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?

[JehovahsWitness]

It may be convenient for you to ignore the fact that I have presented supporting evidence for all my beliefs but let us not pretend that I have not done so.


JW

[2ndRateMind]

You have yet to show that homosexuality is bad, and if it is, why it is bad.

...I believe that homosexual relations* are a sin ("bad"); and why homosexuality (sexual attraction to members of ones own biological sex) has never been part of Gods original design for mankind...

So, I would disagree with this on the following grounds:

Contention 1. God chose evolution by natural and/or sexual selection as His preferred method of creating and sustaining species.
Contention 2. Homosexuality would have been bred out of all species long ago if it conferred no such selective advantage.

So, to unpack this a little, we need to understand that the unit of evolutionary selection is not the phenotype, or even the genotype, but the individual gene. And genes do not determine behaviour in any individual circumstance, merely predispose it. So, given that homosexuals tend not to breed, and their sexual activity is generally barren, why do genes predisposing homosexual behaviour persist in the gene pool of the species?

I would argue that it is because they confer some advantage to their own persistence. Homosexuals share some of their genes with their heterosexual relatives. And their own gene's advantage can be served as perfectly well by assisting the nurture of their heterosexual relative's offspring as by promoting their own competing offspring.

For example, if I was a heterosexual male with a homosexual brother, I could expect him to assist me with the upbringing of my children. And that would be to the advantage of his genes, too, because he shares 25% of them. From the child's point of view, it would be like having three parents, instead of only two. And that is clearly an advantage for the child, not to mention the parents.

And that is why homosexual genes persist in the population. And why homosexuality, far from being a sin, might actually be an actively good thing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

It may be convenient for you to ignore the fact that I have presented supporting evidence for all my beliefs but let us not pretend that I have not done so....

So, you have indeed, but so far as I can make out, all that 'supporting evidence' amounts to is regurgitated ancient prejudice. I am looking for a valid and sound philosophical argument. I repeat, if you can't provide one, why should I, or anyone else, believe you?

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

Contention 1. God chose evolution by natural and/or sexual selection as His preferred method of creating and sustaining species.

Whether God chose evolution by natural and/or sexual selection is certainly debatable, but in any case what bearing does "sustaining species" have on whether it homosexual practises are sinful?

Something might be advantageous for survival or the sustaining of the whole but still condemned by God. Survival at any price has never been a Christian principle. To illustrate murdering my neighbours and stealing their food during times of famine or eating any weak or handicapped children might contribute to group survival but still be morally and spiritually objectionable. Thus the real question, at least for the believer should be, does God voice his approval or disapproval of a given action, belief or attitude.

Contention 2. Homosexuality would have been bred out of all species long ago if it offered no such selective advantage.

Emphasis MINE


As for the suggestion that homosexually would have "bred out of all species long ago" if it wasn't part of Gods original purpose, that supposes all that exists does so because it is of divine mandate or at the very least in accord with God's plan. This begs the question are we to conclude that congenital diseases, sickness and handicap are part of Gods plan since they too haven't "bred out"? The bible is quite clear that all God does is perfect (complete) without fault. God is love and the suffering of the innocent can never be part of a loving Gods methods either of creating, sustaining or transmitting life.

PROVERBS 10:22

It is the blessing of Jehovah that makes one rich and He adds no pain with it.

CONCLUSION Given the above we can reasonably conclude that the premise that all that exists does so because was part of his original will is biblically false. Applying this to contention #2, once the premise is removed we are left with the option that rather than being a design mechanism for the benefit of the species, homosexuality (like disease and adamic death) is a malfunction God has permitted to continue.

[JehovahsWitness]

regurgitated ancient prejudice...

Is that a reference to the scripture?

I am looking for a valid and sound philosophical argument.

What one views as "valid" depends on ones worldview. I present what the bible has to say on various topics, since I believe the bible is the word of God and as such sheds light on how He feels about our behaviour. If you believe that doesn't constitute "valid and sound philosophical argument" I can only wish you God speed in your continued search for answers,


JW

[2ndRateMind]

You have yet to show that homosexuality is bad, and if it is, why it is bad.

homosexual relations* are a sin...
[*] sexual activity

So, it seems we need to talk a little about sin, and what sin is, and what sin isn't.

Some thought, word, or deed may be sinful, but it is not sin itself.

Sin in itself is a 'way of being' inconsistent with God's unconditional love, and/or Jesus's two great commandments: 'Love God', and 'Love each other'.

By way of explanation, consider the seven deadly sins: Sloth, Wrath, Avarice, Gluttony, Lust, Envy and Pride.

These are none of them specific thoughts, words or deeds, but dispositions, due to the sin in the way of being, to such selfish, unloving, thoughts, words and deeds.

So how is all this relevant to homosexuality?

Well, homosexuals have a disposition to certain thoughts, words, and deeds. So either the homosexual way of being is a sin, or it is not. If it is, all that follows from the homosexual way of being is sinful. If it is not, all that follows from that way of being is not sinful, either. The current weasel compromise that various denominations have adopted (you can be gay, but you can't have gay sex) does not, in my view, stand up or have any philosophical traction whatsoever.

I really think we need to bite the bullet on this one, and either decide homosexuality and all that follows from it is sin, or decide that it isn't and welcome and accept our gay brothers and sisters in Christian charity into the Christian communion, and let them act out their God given natures.

And why would we worry anyway? So long as no harm is done, God will judge them tenderly, with such justice and mercy as He sees fit. We should not preempt Him.

'Judge not, lest ye be judged. Condemn not, lest ye be condemned.'

Best of wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

...What one views as "valid" depends on ones worldview. ...

On the contrary, I use the words valid and sound in their philosophical, technical sense. An argument is valid if it is of a form such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true. A sound argument, therefore, is a truth machine, whatever one's worldview.

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

...homosexuals have a disposition to certain thoughts, words, and deeds. So either the homosexual way of being is a sin, or it is not.

A person's disposition can be defined as his inherent qualities of mind and character. I think its highly debatable whether there is a "homosexual or hetrosexual" character, even our biological sex doesn't define what kind of person we are.

Our minds and our character (not to be confused with characteristics) in all its complexities is what makes us an individual. Whether someone is a person of integrity, love, intelligence, whether they are base, selfish, stupid ect in short the quality of the person exists distinct and apart from their sexuality. I think we do all humans a disservice to suggest that who you are attracted to defines who you are.

That said the quality of ones character will have an effect on how one chooses to express ones sexuality; whether one chooses to develop self control, to educate oneself as to ones urges, how one chooses to interact with others and in countless other areas. The bible urges Christians to mold their thinking to conform to the mind of God. This is within reach of anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation and it is this rather than classifying a character by his sexuality, that is the basis of Gods judgement.

Biblically then there is no such thing as "homosexual thinking" there is sinful thinking (on any given topic) and God's thinking. There is a distinct link between doing what is bad and thinking what is bad, and one cannot break free from any sinful practise without first learning to hate it in mind and heart. This is true of al sin, sexual immorality being no exception.


JW

[bluegreenearth]

Biblically speaking there is . Since a sin is anything that God disapproves of the negative effects of homosexual relations is that they damage ones relationship with our creator and each others. This is true of all sin including the sin of sexual immorality (sex outside of biblical marriage) whether homosexual or hetrotsexual in nature.

1CORINTHIANS 6:18, 19

Flee from sexual immorality! Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body. Do you not know that your body is the temple+ of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God?

Your response doesn't address the question of what is fundamental about homosexual relations that is damaging to a relationship with an asexual God. Also, as was already expressed in my original post, your response doesn't explain where the homosexual community acquired their additional burden of having a homosexual orientation which the heterosexual community does not have. Otherwise, the view that marriage is only between one man and one woman provides heterosexual couples with an approved option for satisfying their sexual needs but unjustifiably rejects the same option to homosexual couples.

[bluegreenearth]

Contention 1. God chose evolution by natural and/or sexual selection as His preferred method of creating and sustaining species.

Whether God chose evolution by natural and/or sexual selection is certainly debatable, but in any case what bearing does "sustaining species" have on whether it homosexual practises are sinful?

Something might be advantageous for survival or the sustaining of the whole but still condemned by God. Survival at any price has never been a Christian principle. To illustrate murdering my neighbours and stealing their food during times of famine or eating any weak or handicapped children might contribute to group survival but still be morally and spiritually objectionable. Thus the real question, at least for the believer should be, does God voice his approval or disapproval of a given action, belief or attitude.

Contention 2. Homosexuality would have been bred out of all species long ago if it offered no such selective advantage.

Emphasis MINE


As for the suggestion that homosexually would have "bred out of all species long ago" if it wasn't part of Gods original purpose, that supposes all that exists does so because it is of divine mandate or at the very least in accord with God's plan. This begs the question are we to conclude that congenital diseases, sickness and handicap are part of Gods plan since they too haven't "bred out"? The bible is quite clear that all God does is perfect (complete) without fault. God is love and the suffering of the innocent can never be part of a loving Gods methods either of creating, sustaining or transmitting life.

PROVERBS 10:22

It is the blessing of Jehovah that makes one rich and He adds no pain with it.

CONCLUSION Given the above we can reasonably conclude that the premise that all that exists does so because was part of his original will is biblically false. Applying this to contention #2, once the premise is removed we are left with the option that rather than being a design mechanism for the benefit of the species, homosexuality (like disease and adamic death) is a malfunction God has permitted to continue.

It seems as though you completely overlooked a sizable chunk of information from my original post because your argument above and your earlier response to me was already predicted and refuted in that post. So, if you had read my original post in its entirety, I'm not understanding the audacity of supplying arguments that have been previously refuted a thousand times (P.R.A.T.T.). I recommend that you attempt to resolve the existing objections to your arguments before regurgitating them as though they were irrefutable.