Are homosexual relations sinful?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9381
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #161

Post by Clownboat »

JW wrote:Well that would depend on what means by "unnatural".

un·nat·u·ral
contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
not existing in nature; artificial.

At war with the English language I see.
If one defines "natural" as behaviour practised by animals, then you are correct, homosexual acts come under this catagory.

That is how the definition defines it. Perhaps those attempting to justify a religion would prefer to define it to mean something entirely different or not acknowledge its actual meaning.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21142
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #162

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:15 pm
JW wrote:Well that would depend on what means by "unnatural".


At war with the English language I see.


What in my comment indicates I am {quote} "At war with the English language I see" ?
  • Are you suggesting all words only have one meaning (for example does "to see" only mean one thing in English)?
and more importantly
  • are you suggesting the writer of the source text wrote in English and followed the most popular definition of words according to 21st century usage?



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #163

Post by bluegreenearth »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:48 am
Clownboat wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:15 pm
JW wrote:Well that would depend on what means by "unnatural".


At war with the English language I see.


What in my comment indicates I am {quote} "At war with the English language I see" ?
  • Are you suggesting all words only have one meaning (for example does "to see" only mean one thing in English)?
and more importantly
  • are you suggesting the writer of the source text wrote in English and followed the most popular definition of words according to 21st century usage?
Your response to Clownboat is curious in that it is you and many other Christians who claim to have the only justifiable interpretations of anonymously written texts translated from dead languages long after the originals had been lost to history and subsequently replaced with various different versions interpreted through yet more anonymous scribes and theologians. Nevertheless, I agree that words and phrases (especially those written in dead languages) can often have more than one meaning. I also agree that it would be fallacious to interpret a 1st century source text from a 21st century perspective or even a 3rd century perspective; especially when the source text is a later interpretation of an original version that no longer exists.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21142
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #164

Post by JehovahsWitness »

bluegreenearth wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:03 pm ... I agree that words and phrases (especially those written in dead languages) can often have more than one meaning. I also agree that it would be fallacious to interpret a 1st century source text from a 21st century perspective ...


Exactly. Establishing what the writer mean is sometimes more complicated than simply closing ones eyes and sticking a pin in a dictionary.




JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #165

Post by bluegreenearth »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 4:55 pmExactly. Establishing what the writer mean is sometimes more complicated than simply closing ones eyes and sticking a pin in a dictionary.
In fact, it is often the case that the complexity makes it impossible to establish what an ancient writer actually meant because the word choices and phrases were from a long dead language and a long dead culture. At best, people could try to consider the ancient historical, political, and cultural contexts in their analysis where that incomplete information exists. However, even then, for anyone to assert with any level of confidence that they have the only justifiable interpretation of the text is absurd. It is even more absurd to take the action of establishing and enforcing a prohibition based on such a fallible interpretation of an ancient text. The most intellectually honest and compassionate course of action is to remain agnostic about the potential meaning of the text and allow people to decide for themselves how they will interpret it rather than impose a meaning through some kind of doctrinal statement.

Icey
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #166

Post by Icey »

[Replying to Mithrae in post #1]

From what I've seen, the bible is written by a specific POV from people with a specific POV for a specific society and later edited and taught for another specific POV.
So for me, I don't much care what some old dead man said he thought about one's relationship with another.
And for people who believe the bible, they need to understand that a lot/many people don't care what their bible says. And no amount of screaming from the street corner (ironic) will change people's POV.
What it boils down to is this:
If you believe the bible, follow it. If you don't believe the bible, don't follow it. If the bible is right, the followers will be ecstatic. If the bible is wrong, the followers will be sadden (though I'd bet they'd figure out a way to still save face :D )
Either way, we're ultimately responsible for our own actions. And I'd bet each of us have enough on 'our plate' to keep ourselves busy with little to no need to concern ourselves with personal actions of others that only concern the other people.
In other words, mind your own business people!

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #167

Post by Miles »

Icey wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:50 pm [Replying to Mithrae in post #1]
And I'd bet each of us have enough on 'our plate' to keep ourselves busy with little to no need to concern ourselves with personal actions of others that only concern the other people.
Bad bet Icey. As you probably know, there are a lot of busy-bodies whose plates contain just what you're talking about, what other people do, don't do, and shouldn't do.

But that aside, how about the OP question. Are homosexual relations sinful or not?

.

Icey
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #168

Post by Icey »

Miles wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:02 pm
Icey wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:50 pm [Replying to Mithrae in post #1]
And I'd bet each of us have enough on 'our plate' to keep ourselves busy with little to no need to concern ourselves with personal actions of others that only concern the other people.
Bad bet Icey. As you probably know, there are a lot of busy-bodies whose plates contain just what you're talking about, what other people do, don't do, and shouldn't do.

But that aside, how about the OP question. Are homosexual relations sinful or not?

.
Too true too true!
No more so than heterosexual relationships. Some are bad, some aren't. The determining factor are the individuals involved, not to whom they're attracted.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #169

Post by Miles »

Icey wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:05 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:02 pm
Icey wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:50 pm [Replying to Mithrae in post #1]
And I'd bet each of us have enough on 'our plate' to keep ourselves busy with little to no need to concern ourselves with personal actions of others that only concern the other people.
Bad bet Icey. As you probably know, there are a lot of busy-bodies whose plates contain just what you're talking about, what other people do, don't do, and shouldn't do.

But that aside, how about the OP question. Are homosexual relations sinful or not?

.
Too true too true!
No more so than heterosexual relationships. Some are bad, some aren't. The determining factor are the individuals involved, not to whom they're attracted.
So I take it you believe in sin, but feel people are allowed to determine it for themselves?

.

Icey
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Are homosexual relations sinful?

Post #170

Post by Icey »

Miles wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:17 pm
Icey wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:05 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:02 pm
Icey wrote: Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:50 pm [Replying to Mithrae in post #1]
And I'd bet each of us have enough on 'our plate' to keep ourselves busy with little to no need to concern ourselves with personal actions of others that only concern the other people.
Bad bet Icey. As you probably know, there are a lot of busy-bodies whose plates contain just what you're talking about, what other people do, don't do, and shouldn't do.

But that aside, how about the OP question. Are homosexual relations sinful or not?

.
I don't believe in sin, as it's defined by Christians (even IF all Christians could agree on what is or isn't a sin, which hasn't been possible thus far).
But if XYZ is a sin, it's no one's business other than those committing said sin (so long as this 'sin' isn't harmful to others directly).
If I smoke (which I don't) and smoking is a sin (which many Christians believe) and don't blow the smoke in your face, don't steal from you to get the cigs, etc, it's my business not yours.
Too true too true!
No more so than heterosexual relationships. Some are bad, some aren't. The determining factor are the individuals involved, not to whom they're attracted.
So I take it you believe in sin, but feel people are allowed to determine it for themselves?

.

Post Reply