Are homosexual relations sinful?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #1

Post by Mithrae »

In Australia we're currently enduring a postal vote about gay marriage, and the Christian rhetoric which has inevitably been cropping up has reminded me of some thoughts I'd initially had back in 2006.
  • Tuesday, 9 May 2006
    It occurs to me that Christianity may very well have the wrong end of the stick in their view of God. If nothing else, surely what the old testament and the gospels teach us is that God is a covenant God. Jesus said that his blood was the blood of the new covenant; looking back, the Mosaic law is described as the old covenant; he made covenants also with Abraham and David. Perhaps we should not think of God as one who simply sits in the clouds handing out laws. Rather, he is a God who makes covenants with his people; fellowship in return for blessing. . . .

    With the people of Israel God made two covenants. The first was at Sinai, beginning with the ten commandments covering chapters 20 to 23 of Exodus. These are almost exclusively commandments of worship for God and social justice amongst the Israelites, with very little about sacrifical specifications or ritual purity. Chapter 24 describes the confirmation of this covenant and the people's agreement to abide by the terms written within the 'book of the covenant.' The second covenant was made in the lands east of the Jordan River, before Moses died and the people crossed over (Deuteronomy 29:1), and covers chapters 5 to 28 of Deuteronomy (with the earlier chapters being the preamble). Laws concerning such things as legal cases, the king, cities of refuge and warfare regulations (chapters 17 to 20) make it clear that this is essentially the constitution of the new nation of Israel.
The bible does not say that God gave any rules or commandments at all to Adam and Eve, except the bit about the tree; and similarly, Jeremiah clearly states that the new covenant to come would be "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer. 31:31). In commenting on that passage the author of Hebrews writes "In that he says, “A new covenant,� he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).

How can it be that at one time it was "sinful" to sow a field with two kinds of seed, or wear a garment made of two kinds of cloth (Leviticus 19:19), yet Christians now would almost universally consider these to be silly and outdated concepts? Why did commands like that exist in the first place? I believe they were intended to ingrain into the Israelite people the concept of their separateness from the nations around them, to reinforce and strengthen their own national identity. But then, that same kind of practical purpose seems to obviously underlie the prohibition against same-sex relations too (or the exclusion of anyone who'd suffered genital injuries in Deut. 23:1): A small nation surrounded by enemies would likely need all its people breeding to maintain its strength. Crude and even cruel though those laws may have been, at least we might be able to glean a worthy intention behind them.

But the Christian concept of "sin" as it is usually expressed seems to be utterly blind to the fact that these were part of a covenant - an agreement - between God and Israel, one which the author of Hebrews declared to be obsolete. And according to Jeremiah the new covenant is not to be found in letters of stone or ink in a book; instead "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (Jer. 31:31-34). (See also my earlier thread Did apostles think they were writing the 'word of God'?)

Likewise Paul - though he himself remained hung up on homosexuality - captures the more individual nature of the New Agreement perfectly, even as he downplays the everlasting covenant of circumcision:
  • Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. . . .
    13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.� 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.


    Romans 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’�
    12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
Have Christians got the wrong idea of "sin"?

And if the essence of God's will is simply that "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," as Paul says, isn't homosexuality one of the most obvious examples in which freedom in Christ replaces the situational rules of Israel?

An example in fact where Christian attitudes often seem to be almost the opposite of love?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #241

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:07 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #238]
Of course it is. You raised scripture from the beginning. The rest was just an attempt at rationalisation.
Miles was the one who brought up Scripture and who missed that the Bible in fact does refer to the wrongness of both men and women exchanging natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. So, I had to point it out. Otherwise, I didn’t mention Scripture. If you don’t want to read what I actually posted, don’t read it. But don’t respond with your prepared talking point pretending you read my post.
OK. So where have you demonstrated that homosexual relations between consenting adults is immoral? Would you regard adultery as also being immoral? I don't care about either being sinful as that is a matter for the religious to ponder.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #242

Post by 2ndRateMind »

brunumb wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:27 am
RightReason wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:53 pm [Replying to Miles in post #227]

Scripture is clear that it is wrong for both men and women to engage in such unnatural acts and that they would be punished for doing so.
How sad it is that some still allow themselves to be controlled by the opinions of long gone ancient, superstitious and ignorant people.
As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Surely, if it was that important, we may have expected Him to comment.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #243

Post by 2ndRateMind »

For me, it's a justice thing. Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex with those they love, but homosexuals are not? Get off reality, right there.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #244

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to brunumb in post #241]
OK. So where have you demonstrated that homosexual relations between consenting adults is immoral? Would you regard adultery as also being immoral? I don't care about either being sinful as that is a matter for the religious to ponder.
Yes, I never used the word sinful either. Adultery, just like homosexual acts, would be immoral. Like I already said, whether something is right/wrong or good/bad is something that all men can know via science, reason, logic, observation, and acknowledgment of the world we live in. We can understand the form/function/purpose of things and know what is right and ordered vs. what is disordered behavior.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #245

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #242]
As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Surely, if it was that important, we may have expected Him to comment.
Honestly, such an argument of silence is nonsense. Jesus also never said anything against child molestation.

Also, Jesus confirmed the teaching of sex between a man and a woman when he said in Matthew 19:5.

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #246

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #243]
For me, it's a justice thing. Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex with those they love, but homosexuals are not? Get off reality, right there.
Are they? What if brother likes sister? What if mom and son want to have sex? What if 23 women want to marry the same man? What if I love my dog? What if I’m a doctor who fell in love with her patient, or a teacher his student? What if I want to have sex with my married neighbor?

All of the above could be heterosexuals falling in love and yet it is frowned upon for them to “follow their heart” and rightly so. It isn’t simply about feelings. Sex and family and children are the concern of any society, which is the only reason the state even gets involved in these matters. The state would have no interest if I wanted to declare Susie as my best friend. We don’t need a contract or “rules” regarding are friendship that the state has any interest in. However due to the nature of the sexual act, we do have such restrictions regarding certain sexual behavior.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #247

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #243]
For me, it's a justice thing. Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex with those they love, but homosexuals are not? Get off reality, right there.
Are they? What if brother likes sister? What if mom and son want to have sex? What if 23 women want to marry the same man? What if I love my dog? What if I’m a doctor who fell in love with her patient, or a teacher his student? What if I want to have sex with my married neighbor?

All of the above could be heterosexuals falling in love and yet it is frowned upon for them to “follow their heart” and rightly so. It isn’t simply about feelings. Sex and family and children are the concern of any society, which is the only reason the state even gets involved in these matters. The state would have no interest if I wanted to declare Susie as my best friend. We don’t need a contract or “rules” regarding are friendship that the state has any interest in. However due to the nature of the sexual act, we do have such restrictions regarding certain sexual behavior.
If no harm is done, what possible objection can there be, and why should the state involve itself?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #248

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #247]
If no harm is done, what possible objection can there be, and why should the state involve itself?
You tell me. We have all sorts of rules/laws the government gets involved in. The reason the state has had a long vested interest in marriage was always for the protection of women and children. The nature of the sexual act has the power to bring about new life. Marriage often involves children. For these reasons society has gotten involved.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #249

Post by Miles »

RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:32 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #247]
If no harm is done, what possible objection can there be, and why should the state involve itself?
You tell me. We have all sorts of rules/laws the government gets involved in. The reason the state has had a long vested interest in marriage was always for the protection of women and children. The nature of the sexual act has the power to bring about new life. Marriage often involves children. For these reasons society has gotten involved.
So, should the state get involved with the sex life of heterosexual spinsters, bachelors, or infertile couples? How about the sex life of the young widow or widower? OR, how about asexuals? You know, those who couldn't care less about sex.

Knock! Knock!.... Whose there?.... The State Sex Police. If you're not having sex with a heterosexual we want to make sure you're not having it with anyone else..... Why? .... Because our god doesn't like such shenanigans. Besides, we're snoopy.


................................... Image


And if we don't like it, neither should anyone else.



.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #250

Post by brunumb »

RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #243]
For me, it's a justice thing. Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex with those they love, but homosexuals are not? Get off reality, right there.
Are they? What if brother likes sister? What if mom and son want to have sex? What if 23 women want to marry the same man? What if I love my dog? What if I’m a doctor who fell in love with her patient, or a teacher his student? What if I want to have sex with my married neighbor?
What if you just stuck to the issue at hand? You talk as if homosexual acts are something new and if they are allowed society will crumble into an immoral mess. People have engaged in homosexual acts for thousands of years, so have other animals for that matter, and society has flourished nevertheless.
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm All of the above could be heterosexuals falling in love and yet it is frowned upon for them to “follow their heart” and rightly so. It isn’t simply about feelings. Sex and family and children are the concern of any society, which is the only reason the state even gets involved in these matters. The state would have no interest if I wanted to declare Susie as my best friend. We don’t need a contract or “rules” regarding are friendship that the state has any interest in. However due to the nature of the sexual act, we do have such restrictions regarding certain sexual behavior.
We have restrictions regarding any behaviour they may result in harm to others. Society is waking up to the fact that homosexual acts between consenting adults should no longer be considered in that regard. Unfortunately, those with deeply entrenched religious beliefs are unable to accept that reality. There are also those who just find it 'icky' and feel compelled to impose their distaste on everyone else.
Last edited by brunumb on Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply