 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/11/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | It seems that certain sexual preferences are allowed in Christianity; sex is considered by some to be moral out of marriage, and you can have partners who are of the same sex. I guess homosexuality is acceptable, that is what some members of this community have said--who knows what Paul meant? Anywho, what, if any, are the benefits of having a desire for both sexes? Something has told people who claim Christianity that it is right for them to have these, "sexual," feelings for both sexes. So, how does this glorify God--assuming hetrosexuality is glorifying to God that bisexuality is in some way glorifying as well--and what scripture should I use against any "judgemental" christians who might try to discourage these people from their "love."
Blessings,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/11/2003 5:36:28 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/11/2003 7:26:46 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/11/2003 7:50:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2003 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2003 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, almost...
Paul, it's logically impossible (I think) to have a "preference" for both sexes. To 'prefer' is to prefer one over the other. You can be bisexual. But that's not "preferring" both, unless of course you do animals too, then you could I suppose prefer humans to animals.
Paul: What, if any, are the benefits of having [sex] with both sexes?
Tom: I gotta hear the answer to this one.
Paul: Something has told people who claim Christianity that it is right for them to have these, "sexual," feelings for both sexes.
Tom: Insert "some" before the word "who."
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/11/2003 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Some of us on this site believe only sex within marriage and between male and female is God ordained. All else is what "we" would call sin. And, last I looked, sin doesn't glorify God...so I guess I'm interested in what can be used against me...
Edited by - honorman on 02/11/2003 6:07:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/11/2003 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm with Honorman on this. Seems to me that both Leviticus and Paul are luminously clear that homosexuality is not morally permissible.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/11/2003 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Various places on the net I find people who supposedly are Christians admitting they are bisexual. So I decided to ask in a sarcastic fashion, how it is these people feel they can practice this sin while claiming to be Christians and remaining in their sin. I am convinced that some of these people don't view this as sin, and that is sad; and when you bring this to them, they usually will say you are judging them and won't listen.
Blessings,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/11/2003 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh ... misunderstood your initial post, Paul.
I have no problem with self-professed Christians debating the morality of things like homosexuality, premarital sex, etc. in the light of Biblical teachings. But when people start hurling accusations like "you're judging me" just because someone thinks they are in the wrong, there is a problem. A better response would be to ask politely why you think one can't be a Christian and, say, bisexual. At least then we can have a discussion. Saying "you're judging me" is usually aimed at shutting up critics rather than honestly facing them and either refuting their charges or conceding the point and being changed by it.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/11/2003 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan Rhoda
But when people start hurling accusations like "you're judging me" just because someone thinks they are in the wrong, there is a problem.
Iconoclast
What if they really ARE being judged? What if the charges being hurled at a gay person are coming out of the individual's need to "be right" rather than out of love? Isn't this what Jesus was MOST upset about? Isn't this a more pressing issue than whether someone has a speck in their eye?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 02/12/2003 12:42:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/12/2003 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Back at this one again eh? I been hesitant to write about it because I think it is still very touchy on this website.
Iconoclast...if that were the case, then the person "hurl'n the charges" has to check their motives. But in my opinion, Iconoclast, this is what YOUR post does by default...to correct those who are in the wrong as YOU see it.
But the real question is not peoples motives, as important as that is, but whether the standard should be changed. Aaaand so far, yourself, Greg, Semeia and Miss E are in the minority on this as far as Evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity is concerned.
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/12/2003 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | From my point of view, I am not judging anyone. I am simply taking what scripture says and judging an action. If people don't like that an action they are doing is being judged, it is their problem, not mine. But without judgment of actions we can do nothing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/12/2003 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | When referring to Christian gays and bisexuals Paul (A_Theist) said:
"people who claim Christianity"
"people who supposedly are Christians"
"while claiming to be Christians"
And Alan Rhoda referred to Christian gays and bisexuals as:
"self-professed Christians"
Semeia:
I'm confused. Doesn't Jesus say "Whosoever believes in me shall have everlasting life"? Isn't "professing" Christ and "claiming" Christ what it means to be Christian?
This website attracts diverse people who vehemently disagree about the meaning of scripture. Sometimes this disagreement highlights radically different views of the nature of God and the nature of being human. Take Calvinism versus Open Theism, for example – these two viewpoints have implications for the problem of evil, and the stance one takes toward suffering. How one “does” Christianity can look very different depending on one’s interpretation of scripture. And yet when discussing these important implications, rarely would someone ever call into question the opposing view’s identity as a Christian. When this does happen, it is met with defensiveness and anger, because it is in fact an attack.
Why is it that Christians accept diversity of opinion in most areas of scripture, but in the area of what the Bible has to say about sexual orientation (which is next to nothing) they feel it is appropriate to call into question the very identity of one as a Christian?
My own views are quite different from those of Calvinists, Pentecostals, and most Evangelicals for that matter, in areas that are very important to me, which affect nearly every aspect of the way I look at the world, how I picture God, what I believe God asks of me in relation to my behavior in general and toward others in particular. My beliefs have been formed over a lifetime of experience as well as a long engagement with the Bible and a relationship with Jesus Christ. How would it be if I started referring to people who disagree with my views as “so-called Christians” or “self-professed Christians” – both of which strongly imply that the person with the opposing view is not in fact really a Christian after all?
Alan said:
Seems to me that both Leviticus and Paul are luminously clear that homosexuality is not morally permissible.
Semeia:
It’s hard for me to see how the Bible can be luminously clear about something for which it didn’t even have a term. Paul describes people being so overcome with lust that they exchange “natural” sex for “unnatural” sex with same gender partners. This description bears no resemblance to the vast majority of homosexuals, or to what we know today about homosexuality. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that homosexuality comes about from an excess of lust that is not satisfied by same gender sex. The preponderance of evidence suggests that sexual orientation is determined by the age of five, and that there is some genetic component to it, although it is not yet clearly understood. So when we read Paul on this issue we have two choices – either Paul was misinterpreting what he was seeing, or he was describing something different from ordinary differences in sexual orientation. Perhaps he was referring to the terrible practice of temple prostitution which was prevalent during his lifetime, in which very young boys (as well as adult men and women) were groomed to be sexual partners for the priests, and given many rewards for their “services” and then discarded by their late teens as useless after they passed the age of prime sexual allure. What we do know is that the picture he paints of people being so overcome by lust that they give up relations with the opposite sex for relations with the same sex has no connection to what we today know about sexual orientation.
Leviticus is even less luminously clear, once we admit how much of it the vast majority of Christians today reject.
Ch. 11:
1: And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
2: "Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3: Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.
4: Nevertheless among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.
5: And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.
6: And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.
7: And the swine, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
8: Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.
Ch. 12:
1: The LORD said to Moses,
2: "Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean.
3: And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4: Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.
5: But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.
6: "And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering,
7: and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female.
8: And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean."
Ch. 15:
16: "And if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening.
17: And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening.
18: If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.
[Semeia’s note: I wonder if Christian men who have “an emission of semen” through masturbation or sex or teenage nocturnal emission consider themselves “unclean until evening” as the scripture states? I wonder if Christian husbands and wives consider themselves unclean until the evening if they have had sex? If not, why do we consider the scripture in Leviticus about homosexuality to speak clearly to us, but not this scripture?]
19: "When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.
20: And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean.
21: And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
22: And whoever touches anything upon which she sits shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening;
23: whether it is the bed or anything upon which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.
24: And if any man lies with her, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.
25: "If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean.
26: Every bed on which she lies, all the days of her discharge, shall be to her as the bed of her impurity; and everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity.
27: And whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.
28: But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29: And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting.
30: And the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for her unclean discharge.
31: "Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst."
32: This is the law for him who has a discharge and for him who has an emission of semen, becoming unclean thereby;
33: also for her who is sick with her impurity; that is, for any one, male or female, who has a discharge, and for the man who lies with a woman who is unclean.
Ch. 18:
1: And the LORD said to Moses,
2: "Say to the people of Israel, I am the LORD your God.
3: You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.
4: You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God.
5: You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live: I am the LORD.
6: "None of you shall approach any one near of kin to him to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.
7: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
8: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
9: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad.
10: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
11: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister.
[Semeia’s note: I’m a little confused here about whether this scripture refers to simply seeing someone naked, or some kind of sexual act. Since elsewhere in the same book sex is referred to by the euphemism of “lie down with” I would assume that all of this is a prohibition against nakedness, with which apparently the culture of that time had a LOT of issues. If I was to see this scripture as luminously clear on this issue I would have to conclude that I am a particularly sinful person and that I have a lot of company. I’m not particularly modest and in my family we see each other naked pretty frequently. I have not taught my children to be ashamed of their nakedness (within limits, of course) and so I look at this scripture as relevant to the culture of the time, but completely irrelevant to me now.]
12: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's near kinswoman.
13: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's near kinswoman.
14: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
15: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
16: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; she is your brother's nakedness.
17: You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your near kinswomen; it is wickedness.
18: And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive.
19: "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
[Semeia’s note: I guess this means that one’s husband SHALL NOT see his wife naked when she is having her menstrual period. Obviously this is not something that anyone I know adheres to, even though the text here is unequivocal in its prohibition.]
20: And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, and defile yourself with her.
21: You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
[Semeia’s note: the word “abomination” here has to do with ritual purity laws having to do with cleanness and uncleanness. Other things that fall into the category of abominations include “eating pork, misusing incense, and having sex during menstruation.” (from Homosexuality and Christian Faith, by Walter Wink)]
23: And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion.
24: "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves;
25: and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
26: But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you
27: (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled);
28: lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.
29: For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.
30: So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God."
Ch. 19:
1: And the LORD said to Moses,
2: "Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, You shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy.
3: Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
4: Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.
5: "When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the LORD, you shall offer it so that you may be accepted.
6: It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, or on the morrow; and anything left over until the third day shall be burned with fire.
7: If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination; it will not be accepted,
8: and every one who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned a holy thing of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from his people.
9: "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest.
10: And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
11: "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
12: And you shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
13: "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
14: You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
15: "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.
16: You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand forth against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.
17: "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him.
18: You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
19: "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff.
[Semeia’s note: today most clothing is made from blends, and yet the injunction against it in Leviticus is clear.]
20: "If a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave, betrothed to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;
[Semeia’s note: this verse clearly shows that a slave woman does not have the same value as a free woman, and therefore the punishment for sleeping with her is not as severe as sleeping with a free woman. I wonder if American slaveholders found verses like this to be luminously clear in upholding the lesser value and rights of slaves?]
21: but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the LORD, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.
22: And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.
23: "When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten.
24: And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD.
25: But in the fifth year you may eat of their fruit, that they may yield more richly for you: I am the LORD your God.
26: "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not practice augury or witchcraft.
27: You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.
28: You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
[Semeia’s note: I wonder what this says about people with short hair, no beards and tattoos? What does this say about people who eat steak?]
29: "Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry and the land become full of wickedness.
30: You shall keep my sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
31: "Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
32: "You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
33: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
34: The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
35: "You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity.
36: You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37: And you shall observe all my statutes and all my ordinances, and do them: I am the LORD."
Ch. 20:
9: For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him.
10: "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
11: The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
12: If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed incest, their blood is upon them.
13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
14: If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.
15: If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast.
16: If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
[Semeia’s note: Leviticus is “luminously clear” on these points – all of these transgressions shall be PUNISHABLE BY DEATH: cursing your father or mother, committing adultery or incest, committing a male homosexual act – all of these require the DEATH PENALTY. If one is going to use Leviticus as an argument against homosexuality, don’t you have to take seriously what it actually SAYS? If you are going to fault people for misreading scripture, and point to the clarity of this scripture in particular, then don’t you have to come up with some coherent argument for why we shouldn’t KILL PEOPLE for cursing their parents or committing adultery? And since Jesus says that to even have lust in your heart is to commit adultery, don’t we have an even bigger problem with this text?]
17: "If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people; he has uncovered his sister's nakedness, he shall bear his iniquity.
18: If a man lies with a woman having her sickness, and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood; both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
19: You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's near kin; they shall bear their iniquity.
20: If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin, they shall die childless.
21: If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother's nakedness, they shall be childless.
22: "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and do them; that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out.
23: And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
24: But I have said to you, `You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.' I am the LORD your God, who have separated you from the peoples.
25: You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.
26: You shall be holy to me; for I the LORD am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.
27: "A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them."
Ch. 21:
1: And the LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them that none of them shall defile himself for the dead among his people,
2: except for his nearest of kin, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother,
3: or his virgin sister (who is near to him because she has had no husband; for her he may defile himself).
4: He shall not defile himself as a husband among his people and so profane himself.
5: They shall not make tonsures upon their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
6: They shall be holy to their God, and not profane the name of their God; for they offer the offerings by fire to the LORD, the bread of their God; therefore they shall be holy.
7: They shall not marry a harlot or a woman who has been defiled; neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband; for the priest is holy to his God.
8: You shall consecrate him, for he offers the bread of your God; he shall be holy to you; for I the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.
9: And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
10: "The priest who is chief among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose, nor rend his clothes;
11: he shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother;
12: neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.
13: And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
14: A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people,
15: that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctify him."
16: And the LORD said to Moses,
17: "Say to Aaron, None of your descendants throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God.
18: For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long,
19: or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand,
20: or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles;
21: no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.
22: He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things,
23: but he shall not come near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the LORD who sanctify them."
24: So Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the people of Israel.
Ch. 23:
1: The LORD said to Moses,
2: "Say to the people of Israel, The appointed feasts of the LORD which you shall proclaim as holy convocations, my appointed feasts, are these.
3: Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation; you shall do no work; it is a sabbath to the LORD in all your dwellings.
[Semeia’s note: the holiness of the Sabbath is mentioned throughout the bible, from beginning to end. If one was to compare the frequency of biblical reference to the Sabbath compared to the handful of scriptures that can conceivably be said to refer to homosexuality, it is clear that the Sabbath is considered a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE. We live in a culture of twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week services: stores, hospitals, gas stations, hotels, airlines – you name it, it’s open on the Sabbath. And yet I never hear Christians complaining about the way all of these “so-called Christian” or “self-professed Christian” workers continue to “live in sin” by not resting on the Sabbath.]
4: "These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for them.
5: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, is the LORD's passover.
6: And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread to the LORD; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.
7: On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work.
8: But you shall present an offering by fire to the LORD seven days; on the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work."
9: And the LORD said to Moses,
10: "Say to the people of Israel, When you come into the land which I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest;
11: and he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, that you may find acceptance; on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
12: And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the LORD.
13: And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, to be offered by fire to the LORD, a pleasing odor; and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin.
14: And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
15: "And you shall count from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven full weeks shall they be,
16: counting fifty days to the morrow after the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a cereal offering of new grain to the LORD.
17: You shall bring from your dwellings two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, as first fruits to the LORD.
18: And you shall present with the bread seven lambs a year old without blemish, and one young bull, and two rams; they shall be a burnt offering to the LORD, with their cereal offering and their drink offerings, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD.
19: And you shall offer one male goat for a sin offering, and two male lambs a year old as a sacrifice of peace offerings.
20: And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits as a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs; they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.
21: And you shall make proclamation on the same day; you shall hold a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work: it is a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.
22: "And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God."
23: And the LORD said to Moses,
24: "Say to the people of Israel, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with blast of trumpets, a holy convocation.
25: You shall do no laborious work; and you shall present an offering by fire to the LORD."
26: And the LORD said to Moses,
27: "On the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be for you a time of holy convocation, and you shall afflict yourselves and present an offering by fire to the LORD.
28: And you shall do no work on this same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God.
29: For whoever is not afflicted on this same day shall be cut off from his people.
30: And whoever does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people.
31: You shall do no work: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
32: It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict yourselves; on the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you keep your sabbath."
33: And the LORD said to Moses,
34: "Say to the people of Israel, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month and for seven days is the feast of booths to the LORD.
35: On the first day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work.
36: Seven days you shall present offerings by fire to the LORD; on the eighth day you shall hold a holy convocation and present an offering by fire to the LORD; it is a solemn assembly; you shall do no laborious work.
37: "These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD offerings by fire, burnt offerings and cereal offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day;
38: besides the sabbaths of the LORD, and besides your gifts, and besides all your votive offerings, and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.
39: "On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the feast of the LORD seven days; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest.
40: And you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
41: You shall keep it as a feast to the LORD seven days in the year; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month.
42: You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all that are native in Israel shall dwell in booths,
43: that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."
44: Thus Moses declared to the people of Israel the appointed feasts of the LORD.
Ch. 24:
10: Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel quarreled in the camp,
11: and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. And they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelo'mith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
12: And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be declared to them.
13: And the LORD said to Moses,
14: "Bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
15: And say to the people of Israel, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.
16: He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
17: He who kills a man shall be put to death.
18: He who kills a beast shall make it good, life for life.
19: When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him,
20: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured.
21: He who kills a beast shall make it good; and he who kills a man shall be put to death.
22: You shall have one law for the sojourner and for the native; for I am the LORD your God."
23: So Moses spoke to the people of Israel; and they brought him who had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
[Semeia’s note: WOW, talk about “luminously clear”! If we are going to use Leviticus as scriptural evidence for the sinfulness of a particular activity, then we are going to have to deal with the scripture in its entirety. And it is quite unambiguous: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, disfigurement for disfigurement, and a life for a life.
It’s interesting though, that American Christians find cultures who abide by these kind of laws to be barbaric, and they are most eager to evangelize the parts of the world that suffer under such barbarism.
And of course Jesus gave us a new covenant that contradicts the message so clearly commanded in Leviticus. He also told us how we should view our own sin compared to our brother’s sin: our sin is like a log in our eye, their sin is like a speck.]
Ch. 27:
1: The LORD said to Moses,
2: "Say to the people of Israel, When a man makes a special vow of persons to the LORD at your valuation,
3: then your valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.
4: If the person is a female, your valuation shall be thirty shekels.
5: If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, your valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
6: If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver.
7: And if the person is sixty years old and upward, then your valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.
8: And if a man is too poor to pay your valuation, then he shall bring the person before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him who vowed the priest shall value him.
[Semeia’s note: I’m not exactly sure what’s going on in this passage. (Are people being offered up for some kind of sacrifice? What does a “special vow” to the Lord mean in this context? Are they talking about the value of slaves?) But I find it interesting because of what it shows about the different value put on people during that time. Clearly a male from twenty to sixty is the king of the heap, and worth almost double a woman of the same age. Children are worth far less, with the same dramatic difference between male and female, and a female toddler being worth next to nothing. And old people aren’t worth much either. It’s rather disturbing to read, even if not surprising.
If we are to see Leviticus as a document relevant to today, don’t we have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of its cultural mores and prohibitions and commandments are not things that the majority of Christians still follow?
Why do we say it speaks clearly about homosexuality, when we have rejected what it says about women, slavery, property rights, food preparation, menstruation, semen, nakedness, sacrificial offerings, dietary restrictions, vengeance, crimes that deserve capitol punishment, stoning people to death for cursing their parents or committing adultery, clothing rules, hairstyle rules, sexist male hierarchy that views women as property, sexist views on adultery, sexist views on prostitution, sexist views on almost everything, and what exactly it means to keep the Sabbath?]
To sum up, from Walter Wink’s Homosexuality and Christian Faith:
“For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:
- incest
- rape
- adultery
- intercourse with animals
But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned or discouraged the following behaviors which we generally allow:
- intercourse during menstruation
- celibacy (some texts)
- exogamy (marriage with non-Israelites
- naming sexual organs
- nudity (under certain conditions)
- masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
- birth control (some Christians still forbid this).
And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not.
Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn or have discontinued:
- prostitution
- polygamy
- levirate marriage
- sex with slaves
- concubinage
- treatment of women as property
- very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we agree with the Bible only on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no Christians today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law. (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.”
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/12/2003 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/12/2003 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia-
You just condensed 2 weeks of my junior year Christian Ethics class into an exceptional arguement. Thanks for putting in the work. I've always had a hard time with the issue of homosexuality and the scriptures. We put so much empphasis on certain "sins" and not so much on others. Effectively outcasting people with particular "sins" and not others.
How is it that I can eat until I'm twenty pounds over-weight and not get ostracized for my gluttonous ways? Why do we so enjoy classifying people by sins? Judgement is reserved for one. I'd have to agree with Semeia that the framework in which sexuality is discussed is flawed.
Love your local GLBT as yourself!
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/12/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | What about bisexuality? Is that something about the way one is genetically wired in the brain? And I assume because this isn't a lifestyle choice but a product of genetic determinism, does that make all sin permissable; because who knows, maybe anything else viewed as sin can be explained away by a bi-product of our genes and the way they are coded?
What about homosexual deliverance ministries? How is it that something they (the ministry) feel they are doing for the Lord and their brothers and sisters, works? Were these people, who were delivered, not truly homosexuals in the deterministic sense you propose above?
How would it be if I started referring to people who disagree with my views as “so-called Christians” or “self-professed Christians” – both of which strongly imply that the person with the opposing view is not in fact really a Christian after all?
Does that make every person who claims to follow the teachings of Christ a Christian?
21 Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” 23Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.
What is sin? What does remaining in Sin mean? I take it you don't view any sexual act sinful? Am I too not feel guilty if I have premarital sex?; because the lines aren't really clear on that either. What--it is the only rules set down by God that I know of--in the bible should we follow? I realize, for personal reasons, you want homosexuality to be just as proper as hetrosexual marriage, but how does it glorify God--assuming loving someone in an eros fashion is supposed to be about glorifying God and not ones own personal preference. (Please don't answer my question with a question) I realize you iconclastically want to dispell the presuppositions other Christians have about about what they think the bible tells them is wrong but to you is permissable. What else should we abandon in the light of semia's revelations?
I remember a while back you mentioned, using cognitive science, that there is a certain percentage of our brain that we don't use and that this presupposes that we aren't conscious of certian sins so we are still guilty of our sins. Does this entail that we remain, unrepentent, in our conscious sins as well?
You are one of the only ones that ever come to defence of this, so I ask you: what other insites do you have for us "uninformed" Christians on how we should live our lives for the Lord?
13 ‘You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. 14‘You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. 15No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.
[Now, I do agree that as Christians we are to love others, but we are not love their sin.]
17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.c 19Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.d 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I know your specialty is in the beatitudes (e.g.,Matthew 5:31-32 It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.)
, so please explain to me what Jesus is saying here in the way of the law?
What kind of homosexuality-bisexuality is permitted in your belief system? Is it only in monogamous relationships this should be permitted? Ultimately, I think as Christians we are supposed to be married when exhibiting sexual love, so do you agree with the fact that this should be practiced amongst homosexuals as well?
What about bisexuals? Does the lord reveal to them which sex (male or female) they will eventually end up with; or, is it OK for them to be married to both sexes? How does one remain bisexual while married to one sex? Is this the only acception in the eyes of God (presupposing that God has any say-so in it)?
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/12/2003 4:56:34 PM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/12/2003 5:05:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/12/2003 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Just a few thoughts of my own here...
I don't see how much more clearer God could have said "Do not have sex with the same gender; this is an abomination" than to have said, "Do not have sex with the same gender; this is an abomination."
Leviticus chapters 11 through 15, as quoted by Semeia, deal with unclean, not abominations. There's no resemblence between the two terms at this point. It is one thing for God to categorize something (that might not even have any moral significance) as unclean--it makes a point in regard to relationship between Himself and man, but it is quite another thing to categorize something as an abomination--most all the time (no, not ALL the time, but most of the time) this is moral and it is generally communicated to us in a framework of "it ought not to be this way". Leviticus 11 through 15 are not in this category, and therefore have no bearing on the thread's topic.
Leviticus 18 deals with what is dishonorable, wicked, and detestable; things which are easily understood, in their moral context to be an abomination: it's simply wrong to have sex with your daughter, mother, father, etc., or anything of that sort. How much clearer could God have said these things? How else, for that matter, could He have said these things? (Might we then toss out the teaching in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life" because they're in Leviticus? Just as Jesus carried over Leviticus' command to love our neighbor as ourself, Paul carried over the abomniation of practicing homosexuality and similar perversions (e.g. Romans 1) in such language that really needs no further comment or clarification; it's plain wrong to be involved in it. We can't decorate Paul's meaning with attempts to skirt around the issue by trying to redefine what's clear in Scipture with definitions just enough out of focus to thwart his point, viz. "Well, Paul wasn't talking about homosexuality, per se, he was addressing those who LUST rather than have a real heart for someone of the same gender" as if we are to say to this interpretation, "Oh, well, then go ahead and be a homosexual and a Christian. Perfectly fine as long as you're not being lustful or doing any other act with each other." I'm afraid this just doesn't work.
Semeia quoted Wink as saying, “abomination” here has to do with ritual purity laws having to do with cleanness and uncleanness. Other things that fall into the category of abominations include “eating pork, misusing incense, and having sex during menstruation.” (from Homosexuality and Christian Faith, by Walter Wink)]
Unfortunately, this isn't the case in Leviticus 18 and I find it wanting in general, though a case can be made to equate unclean with abomination. However, the context of Levitus 18 is so strikingly clear, there's no need to interject unclean for abomination, thus trying to liquidated Leviticus 18 to a semantic illusion of unclarity . Sexual immorality--whether you can define it completely and in every case and instance--is wrong. The context is sufficient.
Semeia, you asked, "Why is it that Christians accept diversity of opinion in most areas of scripture, but in the area of what the Bible has to say about sexual orientation (which is next to nothing) they feel it is appropriate to call into question the very identity of one as a Christian?
Just because the Bible says little about something doesn't mean it hasn't been clear about what it has said. Homosexuality is wrong, period. No ifs, ands, or buts (almost wrote butts!). Can someone, however, be a Christian and be struggling with homosexuality? Oh, heavens yes. I mean, welcome to the human race, you know. But can one PRACTICE this lifestyle and be told that it is acceptable as a Christian? Not on your life. Again, welcome to the human race...but now as a Christian. You don't need Leviticus to tell you this. Quite frankly, it doesn't even take Scripture to tell you this. It's evident as an "It ought not be this way". No, not everyone's going to see it that way, but for pete's sake, the anatomy of males and females pretty well says it all; in the beginning, God created them male and female; THEY were to be joined together and in no other manner as prescribed by liberal Christianity.
As to the rest of the laws and rituals of Leviticus, I believe we make a little bit too much out of cultural argument. It's not impossible to use common sense, logic and our natural "it ought not to be this way" or "it ought to be this way" to decipher much of what God is getting after in Leviticus. It's an over dramatization to defend homosexuality because something else in Leviticus isn't clear or clear enough as to what God was saying. Obviously, to anyone who's read the New Testament, we aren't to sacrifice animals today. So, that's the end of that, then, when it comes to trying to make sense out of the sacrifices of Leviticus in view of the NT. Simply isn't an issue. But that's not the case when it comes down to the sins of the flesh. Waaaay too much rehash about those things in the NT.
For freedom from sin in Christ,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/12/2003 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | First off, perhaps some of you on this website put certain emphasis on certain sins and not on others (as if that somehow makes one thing less of a sin or more of a sin...as if that even is relevant to the discussion of whether or not something is a sin at all...), but personally I don't. So cut it out and try and stay on the discussion, not on whether or not people are being judgmental. THAT is NOT the issue. I am so tired of being people that up when they talk about homosexuality, how Christians are so down on it, how Christians are so judgmental about it. Such actions HAVE NOTHING TO
DO AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. It either is or is not. Deal with that.
Christians accept a variety of opionion in things that are not sin. As far as I know Christians don't accept a variety of opinion in the area of sexual orientation because there isn't a variety of opinion. The Christian church as a whole (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) has always maintained that it is a sin. So there isn't a variety of opinion in that area. And why should there be? It is condemned by scripture without even it needing to be mentioned specifically. Why?
God instituted male/female marriage as holy. Show me a place where he did the same for any other type of relationship. Two, show me any place in scripture where a male/male, female/female sexual relationship is uplifted as holy. Not there. The only sexual relationship God affirms in scripture as holy is marriage between male and female. Any thing that competes with what God has instituted is sin. Any person who believes that it can glorify God is either one of three things: self deluted, seriously confused or is not a Christian.
Semeia: it is truly sad when someone misreads scripture and obscures it in order to make their point (as you do in the case of Paul). Perhaps we can all do that in the areas of scripture we don't like. I mean, none of really knows what the author is truly talking about and we all have our own interpretation of the issue so I guess we really don't know what the author meant, but whatever it is it surely isn't about what I believe on the subject. How truly morally relavistic.
By the way, are Mormons and JW's Christians? And Muslims Christians? They all "proclaim" Christ as well...it isn't simply proclaiming Christ, but what Christ you proclaim. New Agers, UfOers, the list could go on and on. Just about everybody I know proclaims Christ in some way. It is whether or not you are proclaiming the true Christ of the scriptures that counts.
Finally, no one is suggesting we go back to the old law, but then, no one (as you to seem to be)is suggesting we throw away the law and just live however we want (we are under grace, after all, and, what the hell, won't we all be forgiven for everything away). Christ was also the fulfillment of the law. We are called to live holy lives, glorifying to God. Can anyone truly say that anal sex is glorifying to God. Please...
By the way, thanks to Starkman, who took much less space, and much less emotion to bring some common sense (as well as biblical truth) to the issue...
Edited by - honorman on 02/12/2003 6:21:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 2/12/2003 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | This is a fairly difficult and sensitive issue. My question is, even if we grant that the bible condemns homosexuality (which it seems fairly clear), aside from the bible, is there actual any rational basis from moral philosophy to support the immorality of homosexuality? I was just wondering this. I know people usually give the "unnatural arguement," which borrows from the Aristotlean and Aquinas view that every thing in nature has one natural end, function, or purpose. However, this seems like faulty logic if we view the only natural function of our sexual organs as for the end of reproduction. This would make monogomous heterosexual marriatal sex not for the end of procreation immoral. It would also make all other excretions of bodily fluid immoral, under the assumption that everything in nature has one natural purpose. The fact is that there is much in nature that can serve many different purposes. So the unnatural arguement seems to be lacking. Secondly, some people believe homesexuality is wrong because is not "normal" or the general norm of society. However, we as Christians practice many things that would not be the norm in our society, but we do not consider these practices wrong. This is also seems to be a type of majority based morality...which is very faulty. Another reason for the immorality of homosexuality is not so rational. It usually involves a kind of emotivism, like "gay sex is gross!" This seems to be a type of "Boo! Yeah!" ethics, based upon our emotional sentiments towards a particular issue and it's not very strong on rationality. I am not condoning homosexuality, i am just wondering if there is actually any other basis for its wrongness than the Bible. I think most Christians agree that our main concern should be to love homosexuals/bisexuals, however, for the most part we seem to fail miserably at this.
sincerely,
David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/12/2003 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | David,
The "unnaturalness" argument need not be based on the idea that "every thing in nature has ONE natural end, function, or purpose". A better way to state it that avoids your objection is to say that "every thing in nature has one PRINCIPLE natural end, function, or purpose". We could make it more plausible still by restricting its scope to "organic" things, or something like that.
I would say that the principle function of sex is to procreate. It is not the only function, and does not exclude secondary functions like producing pleasure and relational bonding. That procreation is the principle function is evidenced by the fact that the other functions of sex can be fulfilled in other ways, but sex is the only way (apart from late 20th century medical techniques) to procreate.
Homosexual sex, on this argument, is unnatural because it is CONTRARY to the principle function of sex. Heterosexual sex between nonfertile individuals is not unnatural because, although procreation is not possible, still it is not contrary to the principle function of one's sex organs because if the sex organs were in good working order, procreation would be a real possibility.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 02/12/2003 9:03:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/12/2003 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: I'm confused. Doesn't Jesus say "Whosoever believes in me shall have everlasting life"? Isn't "professing" Christ and "claiming" Christ what it means to be Christian?
Alan: Definitely not. Read Jesus' words in Matthew 7:21 about those who call His "Lord, Lord" and to whom He will respond "I never knew you." Also look at Titus 1:16 where Paul refers to those who "claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him." There is a world of difference between claiming to be something (e.g., a Christian) and actually being one.
Semeia: When discussing these important implications, rarely would someone ever call into question the opposing view’s identity as a Christian. When this does happen, it is met with defensiveness and anger, because it is in fact an attack.
Alan: When I referred to "self-professed Christians" I did not mean it with any perjorative intent. I simply meant to refer to people who claim to be Christians while leaving it open whether their profession is genuine or whether their manner of living is consistent with Biblical morality. That is, after all, the question on the table with respect to this. There was no attack. Sorry if it came across that way.
Semeia: Paul describes people being so overcome with lust that they exchange “natural” sex for “unnatural” sex with same gender partners. This description bears no resemblance to the vast majority of homosexuals, or to what we know today about homosexuality. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that homosexuality comes about from an excess of lust that is not satisfied by same gender sex.
Alan: I don't read Paul as saying that homosexuality comes from an excess of lust not satisfied by same gender sex. Rom 1:26-27 (NASV) reads:
quote:
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Paul is not complaining solely about the excessiveness of their lusts (though that is certainly in view), but also that their sexual desire is toward an "unnatural" object--someone of the same gender. Whether excessive lust is driving the behavior or not is irrelevant as far as its unnaturalness is concerned. So even if Paul's specific target is temple prostitution, his complaint affirms a general moral principle--that unnatural (i.e., same-sex) sexual relations are morally inappropriate--that has broader applicability.
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 02/12/2003 9:04:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/12/2003 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist
You are one of the only ones that ever come to defence of this, so I ask you: what other insites do you have for us "uninformed" Christians on how we should live our lives for the Lord?
Iconoclast
We should love one another as He has loved us. We should have compassion for others. A specific example of this is how the Christian community has decided (for the most part) how to deal with people who have divorced and remarried. Jesus clearly called this a sin (except for the “right” reasons). It is undeniable that people who have divorced and remarried are “living in sin” according to Jesus. Yet no one today goes on a witch hunt to root these folks out of our churches or the leadership roles within our churches today. We used to many years ago but finally decided that it was perhaps just a bit insane. No one today talks about such folks as “self-professed” Christians or in any way suggests that they should divorce their current spouse and either go back to their first “true” spouse or else remain celibate the rest of their lives. We used to insist on that. Why don’t we anymore? I think the answer is because we came to understand that in doing so we were actually harming these people by heaping impossible burdens upon them and not lifting a finger to help – kind of like what the Pharisees did in Jesus’ time.
The reality is that we are ALL “living in sin” pretty much ALL of the time. The essence of the fall is that we became judgers of people rather than lovers of people (the two are mutually exclusive). And we ALL continue in this to this very day. Somedays are better than others and hopefully as we grow in Christ more days are better than worse.
In my view what it means to be a “Christian” is (1) to become aware that we are “living in sin” pretty much all of the time, (2) to experience Jesus’ loving forgiveness, (3) to extend that loving forgiveness and compassion to others, (4) even though they, like us, are “living in sin” pretty much all of the time.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/12/2003 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan Rhoda
Homosexual sex, on this argument, is unnatural because it is CONTRARY to the principle function of sex.
Iconoclast
God saw that it was not good for man to be alone so he made him an “help meet.” I would say that the principle meaning and gift of sex for humans is to help bind two people together into a more intimate and loving relationship. Song of Solomon is not about procreation. The goal is to learn how to love one another.
Clearly this world is fallen and so the ideal design of God which was meant as a loving gift to us is not everywhere evidenced. God in his loving wisdom allows us to continue to live in this fallen state and even goes so far as to “accommodate” us in our fallen state – He lovingly made clothes for us so that we would feel our shame a little less. He even went so far as to allow divorce because our hearts were hard.
If someone is born homosexual through no choice of their own is it loving to heap the burden of requiring that they stay celibate and alone the rest of their lives? Is this what God does with us? Is this what the church did with people who were divorced and remarried? When we provide an accommodation do we still consider it a sin?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 02/12/2003 11:00:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/12/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/12/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | We should love one another as He has loved us.
I stated pretty clearly that I love the sinner and HATE the sin. I found that response very condescending for the simple fact you came off as if I didn't realize that I am supposed to Love as Jesus said to love. I am sure there are people out there that have that hateful attitude towards homosexuals, but you don't have to blanket statement everyone who expresses a disdain for homosexual behavior and views it as a sin. Yes, we all have sin, but I don't remember the bible telling us to remain in our sin.
Tell me this: Why did you take that one question out of the myriad of others left unanswered? You even missed out on the part where I stated in between Matthew 5: 16 and 5:17:
[Now, I do agree that as Christians we are to love others, but we are not love their sin.]
If you did read that part, would you have still given me that lengthy response stating your beliefs (which I've heard before, but still don't agree with)?
I am sorry, but that is really frustrating--it's like you aren't even listening. I feel it is my job as a Christian to rebuke a believer who is in sin. And you aren't helping out by telling us to love everyone while missing the obvious fact that their sin isn't their definitive characteristic. Why is that? I am not going to stand by and let a believer fall; instead, I am going to show my LOVE for them by showing them their in sin, and I would hope they would do the same for me. (Not just love me while I remain in my sin--the word "tough love" comes to mind.)
Maybe you don't understand, so I will tell you: we Christians who see homosexuality as a sin are warring against the sin not the sinner. I can't speak for the members on this board, I don't agree with the sin, but I love the sinner...and no, I don't agree with divorce either. But then again, I don't agree with marriages that are outside of God's will, so I assume that was their own sin going into that marriage by not consulting God's call on their life. (Sounds like the dangers of acting outside of God's will, and there is no reason for me not to think that isn't a sin which has consequences.)
2 Timothy 4: 1-5- "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths. As for you, always be sober, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, carry out your ministry fully."
It is undeniable that people who have divorced and remarried are “living in sin” according to Jesus. Yet no one today goes on a witch hunt to root these folks out of our churches or the leadership roles within our churches today. We used to many years ago but finally decided that it was perhaps just a bit insane.
Given that Chrsit said the preressurection, what happened to the idea, today, that if you ask for forgiveness for you sins, you will be forgiven? You've been talking about us forgiving our brothers and sisters--that presupposes they've been forgiven of that particular sin right?--so if these divorcees truly repent and God forgives them and they don't remain in that sin by divorcing again, how is this an "unforgivable" sin; or a sin that is worth using in defence of another sin? I only see it as a sin if they keep doing it. Same way with homosexuality: you can't be forgiven of a sin you aren't repentant about. And people who advocate it as a nonsinful act aren't going to tell them otherwise, so they remain in that sin. Is that love?
I think the answer is because we came to understand that in doing so we were actually harming these people by heaping impossible burdens upon them and not lifting a finger to help – kind of like what the Pharisees did in Jesus’ time.
Just because the approach someone is making isn't in a Christ-like fashion doesn't mean you alter the paradigm; you alter your approach. WWJD? I am sure Jesus would convict them of their sin and tell them to repent, as should we.
(3) to extend that loving forgiveness and compassion to others,
Agreed, if...
Luke 17: 3-4 3Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. 4And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, “I repent,” you must forgive.
Oh yeah, I will forgive them if they ask for forgiveness. But how will I forgive them if they don't acknowledge their sin and repent? What you are asking me to do goes against Christ's teachings. I am not going to do that. If I or another convict a brother or sister who is in sin and they don't acknowledge it and repent, how am I to forgive?
Thanks,
Paul
I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 12:43:41 AM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 12:48:34 AM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 12:50:28 AM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/13/2003 01:41:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
diamondd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 2/12/2003 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Alan,
Thanks for the response. I understand what you are saying about the principle nature and i probably agree with it. However, although I see what you are getting at with the contrary nature of homosexuality, and it's not that i totally disagree...but would this mean that heterosexual sex with contraceptives of a fertile husband and wife just for pleasure and intimacy would therefore be wrong? would this also be contrary to the procreation principle? I'm not sure if it would, just wondering your thoughts. i like where you're going though. blessings.
-David
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/12/2003 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan said:
I would say that the principle function of sex is to procreate. It is not the only function, and does exclude secondary functions like producing pleasure and relational bonding. That procreation is the principle function is evidenced by the fact that the other functions of sex can be fulfilled in other ways, but sex is the only way (apart from late 20th century medical techniques) to procreate.
Homosexual sex, on this argument, is unnatural because it is CONTRARY to the principle function of sex. Heterosexual sex between nonfertile individuals is not unnatural because, although procreation is not possible, still it is not contrary to the principle function of one's sex organs because if the sex organs were in good working order, procreation would be a real possibility.
Semeia:
If the principal function of sex is procreation, and that is what makes it "natural," then what do you do with Paul's advice for Christians to remain celibate if at all possible? Isn't it contradictory to prohibit "unnatural" sex at the same time he asks people to abstain from the type of sex that is "natural"? And isn’t his advice contrary to God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”?
And if procreation is what makes sex "natural," then what is natural about sex if one is infertile, using contraception, or post-menopausal? If the primary function of sex is procreation, and one knowingly has sex without possibility of procreation, or willingly blocks conception with contraception or vasectomy or tubal ligation, how would that be any more "natural" than sex between people of the same gender? In each of these cases the goal of sex is other than procreation: intimacy, pleasure, and love. Clearly the sex organs are designed to make procreation possible, but if procreation is not possible, and it is procreation that is the principal function and natural design, how is any non-procreative sex “natural”?
To say “Heterosexual sex between nonfertile individuals is not unnatural because, although procreation is not possible, still it is not contrary to the principle function of one's sex organs because if the sex organs were in good working order, procreation would be a real possibility” is very odd reasoning. The very fact that one is infertile means that it is NOT a real possibility, certainly not any more a possibility than is procreation between two people of the same gender. And if contraception is used, doesn’t that thwart the “natural” primary function of sex? And the secondary functions of sex (according to your argument) such as intimacy and pleasure are easily accomplished by contraceptive-using heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
It sounds as if you are saying that because the genitals are designed for procreation that sex is “natural” and “bible-sanctioned” as long as it mimics procreative sex – even when all parties involved may know full well that they are infertile, or menopausal, or using contraception, or simply trying to gain intimacy and experience the pleasure of orgasm. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If the primary function is what makes sex “natural” then you would have to concede that infertile couples do NOT have natural sex, because the primary function is knowingly thwarted. If the secondary functions, however, are also “natural” then there is nothing unnatural about homosexual sex, because people of the same gender can experience intimacy, pleasure, orgasm, and relational closeness to their life partner just as well as heterosexual couples can.
After I gave my oldest daughter the “big talk” about sex, she said, “Oh, gross, you and dad have had sex THREE TIMES?!” This was her best deduction based on the “procreation” model of sex, and the fact that she and her two siblings made three. Of course it makes us smile to think of sex reduced to simple biology and purpose. And sexuality has much more to do with the brain and the heart than it has to do with genitals, sperm and ovum. Since we all know this about ourselves, why do we get so confused when it comes to homosexuals? Why is it suddenly all about genitalia and procreation and the “ideal” family?
Throughout history childless couples have been shamed by this very model of interpreting procreation as God’s ideal, God’s favor, and God’s blessing. Women have been called “barren” and “empty” and “cursed” if they could not bear children. Infertility was grounds for divorce or non-marriage. Women have been executed for not producing male offspring. Before science uncovered the actual processes of conception, men and especially women were considered “blessed” or “cursed” by God depending on whether or not they had children, especially male children. Now that we scientifically understand the processes behind fertility, we find the moral judgments levied against the childless to be repugnant and backwards, and few people today would say that a large family is a sign of God’s approval, and infertility is a sign of punishment or displeasure from God. It is a matter of shame that throughout history infertility has been considered unnatural, a curse and a punishment.
I believe that as science uncovers the processes of human sexuality we will look back at the treatment of homosexuals with the same sense of shame. Even without that complete scientific evidence, we have before our very eyes all the evidence we need that differences in sexuality do not automatically signify sin (as we once thought childlessness did), and that far more important is the human being in front of us who we are asked to love.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
| 264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:18 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|