Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[GentleDove]

From Page 3 Post 24

The wording is this: “But in all the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.� The phrases I have bolded indicate the limited nature of this abomination; the shellfish are to be “regarded as� an abomination by the children of Israel (not everyone on earth). God doesn’t view eating shellfish as inherently abominable; He is teaching His people about holiness and loyalty to God by obeying ceremonial ordinances which God lays down for them.

I think that's a very creative take on the issue. A reasonable reader will surely understand the "you" to mean "ya'll, because I (God) don't like it either". By no means do I wish to tell someone how to practice their religion. I would still contend they shouldn't come up with creative interpretations to dismiss passages they may or may not like.

I think a reasonable reader will read what the Biblical words actually say in context, including the larger context of the whole body of Scripture. It seems to me that adding our own words to the Bible to dismiss passages we may not like is really the “creative interpretation.�

The wording is this: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.� Nothing about regarding homosexual sex as an abomination; rather homosexual sex is an abomination in the judgment of God.
I will also quote Lev. 18:24 because it shows the universal (as opposed to Israel-specific) context: “Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.�

Again, I don't seek to have a theological discussion, that is for believers, however I would contend that what a singular God tells one, He tells all. It is my contention, and the various sects and religions bear it out, that folks will accept those parts of a religion they are comfortable with, and reject other parts they disagree with.

I don’t think it’s logical to hold that because God is one, that therefore, He sees all human beings as “one� as well, and so whatever He says to one or some people, He in all cases is saying it to all people. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you wrote. I do agree with you that as long as people are judging by an autonomous standard they will “pick and choose� what tenets of a religion they will accept, according to that autonomous standard.

Another way to look at it is this: All the universal (for all men), unchanging (has not passed away with the coming of Christ—see Matthew 5:17-19) moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Idolatry breaks the First Commandment. Sexual immorality breaks the Seventh Commandment. The prohibition against eating shellfish does not fall under the rubric of the Ten Commandments because it is not a moral law; it is a ceremonial ordinance, which passed away with the coming of Christ.

I don't doubt that the seventh commandment can be applied to homosexuality, but I would contend it only comes into play when considering the proscriptions against sex outside of marriage. So the seventh commandment is almost a double jeopardy situation, where homosexuals are not allowed to marry, and then considered violating the very law that bars them from becoming otherwise legitimate.

Within the Christian worldview, God defines marriage and the lawful expression of sex. Homosexuals, of course, are allowed to marry; however, they must marry someone of the opposite sex and remain faithful (in thought and deed) to his or her spouse. If someone does not marry, they must still remain chaste, whether that person has homosexual desires or heterosexual desires. When our desires rule over us, then we will chafe and rebel against God’s laws. When by God’s grace, our will is brought under His, so that we agree with Him about what is right and wrong, His law is sweet as the honeycomb and a light to our path.

Therefore, the OP’s attempt to internally critique the Bible by pulling the same word—abomination—out of their different contexts doesn’t hold water.

I've come to learn one will read the Bible in their own way. My guiding principle would be the "do unto others" deal, and in practice I would not seek to prevent folks from living according to their conscious. In this regard I would contend no one has a right to condemn the otherwise harmless actions of another, and any violation of the "do unto others" principle would be lower in rank. As GentleDove points out, some laws are more "valid" than others, and it is my contention the "do unto others" principle trumps them all. Which of us is correct? Or more correct? I can't help but think a loving god, that created all humanity, would seek to have all His children live as one family, the family of humanity.
Is homosexuality an abomination? The Bible seems to think so. Is this proscription worth all it has wrought? I hardly think so.

The Bible can be read any way—if one ignores the words and contexts and judges the Bible by an outside autonomous standard.
The Bible says “do unto others� is the second greatest commandment and is like unto the first greatest, which is “love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.� The Christian worldview (from the Bible) provides a context and definition for the phrase “do unto others,� that will be removed from that phrase when removed from the Christian worldview, and in a sense, yes, mean anything the adherent to it wants it to mean. So, I personally cannot endorse that phrase outside of the Christian worldview in which it is properly defined and explicated.

In the Christian worldview, God did create all of humanity in His image and put His law in our hearts, but since the fall, because of our sin, we have scattered from Him and so lost our “family� status. Because God is loving, He has provided a Way (Christ) back to Him, so that we can call Him and all who are with Him “family.� That’s the gospel.

[GentleDove]

gentle dove,
Your assertion that the Ten Commandments have primacy as "moral law" is a Christian invention.
Judaism does not elevate the Ten Commandments above Torah in general.
You also invent another legal fiction: "ceremonial law". Such a concept would only exist because Christians want to disassociate themselves from some aspect of Torah.

This is a good point. Nowhere in the law are such distinctions made. Repeatedly the text says that the Israelits must obey all of these decrees.

I was trying to show the distinctions within the law by context and word usage, including the larger context of all Scripture, because they were different and not the same, as the OP contended.

I do not Gentledove's comment about the shelfish and sexual laws being on "different pages." However, we should remember that chapter and verse designations and pages were not part of the original. As I understand, these would have originally been written on long scrolls. The larger point is that ALL of these decrees were originally part of the same law, with no distinctions.

That is true that pages, chapters and verses were not part of the original. Just because two sentences are written on the same one long page doesn’t mean that no distinctions can be drawn between them. In my opinion, there were distinctions and I pointed them out, using evidence and reasoning. Of course, my argument may not have been persuasive to you, which I can accept.

Secondly, I will raise one other point. I accept that it is difficult to get any support for homosexuality out of the Bible. However, I will note that the Bible allows for believers to reach their own conclusions, either individually or as a group, with regards to what is sinful.

One passage is in Acts Chapter 15, where James and the other Apostles decide Gentiles need not follow the Mosaic law, except for those on sexual immorality and a couple of dietary issues. Now, you could say "See, the Apostles say the sexual laws are still in effect!" and this is a valid point.

On the other hand, there is some ambiguity on what "sexual immorality" means.

More importantly, if it is OK for the Apostles to make such a decision and consider it relevant for all Gentile believers, why should Christians today not take the same freedom that the Apostles took? Does the Bible really support the notion that once these original followers died, no other changes in doctrine could be made?

The Apostles were doing just what I was attempting to do, debating and consulting the law in the light of the gospel to discern the distinctions between Mosaic laws of separation which were no longer in effect and Mosaic moral laws which are still in effect, even after the coming of Christ.

There were men, ex-Pharisees, who came down from Judea and were teaching Christians in Jerusalem that Gentile believers in Christ must be circumcised and follow certain other laws of Moses in order to be eligible for salvation in Christ.

The conclusion after much debate was that circumcision was not necessary for Gentile Christians, but because these Christians were coming out of pagan idolatry and not from a Hebrew background of Biblical morality, the laws prohibiting using things used in idolatry, drinking blood (including in animals that had been strangled), and fornication (ritual sex and prostitution was common in idol worship) were upheld and emphasized because of the immorality of idolatry (and fornication). Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapters 8, 9, and 10, explains more about eating meat sacrificed to idols. This seems to me like a good discussion of this issue:
http://www.thefaithfulword.org/acts15copy.html

Keep in mind also that later Christians HAVE felt free to change doctrine. Paul said women should be silent in church. What christian churches follow Pauls teaching on this today? Paul said women should not cut their hair. What church holds this as doctrine today?

It seems to me that the doctrines have not changed; rather Christian practice of and obedience to those doctrines have changed (or returned back to early church practices, as Paul probably wouldn’t have needed to say those things, if Christians had already been obeying them).

As a second passage, consider Romans 14 where the specific context is the very dietary and sabbath laws from the OT. Paul allows that each individual believer can decide if and how to follow these laws in their own conscience and in their own direct responsibility to the Lord, as long as they do not act to damage the faith of others. I would note that this issue was quite controversial in their day (as Acts ch. 15 clearly shows), just as homosexuality is today. Paul even refers to these as debatable issues, as I recall. What case can be made that Paul's discussion in Romans 14 should ONLY apply to the specific examples he cites, and not to other examples of disagreements among believers?

Paul is saying that there are people who are weak in the faith and people who are strong in the faith. The new church wasn’t sure of the status of Old Testament laws now that Christ had come. The strong brother, like Paul, was convinced that nothing which had been called unclean in the OT was unclean in itself; however, others still clung to OT dietary laws or OT clean/unclean laws or OT sabbaths and feast days.

He is not saying that being weak in faith is just as good as being strong. He is telling the stronger brother to be patient and loving toward the weaker brother and teach and disciple the weaker brother to edify him and build him up in the faith, so that he will be strong (as explained further in Rom. 15).

While the weaker brother is growing and learning, the stronger brother must put up with the weaker brother’s misconceptions and leave them to conscience when they are over debatable OT ceremonial laws, such as clean and unclean laws and feast days.

Homosexuality, or any other immorality, is not one of the debatable things listed. Remember, this comes after Romans 1, where Paul again condemns homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul does not recommend the brethren leave to conscience the man who is having sex with his father’s wife. (The law against this is in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) Because it is immoral, Paul tells them to not keep company with him or even eat with him and to put away from among themselves that wicked person (1 Cor. 5:13), unless and until the man repents of and stops his sin (1 Cor. 5:5).

You see, Paul upholds that sexual immorality (as defined by the OT) is wicked; whereas eating or not eating shellfish is not wicked. The amount of controversy is not the important thing.

Keep in mind that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love each other. I would humbly submit that gay relationships do not inherently run afoul of either of these commandments. Rather, we should consider the biblical comments that seem to be speaking to homosexuality the same way we think of biblical teachings on dietary laws, and the treatment of women and slaves, namely as archaic teaching that reflect the limitations and prejudices of the people at the time of writing instead of an eternal doctrine direct from God.

My view would be to expect nothing more of homosexuals than we do of heterosexuals. If we allow one to marry, the other should be also. If unmarried sex is immoral for one, it is immoral for the other. Equal treatment for both.

How is it loving God to approve of what He said is abominable in His judgment? That’s being disloyal to God, not loving Him. As Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.� (Jn. 14:21).

I recognize that you’re entitled to your view, micatala; just as I am entitled to mine. If you believe the Bible is a collection of archaic teachings written by men reflecting their limitations and prejudices and is not eternal doctrine inspired by God, then, although I hope you will change your mind, I certainly can’t convince you otherwise.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 4 Post 33

I think a reasonable reader will read what the Biblical words actually say in context, including the larger context of the whole body of Scripture. It seems to me that adding our own words to the Bible to dismiss passages we may not like is really the “creative interpretation.�

I have since had several conversations that lead me to withdraw the claim of a god speaking to all. I was wrong and retract the statement.

Seems I was the one who got "creative"

I still prefer to disagree, but have no evidence with which to do so.

I don’t think it’s logical to hold that because God is one, that therefore, He sees all human beings as “one� as well, and so whatever He says to one or some people, He in all cases is saying it to all people. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you wrote. I do agree with you that as long as people are judging by an autonomous standard they will “pick and choose� what tenets of a religion they will accept, according to that autonomous standard.

Please copy and past my response above here. My failure to understand should not constitute an arguement

Within the Christian worldview, God defines marriage and the lawful expression of sex. Homosexuals, of course, are allowed to marry; however, they must marry someone of the opposite sex and remain faithful (in thought and deed) to his or her spouse.

On this I will maintain my "double jeopardy" analysis. That homosexuals "can marry someone their not attracted to" does seem to absolve the law of its discrimination, but I would contend it is a useless reading to think homosexuals would marry in this fashion deliberately.

If someone does not marry, they must still remain chaste, whether that person has homosexual desires or heterosexual desires. When our desires rule over us, then we will chafe and rebel against God’s laws. When by God’s grace, our will is brought under His, so that we agree with Him about what is right and wrong, His law is sweet as the honeycomb and a light to our path.

Realizing these "God's laws" are written, printed, distributed, and interpreted by humans indicates human values more than "God values".

The Bible can be read any way—if one ignores the words and contexts and judges the Bible by an outside autonomous standard.

Fair 'nuff. I agree my take may be "off". I contend it is the power of human reasoning that should rule the day. As such, this human considers it quite unreasonable to condemn folks because they love within their own sex.

The Bible says “do unto others� is the second greatest commandment and is like unto the first greatest, which is “love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind...�

I see where this would conflict with our topic. I fall back to using our "god-given" reasoning to sort it out.

In the Christian worldview, God did create all of humanity in His image and put His law in our hearts, but since the fall, because of our sin, we have scattered from Him and so lost our “family� status. Because God is loving, He has provided a Way (Christ) back to Him, so that we can call Him and all who are with Him “family.� That’s the gospel.

I never understood how all of humanity would be punished for the sins of a few.

[micatala]

gentle dove,
Your assertion that the Ten Commandments have primacy as "moral law" is a Christian invention.
Judaism does not elevate the Ten Commandments above Torah in general.
You also invent another legal fiction: "ceremonial law". Such a concept would only exist because Christians want to disassociate themselves from some aspect of Torah.

This is a good point. Nowhere in the law are such distinctions made. Repeatedly the text says that the Israelits must obey all of these decrees.

I was trying to show the distinctions within the law by context and word usage, including the larger context of all Scripture, because they were different and not the same, as the OP contended.

I certainly would not disagree with the notion of reading scripture with regards to the context. My point was simply that the common distinctions that many Christians make of the law into ceremonial, moral, etc., are not at all explicit in the text. Rather, my reading of the context is that it is all to be considered as part of one law, and all to be considered equally important and binding, at least for the Hebrews.


I agree, one could make one's own distinctions, and do so in any number of ways. However, I do not see that one can, based on only the OT text, make the case that some of these should be considered valid today and other's not. It seems to me, and the history of Christian discussions on this point I think bears this out, that one can only make distinctions on the applicability of these laws by bringing in subsequent theological developments, including but not necessarily limited to, the writing of the NT.

Secondly, I will raise one other point. I accept that it is difficult to get any support for homosexuality out of the Bible. However, I will note that the Bible allows for believers to reach their own conclusions, either individually or as a group, with regards to what is sinful.

One passage is in Acts Chapter 15, where James and the other Apostles decide Gentiles need not follow the Mosaic law, except for those on sexual immorality and a couple of dietary issues. Now, you could say "See, the Apostles say the sexual laws are still in effect!" and this is a valid point.

On the other hand, there is some ambiguity on what "sexual immorality" means.

More importantly, if it is OK for the Apostles to make such a decision and consider it relevant for all Gentile believers, why should Christians today not take the same freedom that the Apostles took? Does the Bible really support the notion that once these original followers died, no other changes in doctrine could be made?

The Apostles were doing just what I was attempting to do, debating and consulting the law in the light of the gospel to discern the distinctions between Mosaic laws of separation which were no longer in effect and Mosaic moral laws which are still in effect, even after the coming of Christ.

There were men, ex-Pharisees, who came down from Judea and were teaching Christians in Jerusalem that Gentile believers in Christ must be circumcised and follow certain other laws of Moses in order to be eligible for salvation in Christ.

The conclusion after much debate was that circumcision was not necessary for Gentile Christians, but because these Christians were coming out of pagan idolatry and not from a Hebrew background of Biblical morality, the laws prohibiting using things used in idolatry, drinking blood (including in animals that had been strangled), and fornication (ritual sex and prostitution was common in idol worship) were upheld and emphasized because of the immorality of idolatry (and fornication). Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapters 8, 9, and 10, explains more about eating meat sacrificed to idols. This seems to me like a good discussion of this issue:
http://www.thefaithfulword.org/acts15copy.html

I largely agree with your description of the Apostles actions and there rationale here. However, I would raise a couple of points from the website you allude to and also bring back another larger point I was making that has not been addressed.

And how was this critical debate finally resolved? Peter, the apostle to the Jews, stood up and reminded the audience, comprised of Jews, Gentiles, apostles, and ex-Pharisees, that God Himself had sent him to the Gentiles. Peter reminded them that this was God’s own choice (v.7) and not that of Peter because Peter did not want to go. Peter reminded the congregation that God poured out His Holy Spirit on these uncircumcised Gentiles, saving them and cleansing their hearts. That God chose the Gentiles for salvation, even though they were uncircumcised, was an eloquent argument that Gentiles not only could be saved without circumcision or the Law, but had already been saved.

The case is being made (and is reiterated later) that the Apostles decision and the subsequent letter they sent is to be considered the word of God, not the word of the Apostles. Leaving aside whether this assertion is true or not, I would remind everyone that the law of MOses was also very explicitly given as the Word of God to the Israelites. Thus, those who were insisting on circumcision for the Gentiles would seem to have as good a case for their position as Paul did for his, and they would also have the weight of hundreds of years of tradition of following this law behind them. They would have every reason to consider Paul's position a novel, radical, and unjustified change, just as those who oppose a change in policy or thinking regarding homosexuals consider these changes novel, radical, and unjustified.

Later, the website says:

To make matters even more perplexing, Paul later writes to both the Romans and to the Corinthians that the first prohibition is not really all that binding or essential. He literally tells the Christians in those churches that eating meat sacrificed to idols is acceptable because idols are not real gods. If the prohibition in the Acts 15 letter was a genuine prophecy regarding the essentials of salvation, how could Paul simply contradict that commandment by instructing both Rome and Corinth that they must allow their members to eat meat sacrificed to idols because it is in fact just a Christian liberty? By definition, a liberty is not an "essential".

One Prohibition, Not Four

But these "essential abstainances " were not references to fragments of the Mosaic Law at all. This short list of things to avoid were the very essentials that divided believing Gentile from unbelieving Gentile. They divided Christian from idolater.

Each of these four "essential" things to avoid were not four things, but one. They were meant to be read as "never again worship idols by eating with the idolaters in the sacrificial meals, drinking the cup of blood at the idol sacrifice ceremonies, do not ceremoniously eat the flesh of animals strangled during the worship of idols, and abstain from ritual acts of fornication with temple prostitutes".

In other words, these four seemingly disassociated prohibitions were completely unified around one theme: Christians cannot serve God and idols. One cannot worship God and also worship idols.

Thus, the website on the one hand seems to be saying these four prohibitions are from God and not men, and they are essential, and yet Paul writes that at least one of these is NOT essential.

Leaving that aside, however, I will note that I absolutely agree with the larger point that the central issue here is idolatry. I will note that that is ALSO the central issue in Romans chapter one.

Now, if Paul is willing to put aside that narrow rule regarding meat as long as the larger issue of idolatry is dealt with, why would we not do the same with homosexality? Once could make the case that the exact same rationale applies to this issue as well, especially as even the OT discussion of "homosexuality" are ALSO nearly all in the context of idolatrous worship? To not do so seems to me to reflect a huge inconsistency. I have a hard time not seeing that homosexuality is being singled out for other reasons that have nothing to do with worshipping God, or sin, or reasonable Biblical interpretation.

Certainly there are many gays today who are also Christian. I personally know spirit filled gay people who are committed Christians and produce good fruit for the church. Even many of those who aren't are not in any way engaged in idolatrous worship. If idolatry is the central issue, why are some in the church continuing to ignore this fact and engage in blanket condemnations of all things homosexual?



Secondly, the point that I don't believe has been addressed is my contention that Acts 15 need not be considered a one time event, but could be considered a precedent or model for Christians in reaching decisions about doctrinal controversies. Note that they reached a decision different than the mainstream doctrinal authorities of their day, and that some of their rationale had to do with new knowledge and new situations that were arguably not present when the original law was given.


Do these features not present themselves today? Do we not have much more knowledge regarding both homosexuality and theology today than at the time of the Apostles? Are there not situations that exist in today's world that are different than the time of the Apostles? If they took such matters into consideration then, why should we not do so now?


Again, the type of idolatry common in Apostolic times is largely not present today. Homosexuality today is not associated with idolatrous practices as it was in there day, just as certain practices with meat are also not relevant today. Should we not do as the Apostle did and consider doctrinal issues from today's situation, just as the Apostles considered their doctrinal controversies from theiry day's situation?

Keep in mind also that later Christians HAVE felt free to change doctrine. Paul said women should be silent in church. What christian churches follow Pauls teaching on this today? Paul said women should not cut their hair. What church holds this as doctrine today?

It seems to me that the doctrines have not changed; rather Christian practice of and obedience to those doctrines have changed (or returned back to early church practices, as Paul probably wouldn’t have needed to say those things, if Christians had already been obeying them).

Can you point me to any church where they still hold to the doctrine that women should not be allowed to speak or teach in church? How many denominations include such a doctrine? Yes, I understand that some individual Christians and even whole churches might engage in practices different than the doctrines they nominally subscribe to, but I don't think this is the issue. I would submit that in most churches, the doctrine HAS changed, and in fact in many cases I would suggest you could find that it was a conscious change, supported by specific arguments, just as the Apostles' change was a conscious change.

As a second passage, consider Romans 14 where the specific context is the very dietary and sabbath laws from the OT. Paul allows that each individual believer can decide if and how to follow these laws in their own conscience and in their own direct responsibility to the Lord, as long as they do not act to damage the faith of others. I would note that this issue was quite controversial in their day (as Acts ch. 15 clearly shows), just as homosexuality is today. Paul even refers to these as debatable issues, as I recall. What case can be made that Paul's discussion in Romans 14 should ONLY apply to the specific examples he cites, and not to other examples of disagreements among believers?

Paul is saying that there are people who are weak in the faith and people who are strong in the faith. The new church wasn’t sure of the status of Old Testament laws now that Christ had come. The strong brother, like Paul, was convinced that nothing which had been called unclean in the OT was unclean in itself; however, others still clung to OT dietary laws or OT clean/unclean laws or OT sabbaths and feast days.


He is not saying that being weak in faith is just as good as being strong. He is telling the stronger brother to be patient and loving toward the weaker brother and teach and disciple the weaker brother to edify him and build him up in the faith, so that he will be strong (as explained further in Rom. 15).

I agree that "strong" and "weak" in faith is definitely part of the context in Romans 14 and 15. I will note that the implication seems to be that those who are NOT insisting the old rules be followed are the ones being considered strong in faith here. I agree with the larger point that the important issue is building each other up in faith.


I would suggest that continuing to insist that homosexuality is somehow inherently sinful and should continue to be considered an abomination is not building up the faith of either gay people or the Christian community as a whole. I would suggest it is distracting the community from more important and central issues and creating unnecessary divisions within the body.

Homosexuality, or any other immorality, is not one of the debatable things listed.

Sure, it is not listed, but I would contend the items listed were meant to be illustrative of a larger principle. They are examples, not an exhaustive list.

Remember, this comes after Romans 1, where Paul again condemns homosexuality.

Again, this ignores the context of Romans 1 which is idolatry. To take Romans 1 as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality ignores this context.

And again, it also ignores the point that we arguably should be considered as free as the Apostles were to change doctrine as long as we have sufficient rationale and can point to larger BIblical and Christian principles that we are adhering to.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul does not recommend the brethren leave to conscience the man who is having sex with his father’s wife. (The law against this is in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) Because it is immoral, Paul tells them to not keep company with him or even eat with him and to put away from among themselves that wicked person (1 Cor. 5:13), unless and until the man repents of and stops his sin (1 Cor. 5:5).

A valid point. However, there are some important difdferences between this situation and a case where, say, two consenting adults who are married (or willing to be married if society will allow).

First, the father's wife in this situation is committing adultery and thus violating her oath to her husband. The father here is a victim of the sin of others. In the case of a gay marriage, there are no other victims.

Secondly, I would suggest that this whole discussion is in the context of believers who have voluntarily agreed, probably explicitly but at least implicitly, to live according to the rules of this particular church and under Paul's authority.


I have no argument with individual churches or denominations creating their own doctrines with regards to homosexuality. The issue (and maybe I should have said this up front) is that some Christians believe they can or should attempt to impose their doctrines on homosexuality on all believers, and even worse, those who are not believers.

Note that even in the ACts 15 episode, the letter goes out to churches that the Apostles somehow consider to be under their authority. It does not seem that it applies, for example, to all Jews and may not even apply to all churches or believers who consider themselves part of 'the way.'

Why do some CHristians today feel their views should be doctrine for every other Christian on the planet?

Keep in mind that the two greatest commandments are to love God and love each other. I would humbly submit that gay relationships do not inherently run afoul of either of these commandments. Rather, we should consider the biblical comments that seem to be speaking to homosexuality the same way we think of biblical teachings on dietary laws, and the treatment of women and slaves, namely as archaic teaching that reflect the limitations and prejudices of the people at the time of writing instead of an eternal doctrine direct from God.

My view would be to expect nothing more of homosexuals than we do of heterosexuals. If we allow one to marry, the other should be also. If unmarried sex is immoral for one, it is immoral for the other. Equal treatment for both.

How is it loving God to approve of what He said is abominable in His judgment? That’s being disloyal to God, not loving Him. As Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.� (Jn. 14:21).

I recognize that you’re entitled to your view, micatala; just as I am entitled to mine. If you believe the Bible is a collection of archaic teachings written by men reflecting their limitations and prejudices and is not eternal doctrine inspired by God, then, although I hope you will change your mind, I certainly can’t convince you otherwise.

[/quote]

I appreciate the respectfulness you have brought to this debate, and understand we may not reach agreement. Your analysis is certainly very thoughtful and reasonable.

To clarify, I do consider the Bible to be God-inspired and I do believe it contains many eternal truths. However, as I think the above discussion indicates, much of what is written in the Bible is addressed to particular audiences and reflects the nature of those audiences and the writers who wrote to them. I do not mean to indicate that this means we should casually ignore the parts of the Bible we personally don't like. I have attempted in my study to be very respectful of the Bible and its authors and their original intentions. I hope I have not misrepresented their views.

However, given that we can point to many examples, even from within the Bible, of not taking every word as eternally binding and applying in any and every context outside of the original one, I think it is fair to use the precedents in our own thinking concerning the Bible.

[GentleDove]

From Page 4 Post 33

It seems to me that adding our own words to the Bible to dismiss passages we may not like is really the “creative interpretation.� I don’t think it’s logical to hold that because God is one, that therefore, He sees all human beings as “one� as well…

I have since had several conversations that lead me to withdraw the claim of a god speaking to all. I was wrong and retract the statement.

Seems I was the one who got "creative"

I still prefer to disagree, but have no evidence with which to do so.

My failure to understand should not constitute an arguement

I really appreciate your graciousness, joeyknuccione.

Within the Christian worldview, God defines marriage and the lawful expression of sex. Homosexuals, of course, are allowed to marry; however, they must marry someone of the opposite sex and remain faithful (in thought and deed) to his or her spouse.

On this I will maintain my "double jeopardy" analysis. That homosexuals "can marry someone their not attracted to" does seem to absolve the law of its discrimination, but I would contend it is a useless reading to think homosexuals would marry in this fashion deliberately.

In my view, only a repentant former homosexual--someone who rejected his or her own autonomous standard and submitted to God’s (Biblical) standard--would be happy to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just to clarify, I didn’t mean to give the impression that an unrepentant homosexual should marry someone of the opposite sex; that would be disaster, in my view.

If the Bible is correct that 1) homosexuality is a sin, and 2) homosexuals are allowed to marry persons of the opposite sex, then “double jeopardy�--being “tried� for the same crime twice--does not apply.

An analogous example of something that is a sin against God and which a lot of people in this country still think is morally wrong--murder. 1) murder is a sin, and 2) former murderers are allowed to let people live. Now this really frustrates unrepentant murderers, but that doesn’t mean we should repeal all laws against murder. It “discriminates against� the unrepentant murderer, but justly so.

The Bible says “do unto others� is the second greatest commandment and is like unto the first greatest, which is “love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind...�

I see where this would conflict with our topic. I fall back to using our "god-given" reasoning to sort it out.

Reasoning (and ethics) truly is God-given, and is one of the best proofs of His existence because it couldn’t exist without Him.

In the Christian worldview, God did create all of humanity in His image and put His law in our hearts, but since the fall, because of our sin, we have scattered from Him and so lost our “family� status. Because God is loving, He has provided a Way (Christ) back to Him, so that we can call Him and all who are with Him “family.� That’s the gospel.

I never understood how all of humanity would be punished for the sins of a few.

In the Christian worldview, all human beings do sin and want to sin (disobey God’s standard and pursue their own instead). Someone might wonder, looking at Christianity, why did sin enter the human race because Adam and Eve sinned? Adam was placed by God as the head of creation, the “representative man,� so that when he sinned by rebelling against God’s word, all of creation was brought under bondage to sin. Jesus came into the world as the new “representative man� to save sinners by Himself: For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom. 5:17-19).

It may be difficult or impossible for us to understand all the “whys,� at least now, but if God is Who He says He is, as I believe, then He has a good and wise purpose in all that He ordains.

[GentleDove]

I apologize for the length of this post. Some important and complex issues were brought up, and I wanted to do justice to them, if I could.

I agree, one could make one's own distinctions, and do so in any number of ways. However, I do not see that one can, based on only the OT text, make the case that some of these should be considered valid today and other's not. It seems to me, and the history of Christian discussions on this point I think bears this out, that one can only make distinctions on the applicability of these laws by bringing in subsequent theological developments, including but not necessarily limited to, the writing of the NT.

Assuming it were true that we need the NT to interpret the OT fully and correctly, what’s wrong with that?

However, aside from my initial arguments regarding OT context and word usage, Jesus said--and Paul and other NT apostles taught--that if the Jews had understood the Law and the Prophets (the OT), then they would have understood Who He was. The Jews should have known, for example, that the sacrificial system was a mere shadow of the redemption of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. (Lk 24:27, Lk 24:44-45, Jn 1:45, Acts 24:14, Acts 28:23, Heb. 8:4-6, Heb. 10:1-3)

The case is being made (and is reiterated later) that the Apostles decision and the subsequent letter they sent is to be considered the word of God, not the word of the Apostles. Leaving aside whether this assertion is true or not, I would remind everyone that the law of MOses was also very explicitly given as the Word of God to the Israelites. Thus, those who were insisting on circumcision for the Gentiles would seem to have as good a case for their position as Paul did for his, and they would also have the weight of hundreds of years of tradition of following this law behind them. They would have every reason to consider Paul's position a novel, radical, and unjustified change, just as those who oppose a change in policy or thinking regarding homosexuals consider these changes novel, radical, and unjustified.

Yes, God can abrogate and give clarification to laws that He gave in the OT which end in Christ; and He can uphold others as still the way He wants His people to live. God revealed this, in the OT and the NT; the Apostles were not taking it upon themselves to change Biblical doctrine. Even in the OT, circumcision was not needed for salvation. For example, Abraham had faith in God and His promises and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Gen. 15:5-6, Rom. 4:3-10, Gal. 3:5-8 and 29, Jas 2:23)

In the OT, some laws the Israelites were told to teach, spread to other nations, exemplify; and other laws were told to be for Israel only to obey as part of God’s unfolding plan of salvation fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The Bible doesn’t conflate laws to be regarded by us as all the same the way you’re describing. Why do you believe from the Bible that the law against homosexuality and the law requiring circumcision are to be regarded in exactly the same way by the Israelites? Where in the New Testament does God tell us that the law against homosexuality has been abrogated with the coming of Christ?

Later, the website says:

One Prohibition, Not Four

But these "essential abstainances " were not references to fragments of the Mosaic Law at all. This short list of things to avoid were the very essentials that divided believing Gentile from unbelieving Gentile. They divided Christian from idolater.

Each of these four "essential" things to avoid were not four things, but one. They were meant to be read as "never again worship idols by eating with the idolaters in the sacrificial meals, drinking the cup of blood at the idol sacrifice ceremonies, do not ceremoniously eat the flesh of animals strangled during the worship of idols, and abstain from ritual acts of fornication with temple prostitutes".

In other words, these four seemingly disassociated prohibitions were completely unified around one theme: Christians cannot serve God and idols. One cannot worship God and also worship idols.

Thus, the website on the one hand seems to be saying these four prohibitions are from God and not men, and they are essential, and yet Paul writes that at least one of these is NOT essential.

The web site article also says: “This letter was no man-made compromise, this was the very edict of God which has become the very Word of God.� They applied the law of God to the situation; they did not apply the situation to the law of God. From my point of view, that’s the crux of the dilemma of the relationship of God’s word to everyday situations we encounter in the here-and-now.

Yes, eating meat sacrificed to idols is wrong if it is idolatry or causes someone to stumble (to lapse into idolatry out of weakness). However, Paul makes clear the meat itself is not “unclean,� and may be eaten if no one is caused to think idolatry is going on or is tempted to lapse or be confused by it.

Leaving that aside, however, I will note that I absolutely agree with the larger point that the central issue here is idolatry. I will note that that is ALSO the central issue in Romans chapter one.

Acts 15 is about new born-again Christians who were former idolaters and the “nuts and bolts� of how Gentiles and Jews were going to come together around the unifying Word of God. However, I don’t agree that the “central issue� in Romans 1 is idolatry. Romans 1 speaks about sin in general, and one of the sins mentioned is idolatry. But there is a moral descension being described here. Paul writes about unbelievers, who rebellious, exchanged the truth of God for the lie (that creatures shall be “like God,� able to discern what is right and wrong for themselves, if they disobey God—Gen 3:1-6), denying the God they know through created order and the law of God written on their hearts. As they rebelled more and more against God, they turned to idolatry, and God gave them over to more sin and degradation. Because of their idolatry, God gave them over to a depraved mind to commit homosexual acts and many other evil acts (Rom 1:18-31).

I don’t think idolatry is the essential issue here; the essential issue is rebellion against God and an “unrepentant heart� (Rom. 2:3-6). After listing all the sins, including idolatry, homosexuality, envy, murder, strife, deceit, etc., God says, “And although they knew the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.� (Rom. 1:32). Not only are idolatry, homosexuality, envy, murder, strife, deceit, etc. all sins; it is also a sin to approve of them. From Romans 1 we learn that at the root of idolatry, and all other sin, is obeying the dictates of our own hearts, rather than the Word of God (see also Jer. 13:10).

Now, if Paul is willing to put aside that narrow rule regarding meat as long as the larger issue of idolatry is dealt with, why would we not do the same with homosexality? Once could make the case that the exact same rationale applies to this issue as well, especially as even the OT discussion of "homosexuality" are ALSO nearly all in the context of idolatrous worship? To not do so seems to me to reflect a huge inconsistency. I have a hard time not seeing that homosexuality is being singled out for other reasons that have nothing to do with worshipping God, or sin, or reasonable Biblical interpretation.

We cannot do the same with homosexuality because God has not said we may. The meat sacrificed to idols is not inherently evil; however, the Bible makes clear that homosexuality is inherently evil, whether that homosexuality accompanies idolatry or not. Homosexuality in the Bible is not a sin because it’s associated with idolatry. Homosexuality is a sin in its own right, just like all the other sins listed in Romans 1:31.

Certainly there are many gays today who are also Christian.

I’m not at all certain that there are unrepentant “gays� who are Christian. Christians, by the grace of God alone, recognize in themselves and repent of that which God calls sin.

I personally know spirit filled gay people who are committed Christians and produce good fruit for the church.

How do you know they are Spirit-filled? Spirit-filled people repent of what God calls sin.

Even many of those who aren't are not in any way engaged in idolatrous worship. If idolatry is the central issue, why are some in the church continuing to ignore this fact and engage in blanket condemnations of all things homosexual?

I don’t agree that idolatry is the central issue. The central issue is that Christians, by God’s grace, agree with Him about what He says is sin, and by His grace, we repent of it.

Secondly, the point that I don't believe has been addressed is my contention that Acts 15 need not be considered a one time event, but could be considered a precedent or model for Christians in reaching decisions about doctrinal controversies. Note that they reached a decision different than the mainstream doctrinal authorities of their day, and that some of their rationale had to do with new knowledge and new situations that were arguably not present when the original law was given.

Do these features not present themselves today? Do we not have much more knowledge regarding both homosexuality and theology today than at the time of the Apostles? Are there not situations that exist in today's world that are different than the time of the Apostles? If they took such matters into consideration then, why should we not do so now?

Again, the type of idolatry common in Apostolic times is largely not present today. Homosexuality today is not associated with idolatrous practices as it was in there day, just as certain practices with meat are also not relevant today.

I am in favor of studying and debating God’s word with other Christians, to discern how to apply God’s Word to today’s situations. I am not in favor of applying today’s situations to God’s word in order to change God’s Word to reflect the world better.

I agree that Acts 15 is a precedent or model; however, it was a model of clarifying God’s word by study and debate of the Scriptures.

The point is not that they “reached a decision different than the mainstream doctrinal authorities of their day.� The point is that they examined what the Scriptures actually said about circumcision and food and morality. What if bestiality-practicing “Christians� lobbied the church to make bestiality not a sin anymore because it made them feel bad and “condemned� when all they want to do is love their livestock? If all Christians “voted� that bestiality would be all right as long as it didn’t take place during the worship of idols, would it really be all right, in objective reality (God’s reality)? Or would it still be a sin in God’s eyes? Is the whole point of Acts 15 that Christians may now vote about what sins we have decided God should approve of now? My answer to that question is a firm no. God tells us what sin is; we do not tell God what sin is. I do not believe homosexuality is immoral because it’s “the mainstream view�; I believe homosexuality is wrong because God says it is wrong; and He says it consistently from Genesis to Revelation. Paul and the other Apostles were not discussing and debating their own personal feelings about circumcision and blood and fornication, they were debating the Word of God to discern what Scripture does and does not proscribe, in light of God’s final revelation in Jesus Christ.

Should we not do as the Apostle did and consider doctrinal issues from today's situation, just as the Apostles considered their doctrinal controversies from theiry day's situation?

Yes, absolutely we should, using the actual words of the Bible, in context, in light of the New Testament, as our guide and ultimate standard. We should re-consider today’s issues in light of Biblical doctrine, not re-consider Biblical doctrine in light of today’s issues (which are the same as yesterday’s issues, because sinful human nature has not changed and God's purity and righteousness has not changed).

Can you point me to any church where they still hold to the doctrine that women should not be allowed to speak or teach in church? How many denominations include such a doctrine? Yes, I understand that some individual Christians and even whole churches might engage in practices different than the doctrines they nominally subscribe to, but I don't think this is the issue. I would submit that in most churches, the doctrine HAS changed, and in fact in many cases I would suggest you could find that it was a conscious change, supported by specific arguments, just as the Apostles' change was a conscious change.

Again, why should it matter “how many� denominations believe a certain sin (Biblically defined) is not a sin? Christians don’t decide for themselves or vote on what is sin; and to try to do so is a usurpation of God’s authority. Lutheran Missouri Synod, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Baptist Church, and many others still uphold Biblical doctrines, including that women are not to teach men in church meetings and Bible studies. Those churches that have rejected the Bible are in open disobedience to God, and are doing what is right in their own eyes, rather than what is right in God’s eyes. Denominations do not determine doctrine; God determines the doctrine and has revealed His standard in the Bible. We cannot arbitrarily, on our own authority, vote out the laws in the Bible that we don’t like. We can disobey all we like, and suffer the cosmic consequences, but the law remains.

I agree that "strong" and "weak" in faith is definitely part of the context in Romans 14 and 15. I will note that the implication seems to be that those who are NOT insisting the old rules be followed are the ones being considered strong in faith here.

Yes, because this Biblical doctrine was clarified by Christ; not for the sake of replacing old doctrine with new doctrine. And faith in what, exactly--our own fallen inner sense of right and wrong or faith in God and His Word? Paul says build up a brother in THE faith. The faith we only know of by the Word of God and His Spirit.

I would suggest that continuing to insist that homosexuality is somehow inherently sinful and should continue to be considered an abomination is not building up the faith of either gay people or the Christian community as a whole. I would suggest it is distracting the community from more important and central issues and creating unnecessary divisions within the body.

The only way the Church will have unity is to agree that the Bible as written is the standard of doctrine, not millions of autonomous, fallen judgments, each person going his own way.

Do unrepentant homosexuals have the faith to declare with Paul “let God be true but every man a liar� (Rom. 3:4) and to refuse to “exchange the truth of God for the lie� (Rom. 1:24-25)? Do unrepentant homosexuals believe that Jesus had to die on the cross because the sin of homosexuality is so evil that it is “deserving of death�? Do they have faith that they are saved, although they have not repented of their sin? Do we tell murderers who claim to be Christian that it’s all right, go ahead and murder? Should we think of murder, bestiality, tripping blind people, adultery, and incest as the same as homosexuality, short hair on women, wearing mixed-fiber clothing, and eating shrimp? Repeal them all on God’s behalf, whether He told us to or not? I hope you would seriously consider those questions, micatala. You don’t even have to answer me if you don’t want to, but just ponder them in your heart.

Homosexuality, or any other immorality, is not one of the debatable things listed.

Sure, it is not listed, but I would contend the items listed were meant to be illustrative of a larger principle. They are examples, not an exhaustive list.

I don’t think it is a Biblical principle to change the word of God to suit changing times or issues. I believe Acts 15 is about clarifying God’s word by further revelation of God, not changing God’s word.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul does not recommend the brethren leave to conscience the man who is having sex with his father’s wife. (The law against this is in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) Because it is immoral, Paul tells them to not keep company with him or even eat with him and to put away from among themselves that wicked person (1 Cor. 5:13), unless and until the man repents of and stops his sin (1 Cor. 5:5).

A valid point. However, there are some important difdferences between this situation and a case where, say, two consenting adults who are married (or willing to be married if society will allow).

Why would a Christian advocate that “society� allow what God has forbidden?

First, the father's wife in this situation is committing adultery and thus violating her oath to her husband. The father here is a victim of the sin of others. In the case of a gay marriage, there are no other victims.

I don’t believe that sin is a sin because in my estimation someone has been victimized. A sin is wrong because it is a repudiation of God’s holiness and righteousness, which He lets us know by telling us in the Bible what sin is.

For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge. (Ps. 51:3-4)

Secondly, I would suggest that this whole discussion is in the context of believers who have voluntarily agreed, probably explicitly but at least implicitly, to live according to the rules of this particular church and under Paul's authority.

Yes, believers voluntarily, but by the grace of God, agree and submit to church authority, according to Biblical command and exhortation.

I have no argument with individual churches or denominations creating their own doctrines with regards to homosexuality. The issue (and maybe I should have said this up front) is that some Christians believe they can or should attempt to impose their doctrines on homosexuality on all believers, and even worse, those who are not believers.
Note that even in the ACts 15 episode, the letter goes out to churches that the Apostles somehow consider to be under their authority. It does not seem that it applies, for example, to all Jews and may not even apply to all churches or believers who consider themselves part of 'the way.'

Why do some CHristians today feel their views should be doctrine for every other Christian on the planet?

Everyone argues from a bias and a network of presuppositional beliefs, unproven by natural science (even naturalistic atheists), called a worldview, through which he interprets facts and evidence. Everyone has the “burden of proof� for his or her worldview. Each and every person—not just “some Christians"--is trying to “impose� his doctrines on everyone else. Are you not also here arguing that I should accept that homosexuality is the same as eating shrimp? The question is, will we achieve unity and truth by each, willingly and by God’s grace, submitting his personal doctrines to God’s word as written in the Bible or by each following his own arbitrary concepts of right and wrong into relativistic anarchy?

I have nothing against homosexuals; I’m a sinner just like they are. It’s only by the grace of God that I’ve repented of my sins and still do daily. It’s only by the grace of God I’m saved, and I pray that God will open the hearts of all who practice and approve of sin against God that they may repent and be saved as well.

I appreciate the respectfulness you have brought to this debate, and understand we may not reach agreement. Your analysis is certainly very thoughtful and reasonable.

Thank you; I also appreciate your respectfulness, thoughtfulness, and willingness to debate about truly important issues.

To clarify, I do consider the Bible to be God-inspired and I do believe it contains many eternal truths. However, as I think the above discussion indicates, much of what is written in the Bible is addressed to particular audiences and reflects the nature of those audiences and the writers who wrote to them. I do not mean to indicate that this means we should casually ignore the parts of the Bible we personally don't like. I have attempted in my study to be very respectful of the Bible and its authors and their original intentions. I hope I have not misrepresented their views.

However, given that we can point to many examples, even from within the Bible, of not taking every word as eternally binding and applying in any and every context outside of the original one, I think it is fair to use the precedents in our own thinking concerning the Bible.

Yes, but take as eternally binding what the Bible says is eternally binding, and not take as eternally binding what the Bible says is not eternally binding.

How do you decide what is and is not truly the inspired word of God? The good or bad feelings you have about certain passages? What makes sense and seems reasonable to you by some internal standard of your own judgment? What if a portion, or all the portions, of the Bible which you now think is not inspired (written by culture-bound men only) actually is the inspired word of God? Or do you believe your internal standard is infallible?

Is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 one of the inspired passages, by your standard?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Why or why not? By what standard, external to the Bible, may a Christian judge the Bible? As Christians, we must be careful that our standard is not the dictates of our own hearts; but rather is the Word of God.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 4 Post 37

Firstly let me admit the Bible does declare homosexuality an abomination, I just challenge whether it is correct in attributing this notion to the proposed God. Also, I may be arguing a position that GentleDove is not overtly for or against.

If the Bible is correct that 1) homosexuality is a sin, and 2) homosexuals are allowed to marry persons of the opposite sex, then “double jeopardy�--being “tried� for the same crime twice--does not apply.

I'll accept that as well, with the caveat of the inability of the Bible to show these are the actual wishes of God.

An analogous example of something that is a sin against God and which a lot of people in this country still think is morally wrong--murder. 1) murder is a sin, and 2) former murderers are allowed to let people live. Now this really frustrates unrepentant murderers, but that doesn’t mean we should repeal all laws against murder. It “discriminates against� the unrepentant murderer, but justly so.

Here though there is a clear victim. In the case of otherwise "legit" homosexuality, we have two (or more ) consenting adults. This is what plagues me about religious arguments against homosexuality. I personally am not one who seeks male sex, but surely if someone does that should be their own business. And as the government is in the business of handing out marriage licenses, surely it should be required to accept any two (or more) folks who wish to declare their love for one another.

I see where this would conflict with our topic. I fall back to using our "god-given" reasoning to sort it out.

Reasoning (and ethics) truly is God-given, and is one of the best proofs of His existence because it couldn’t exist without Him.

Notice my use of quotation marks around "god-given"; I don't claim this is actually the case.
I think one would be hard pressed to show God is actually involved in any processes here on Earth.

In the Christian worldview, all human beings do sin and want to sin (disobey God’s standard and pursue their own instead). Someone might wonder, looking at Christianity, why did sin enter the human race because Adam and Eve sinned? Adam was placed by God as the head of creation, the “representative man,� so that when he sinned by rebelling against God’s word, all of creation was brought under bondage to sin.

I will accept an otherwise theological take on the issue of sin.
What I can't do is see where any evidence shows a God is pleased, mad, or otherwise concerned about human activity.

It may be difficult or impossible for us to understand all the “whys,� at least now, but if God is Who He says He is, as I believe, then He has a good and wise purpose in all that He ordains.

I agree, He's God and all and I won't question that. What I do question is the lack of evidence.

In the face of this lack of evidence, I turn back to the OP and consider the subject to be humans placing their own opinions on a god they can't show exists.

[MagusYanam]

Within the Christian worldview, God defines marriage and the lawful expression of sex. Homosexuals, of course, are allowed to marry; however, they must marry someone of the opposite sex and remain faithful (in thought and deed) to his or her spouse. If someone does not marry, they must still remain chaste, whether that person has homosexual desires or heterosexual desires. When our desires rule over us, then we will chafe and rebel against God’s laws.

I'm sorry, GentleDove, but this is not the Christian view of marriage. This smacks more of the worldview of the Sadducees who challenge Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, who are told by Jesus that they are 'quite wrong' (Mark 12:27). The Sadducees thought of marriage in these legalistic Levirate terms (posing the problem of the woman's chastity and to whom she should belong as wife) and used it to argue against Jesus' project of overturning the dominant social order of his time.

Jesus' concept of marriage is between two people, not belonging to a patriarchal Levirate system of dominance and submission, but equals before God - 'like angels in heaven' (Mark 12:25). Patriarchal 'protection' of chastity-until-marriage or the continuance of purity codes which benefit the socially-privileged do not figure into the ethics of the kingdom of God.

The Christian ethical attitude toward marriage cannot be obsessed with crude legalistic forms; it should be concerned first with content. Formal sanctification in marriage is not as important as the love, equality, respect and faithfulness which should be in the relationship to begin with. If there is a Christian (i.e., Greek-scriptural) argument to be made against homosexuality, it would have to be one which implies an inherent inequality in the relationship.

(Indeed, when Paul refers to homosexuality - arrenokoites - it is in the specific Roman-Imperial social context of abuse of little boys by older men, which is clearly and obviously exploitative.)

I don’t believe that sin is a sin because in my estimation someone has been victimized. A sin is wrong because it is a repudiation of God’s holiness and righteousness, which He lets us know by telling us in the Bible what sin is.

Mmmm... nope. Again, that is a view of sin which is held by the scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel. 'Sin' is not just breaking the letter of the law and working on the Sabbath; 'sin' is perpetuating systems of institutional injustice through debt and purity codes which cast people out or hold them in spiritual or material bondage. What Jesus did when he healed on the Sabbath was to show that victimising the sick was a greater sin than breaking (in a strict sense) the Mosaic social norm against activity on the Sabbath.

[micatala]

I appreciate gentledove's thorough and thoughtful post, and will try to respond in detail in the near future. For now, let me address just one issue.

Everyone argues from a bias and a network of presuppositional beliefs, unproven by natural science (even naturalistic atheists), called a worldview, through which he interprets facts and evidence. Everyone has the “burden of proof� for his or her worldview. Each and every person—not just “some Christians"--is trying to “impose� his doctrines on everyone else. Are you not also here arguing that I should accept that homosexuality is the same as eating shrimp?

There is a difference between imposing a view on someone else, and attempting to persuade them to accept that view of their own free will.

There is also a difference between deciding what is moral and proper for oneself and deciding not only for oneself but for everyone else.

I am advocating that, as Christians, we should acknowledge the right of gays to decide for themselves whether their relationships are sinful or not. I am attempting to persuade you, based on the Bible, that this position is supportable from a Christian perspective. I am not trying to persuade you to personally accept that, with respect to your own actions, homosexuality be considered equivalent to eating shrimp.

I am not trying to impose my view on other churches or other Christians. I would certainly accept that each church or denomination can decide for itself what its teaching will be. I will say I am disappointed that many churches and individual Christians continue to make homosexuality an issue, and insist it is sinful in all situations. However, I will do no more than attempt to persuade others, and I do this mostly because I feel much harm is being done to gays who are or would be believers by the current positions many churches and Christians take.


In disagreements between believers in a society where everyone is free to pursue their faith according to their own consciences, "imposition of views" isn't or shouldnt be an issue.

WHere imposition IS an issue is in the legal realm, which is not really the topic of this thread. However, I will say that bans on gay marriage ARE an imposition of one view onto others, and an inappropriate one which I view as unconstitutional.

Imposition means that one person is limiting the freedom of another, or using coercive or forceful means to get them to change their behavior.

Now, a person who claims that anyone must follow their particular views in order to be considered a Christian is, in some sense, trying to impose their view on the body of Christ as a whole. WHile I find this unfortunate, those attempting this through public discourse have no standing or capacity to force others to behave or believe as they would have them and so, I would not characterize this as an "imposition" per se, even though there attempts may make some people upset or angry.

However, when they attempt to have their religious views enacted as law, then, in my view, we definitely do have an imposition and a major problem. Even if one accepts that homosexuality is an abomination to God, this is a religious belief and so enacting it into law in a country where we have freedom of religion is entirely inappropriate.

Having a majority impose their religious view on gays is just as bad as if a majority of Catholics in a given location passed laws against eating fish on Fridays during lent, or Baptists requiring everyone to undergo water baptism, or evangelicals requiring everyone to pay a 10% tithe to a church.

However, the legal discussion is really for another thread. In this one, I'll continue to stick to making the case that it is not necessary for Christians to consider homosexuality an abomination, and will address the issues you raised in your last post.

[GentleDove]

From Page 4 Post 37
Firstly let me admit the Bible does declare homosexuality an abomination, I just challenge whether it is correct in attributing this notion to the proposed God. Also, I may be arguing a position that GentleDove is not overtly for or against.

The Bible says it’s the Word of God; but if you presuppose that the Bible is not the Word of God, then you wouldn’t take it on its own authority. I believe the Biblical worldview comports with reason and reality; whereas I think other worldviews are lacking.

An analogous example of something that is a sin against God and which a lot of people in this country still think is morally wrong--murder. 1) murder is a sin, and 2) former murderers are allowed to let people live. Now this really frustrates unrepentant murderers, but that doesn’t mean we should repeal all laws against murder. It “discriminates against� the unrepentant murderer, but justly so.

Here though there is a clear victim. In the case of otherwise "legit" homosexuality, we have two (or more ) consenting adults. This is what plagues me about religious arguments against homosexuality. I personally am not one who seeks male sex, but surely if someone does that should be their own business. And as the government is in the business of handing out marriage licenses, surely it should be required to accept any two (or more) folks who wish to declare their love for one another.

As I stated in another post, I don’t believe that sin is a sin because in my estimation someone has been victimized. A sin is wrong because it is a repudiation of God’s holiness and righteousness, which He lets us know by telling us in the Bible what sin is.

Governments, right or wrong, may hand out marriage licenses, but only God has the right to declare what marriage is, as Creator and King.

Consider the contrary. Why should governments hand out licenses at all if anyone can marry anyone (or anything, for that matter)? Why shouldn’t three women and a 5 year old boy marry a Doberman pincer? Why shouldn’t a person marry and divorce different people and things 102 times in her lifetime, having children with 60 different men, and then marrying 20 of her own children? Why shouldn’t a 52 year old man keep a harem of 6,000 8 year old girls? Then you have all the millions of different defintions of "marriage" to contend with. If one rejects the Biblical God, that person has no basis at all for saying anything is universally unethical, or sinful.

I see where this would conflict with our topic. I fall back to using our "god-given" reasoning to sort it out.

Reasoning (and ethics) truly is God-given, and is one of the best proofs of His existence because it couldn’t exist without Him.

Notice my use of quotation marks around "god-given"; I don't claim this is actually the case.
I think one would be hard pressed to show God is actually involved in any processes here on Earth.

Because if He weren’t, there would be chaos. God's law, written in the Bible and in our hearts, works as a restraint against evil. The further we, as a society, move away from His law, the more evil our society becomes.

In the Christian worldview, all human beings do sin and want to sin (disobey God’s standard and pursue their own instead). Someone might wonder, looking at Christianity, why did sin enter the human race because Adam and Eve sinned? Adam was placed by God as the head of creation, the “representative man,� so that when he sinned by rebelling against God’s word, all of creation was brought under bondage to sin.

I will accept an otherwise theological take on the issue of sin.
What I can't do is see where any evidence shows a God is pleased, mad, or otherwise concerned about human activity.

There is evidence; for example, the historical evidence of the Bible; however, if you rule this out, a priori, as constituting evidence, then you won’t see it as being evidence.