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
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 #251

Post by 2ndRateMind »

brunumb wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:02 pm
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 impelled to impose their distaste on everyone else.
Good post. What bugs me about this whole debate is that the anti-homosexual brigade have no reason for their position, other than prejudice. Once we all realise that, we may start to make some social progress in this matter.

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

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9185
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #252

Post by Wootah »

2ndRateMind wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:09 am 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.
Justice is about right and wrong.

Some people love animals or children.

Reality is that sex is between a man and woman. Everything else and much actual sex is just masterbation with or by another person.

Why can't we allow homosexuality and reality?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9185
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #253

Post by Wootah »

Are Homosexual relations sinful?

Basically there is a created order and God intends children inside marriage. Therefore, sex in all forms outside of this is sinful.

The only question is Jesus', "why do you kick the goads?".

You guys know this is right. So the only question is Jesus', "why do you kick the goads?".
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

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 #254

Post by Miles »

Wootah wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:02 pm Are Homosexual relations sinful?
According to the Big Guy they certainly are. Even comes with the death penalty if you're a guy. ...Lesbians get off with a mere reprimand.

Basically there is a created order and God intends children inside marriage. Therefore, sex in all forms outside of this is sinful.
How about if children aren't the objective? Or is all intercourse suppose to be aimed toward reproduction? Can't one or two of the sessions be just a bit of the old slap and tickle?

And what of those who happen to be infertile; absolutely no sex whatsoever, ever? :shock:

.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9185
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #255

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to Miles in post #254]

Everyone is infertile until they aren't.

Part of sex is definitely to keep the man and woman close to each other - which is best for the children.

But definitionally homosexuals arent having sex, they are mutually masterbating. It's not the same thing.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

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 #256

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Wootah wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:57 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:09 am 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.
Justice is about right and wrong.
Indeed it is. And what is 'right' about allowing heterosexuals the consolation of their lovers, and denying homosexuals theirs?

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 #257

Post by 2ndRateMind »

RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [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.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

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

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 #258

Post by Miles »

2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [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.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.



.

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 #259

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [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.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.



.
Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you?

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

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 #260

Post by Miles »

2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:26 pm
2ndRateMind wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:01 am
RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:26 pm [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.
To the contrary, in Matthew 18:6 KJV Jesus says: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Best wishes, 2RM.
How about the kids who don't believe in Jesus? Because Jesus goes to the trouble to specifically single out the "little ones which believe in me" the implication is that the verse only apples to them and not to those who don't believe in him. These Jesus ignores altogether.

Indeed. But I do not think for one moment Jesus would have allowed the molestation of children who He had never met, and did not believe in Him, any more than those He had, and did. Do you?
But if all molested children are equal in his eyes then why bother to mention ONLY those "little ones which believe in me"? Nope, it's clear he did not consider the two types equal at all. One singles out A from B because there's a significant difference between the two. And that's what Jesus does in Matthew 18:6. The "little ones which believe in me" deserve mention while the "little ones which don't believe in me" do not deserve mention. Hence they are left unmentioned.

.

Post Reply