Question about the Homosexuality

[HerodionRomulus]

Hagar was Abraham's wife. Tamar, through the Levrite practice, was Judah's husband. Just because they don't do your marriage ceremony doesn't mean they aren't their wives.

I assume you feel that multiple wives are ok because it was a cultural norm. Fine by me. But with a few hundred wives, maybe we can understand the real reason Solomon went astray. LOL

As long as you don't commit homosexual acts, you're fine.

Michael

Ok, here we certainly disagree. That is an absurd contention, (no offense intended. ) Celibacy is never mandated, only suggested.

I don't see in Scripture any prohibition against being gay, and if I read you right, neither do you, BUT I also don't see any prohibition against gay sex acts. There is no "thou shalt not have gay sex" nor can one honestly read that into any of the various disputed passages.

S&G not about sex, it's about rape and inhospitality. All the later OT citations ignore same-sex.
Leviticus, not about gay sex unless you are willing to give females a free pass here. Many scholars consider this a prohibition against cultic prostitution though there are several other interpretations.
ISam 18ff Saul seems to believe J&D were having a physical relationship.
Romans is about idolatry, one cannot understand Romans 1 unless the OT passage (WisSol chs 13-15) Paul is following is also considered.
ICor. and ITim. --untranslateable, or at least there is no consensus on it's meaning.

Thanks

[themuzicman]

Ok, here we certainly disagree. That is an absurd contention, (no offense intended. ) Celibacy is never mandated, only suggested.

I don't see in Scripture any prohibition against being gay, and if I read you right, neither do you, BUT I also don't see any prohibition against gay sex acts. There is no "thou shalt not have gay sex" nor can one honestly read that into any of the various disputed passages.

Only if you take a very odd and narrow view of these verses. The obvious sense of the view of sex in the bible is that it's only permitted between husband and wife. You can try to explain everything you want away, but in the end, that's the conclusion you have to draw.

S&G not about sex, it's about rape and inhospitality. All the later OT citations ignore same-sex.

It's about both. Obviously the people in S&G were into homosexual sex, and their depravity even brought them to rape.

Leviticus, not about gay sex unless you are willing to give females a free pass here. Many scholars consider this a prohibition against cultic prostitution though there are several other interpretations.

But that's only when you read something into the text.

ISam 18ff Saul seems to believe J&D were having a physical relationship.

That's an academic crock trying to find something that isn't there based upon a different cultural context. Men in India hold hands. That doesn't make them gay.

Romans is about idolatry, one cannot understand Romans 1 unless the OT passage (WisSol chs 13-15) Paul is following is also considered.

Romans 1 speaks of the descent into depravity that follows the denial of the wisdom of God. These are obviously sinful acts in and of themselves.

ICor. and ITim. --untranslateable, or at least there is no consensus on it's meaning.

Except that they are translated, and the context makes the meaning clear.

Yes, I realize that academia has been trying to free homosexual acts from the realm of sin for quite some time now in an attempt to be politically correct. Big deal. The overall sense of scripture is much clearer than you're giving it credit for.

Michael

[Tlalynet]

"ISam 18ff Saul seems to believe J&D were having a physical relationship. "
Unless you take a very modern English form of loved you dont have a case there, the root of the translation properly means something or someone that you really like. Its the same as a Father and Son (Gen 22:2 it refers to the bond between Abraham and Issic) Brother and Brother, Or someones favorite food (Gen 27:4) or loving God (Duet 30:16). The statment that Johonthan loved David as himself in no way implies sexuality in the original form.
Lev 20:13 is very plain too, if a man lies with a man like he would with a woman it is abomination. Not really much way around that no matter what person of what title disagrees.
Despite all the equilization talk Men and Women are different, I find I have to take the Text at its word. If it says men and and neglects women then thats what it means. There are different standards for differnt people, I dont mind alcahol but it would be sinfull to drink with a recovering alcaholic.
As for moral relitivism...
There are many ways to make money but that doesnt prove money is a relitive thing (though it is, but for other reasons)
A student of Confusus once observed his actions, one day he blew on soup to cool it off, The next he blew on his hands to warm them up. The student left compaining he could not follow a teacher who did the same action for opposite reasons.
In a simalar way the ultimate goal of morality does not chage, but the action to attain it might becasue of circumstanses. If this where not so there would be no greater heritic than St.Paul, who said he was above the law.
This is why Chrsitians must be dilligent to show themselves approved. To be moral you must deveop rationality and work rather hard to undersand what is good and why.

Mr.Music Man,
Intereing work, Im kind of glad my post brought out a fully pro homo person, it makes the forum more intersting and more benifitial. I quite agree with the sex must be within marrige statement and the statment that a marridge must be between a man and woman. I also belvie that when married the two become one and this permits sex. We might strike up a variance here though,
A represents a Woman while B for a Man
If A and B are one for AB and the Man marries a woman C, two become one for ABC thus permiting relations between A and C.
Its a rare case, espcially nowdays but it works.

[MrManNo1]

First of all, I have to say that anyone that thinks that Leviticus "gives women a free pass" is reading far too much into it. It's exceedingly clear what is meant by the passage. If you refuse to accept that, you're lying to yourself, quite simply.

And, second, if homosexuality is completely genetic, then can someone explain to me the odds of Ancient Greece existing where a majority of men were homosexual? Actually, it went so far as, if a man lived with a woman, it was considered to be "wrong". Women were to be used for reproduction. Men were to sleep with other men for sexual purposes. If someone can give me a logical reason why such a big proportion of homosexuals would mysteriously exist in the same region, at the same time, when homosexuality is genetic, I might consider changing my opinion.

[Little Shepherd]

Intereing work, Im kind of glad my post brought out a fully pro homo person, it makes the forum more intersting and more benifitial. I quite agree with the sex must be within marrige statement and the statment that a marridge must be between a man and woman. I also belvie that when married the two become one and this permits sex. We might strike up a variance here though,
A represents a Woman while B for a Man
If A and B are one for AB and the Man marries a woman C, two become one for ABC thus permiting relations between A and C.
Its a rare case, espcially nowdays but it works.

No, no that doesn't work. That has never worked. In fact, even during the period in which multiple wives were allowed(not encouraged, but allowed) there were strict rules on how to properly honor each wife. And one of those was that your marriage beds with each wife were separate. Having sex with one wife in the bed of another was considered extremely dishonorable. From that it's pretty clear that your sex lives with each wife are to be kept separate.

[HerodionRomulus]

Hey, aren't you supposed to be busy blowing up NYC?

[shadowmaster]

Hey, aren't you supposed to be busy blowing up NYC?

shadowmaster is here to right the wrongs. When is the the explosion to take place?

[HerodionRomulus]

shadowmaster is here to right the wrongs. When is the the explosion to take place?

Monday night, 9pm edt/8cdt on NBC.

SFC is having a Marathon Saturday beginning at 5am. But oddly, the schedulebot says it starts wtih Chapter 9 thru 21, then chapters 1-8. Maybe because ch 9 is the key "save the cheerleader, save the world" chapter.

[Tlalynet]

Hullo again, sorry for the long gap between posting, ive been paralysed a bit and that takes my time.
Thank you for pushing the argument further logically than Ive had to go before Darth, Its good!
First off, Mr. Man, I said just the opposite, to condem where no condemnation is said is being pharasitical. If you read into something its putting something there that isnt there, Im just sticking with what is there and leaving it at that. You have to make guessed additions to make your point.
In case its not clear I agree that Homosexuality in any form is not genetic.
Now Darth, this is more intresting. First off "even during the period in which multiple wives were allowed" This is a bit hazy, there is no said period, its always been allowed somewhere and is now. The cutures that allow it vary a lot so I dont think I can pin down exacly what your talking about. I know Mormons think the way you said, but I disagree strongly with them in a great number of ways concerning treatment of women. I belive that Islam has a very strong policy of not talking about it one way or the other. I do not know of other cultures in much detail however any said prohibition is not spoken of one way or the other in Scripture.

Now, even if it was considered extremely dishonorable, that doesent make a real difference to the debate, what is considered right by culture is only a side show of the question of is it allowed by scripture.

[Nazaroo]

No, no that doesn't work. That has never worked. In fact, even during the period in which multiple wives were allowed(not encouraged, but allowed) there were strict rules on how to properly honor each wife. And one of those was that your marriage beds with each wife were separate. Having sex with one wife in the bed of another was considered extremely dishonorable. From that it's pretty clear that your sex lives with each wife are to be kept separate.

Aren't you projecting back in time here? There weren't large government bureucrasies regulating marriages in Abraham's time. It was, as the Scripture says, "every man did what was right in his own eyes".

Jacob may have kept the partying separate between Leah and Rachel, but that can't be taken as an unwritten "law" any more than anything else Jacob did.

The sad fact is, the patriarchs were horrendous sinners, and as the record shows, not great examples or illustrations of God's Laws, however organized or defined.

In fact, some incidents in the OT can be read as scathing indictments of contemporary attitudes, like the impulse that Judah had to burn his daughter (apparently alive) for 'playing the harlot'. Luckily the horrific crime was avoided because God had preemptively allowed evidence of Judah's own guilt and hypocrisy to be kept handy.

The meaning of this story seems to be that harsh judgments like this come from projection and denial, hypocrisy and inconsistency, and is an early illustration of principles expounded by Jesus a thousand years later. "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

If so, we can't look to the OT for teaching on LAW per se, but rather Wisdom about morals and ethics and their fair and merciful applications.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[RainPete]

So morality "is" realtive?
Isn't God against sex outside of marriage: Hagar?

Hi, sorry if I'm coming in late

Firstly, I believe morality is best explained as 'contextual' within the framework of being 'led by the Spirit' (Rom 8) and 'love being the fulfilment of the law' (Rom 13:10)

Contextual is different to 'relative' because contextual requires God's wisdom and decision, whereas relative implies a societal / cultural decision.

Secondly, you're mistaking God's grace (His complete acceptance of Abraham) for some sort of condoning what Abraham DID. Remember, Abraham was declared righteous by what he BELIEVED about what God said to him (Gen 15:16.) After this, he makes a mistake by sleeping with Hagar and God doesn't say anything about it because God had accepted Abraham already. He was chosen by God's grace, not by what he did. Abraham and Sarah suffered the consequences of their mistake, but God never said "Good idea!"

Thirdly, and this is where I think it gets difficult, is trying to understand the context of homosexuality. We really do need the Spirit's guidance. Are we REALLY loving people that struggle with homosexual tendencies by condoning what they are doing (and, like them, linking their IDENTITY in with their struggle?)

I can ask this question in our present society and say NO. Because a practising homosexual has to go through a lot of persecution (but let's be honest, not even close to the extent or racism or slavery) and therefore we may be more loving to them by helping them break loose from this struggle instead of giving in to their struggles.

But, what of the way forward? When it comes to transforming our society? Are we REALLY loving our world by condoning practising homosexuality? I have to say, from a historical perspective, this thing eventually becomes a problem for society (I'm thinking of ancient greek society, which I know someone else mentioned) and so the answer could possibly also be 'no.'

What do you think? What is really the most loving thing to do? I don't pretend to have the answer, but would be interested in seeing your answer.

[Julio Navarro]

((Before I start, I would like to state that English is my second language and it's troublesome for me to get a certain message across withought getting misunderstood. I would also like to apologise if my grammar or spelling seems rather bad))

This is a subject that I've been faced with during the past year. Although I have tried to debate this with my classmates or any other Christian friend, it has mainly been unsuccesful seeing as the majority are extremely close-minded.

From what I have been able to research, there is evidence (although since the studies are quite new, it isn't a complete fact yet) that there are several birth defect that cause homosexuality to take place for example, the male has a greater quantity of female hormones (Pheromone?)rather than the male Testosterone, and vice-versa, which leads to the attraction to those of the same sex. Homosexuality may also develop (in my point-of-view), withought any chemical defects or any of the sort, but instead by a personal factor, meaning a series of event in one's life, the atmosphere, etc.

I have yet to find a valid reason in which states that homosexuality is a sin or in any way a breach of moral values. Many state that homosexuality is involved in spreadin AIDS, but they should realise that sex between a man and a woman may also spread the decease, not to mention the simple act of touching even the slightest drop of another's body fluids, includin blood, and is therefore not a factor in this debate. Some call homosexuality an act of sodomy, even biblical experts believe that saying that the 'Sin of Sodom and Gommora' is the act of homosexuality is a prejudistic translation and that it merely reffers to sexual depravity in general and in no way is homosexuality included in this category.

Another point I wish to express is the statement that homosexuals are evil, and that is complete and utter ignorance and prejudice. Homosexuals are as evil as any heterosexual, meaning that homosexuals are just as likely to commit homocide, genocide, rape, physical and mental abuse, etc. as any heterosexual anywhere. Note that by calling homosexuals evil is not only wrong, but hipocritical as well, let me give you an example: lets pretend homosexuality is really a sin and a 'perversion of Gods love' (which I think is an ignorant phrase seeing that both 'straight' and 'gay' love is really the same) and any other things you wish to call it; while homosexuals are commiting that 'sin', heterosexuals are carrying out other sins like adultery, murder, rape, theft, and while heterosexuals aren't wrong in their sexual orientation, they are performing other sinful acts. And so the moral of that example is that if you acuse of the homosexuals of commiting one sin and you carry out another, you are in no position to call them 'evil' or 'sinful' and telling them to repent or 'they shall face eternal damnation' because you are also in that same position and that is called being a hypocrite.


Just because the Bible doesn't refer to something directly that doesn't mean it's a sin and I'm sick of people saying 'That is a perversion of God' or 'God is against that' or saying what God or Chirst would do because even if you read the Bible, it doesn't mean you know what they would do. Try comparing and contrasting the Old Testament and the New Testament, in what I have seen, the Old one implies strict rules and God shows little mercy (in which I think is reasonable to do in that time in order to get the message of obediece across) and the New one preaches obedience in a merciful way which to me implies that things change in time including what things are accepted and what things are not with their respective consequences.

I wish to apologise, for my time has been cut short and I will return soon to finish writing my points of view in the matter. In the meantime, I would like to hear your opinions in what has already been written.

[Just Some Dude]

Another point I wish to express is the statement that homosexuals are evil, and that is complete and utter ignorance and prejudice. Homosexuals are as evil as any heterosexual, meaning that homosexuals are just as likely to commit homocide, genocide, rape, physical and mental abuse, etc. as any heterosexual anywhere. Note that by calling homosexuals evil is not only wrong, but hipocritical as well, let me give you an example: lets pretend homosexuality is really a sin and a 'perversion of Gods love' (which I think is an ignorant phrase seeing that both 'straight' and 'gay' love is really the same) and any other things you wish to call it; while homosexuals are commiting that 'sin', heterosexuals are carrying out other sins like adultery, murder, rape, theft, and while heterosexuals aren't wrong in their sexual orientation, they are performing other sinful acts. And so the moral of that example is that if you acuse of the homosexuals of commiting one sin and you carry out another, you are in no position to call them 'evil' or 'sinful' and telling them to repent or 'they shall face eternal damnation' because you are also in that same position and that is called being a hypocrite.

Just because the Bible doesn't refer to something directly that doesn't mean it's a sin and I'm sick of people saying 'That is a perversion of God' or 'God is against that' or saying what God or Chirst would do because even if you read the Bible, it doesn't mean you know what they would do. Try comparing and contrasting the Old Testament and the New Testament, in what I have seen, the Old one implies strict rules and God shows little mercy (in which I think is reasonable to do in that time in order to get the message of obediece across) and the New one preaches obedience in a merciful way which to me implies that things change in time including what things are accepted and what things are not with their respective consequences.

I'm going to be fairly brief since I think other people here should be better able to respond in full. First off, you say homosexuality isn't evil because the "love" between homosexuals is equal to the love between heterosexuals. Here, I am going to ask you to define very specifically what love is. Everyone can love each other (love your enemy), and that cannot be used in your defense because than I can say I love my little sister and my mom and my dad and various other whatnot, but no one mistakes that for "hetero" or "homo" love, so if that is your defintion, it doesn't fly. If your defintion is sex, it doesn't fly very well since natural sex comes between male and female, and doesn't work very well between male and male or female and female (and, if I remember correctly, one of the big reasons homosexuality is condemned in the Scriptures is because it is an unnatural and perverted use of the body). So sex doesn't count as love either. If you mean romantic feelings, then romance has to be defined (I can come up with a several different defintions). Another defintion I'm ignorant of?

As for the Old v New, you need to research more. The "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an Old Testament law. Love your neighbor as yourself is an Old Testament law to, as is the commandment to love the Lord with all your heart and mind and soul and strength. Also, remember the book of Apocalypse (Revelation), where Jesus is the King of kings with the sharp, double-edged sword coming out of his mouth that will destroy his enemies (and at the end, fire coming down from Heaven to burn up His enemies)? How about the woes unto the Pharisees, because they would travel over land and sea to win a convert and make him twice a son of hell as they were? The whole Old v New Testament thing is something the Church has long ago dealt with and taken care of (see the Marcionites of the early centuries A.D.).

[Bla g 1]

Suppose that it is innate. Well, so is my desire to have sex with every good-looking babe that would have me. I did not remain faithful to same woman for the last 25 years by doing what my id wanted to. It was a matter of moral choice. This brings us around to our worldview and the origin of morality. Judging by the self-reported worldviews, I don’t think this message board will ever resolve the issue.

[woodyster]

Hey guys. Good debate. I've been watching for awhile, and if no one minds, would like to offer my view on the topic.
First: The jury is still out on the whole genetic issue. Many of the studies were in some way statistically flawed such as the twins one which didn't have control groups involving twins raised apart from each other. Since the twins being studied were still in the same household, the social environment could still be just as much to blame.

Second: Genes can influence, but usually they are impossible to predestine. If a person with a predisposition towards alcoholism was raised by Mormans and never strayed from their commandments (therefore never tasting alcohol), the issue wouldn't arise. Social factors are often more powerful influences than genetic ones (such as emotionally absent parents of the same gender and overbearing ones of the same gender, as some studies have linked to homosexuality). Please realize that i am not saying that homosexuals are mentally ill or retarded, but simply extrapolating based on the assumed genetic nature of both.

Third: Even if homosexuality is still genetic, it doesn't speak to the morality of it. As Bla g 1 stated above, humans experience genetically hardwired urges in just about every area (including sex). The urge is not important but how we respond to it. I think that based off of the evidence we have know it is a bit of a strawman fallacy to plead genetics.

And finally, Fourth: In respect to what the bible speaks on the topic, I don't even look to the Levitical account personally as a great many of the laws were fulfilled by Christ and are no longer valid. The New Testament speaks quite clearly on this topic in Romans 1, which is rather relevant in response to point three listed above (the issue of the urge compared to how we respond to it.

And please realize that I am not a "homophobe" (how did that word ever come about anyway? Fear of "same"). I don't agree with homosexuality from a biblical standpoint but believe that it is possible to love homosexuals in the same brotherly way it is possible to love other sinners (of which I admit I am one). I do rather enjoy places like this where (hopefully) people are for stating arguements rather than ad homiems. I promise I'll shut up now.