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?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 10 by Willum]

However, I am sure we all feel the same way about how you ignore what the Bible actually says, for a modern politically correct interpretation.

How about you point out something I said that is contrary to the bible. Or ignores what the bible says. P

Assuming the Bible is true, why do you thing the truth is politically correct, and easy? Math is hard, ethics are hard, work is hard, but Biblical truth is all easy to swallow?

I'm not following the question. Who said anything about political correctness? Or easiness? I certainly made no such claims.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Mithrae]

Have Christians got the wrong idea of "sin"?

I don’t think so.

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?

To love your neighbor as yourself is wanting and desiring the best for your neighbor. It means seeing them as a son or daughter of Christ. It means standing up for truth, even when that truth may be difficult to hear or make you unpopular. If your neighbor said he was in love with his dog and wants you to support his sexual relationship with his dog, do you support him because we are expected to love our neighbor? Wouldn’t loving your neighbor actually be to NOT support him?

It isn't arbitrary that humans were not intended to copulate with animals.
Nor is it arbitrary that two people of the same sex weren't intended to copulate. It is written in our very form, function, shape, nature.

An example in fact where Christian attitudes often seem to be almost the opposite of love?

I disagree that opposing same sex relations are the opposite of love.


Couple of quick points . . .

-like a previous poster stated Jesus came to fulfill the law not do away with it, so I don’t see your argument that Christ established a New Covenant and therefore all previous laws are to be abandoned is compelling.

-There is often confusion about Mosaic Law with the moral law. Many Mosaic Laws are no more. They were more laws that were a way to identify God’s chosen people and set them a part from others. But the moral law is written in the world we live in, hence does not change.

-It is pretty clear in Scripture that homosexuality is wrong – not only in the Old Testament.

-God’s design of the world shows the wrongness of same sex relations. In fact, one need not even believe in God to recognize the differences in the bodies of males and females, how their bodies were literally designed for one another – same sex couples – not so much.

- And finally, Jesus established His Church and told us to listen to His Church. The Church, given authority by Christ Himself and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, believed and taught the immorality of same sex relations from the beginning. It was something all of Christendom believed and taught from the establishment of Christianity. So, it doesn’t simply come down to a misreading of Scripture. Same sex relations are seen as wrong in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition (the Church), and Natural Law.

[Petrameansrock]

The view that it is only an Old Testament position is false. 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 prove this. If you are a homosexual you won't inherit the Kingdom of God. Period. That's what it says. If it makes you uncomfortable and you think it promotes hate, it doesn't matter. The Bible says it. In order to be a follower of the Bible and Christianity you have to believe in this, or you have to deny the Bible itself. I would much rather tell a man he is wrong than tell God He is wrong by denying His Word.

[marco]

The view that it is only an Old Testament position is false. 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 prove this. If you are a homosexual you won't inherit the Kingdom of God. Period. That's what it says. If it makes you uncomfortable and you think it promotes hate, it doesn't matter. The Bible says it. In order to be a follower of the Bible and Christianity you have to believe in this, or you have to deny the Bible itself. I would much rather tell a man he is wrong than tell God He is wrong by denying His Word.

It is doubtful whether the opportunity will arise for you to tell God he is wrong. God isn't wrong - man is in proscribing certain things as sinful. The absurd passage that tells fathers to take their errant daughters to be stoned belongs in a book of evil not a holy book. We have thankfully got over the nonsense of trying to carry out the orders of vicious old nomads, such as murdering women supposed to be witches. The companion text to the Bible, the Koran, breeds atrocities if one takes a too literal interpretation, as we see on our city streets.

Common sense should always prevail. Abandon that and we abandon reason, goodness, humanity ...... Is that what Jesus required?

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]


Let’s not mistake mosaic law with the moral law. Yes, many OT mosaic laws have been done away with, but homosexual acts were part of the moral law that we still are expected to keep like laws against stealing, adultery, killing, etc. Also, homosexual acts are not only forbidden in the OT, but the NT as well. Also, as with all moral law one need not to believe in God to know what is right/good.

Common sense should always prevail. Abandon that and we abandon reason, goodness, humanity ...... Is that what Jesus required?

Agree common sense should prevail. Now I ask you, is it arbitrary that human beings from the beginning would view sodomy as wrong and not in man’s best interest?

Really? The idea is simply chalked up to social constructs? Outdated superstitious puritanical ways? Please, can we discuss the elephant in the room? Why might someone question the rightness/goodness of sodomy? Did they really need to hear it from their god that it is immoral? Let’s observe the world we live in. Shape, form, function give us clues as to something’s purpose. We use common sense to know what is right and good and makes sense.

Look at human genitalia. The difference in the parts between a male and female is what makes them fit together. Oh, yes, I know the gay line, “well we have no problem fitting together�. Really? Let’s examine that. Was the anus designed to receive foreign objects? Science shows us the membranes of the anus are thin, do not produce natural lubrication, and would be more likely to tear or rupture and more likely to foster and spread disease then say the vagina which stretches, produces its own natural lubrication, has even been shown to be self cleaning (the silly practice of douching was shown years ago to not be wise and do more harm then good – yet douching is still recommended for those who engage in anal sex). Acts of sodomy by nature are always sterile. Whereas the vagina provides a fertile environment for sperm. With the potential to literally create new life. From what we can know from the world, we could conclude the vagina was designed for the penis – not so much for the anus. I could then go on to discuss all the social science research showing those living a homosexual life style have greater incidences of substance abuse, depression, domestic violence, suicide. And it is getting harder and harder to continue to chalk that off to bigotry, as homosexuality is becoming more and more supported and celebrated every day.

We can know from the world we live in not all relationships were meant to be sexualized. Sex is not the only expression of love. I can love my mother, but I shouldn’t have sex with her – that would be disordered. Animals and human beings shouldn’t engage in sex – again disordered behavior that we can know from the world we live in that won’t bring a person true human fulfillment. Even if the person insists they can’t help their feelings, and it is what they want and it will make them happy, it isn’t arrogant or self righteous or bigoted or hateful to NOT support them. It is actually exercising common sense and compassion to do so.


So, yes, let’s use reason and goodness to speak truth and want the best for our fellow man. Let’s not be afraid to speak the truth because it isn’t popular – that’s not real compassion. I have heard from several ex gays who thanked the Catholic priests who told them the truth and how hurt and harmed they were from those who told them what they were doing was fine. The truth is attractive – sometimes we forget that.

[marco]

Let’s not mistake mosaic law with the moral law.

I said that the OT punishments and prohibitions had no place in a Holy Book. I take it you agree.

So, yes, let’s use reason and goodness to speak truth and want the best for our fellow man. Let’s not be afraid to speak the truth because it isn’t popular – that’s not real compassion. I have heard from several ex gays who thanked the Catholic priests who told them the truth and how hurt and harmed they were from those who told them what they were doing was fine. The truth is attractive – sometimes we forget that.

There is no problem announcing truth but there is a problem when we take our opinion as tablets-of-stone fact. It was for centuries, thanks to the Bible, considered proper to hound people down and even execute them for being homosexual. Even today are thrown from buildings for being homosexual. If this is the kind of truth we must support I oppose it. Your thesis on human anatomy would have gone down well at the trial of some poor wretch in the 18th or 19th century.

The people who thanked the ill-informed Catholic celibate priests, who offered them opinions on sexuality, were possibly vulnerable, suffering from the prejudices they had been exposed to in surroundings of Biblical piety. Our literature groans with tales of those who desperately tried to deny the way they were made. We killed one of the brightest stars of the 20th century, Alan Turing, because of our ignorance. If people wish to express love for each other in the way that gay people do, then it is entirely for them to do so, not for others to judge. We have enough problems in our world without commending atavistic ways.

[bluethread]

[Replying to marco]


Let’s not mistake mosaic law with the moral law. Yes, many OT mosaic laws have been done away with, but homosexual acts were part of the moral law that we still are expected to keep like laws against stealing, adultery, killing, etc. Also, homosexual acts are not only forbidden in the OT, but the NT as well. Also, as with all moral law one need not to believe in God to know what is right/good.

This is a rather difficult position to maintain. I do agree that HaTorah was given to Adonai's people and one who does not wish to be one of Adonai's people is not bound by it. However, moral law is a social construct and varies from society to society. Thus, HaTorah is moral law for Adonai's people. If one holds to a moral code that does not conform with HaTorah, one can not rightfully use HaTorah as a justification for that code. In addition, it must be noted that Yeshua and all of the Apostles do use HaTorah to support their views. Therefore, for the Apostles, HaTorah is moral law.

[Petrameansrock]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

Practically, I believe that a homosexual should not be treated any differently by a Christian than any other nonbeliever. I will just preach that it is wrong. I think discrimination based on this particular sin by Christians is hypocritical since all sin is the same before God. By no means should we punish people for being homosexual either, God is judge. The existence of punishment in the Mosaic Law was for laws for God's chosen people. It makes sense that God would not tolerate sin among his chosen people. No where in the NT does it say to persecute homosexuals, and I will never advocate it. I just say that as Christians we cannot condone it.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I said that the OT punishments and prohibitions had no place in a Holy Book. I take it you agree.

No, I don’t agree. I think OT prohibitions are there because they were intended to be in the Holy Book. They tell a story about God and His people and we can learn something from that way of life and continue to grow as human beings.

There is no problem announcing truth but there is a problem when we take our opinion as tablets-of-stone fact.

Like I said, I think the argument to the immorality of homosexual acts can be shown to not be opinion, rather based on science, biology, the way the world works, man’s relationship to the world he lives in, and fact. In that sense I think one can look at this as something based on reason, science, and logic. That said, I never advocated violence, did I? Or even a forcing of people to agree with the science/facts. People are free and entitled to ignore truth all the time and do. I also think stealing, lying, and adultery are wrong too, but I have no desire or even believe that violators of those immoralties be harmed.

It was for centuries, thanks to the Bible, considered proper to hound people down and even execute them for being homosexual.

Like I said, I’m not sure you can lay that all on the Bible. Prior to the last 20 years, all cultures in all times in all places saw the wrongness of homosexual acts (even if there existed subcultures – they were never sanctioned or recognized by the state). It’s fairly obvious. At least it was until people began to see truth be secondary to feelings. Non religious equally opposed same sex relationships. In fact, it was often the Christians who had to demonstrate, “hate the sin, but love the sinner� to lead the way to less persecution of homosexuals.

Even today are thrown from buildings for being homosexual. If this is the kind of truth we must support I oppose it.

As do I. As does the Church. Such nonsense and nothing that Christ would have endorsed.

Your thesis on human anatomy would have gone down well at the trial of some poor wretch in the 18th or 19th century.

Actually it wouldn’t have mattered if I argued the politically correct lies argued today about same sex relationships, because it was a time when people were punished, tortured, and shamed for immorality. It was a barbaric time that while perhaps being on the right side of the issue were most definitely on the wrong side in regards with how to deal with it. At that time adulterers were stoned or forced to wear scarlet A’s, horse thieves were hung. The problem wasn’t that adultery, stealing, or homosexual acts weren’t wrong – they were. The problem was thinking one was justified in violence and humiliation in helping people be virtuous. We saw this from religious and non religious alike.

The people who thanked the ill-informed Catholic celibate priests, who offered them opinions on sexuality, were possibly vulnerable, suffering from the prejudices they had been exposed to in surroundings of Biblical piety.

I heard their stories and that is not the take away. They first listened to the dishonorable priests who wanted to be popular and liked and non judgmental, but they said the homosexual lifestyle did not only not live up to their hopes, it was dangerous and harmful for their well being. It left them with one empty relationship after another, watching friends die from AIDS at very young ages, and turning toward drugs and alcohol to numb their pain and loneliness (even though surrounded by friends, peers, and those who supported their lifestyle)

It was the wonderful courageous priests who loved them and told them what they were doing was wrong that they credit for literally saving their lives.

** I think it remarkable that you call the priest ill-informed and made the mistake of thinking just because someone has taken a vow of celibacy he couldn’t possibly know what he is talking about <sigh>

Our literature groans with tales of those who desperately tried to deny the way they were made.

Our literature also groans with tales of those who were sold a bill of goods, told they must have been meant to be this way and the only way to be happy is to accept it. This article comes to mind in the tragedy that we may have created.

http://quillette.com/2017/10/06/misunde ... dysphoria/

We killed one of the brightest stars of the 20th century, Alan Turing, because of our ignorance.

We may never know all the facts regarding Alan Turing.

If people wish to express love for each other in the way that gay people do, then it is entirely for them to do so, not for others to judge. We have enough problems in our world without commending atavistic ways.

I find this response lacks reason, logic, and compassion. There are many relationships that we don’t say, ‘if they wish to express their love in this way, who am I to stand in their way’

We wouldn’t say that in regards to a father wanting to be in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter. We wouldn’t say it in regards to a human being wanting to be in a sexual relationship with his dog. We don’t even say it in regards to 20 human beings wanting to be in sexual relationships with each other. We wouldn’t say let brother and sister express their love as they wish. Or let the pedophile express the feelings he can’t help. We pass judgments on all of these sexual relationships and more and with reason.

This is from a guy who got out . . . watch till the end if you can.



I wouldn’t wish this on any of my sons. It isn’t enough to say we ought to just let people express themselves in the way they like. That’s not love.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

However, moral law is a social construct and varies from society to society

Not really. There are arguments showing what people consider right and wrong is universal. A whole nother topic could be the discussion of moral absolutes vs moral relativism that you proclaim. Also, in the rare occasion of some societies having unique morality, that doesn’t mean those things are right/wrong. If some society still has slaves and thinks it moral to do so, it doesn’t mean having slaves is moral. It simply means that society is mistaken.