues of others and therefore are rendered unable to judge. When one gets to that place of understanding, one is actually truly in truth.

I love God; I've had numerous spiritual experiences. When religion is about judging and losing sight of what the prophets really told us, it's not about God, it's about human arrogance. Its about forgetting that the BASE premise to accepting Jesus as our saviour is accepting we are fully human and flawed.

I can understand bumbling around in the world and learning with our brothers and sisters, and judging along the way. I've been there--and still am half the time. The thing is, we're accountable for anytime we step out of that constant of Love and degrade another human being in any way, and will be called to account for that. I fully respect and support people having their very personal beliefs and growing and learning in Love and the spirit of truth.

i fully agree. as i said in the respect for others on the board thread; we're here discussing our opinions. the disrespect comes in when one judges anothers opinion. you may know something i don't and visa versa. in 1490; the world argued the world was flat. in 1635 the world argued that the sun revolved around the earth. as new facts and discoveries are found; yesterday's facts are flawed and new facts replace the old.