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?

[2ndRateMind]

I see no reason to provide a definition of 'social movement'.

We are both aware of the concept we are talking about. The only issue is, do we want a tight definition, that excludes, or a loose definition, that includes?

Well that's mighty convenient isn't it. .

Sure. But don't try telling me that in the Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals.

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

But don't try telling me that in the Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals.

I have as much right to post my views as anyone else and as one of Jehovahs Witnesses I feel qualified to post accurate information as to our world view; in this case that in Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals namely the right to choose how they will behave and to face the consequences of their choices.



JW

[2ndRateMind]

I have as much right to post my views as anyone else and as one of Jehovahs Witnesses I feel qualified to post accurate information as to our world view...

Of course you have that right. I would fight to the death to defend it. And though we may disagree sometimes, I am nevertheless enlightened by your point of view.

...But don't try telling me that in the Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals...

...in Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals...
JW

So long as they don't indulge in homosexual sex.

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[Miles]

But don't try telling me that in the Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals.

I have as much right to post my views as anyone else and as one of Jehovahs Witnesses I feel qualified to post accurate information as to our world view; in this case that in Jehovah's witness's world view, homosexuals have equal rights to heterosexuals namely the right to choose how they will behave and to face the consequences of their choices.

But homosexuals don't have equal rights to heterosexuals namely the right to marry

AND JUST AS DISTURBING: From the Wikipedia article, List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses consider same-sex sexual activity to be sinful, but recognize that some people may be prone to homosexuality, including members of their congregation. Members are required to abstain from any homosexual behavior, which is listed as a serious sin, but are told not to hate homosexual individuals. Their literature has stated that Christians should not make homosexuals the target of ridicule or harassment. They believe that God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman, and, regarding same-sex marriage, they have stated that it "cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability"*, and are told to avoid debates about the legality of homosexuality: "Even when the laws of the land are in conflict with their Bible-trained conscience, Jehovah's Witnesses do not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws."

What strikes me as interesting is that the highlighted statement in effect declares that homosexuality is not respectable. Now in light of the fact that in as much as sexual orientation is not chosen but develops unbidden just like hair color, height, and intelligence, which people never hold as a respectable or unrespectable facets of human life, why does one particular form of sexual orientation not deserve respect? Just like you and I, homosexuals can no more help whom they're attracted to than we can help if we're right-handed, left-handed, or ambidextrous.

Yet god can't bring himself to respect this pure happenstance of nature, something whose existence he, himself, is responsible for.

* "Does God Approve of Same-Sex Marriage?". Awake!: 27. 8 April 2005.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

But homosexuals don't have equal rights to heterosexuals namely the right to marry

No but is the right to marry a member of ones own sex "a human right"? Is there a difference between a law and a human right?

The Official Jehovahs Witness statement on human rights reads as follows:

A person who deeply respects the Creator would never violate his fellowman’s rights, for they are an inheritance received from God. A violator of human rights is a robber of inheritances - Awake November 22 1998 p. 12

Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the right to be treated equally before the law. If the law of their country permits them to marry they have every legal right to do so. We don't believe, however, that breaking divine law is a "human right". Divine law prohibits certain behaviours even if they are legal in a secular sense.


Regarding marriage, biblical law has varied over the ages, but the original standard, one which was established for Christians is as follows:

MATTHEW 19:4, 5

“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? -JESUS CHRIST

It has been argued that the above law is unjust as it prohibits homosexuals from satisfying their sexual desires within the frame of a biblically recognised marriage. This supposes however that all sexual desires (between consenting adults) are right and proper which biblically is not the case. Thus while respecting certain laws or standards may indeed be harder for some than for others, to adjust a law in relation to the feelings, desires and wishes of a particular demographic is the very defintion of injustice and a recipe for corruption.

CONCLUSION People have various opinions of what human rights actually are, but most recognise that they are innate rights all humans, even children, automatically possess which should not be negated or denied them. Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe such rights cover the right to break divine law regarding the limits imposed on proper sexual behaviour.

JW




RELATED POSTS


Is gay marriage a sin?
viewtopic.php?p=1094154#p1094154

[Miles]

But homosexuals don't have equal rights to heterosexuals namely the right to marry

No but is the right to marry a member of ones own sex "a human right"? Is there a difference between a law and a human right?

Not at all sure what you mean by a "human" right.

The Official Jehovahs Witness statement on human rights reads as follows:

A person who deeply respects the Creator would never violate his fellowman’s rights, for they are an inheritance received from God. A violator of human rights is a robber of inheritances - Awake November 22 1998 p. 12

Still no explanation what "human rights" consist of.

Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the right to be treated equally before the law. If the law of their country permits them to marry they have every legal right to do so. We don't believe, however, that breaking divine law is a "human right". Divine law prohibits certain behaviours even if they are legal.

How about this. "Human rights" are _______________________fill in the blank___________________ .

Regarding marriage, biblical law has varied over the ages, but the original standard, one which was established for Christians is as follows:

MATTHEW 19:4, 5

“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? -JESUS CHRIST

This is in reference to divorcing ones wife. Nothing more.

It has been argued that the above law is unjust as it prohibits homosexuals from satisfying their sexual desires within the frame of a biblically recognised marriage. This suposes however that all sexual desires (between consenting adults) are right and proper which biblically is not the case. Thus while respecting certain laws or standards may indeed be harder for some than for others, to adjust a law in relation to the feelings, desires and wishes of a particular demographic is the very defintion of injustice and a recipe for corruption.

Perhaps, but none of the above addresses my comments about why homosexuality deserves respect, and the the lack of respectability both god and JWs accord it. Why is that? No need to answer, I'm sure anyone who reads this knows why you've avoided addressing it.

CONCLUSION People have various opinions of what human rights actually are, but most recognise that they are innate rights all humans, even children, automatically possess which should not be negated or denied them. Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe such rights cover the right to break divine law regarding the limits imposed on proper sexual behaviour.

And why is that? They have no trouble breaking the divine law against wearing clothing "made of two kinds of material," or breaking the divine law against speaking the names of other gods. Yet JWs don't choose to ignore laws against homosexual behavior. Why is this do you suppose?
So it makes no difference to JWs that homosexuals are not responsible for their sexual orientation; in blind obedience to scripture JWs feel that not only is it their right to own others as slaves, but it's equally right to disrespect homosexuals.

[JehovahsWitness]

How about this. "Human rights" are _______________________fill in the blank___________________ .

See post #82 above
viewtopic.php?p=1015908#p1015908


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

JWs feel that ... but it's equally right to disrespect homosexuals.

How in your opinion do Jehovah's Wintesses "disrespect homosexuals"?



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

... rather than aligning with this Biblical trajectory towards the flourishing of God's people, the prohibition against homosexual relations between consenting adults has only ever been demonstrated to cause objective harm to God's people on average

By "Gods people" are you referring to the ancient Hebrews /bibliccal Jews? What harm to are you referring to?

Please present evidence of the above.


JW

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #89]

From the perspective of many Christians, "God's people" = all people.

Evidence:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... stance_Use
"Analyses revealed that greater exposure to religious anti-gay prejudice predicted higher levels of anxiety, stress, and shame; more instances of physical and verbal abuse; and more problematic alcohol use. Furthermore, while sexual minority individuals tended to fare more poorly than their heterosexual counterparts on almost every outcome measure assessed, homonegative prejudice predicted poorer outcomes among all respondents regardless of their sexual orientation or religious identification. Hence, results are among the first to demonstrate that anti-gay religious exposure is associated with substantial threats to wellbeing, and that such effects may be observed beyond religious sexual minorities. Overall, findings imply that homonegative religious social conditions may be of broader health and mental health concern than is conventionally recognized."