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 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?

[brunumb]

A male reaches sexual peek at what? about 17. A female at 40 something? So sexual maturity isn't really a significant factor, is it?

Where did you get those figures? Males and females reach sexual maturity roughly between the ages of 10 and 20. The optimum age for women to have a baby is before they are 30. So, what exactly do you mean when you refer to sexual peak?

[DavidLeon]

A male reaches sexual peek at what? about 17. A female at 40 something? So sexual maturity isn't really a significant factor, is it?

Where did you get those figures? Males and females reach sexual maturity roughly between the ages of 10 and 20. The optimum age for women to have a baby is before they are 30. So, what exactly do you mean when you refer to sexual peak?

The other day my sister brought over a Netflix DVD she wanted me to watch. It wasn't a video nasty (The Young Ones reference), but I didn't want to watch the thing. She kept asking me where's the VCR? She meant DVD player but she kept saying VCR. She said it like three times and finally I said "It's in the closet next to the lava lamp, granny." She realized what she was saying and we had a laugh.

What was I talking about? Oh, right. Sex and stupid people. Listen, I'm 53 years of age! I can't be expected to remember things accurately or get facts right all the time. I think the statistics above labelled sexual maturity were meant to reflect sexual peek. 17 for male and 40 something for female's what I got on the tele, but I can't remember the morning program or comedy series. I always thought that was odd, because what a mismatch, right?

Sometimes, when a feller gets to a certain age, they ought to be allowed to meander about mumbling to themselves incoherently, don't you think?

[brunumb]

Sometimes, when a feller gets to a certain age, they ought to be allowed to meander about mumbling to themselves incoherently, don't you think?

Not when it means their whole argument turns into a meandering, mumbling incoherence.

[Mithrae]

I think the statistics above labelled sexual maturity were meant to reflect sexual peek. 17 for male and 40 something for female's what I got on the tele, but I can't remember the morning program or comedy series. I always thought that was odd, because what a mismatch, right?

Sure you don't mean 30 something for women? That's what I'd heard: But there's probably a huge cultural impact on when people feel their randiest (or if they permit themselves to feel randy at all).

• https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... s-age.html
  
  Dr Nikki Goldstein, from Sydney, told FEMAIL that there is a sweet spot that everyone hits when it comes to their libido, which relies heavily on their relationship, work and family life. 
  
  'The best age range is your late 20s to your mid 30s and it's the same for both men and women,' Dr Goldstein said.  
  
  Previous studies have found that men peak sexually at the age of 19, while women have to wait until they're 31. 

[Miles]

"Recent research proves both males and females are capable of sexual activity and response in their teenage years. According to a 2010 study, most Americans engage in oral or vaginal sex by their early 20s. Data from 2015 shows that nearly half of women under the age of 35 reached orgasm via masturbation by age 15.

However, the idea that females reach their sexual peak later than males persists—although there’s some evidence to suggest this myth is losing power. Older women and men are much more likely to believe there’s a decade-wide gap between peak sexual performance of males and females. Younger adults don’t believe there’s a big gap.

Women (and men) in their 20s typically have sex more frequently than people in their 40s and beyond. But for women, “sexual peak” is often associated with sexual satisfaction, which tends to increase with age as people (and their partners) become more familiar with their bodies and confident in their desires.

Interestingly, sexual dysfunction in women tends to decline as they age. And once the fear of unintended pregnancy is gone (thank you, menopause!) some women enjoy sex in a way they didn’t when they were younger."
source


That said, we have this:

"According to new research, the age at which women have their most fulfilling sex is 36.

The study, commissioned by contraceptive app Natural Cycle asked 2,600 women about their experience of orgasms, feelings of attractiveness and how much they enjoyed sex.

Their answers were analysed by age which was split into three groups: younger (below 23), middle (23-35) and older (36 and over).

The answers proved promising for the oldest age group who answered that they were the most confident in their skin with 8 out of 10 saying they felt sexy. They also scored highest when it came to climaxing with nearly 6 out of 10 reporting more frequent and better orgasms.

Only 4 out of 10 women in the middle group said they were happy with their appearance while 7 out of 10 women under 23 said the same. In regard to their orgasm frequency just 5 out of 10 reported better orgasms in the younger groups of women.

When it came to sexual frequency, 86 per cent of the older age group said they had great sex over the last four weeks compared to 76 per cent in the middle group and just 56 per cent of the youngest.

Proving some things really do get better with age.
source


AND THIS:


source

[bluegreenearth]

You are certainly free to formulate your own personal interpretation and act accordingly, including the criticism of other interpretations but no one else has to provide you with anything. Including logical justification. My interpretation, for example, isn't constrained by your logical application. You don't believe in God. This is just a social issue with you, but even if you did believe in a God you could wrap up in an inconsistent warm and fuzzy sheepskin that would make no difference to my own personal interpretation. I believe spirituality to be a personal responsibility and that's why I would never be a part of any organized religion.

Opinion noted. However, the reason I lack belief in the existence of your God is not because of any social issue but because I don't find the evidence for God convincing.

It doesn't need to specifically apply to monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults. It specifically applies to homosexual relations. Period.

The text doesn't specify that it applies to all forms of homosexual relations. That is an interpretation you are placing upon it.

A reasonable conclusion but unreasonable for you to insist upon a position of judgement in the law of a God you don't believe in. Debating the possible sinful nature of homosexual relations is one thing, beyond that you have no moral recourse. The Christian congregation belongs to Christ. Jehovah is the head of Christ. Jehovah, not you or me or society decides what is lawful. The Christian congregation can break away from that, no doubt it happens more often than not, but that becomes something other than Christian.

Another opinion noted. However, I am not insisting upon a position of judgement in the law of your God but demonstrating where the ambiguous language of your God's law doesn't necessarily have to mean what you are insisting it means. Since your God doesn't appear to be interested in personally clarifying the ambiguous language of his own written law, no theist's best interpretation as to what is actually being prohibited is more valid than any other person's best interpretation. Therefore, you have no basis upon which to judge whether someone's interpretation of your God's law is breaking away from its intended meaning or not.

I believe it does have a great deal to do with it.

So, why does the child experience physical and psychological harm in the case of pederasty and pedophilia in our culture in the current stream of time when that wasn't the case, say, for example, with the Catamites mentioned earlier prohibited in Deuteronomy. Or the Greeks, Romans, Native American and other societies in the past that employed those sort of sexual arrangements. For that matter, what harm would Mary have experienced being, as was the custom, a young maid of 14 or 15 years old married to Joseph at probably around 32 years old?

It sounds to me as if you are imposing your social mores upon others. A male reaches sexual peek at what? about 17. A female at 40 something? So sexual maturity isn't really a significant factor, is it? Perhaps the cultural significance of Mary and Joseph would be that the father establishes himself in order to care for the mother and their children. The importance of higher education wouldn't have been a factor then but it would now. I live in the same world and time as you. So we formulate these various norms and explain them logically, and we are affected by them but have to use caution when trying to enforce those over a broad spectrum. Just look at the social acceptance flipping upside down in the cases of a homosexual and a housewife in just the last 50 years.

So you prohibit sexual consent of the sexually mature and in a relatively short period of time homosexuality goes from socially repugnant to the point of almost being unheard of in polite society to parades in the street and television icons celebrated for demonstrative public relation stunts. In just 50 years. Repugnant to celebrated. It doesn't take a genius to see the progress. But it's selective. Can the primitive sex religions with their temple pederasts be considered as more advanced sexually than we? Promiscuous America: Smart, secular and somewhat less happy


Racial, Sexual, Ethical etc. Diversity Necessary?



Power And Corrupt Discipline - You Can't Train People Out Of Unconscious Bias

Honestly, I can't make neither heads nor tails from your comments above. Your thought process is rather confusing and difficult to follow.

[DavidLeon]

Opinion noted. However, the reason I lack belief in the existence of your God is not because of any social issue but because I don't find the evidence for God convincing.

I'm not referring to your lack of belief in God. To me that is almost totally irrelevant. Your sociopolitical bias has very little to do with any God and that is where you are coming from in my opinion. The developed world as I see it consists primarily of normal people. From the very poor to the very rich and everyone in between. These people live in relatively small bubbles where they aren't really effected by anything around them. Their lives consist of work, paying bills, having dinner with friends on occasion and material objects with very little meaning. They may wonder about strange temporal events played out on the world's stage which they see magnified in the mainstream media but generally those events don't make any real impact on their bubbles.

Then there's people like you and me. Relatively few of us. Socially and politically ... bothered, for a lack of a better term. Unlike the bubble people we see things distorted in a fractured mirror representing either the past (quixotic; idealistic to an impractical degree; religious) or the future (mundane; irreligious, secular science). The thing is that the past and the future doesn't exist, so we reflect bits and pieces through the smokey ruins of time from either questionable perceptions of the past or Utopian visions of the future into a sort of disjointed critique of the present system in which we reside.

Our struggle together use God and Science as a barometer for either what has gone wrong or what could go right. the majority of Christians and Atheists, by far, are disinterested and removed from this struggle in vanity. The smokescreen.

It doesn't need to specifically apply to monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults. It specifically applies to homosexual relations. Period.

The text doesn't specify that it applies to all forms of homosexual relations. That is an interpretation you are placing upon it.

There is nothing there about temple prostitutes and homosexual promiscuity. Only nonspecific unnatural homosexual relations. You are reading your interpretation of the world at the time, which is accurate but irrelevant, into the text in order to establish a specific prohibition against a darker side of a lifestyle. I've lived that lifestyle. Most of the homosexuals I encountered in gay bars and roadside hot spots were married men whose wives had no idea their husbands were out there on a regular basis having unprotected sex with other men. Lasting monogamous homosexual relationships between two loving adults, as nice as it sounds, are exceedingly rare.



But that isn't even what we are debating. We are debating whether or not homosexual relations is a sin. That, as I've answered early on in the thread, is subjective. To God, yes. To Christians, yes. To some others, no. What is very wrong, in my opinion, is the self proclaimed Christian moral police of the globe. There isn't anything right about that. They have no business imposing their questionable morality on the societies in which they live. That isn't a Christian practice. Being apolitical I have only an opinion on the matter. Again, this is a small but vocal group, which the militant atheists oppose. It's about sociopolitical frustration not God or the Bible. None of these people care about God or the Bible in any real sense.

Another opinion noted. However, I am not insisting upon a position of judgement in the law of your God but demonstrating where the ambiguous language of your God's law doesn't necessarily have to mean what you are insisting it means.

You project the ambiguous language for the sake of your own power. You are playing God.

Since your God doesn't appear to be interested in personally clarifying the ambiguous language of his own written law, no theist's best interpretation as to what is actually being prohibited is more valid than any other person's best interpretation. Therefore, you have no basis upon which to judge whether someone's interpretation of your God's law is breaking away from its intended meaning or not.

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 believe it does have a great deal to do with it.

So, why does the child experience physical and psychological harm in the case of pederasty and pedophilia in our culture in the current stream of time when that wasn't the case, say, for example, with the Catamites mentioned earlier prohibited in Deuteronomy. Or the Greeks, Romans, Native American and other societies in the past that employed those sort of sexual arrangements. For that matter, what harm would Mary have experienced being, as was the custom, a young maid of 14 or 15 years old married to Joseph at probably around 32 years old?

It sounds to me as if you are imposing your social mores upon others. A male reaches sexual peek at what? about 17. A female at 40 something? So sexual maturity isn't really a significant factor, is it? Perhaps the cultural significance of Mary and Joseph would be that the father establishes himself in order to care for the mother and their children. The importance of higher education wouldn't have been a factor then but it would now. I live in the same world and time as you. So we formulate these various norms and explain them logically, and we are affected by them but have to use caution when trying to enforce those over a broad spectrum. Just look at the social acceptance flipping upside down in the cases of a homosexual and a housewife in just the last 50 years.

So you prohibit sexual consent of the sexually mature and in a relatively short period of time homosexuality goes from socially repugnant to the point of almost being unheard of in polite society to parades in the street and television icons celebrated for demonstrative public relation stunts. In just 50 years. Repugnant to celebrated. It doesn't take a genius to see the progress. But it's selective. Can the primitive sex religions with their temple pederasts be considered as more advanced sexually than we? Promiscuous America: Smart, secular and somewhat less happy


Racial, Sexual, Ethical etc. Diversity Necessary?



Power And Corrupt Discipline - You Can't Train People Out Of Unconscious Bias

Honestly, I can't make neither heads nor tails from your comments above. Your thought process is rather confusing and difficult to follow.

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.

[bluegreenearth]

There is nothing there about temple prostitutes and homosexual promiscuity. Only nonspecific unnatural homosexual relations. You are reading your interpretation of the world at the time, which is accurate but irrelevant, into the text in order to establish a specific prohibition against a darker side of a lifestyle. I've lived that lifestyle. Most of the homosexuals I encountered in gay bars and roadside hot spots were married men whose wives had no idea their husbands were out there on a regular basis having unprotected sex with other men. Lasting monogamous homosexual relationships between two loving adults, as nice as it sounds, are exceedingly rare.

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.

But that isn't even what we are debating. We are debating whether or not homosexual relations is a sin. That, as I've answered early on in the thread, is subjective. To God, yes. To Christians, yes. To some others, no. What is very wrong, in my opinion, is the self proclaimed Christian moral police of the globe. There isn't anything right about that. They have no business imposing their questionable morality on the societies in which they live. That isn't a Christian practice. Being apolitical I have only an opinion on the matter. Again, this is a small but vocal group, which the militant atheists oppose. It's about sociopolitical frustration not God or the Bible. None of these people care about God or the Bible in any real sense.

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. 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.

You project the ambiguous language for the sake of your own power. You are playing God.

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?

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.

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.

[2ndRateMind]

So, that is where we differ. If you have a tendency or liking to act irrationally, that is up to you. But for an institution such as the church, charged with spreading enlightenment as widely and deeply as possible to all regardless of sexuality, to do the same is wholly unforgivable.

Unforgivable, huh? Interesting. Do you know, according to the Bible there is only one thing that is unforgivable and homosexuality isn't that one thing.

The church can do what it wants but let me ask you this. If you set up your own church and it's followers decided that something you thought was detestable was fine with them and though you prohibited it they practiced it would you have anything to do with them?

There is a difference between an erring individual and an institution that betrays it's raison d'etre.

As for setting up my own church, well, I have considered it. But not for long. I decided there are quite enough schisms, sects, denominations, cults etc within Christianity already. So the question you ask doesn't apply in reality.

But if it was meant to be a hypothetical, then I would ban nothing within the law, and that causes no harm. So it doesn't even apply hypothetically, either.

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[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?


JW