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?

[DavidLeon]

Those are Paul's homophobic words describing the idolatrous practice of shrine prostitution which was a common occurrence in the area where he lived.

That makes no difference whatsoever. The believer doesn't care one bit if you think it was homophobic, Paul, not Paul, and that it's possibly describing what you say it is. Doesn't matter.

Nothing in that passage describes monogamous homosexual relations between consenting adults who have committed to love each other.

Are you suggesting that the prohibition only applies to prostitution when prostitution isn't mentioned at all? And the things mentioned in the following verses. Do the Christians need to negate those as well? Unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless?

The "them" Paul is referencing are more likely to be heterosexual couples who were engaging in homosexual activities contrary to their heterosexual "nature" as part of a pagan idol worship ceremony. Paul probably believed that, rather than interfere with those people's free will decision to worship a false god and commit adultery in the process, God simply allows those pagans to suffer what Paul perceived to be the natural consequences of behaving in ways that were contrary to their heterosexual nature. So, the prohibition could reasonably be interpreted as having more to do with Paul's homophobia (potentially as a consequence of denying his own homosexual nature as is often the case), the commandment to not worship other gods, and the commandment to not commit adultery than about the homosexual activity itself. As such, Romans 1:26-27 wouldn't apply to monogamous homosexual Christian couples.

Nonsense. If it is thought that murder is okay people would invent some convenient dismissal of murder or any other Christian prohibition. An interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:17-18 wouldn't negate pederasty simply because it's referring specifically to catamites. Because pedophilia isn't socially acceptable currently? Not relevant. One mustn't base their interpretation of scripture on wishful thinking or the politically correct.

[2ndRateMind]

Why should Christians be allowed to prohibit some practice they have no reason to prohibit? And don't tell me 'because it's in scripture'; I want to know why it's in scripture. If there is no such reason, it is no more than a prejudice. And I do not think we should allow prejudices to rule us.

By the way, I am a Christian.

We should allow Christians to be allowed to prohibit some practice, whether or not they have a reason, because that is the same as we would expect to be allowed.

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.

Best of wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

Because pedophilia isn't socially acceptable currently?

The reason paedophilia is anathema is because it causes considerable psychological harm (even tending to suicide) to those who are among the most vulnerable in our society; our children.

Nextly, I would recommend you dwell on the positive things in scripture, such as Philippians 4:8 KJV, rather than the negative things. It will do your mental health no harm at all:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any praise, think on these things."

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[Mithrae]

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!



Some comments to DavidLeon in another thread seem quite relevant here also:
Surely it's possible or even probable (assuming that God gave any commands to bronze and iron age folk in the first place) that those primitive prescriptions are a sort of Wittgenstein's ladder which humanity should at some point have matured enough to move beyond. . . . .

It's not even an unusual possibility I've raised: Even Paul said much the same thing, that the 'law of Moses' was little more than a tutor for the immature. He was writing some 1500 years of modest societal progress after the Moses character allegedly lived, and mistakenly believed that the world as he knew it was soon to end. But since then there's been another ~1700 years of modest societal progress and a few more centuries of utterly unprecedented change...

[bluegreenearth]

That makes no difference whatsoever. The believer doesn't care one bit if you think it was homophobic, Paul, not Paul, and that it's possibly describing what you say it is. Doesn't matter.

It is not a matter of the emotional impact my thoughts have on theists but a matter of whether theists can demonstrate where my proposed interpretation is false or not. If they cannot provide the evidence to disprove my interpretation, then theists have no logical justification to dismiss it.

Are you suggesting that the prohibition only applies to prostitution when prostitution isn't mentioned at all? And the things mentioned in the following verses. Do the Christians need to negate those as well? Unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless?

To be fair, monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults isn't mentioned either. As for negating anything, something has to be clearly identified in the text before anyone could suggest it be negated. So, what I'm asking theists to negate is their fallible interpretation of the text because the prohibition it describes cannot be demonstrated to apply specifically to monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults.

Nonsense. If it is thought that murder is okay people would invent some convenient dismissal of murder or any other Christian prohibition. An interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:17-18 wouldn't negate pederasty simply because it's referring specifically to catamites. Because pedophilia isn't socially acceptable currently? Not relevant. One mustn't base their interpretation of scripture on wishful thinking or the politically correct.

Your objection does not apply because it is based on unfair and false equivocations. Murder is, by definition, an unlawful killing of another human being. The most obvious reason murder is unlawful is because the victim did not consent to being killed. If someone consented to being killed and had the cognitive capability to properly comprehend the outcome of such a decision, then the act of killing that person would not necessarily be labeled as murder. Pederasty and pedophilia is justifiably prohibited because, in addition to the physical and psychological harm the child would experience, a child does not have the mature cognitive capacity to make an informed decision about sexual intercourse. The same issue of informed consent applies to the difference between adulterous homosexual relations or homosexual rape and monogamous homosexual relations. If someone in a monogamous heterosexual or homosexual relationship has heterosexual or homosexual relations with another person without consent from the partner in the relationship, then the violation of their relationship agreement is what the prohibition is supposed to discourage. So, political correctness has nothing to do with it.

[2ndRateMind]

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

So first you have to understand, my friend Mithrae, that so far as your average Christian is concerned, we are all sinners. It's just that his sins are not as bad as the sins of others.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Miles]

Your objection does not apply because it is based on unfair and false equivocations. Murder is, by definition, the wrongful killing of another human being without the victim's informed consent. If someone consented to being killed and had the cognitive capability to properly comprehend the outcome of such a decision, then the act of killing that person would not be murder. Pederasty and pedophilia is justifiably prohibited because, in addition to the physical and psychological harm the child would experience, a child does not have the mature cognitive capacity to make an informed decision about sexual intercourse. The same issue of informed consent applies to the difference between adulterous homosexual relations or homosexual rape and monogamous homosexual relations. If someone in a monogamous heterosexual or homosexual relationship has heterosexual or homosexual relations with another person without consent from the partner in the relationship, then the violation of their relationship agreement is what the prohibition is supposed to discourage. So, political correctness has nothing to do with it.

Not to be pedantic, but because it bothers me when people I enjoy reading happen to misstate facts, please keep in mind that "murder" is more than "wrongful," a word that can be read as unjust or unfair, but is an unlawful or illegal act.

.

[bluegreenearth]

Not to be pedantic, but because it bothers me when people I enjoy reading happen to misstate facts, please keep in mind that "murder" is more than "wrongful," a word that can be read as unjust or unfair, but is an unlawful or illegal act.

.

I appreciate the constructive criticism and have made the recommended changes to the post.

[DavidLeon]

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?

[DavidLeon]

That makes no difference whatsoever. The believer doesn't care one bit if you think it was homophobic, Paul, not Paul, and that it's possibly describing what you say it is. Doesn't matter.

It is not a matter of the emotional impact my thoughts have on theists but a matter of whether theists can demonstrate where my proposed interpretation is false or not. If they cannot provide the evidence to disprove my interpretation, then theists have no logical justification to dismiss it.

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.

To be fair, monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults isn't mentioned either. As for negating anything, something has to be clearly identified in the text before anyone could suggest it be negated. So, what I'm asking theists to negate is their fallible interpretation of the text because the prohibition it describes cannot be demonstrated to apply specifically to monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults.

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

Your objection does not apply because it is based on unfair and false equivocations. Murder is, by definition, an unlawful killing of another human being. The most obvious reason murder is unlawful is because the victim did not consent to being killed. If someone consented to being killed and had the cognitive capability to properly comprehend the outcome of such a decision, then the act of killing that person would not necessarily be labeled as murder.

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.

Pederasty and pedophilia is justifiably prohibited because, in addition to the physical and psychological harm the child would experience, a child does not have the mature cognitive capacity to make an informed decision about sexual intercourse. The same issue of informed consent applies to the difference between adulterous homosexual relations or homosexual rape and monogamous homosexual relations. If someone in a monogamous heterosexual or homosexual relationship has heterosexual or homosexual relations with another person without consent from the partner in the relationship, then the violation of their relationship agreement is what the prohibition is supposed to discourage. So, political correctness has nothing to do with 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