Are homosexual relations sinful?

[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 Gods 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?

[Mithrae]

....homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species.

Are you suggesting that because a behaviour can be observed in the animal kingdom, it should be considered acceptable choice for humans? If not what is your point?

Maybe reading the whole sentence would help.

And for what it's worth Bluegreenearth, it seems extremely far-fetched to see anything other than a blanket condemnation of any homosexual behaviour in that passage. It explicitly states that he's referring to those who are "inflamed with lust for one another" - not some modern idea of people with a heterosexual orientation having sex with those to whom they aren't attracted - and that it is the acts and the lusts themselves which are "shameful."

[JehovahsWitness]

....homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species.

Are you suggesting that because a behaviour can be observed in the animal kingdom, it should be considered acceptable choice for humans? If not what is your point?

Maybe reading the whole sentence would help.

Are you suggesting I did not read the whole sentence? If so how would you know this?

I do believe this is a debate forum and it is acceptable to ask for clarification. Bluegreenearth pointed out the behaviour if animals and the behaviour of homosexuals, what (s)he did not do is point out the relevance in relation to the OP of the fact that both homosexuals and animals share certain behaviours.



JW

[DavidLeon]

Actually, it is impossible to determine what Paul intended by the word "unnatural" because it could either refer to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity which would be against their nature, or it could refer to homosexual relations as misunderstood by Paul because he wasn't aware that homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species.

You are obviously an intelligent person, but you aren't being very observant. It's as if you think with some sort of blinders on. That may be the sociopolitical thing I keep bringing up. So let's look at your statement about Paul being unaware of natural occurrence among animal species. That could be a science jab, equating Paul with the primitive and dismissing the Bible as unscientific, but the point is moot. Paul may have been aware that ducks rape and dogs eat excrement and vomit but wouldn't consider those things acceptable natural human behavior. That may not be scientific from your modern day enlightened perspective but you have to see things in Paul's perspective. I'll expand on that further into my response.

The Church of England: "What Paul means by 'unnatural' is 'unnatural' to mankind in Gods creation pattern. All homosexual behaviour is a divergence from Gods creation scheme." Anthropologist Weston LaBarre called it a "frustration of one's own and others' essential biological nature." Put simply the male genitalia and the female genitalia as with other parts of the body were created for specific purposes. So, let's say someone wants to put their male genitalia in ... the salad bar. To that person it may seem natural to want to do this simply because that is what he would like to do. He may even be quite aware that that sort of thing is considered "unnatural" in his society, but not to him. It isn't the way the creator intended it. (Romans 1:26-27; 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 1:7, 10) Now you don't believe in a creator so your perspective of what is "natural" may differ, but you have to allow for someone else's perspective. Again, I will expand on that further into my response, but for now let's look at the Greek word Paul used for natural. Phy-si-ken.

Physis and phy-si-kos (adjective) are generally translated as "nature" and "natural," respectively. They are the makeup or constitution of something, for example, by birth, hereditary qualities with general practice and sometimes the physical urges of an organism. James 3:7: "For every species (physis, "nature") of wild beast as well as bird and creeping thing and sea creature is to be tamed and has been tamed by humankind (physei tei anthropinei, "nature belonging to the man")."

There is also a divine nature. That of God and the angels. At 2 Peter 1:4 this divine nature (physeos) is mentioned as being shared with faithful Christians. They will be "generated again," resurrected in a different body. (1 Peter 3-4; 1 Corinthians 15:36, 38, 44, 49, 51) Paul used the term "Jews by nature" at Galatians 2:15. Also see Romans 2:27.

So, for example, I'm homosexual. To me, in sense, it's only natural. I get it. At the same time it has always seemed unnatural. This due to my environment, the attitude of the society at the time I was growing up and really, just in some way knowing that it wasn't the natural scheme of things. I was different. Being aware of this, long before becoming a believer, also has to do with conscience and the law of God being written in our hearts. (Romans 2:14-15) I missed out on having a wife and children, although many homosexuals do have that, it always seemed unnatural to me for them to do that.

It's a complex issue and when it comes to your views on Christians and homosexual relations - not homosexuals themselves. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

You can't assert that God considers all forms of homosexual relations to be sinful because the supporting scripture you are referencing doesn't make that declaration.

"You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing," - (Leviticus 18:22, The New Jerusalem Bible)

A Bible student never relies on one occurrence of scripture. There are many given above. I'm sure you are aware of others. Leviticus 20:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; Genesis 19:15; Judges 19:22.

The only thing the text indicates is that Paul had a problem with the specific homosexual behavior of a particular group of people, and he was presuming his perspective was in alignment with God's perspective on the matter. Anything else people want to interpret from the text will be influenced by their personal biases.

Trust me. My own personal bias isn't inclined as such. But, since you have repeatedly insisted upon the particular reference to be of Paul's specific application to a single group, please expand upon that. What group? What group known to the Romans included male and female homosexuals as temple prostitutes? I'm not even sure, though, that that would be a good argument from your perspective. The Romans were influenced by the Greeks and they (Greeks) were a randy lot, 'eh? Just look at the Olympics. A male nude pederastfest. The prize wasn't a medal as such. All of that goes back to, well, as early as Sodom. (Joel 3:3; Jude 6, 7) Even if he was considering the specific group as you suggest that doesn't really change the context of the overall scriptural prohibition of, not only homosexuality but any unnatural use of the male / female genitalia. Oral, anal, vegetable, animal etc.

Who is more likely playing God, the people who acknowledge where there are multiple and equally plausible interpretations of a Biblical text or the people who decide for themselves what the author intended to mean?

The people who decide for themselves what the author intended to mean due only to their own selfish interest or sociopolitical bias. If you sincerely believe your interpretation is what the author intended that is one thing, the alternative is quite another.

Don't care. Why would I care? So I could win a debate? Don't care. Got the t-shirt. So I could promote my world view? I don't want my world, I look for Jehovah God's kingdom. Even if, like Moses, I don't step foot upon it's soil. It makes more sense than anything you or I could fathom. I want God's word as it is not as I see it and that is precisely opposite of what you want. So if God appeared to each of us clarifying the "ambiguous language" what good would it do you? You aren't looking for that or you would easily find it.

I'm having trouble making sense of your above comments. If God's word as it is has more than just a single interpretation that every human being can correctly understand regardless of their cultural and personal biases, then you cannot claim to have found the intended meaning of God's word.

Why not?

Acceptance of homosexuality is current. A very short time ago they weren't. This is perceived as progress but it was far more "progressive" in ancient times. The societies from the beginning of mankind's history to the present aren't really that different. To some extent they form laws to reflect their social conscience. We see things through that sort of lens, but those things shift inasmuch as they are acceptable or not. Catamites, Housewives, Homosexuals, child brides, etc. It seems logical but it's abstract. Our morality comes from God. Even if God doesn't exist. But we play around with it a great deal.

Opinion noted? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here.

We are all products of our culture. though God's law is written in our hearts we are all influenced, in a spiritual sense (Greek pneuma translated spirit meaning unseen force producing results, i.e. mental inclination, wind, breath but also subtle but powerful traditional, cultural, societal influences), by culture, tradition etc. Time and place. I think it's important to be spiritually aware. Aware of these subtle forces at work in our own thinking but also the thinking of others so as not to be so quick to judge what is abhorrent to us from some other time and place because if we had lived there and then we might not think that way. I think you are looking at the Christian perspective on homosexuality through your own time and place. So, just in my relatively short lifetime the public attitude on homosexuality has changed dramatically. But that doesn't mean that the time and place you are in constitutes some moral paradigm. You can see this by evaluating fairly other societal practices that you might think of as abhorrent. If you lived in another time and place your thinking would likely be completely different, so you recognize the subtle force moving you in what seems a logical or moral direction. So you view that as "right" and "wrong." Slavery, homosexuality, pedophilia. You can pick and choose these by trying apply logic but it's all subjective, temporal.

One who hates slavery and pedophilia and approves of homosexuality could have just as easily employed the exact opposite. This fluidity warrants caution in judgment, allowing for this.

So, for example, I decided that I want to stop my homosexual relations because they were sinful. That was an easy decision for me but it took years to implement. I went through a very dark period of sex, drugs and alcohol before I finally was able to abstain. However, at any point in that process my decision should have been respected. As a practicing homosexual or as a homosexual who no longer practices. It was my personal responsibility, and I knew that I would have to endure the consequences. I had to decided for myself that what God wanted for me was better than what I wanted for me. See my signature.

[Mithrae]

....homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species.

Are you suggesting that because a behaviour can be observed in the animal kingdom, it should be considered acceptable choice for humans? If not what is your point?

Maybe reading the whole sentence would help.

Are you suggesting I did not read the whole sentence? If so how would you know this?

I do believe this is a debate forum and it is acceptable to ask for clarification. Bluegreenearth pointed out the behaviour if animals and the behaviour of homosexuals, what (s)he did not do is point out the relevance in relation to the OP of the fact that both homosexuals and animals share certain behaviours.

Bluegreenearth wrote: "Actually, it is impossible to determine what Paul intended by the word "unnatural" because it could... refer to homosexual relations as misunderstood by Paul because he wasn't aware that homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species."

Finding a behaviour occurring naturally in most animal species shows that it is not "unnatural." That's a pretty simple sentence in the English language, as far as I can tell: Snipping a tiny part of it out of context and asking whether it's suggesting something totally different would seem to indicate that you had not read and comprehended the sentence as a whole, yes.

[JehovahsWitness]

Finding a behaviour occurring naturally in most animal species shows that it is not "unnatural."

So? So what?! We find animals that eat their young and some humans have the same compulsion, what has any of that got to do with the OP? Are you suggesting human morals should be governed by animalistic compulsion? The animal kingdom contains a number of behaviours from eating their own vomit, deliberately excreting on their newborns to killing sexual rivals. Animals follow their "natural" instincts free of any reasoning or moral restraint.... how does that fact relate to the behaviours of homosexuals?

[Mithrae]

Finding a behaviour occurring naturally in most animal species shows that it is not "unnatural."

So? So what?! We find animals that eat their young and some humans have the same compulsion, what has any of that got to do with the OP? Are you suggesting human morals should be governed by animalistic compulsion? The animal kingdom contains a number of behaviours from eating their own vomit, deliberately excreting on their newborns to killing sexual rivals. Animals follow their "natural" instincts free of any reasoning or moral restraint.... how does that fact relate to the behaviours of homosexuals?

It's just another case of failed Christian rhetoric. There's no need to get all excited about that, we should all be used to it by now. The claim that homosexuality is a choice... failed. The claim that homosexuality is harmful... failed. The claim that homosexuality is "unnatural"... failed. At least in any meaningful sense; as with the claim that homosexuality 'harms a relationship with the Hebrew deity' one can obviously try to claim that it's also unnatural in some kind of undetectable and pragmatically meaningless sense. The Church of England as quoted by DavidLeon may have used their spells of divination to discover that the real intention of the Creator was actually for everything to be heterosexual, and He just messed up a little in his creation of most if not all sexual species



Incidentally, since you mention it, there hasn't been any real discussion of the thoughts raised in the OP for many, many pages of the thread. If you were worried about that, maybe you should respond to my comments on that point in post #53 and again in post #134:

Re-reading it these years later, I think the main point of interest from the OP was not a question of particular details, but of what is 'sin' more generally: Is it a matter of a God unilaterally handing down seemingly-arbitrary commandments from the clouds (or rather, some often anonymous bronze and iron age authors claiming that they heard something from the clouds)? Is blind obedience to those commands of men what righteousness is all about?

Or is it a question of covenants, agreements, expressing or clarifying some broader coherent principle such as love for others or the 'golden rule'? Obviously if the latter, then the case for declaring loving homosexual relationships 'sinful' is tenuous at best - based on an outdated covenant for very different circumstances, to which we didn't agree - and indeed seems more often to be an unloving stance itself!

[bluegreenearth]

....homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species.

Are you suggesting that because a behaviour can be observed in the animal kingdom, it should be considered acceptable choice for humans? If not what is your point?

No. The information was provided to demonstrate where the interpretation of homosexual relations as being unnatural is not technically correct. However, the fact that it naturally occurs in the human species is enough to refute the claim without having to show where it naturally occurs in other animal species. Whether it should be acceptable or not is a different claim.

[bluegreenearth]

You are obviously an intelligent person, but you aren't being very observant. It's as if you think with some sort of blinders on. That may be the sociopolitical thing I keep bringing up. So let's look at your statement about Paul being unaware of natural occurrence among animal species. That could be a science jab, equating Paul with the primitive and dismissing the Bible as unscientific, but the point is moot. Paul may have been aware that ducks rape and dogs eat excrement and vomit but wouldn't consider those things acceptable natural human behavior. That may not be scientific from your modern day enlightened perspective but you have to see things in Paul's perspective. I'll expand on that further into my response.

The information was provided to demonstrate where the interpretation of homosexual relations as being unnatural is not technically correct. However, the fact that it naturally occurs in the human species is enough to refute the claim without having to show where it naturally occurs in other animal species. Whether it should be acceptable or not is a different claim.

The Church of England: "What Paul means by 'unnatural' is 'unnatural' to mankind in Gods creation pattern. All homosexual behaviour is a divergence from Gods creation scheme." Anthropologist Weston LaBarre called it a "frustration of one's own and others' essential biological nature." Put simply the male genitalia and the female genitalia as with other parts of the body were created for specific purposes. So, let's say someone wants to put their male genitalia in ... the salad bar. To that person it may seem natural to want to do this simply because that is what he would like to do. He may even be quite aware that that sort of thing is considered "unnatural" in his society, but not to him. It isn't the way the creator intended it. (Romans 1:26-27; 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 1:7, 10) Now you don't believe in a creator so your perspective of what is "natural" may differ, but you have to allow for someone else's perspective. Again, I will expand on that further into my response, but for now let's look at the Greek word Paul used for natural. Phy-si-ken.

Physis and phy-si-kos (adjective) are generally translated as "nature" and "natural," respectively. They are the makeup or constitution of something, for example, by birth, hereditary qualities with general practice and sometimes the physical urges of an organism. James 3:7: "For every species (physis, "nature") of wild beast as well as bird and creeping thing and sea creature is to be tamed and has been tamed by humankind (physei tei anthropinei, "nature belonging to the man")."

There is also a divine nature. That of God and the angels. At 2 Peter 1:4 this divine nature (physeos) is mentioned as being shared with faithful Christians. They will be "generated again," resurrected in a different body. (1 Peter 3-4; 1 Corinthians 15:36, 38, 44, 49, 51) Paul used the term "Jews by nature" at Galatians 2:15. Also see Romans 2:27.

So, for example, I'm homosexual. To me, in sense, it's only natural. I get it. At the same time it has always seemed unnatural. This due to my environment, the attitude of the society at the time I was growing up and really, just in some way knowing that it wasn't the natural scheme of things. I was different. Being aware of this, long before becoming a believer, also has to do with conscience and the law of God being written in our hearts. (Romans 2:14-15) I missed out on having a wife and children, although many homosexuals do have that, it always seemed unnatural to me for them to do that.

It's a complex issue and when it comes to your views on Christians and homosexual relations - not homosexuals themselves. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

I understand the distinction, but you are still making an interpretation by applying your best educated guess towards Paul's intended meaning of the word "nature" in the text. Even if your interpretation of Paul's use of language could be confirmed in some way, it doesn't follow that Paul's presumption of God's attitude towards homosexual relations is correct. Paul is merely making a fallible inference based on his own personal biases. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall the text claiming that God spoke those specific words to Paul.

"You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing," - (Leviticus 18:22, The New Jerusalem Bible)

A Bible student never relies on one occurrence of scripture. There are many given above. I'm sure you are aware of others. Leviticus 20:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; Genesis 19:15; Judges 19:22.

There are multiple equally plausible interpretations for each of those scriptures that conclude the prohibition was only in reference to a few specific types of abusive homosexual behaviors and not all forms of homosexual relations. For instance, there was a known disciplinary practice of subjecting alleged spies to homosexual intercourse as a form of punishment because for a man to be treated as though he were a woman would have been perceived as extremely humiliating in that culture. This would seem to best explain the portion of the above scripture describing the activity as "a hateful thing." However, I'm not claiming to know that this is the only correct interpretation.

Trust me. My own personal bias isn't inclined as such. But, since you have repeatedly insisted upon the particular reference to be of Paul's specific application to a single group, please expand upon that. What group? What group known to the Romans included male and female homosexuals as temple prostitutes? I'm not even sure, though, that that would be a good argument from your perspective. The Romans were influenced by the Greeks and they (Greeks) were a randy lot, 'eh? Just look at the Olympics. A male nude pederastfest. The prize wasn't a medal as such. All of that goes back to, well, as early as Sodom. (Joel 3:3; Jude 6, 7) Even if he was considering the specific group as you suggest that doesn't really change the context of the overall scriptural prohibition of, not only homosexuality but any unnatural use of the male / female genitalia. Oral, anal, vegetable, animal etc.

Although I could be mistaken, there doesn't appear to be a justifiable reason to dismiss the possibility that Paul may have been referring to the behavior of pagan idol worshipers. Here is one interpretation: https://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans- ... ution.html

The people who decide for themselves what the author intended to mean due only to their own selfish interest or sociopolitical bias. If you sincerely believe your interpretation is what the author intended that is one thing, the alternative is quite another.

Actually, I wasn't identifying with the people who decide for themselves what the author intended. That is what you appear to be doing with Paul but more because you claim to know God's intended meaning as well. I am merely demonstrating where it is often difficult or impossible to know the author's intended meaning with a high degree of confidence.

Why not?

Correction: You can make the claim but can't reasonably justify it as the only correct interpretation.

We are all products of our culture. though God's law is written in our hearts we are all influenced, in a spiritual sense (Greek pneuma translated spirit meaning unseen force producing results, i.e. mental inclination, wind, breath but also subtle but powerful traditional, cultural, societal influences), by culture, tradition etc. Time and place. I think it's important to be spiritually aware. Aware of these subtle forces at work in our own thinking but also the thinking of others so as not to be so quick to judge what is abhorrent to us from some other time and place because if we had lived there and then we might not think that way. I think you are looking at the Christian perspective on homosexuality through your own time and place. So, just in my relatively short lifetime the public attitude on homosexuality has changed dramatically. But that doesn't mean that the time and place you are in constitutes some moral paradigm. You can see this by evaluating fairly other societal practices that you might think of as abhorrent. If you lived in another time and place your thinking would likely be completely different, so you recognize the subtle force moving you in what seems a logical or moral direction. So you view that as "right" and "wrong." Slavery, homosexuality, pedophilia. You can pick and choose these by trying apply logic but it's all subjective, temporal.

One who hates slavery and pedophilia and approves of homosexuality could have just as easily employed the exact opposite. This fluidity warrants caution in judgment, allowing for this.

So, for example, I decided that I want to stop my homosexual relations because they were sinful. That was an easy decision for me but it took years to implement. I went through a very dark period of sex, drugs and alcohol before I finally was able to abstain. However, at any point in that process my decision should have been respected. As a practicing homosexual or as a homosexual who no longer practices. It was my personal responsibility, and I knew that I would have to endure the consequences. I had to decided for myself that what God wanted for me was better than what I wanted for me. See my signature.

It doesn't follow from your personal experience that, if God exists, he desires for other homosexuals to share the same perspective and experience as you throughout all time; past, present, and future. It could be logically argued that the reason the language about homosexual relations in the Bible is so ambiguous and debatable is because God intends for different people to arrive at different interpretations of the scriptures that are best suited to maximizing their well-being while maintaining a right relationship with him. After all, if Christianity is true, then whether homosexuals decides to be celibate or not should have no impact whatsoever on their ability to follow the teachings of Jesus (Jesus never expressed an opinion on the issue of homosexual relations). It is not logically or theologically impossible for God (or the Holy Spirit; whatever your theology dictates) to have guided you towards the Biblical interpretation you have because he knew that would bring about the best outcome in your individual circumstance where you would continue to loyally serve him. Meanwhile, other homosexual Christians could have been guided to a different interpretation of the scriptures that enable them to be in a monogamous same-sex relationship with someone they love because God knew the celibacy path would have ultimately led those particular individuals to reject Christianity or worse. At the same time, God could guide other celibate homosexual Christians like yourself towards their path because the other path would have ultimately led those particular individuals to reject Christianity or worse. I find no justifiable reason why this perspective would be incompatible with the central message of Christianity.

[bluegreenearth]

And for what it's worth Bluegreenearth, it seems extremely far-fetched to see anything other than a blanket condemnation of any homosexual behaviour in that passage. It explicitly states that he's referring to those who are "inflamed with lust for one another" - not some modern idea of people with a heterosexual orientation having sex with those to whom they aren't attracted - and that it is the acts and the lusts themselves which are "shameful."

That is a fair interpretation, but I will point out that those were Paul's words where he was describing his perception of the alleged activity. Whether every one of those people was actually inflamed with lust for one another or not is impossible to determine unless Paul possessed the supernatural ability to read people's minds. Since Paul was an outsider to the ritual practices of pagan idol worshipers, he could have easily and mistakenly inferred the existence of lustful motivations among the people participating in the homosexual activity. It is difficult to know with any level of confidence at this point.

[JehovahsWitness]

....homosexual relations is a natural occurrence among numerous animal species.

Are you suggesting that because a behaviour can be observed in the animal kingdom, it should be considered acceptable choice for humans? If not what is your point?

No. The information was provided to demonstrate where the interpretation of homosexual relations as being unnatural is not technically correct.

Well that would depend on what means by "unnatural". If one defines "natural" as behaviour practised by animals, then you are correct, homosexual acts come under this catagory.

Whether it should be acceptable or not is a different claim.

Indeed.





JW