Debating Christianity and Religion

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?

Willum wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:00 pm [Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Man, oh, man.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Matthew 5:17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…

If he didn't expressly revoke a law...
Like sin with forgiveness.
Like adultery by allowing an adulterer to live.
Like paying tribute to man-gods.

Then obviously Jesus upheld the law.

Unless you can show where he abrogated homosexuality, looks bad for 'em.

First off, you quoted verses completely out of context. Leviticus 18 & 20 are a list of ordinances(religious laws) that God was warning the Israelites against following, but to follow His ordinances. The 1 verse you quoted would have the context of not committing the same "whoredom"(sexual idolatry) homosexually, as they were heterosexually. Romans 1 is literally Paul bringing up what is already known about the Jews(Israelites), in that they did not heed God's warning at all, and instead worshipped the idols of Canaan and sacrificed children to them(going against the nature of a woman). Those are in no way laws against "homosexuality", or any sexuality for that matter.

Lastly, Jesus said not to judge by appearances, but to make righteous judgements. So you ending that with "looks bad for 'em", is pretty hypocritical.

[Replying to ProtoGlenn in post #221]

First of all, you did not refute what was submitted, or apparently understand it.

I have male friends who have been in a committed relationship for over 30 years, They had a wedding several years ago.

They know I am Christian. They know I am their friend. I know the Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong. I just do not bring up the subject with them because I value their friendship and will not lose it. I believe it is between them and God.

We have discussed Christianity and I was interested to hear that they each grew up in the Christian faith and values. However, they both left their churches during their youth, after being rejected and treated badly. This caused them great pain but they choose to live as they feel true to themselves.

I do not know what I am supposed to do. I cannot interfere in others' lives by judging their choices. This I leave to God whom we must each face eventually.

Rose2020 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 1:50 am I have male friends who have been in a committed relationship for over 30 years, They had a wedding several years ago.

They know I am Christian. They know I am their friend. I know the Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong. I just do not bring up the subject with them because I value their friendship and will not lose it. I believe it is between them and God.

We have discussed Christianity and I was interested to hear that they each grew up in the Christian faith and values. However, they both left their churches during their youth, after being rejected and treated badly. This caused them great pain but they choose to live as they feel true to themselves.

Just to be clear here, I'm pretty sure the Bible never says homosexuality, (the romantic or sexual attraction to a member of the same sex or gender) is wrong---is a sin---only the actual practice of homosexuality; that is, a man lying with a male as with a woman, in which case they are to be killed.
Interestingly enough, women are spared this fate, and can live on as practicing homosexuals until their natural demise. Not that the Bible approves of practicing female homosexuals, or necessarily simple female homosexuals (no practicing involved), but such women are never held to as high a standard as are men. Probably the only time where misandry works in women's favor.

I do not know what I am supposed to do.

How about live and let live?

I cannot interfere in others' lives by judging their choices.

In as much as I'm certain you've already judged their choice, why would you to let your judgement interfere with them? Real friends wouldn't.

.

Miles:

Interestingly enough, women are spared this fate, and can live on as practicing homosexuals until their natural demise.

Not sure where you the the idea women are off the hook?

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” -Romans 1:26-27

[Replying to Rose2020 in post #223]

Rose2020:

I do not know what I am supposed to do. I cannot interfere in others' lives by judging their choices. This I leave to God whom we must each face eventually.

Correct. You cannot interfere. You can and should also continue to be a good friend. Of course if they bring the matter up and directly ask you what you think about their relationship, you would have to tell them that God loves them very much, but what they are doing is contrary to God’s natural law for man. They probably already realize this, which is why they left their faith in the first place. If they wanted to discuss it further with you, I would have on hand some really good books or articles that talk about the beauty of marriage, family, sex, and God’s plan for man. The Church’s teaching on marriage between a man and a woman is beautiful and should never be swept under the rug. Truth is attractive.

RightReason wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 4:01 pm Miles:

Interestingly enough, women are spared this fate, and can live on as practicing homosexuals until their natural demise.

Not sure where you the the idea women are off the hook?

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” -Romans 1:26-27

Whereas god specifically says practicing homosexual men should be killed.


He never says the same about women; that they should be killed for committing the same offense.

.

[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.

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.

Not in the Bible I use. Only men who engage in homosexual acts are said to be surely put to death. In fact, practicing homosexual women are never said to deserve any kind of punishment at all. At least not as the ESV (English Standard Version) Bible tells the story.


.

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.