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?

[bluegreenearth]

So what is your point? Couldn't the same be said for adulterers? Those who practice Bestiality? Pedophilia? Rape? Drug Abusers? Thieves? Murderers? Liars? What do you suggest? That those who adhere to the strict principles set forth in the Bible should abandon those due to political correctness? Wouldn't that lead to the same emotional, psychological harm?

First of all, who mentioned anything about political correctness? Second, the criteria for what makes someone an adulterer is different for different worldviews. Personally, I define an adulterer as someone who is in a committed relationship but engages in sexual relations with another person without the consent of their committed partner. However, if both people in the committed relationship consent to each other having sexual relations with other people outside of their committed relationship, then it isn't adultery in that scenario. As for those other prohibitions, with few exceptions, they are adequately justified by the demonstrably beneficial outcomes they produce compared to the demonstrably detrimental harm that would otherwise occur. Of course, in reality, there are highly nuanced scenarios where a non-negotiable prohibition against lying and thieving would be more harmful than beneficial. So, your objection does not apply because it is based on several unfair and false equivocations.

[2ndRateMind]

So, as indicated above, I don't need peer reviewed literature to demonstrate that the only possible outcome of endorsing and implementing the prohibition against homosexual relations is for everyone to experience some type of harm whether it be emotional, psychological, or both.

So what is your point? Couldn't the same be said for adulterers? Those who practice Bestiality? Pedophilia? Rape? Drug Abusers? Thieves? Murderers? Liars? What do you suggest? That those who adhere to the strict principles set forth in the Bible should abandon those due to political correctness? Wouldn't that lead to the same emotional, psychological harm?

The point is JS Mill's harm principle. He proposed that we should be allowed to do precisely as we choose, provided we inflict no harm. It seems a good, solid, liberal principle to me, and one homosexuals do not necessarily contravene any more than heterosexuals. The plain fact is, there are no reasons why homosexuals should be denied the ability to act out their natures, and plenty of reasons why they should be allowed to do so, not least of which is a call to an ideal of justice.

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[DavidLeon]

First of all, who mentioned anything about political correctness?

I did. In the form of a question.

Second, the criteria for what makes someone an adulterer is different for different worldviews.

Political correctness.

Personally, I define an adulterer as someone who is in a committed relationship but engages in sexual relations with another person without the consent of their committed partner. However, if both people in the committed relationship consent to each other having sexual relations with other people outside of their committed relationship, then it isn't adultery in that scenario.

Well, you are redefining adultery which is clearly defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse. All you are really saying is that you are fine with adultery. In some primitive people it isn't adultery unless it is outside the tribe. Now, considering the Mosaic Law it is peculiar that so many were polygamist. As with slavery, Jehovah tolerated the already established practice.

As for those other prohibitions, with few exceptions, they are adequately justified by the demonstrably beneficial outcomes they produce compared to the demonstrably detrimental harm that would otherwise occur. Of course, in reality, there are highly nuanced scenarios where a non-negotiable prohibition against lying and thieving would be more harmful than beneficial. So, your objection does not apply because it is based on several unfair and false equivocations.

Political correctness. My objection? The question is homosexual relations sinful? The answer, of course, is subjective. Sin being a missing of the mark. If God says it's a sin, then it's a sin to God. If political correctness says it isn't then it isn't a sin to political correctness.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the homosexual, in ancient Israel under the Mosaic law, had the choice to accept the law or move out of town. In the case of Christians the choice to be a Christian without practicing homosexuality, or leave Christianity and practice homosexuality.

So . . . well . . . specifically that some type of harm comes from many things we do.

[DavidLeon]

The point is JS Mill's harm principle. He proposed that we should be allowed to do precisely as we choose, provided we inflict no harm. It seems a good, solid, liberal principle to me, and one homosexuals do not necessarily contravene any more than heterosexuals. The plain fact is, there are no reasons why homosexuals should be denied the ability to act out their natures, and plenty of reasons why they should be allowed to do so, not least of which is a call to an ideal of justice.

And they do have a choice. But sometimes that comes with consequences. Christians should be allowed to prohibit the practice, and there are consequences to that as well.

[2ndRateMind]

The point is JS Mill's harm principle. He proposed that we should be allowed to do precisely as we choose, provided we inflict no harm. It seems a good, solid, liberal principle to me, and one homosexuals do not necessarily contravene any more than heterosexuals. The plain fact is, there are no reasons why homosexuals should be denied the ability to act out their natures, and plenty of reasons why they should be allowed to do so, not least of which is a call to an ideal of justice.

...Christians should be allowed to prohibit the practice...

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.

Best of wishes, 2RM.

[DavidLeon]

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. You shouldn't take away a person's right to believe, think, speak and practice what they wish unless it threatens the life, property or liberty of someone else. So homosexuals should be allowed to practice homosexuality and Christians should be allowed to prohibit it.

It would be no more right for you to say Christians should be made to allow homosexuality than it would be for you to say Homosexuals should made to accept Christianity. You shouldn't jeopardize the rights of one for the other.

It's in scripture because it is considered, by God the creator, to be unnatural. An unnatural use of sexual union as it was designed.

I'm a believer who is a non-practicing homosexual, by the way.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #126]

Where in scripture does God indicate that monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults is a sin?

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #126]

Where in scripture does God indicate that monogamous homosexual relations between consenting and loving adults is a sin?

Romans 1:26-27: "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

[bluegreenearth]

Romans 1:26-27: "That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."

Those are Paul's homophobic words describing the idolatrous practice of shrine prostitution which was a common occurrence in the area where he lived. Nothing in that passage describes monogamous homosexual relations between consenting adults who have committed to love each other. 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.

[JehovahsWitness]

A contextual analysis indicates strongly that Paul was not limiting his points to "(male) temple prostistitution"


Paul, writing in Greek, actually used an original term "arsenokoitai", not the Greek already existing Greek word for homosexual is "paiderasste"?

The greek word "paiderasste" rather means "sexual relations b/t a man and a boy with the boy as a passive partner"; this is of course a "homosexual act" but the word is more akin to a pedophilic (or phebophilic) act ; Paul chose to use a word directly from the Greek translation of the Mosaic law. "Neither fornicators nor men who lie with men [arsenokoitai - "man-layers"/man bedder]**

Paul used many, many original words in his writings (he coined a total of 179) but did not simply make up a few random sounds and string them together “ he used words already in existence in hebrew (in this case Leviticus) and put them together to form a compound word that clearly explained the biblical point being made.

** these 'new' words (arsenokoitai and arsenokoitais ) that Paul used while conveying the idea in Hebrew scripture sheds the connotations of prostitution, despite what some claim. It most certainly does NOT mean "male prostitute" (an idea that would be covered by the greek 'pornos' ).


FURTHER READING - Comments on Boswell's arguments
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/ ... 00145.html

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

HOMOSEXUALITY, HOMOPHOBIA and ...BIBLICAL PROHIBITIONS