homosexuality - again
Okay, the comments thread of one of our posts on the Australian Story show about Brian and Bobbie Houston has turned into (another) debate about homosexuality and sexual impurity. I quote some comments to help you resume the debate. Please keep your comments on this issue to this thread so as not to annoy the other customers.
If homosexuality is sinful, then one would expect that Jesus had something to say about it. But he didn’t. One would then expect that perhaps one of the Apostles wrote something about it in the Epistles. And here Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 is often quoted.
But does Paul talk about innate homosexuality, even though he would have never heard of it? Does Paul really talk about homosexuality as we are discussing it here at all (a couple living in a loving relationship), or does he talk about homosexual promiscuity? And if he had never heard of innate homosexuality, how can he condemn it? How can then the proposition that homosexuality is not sinful be inconsistent with scriptural teaching?
Which brings us to another point; is it possible that Paul got it wrong? In other words, was Paul infallible? And if he was infallible, how do we reconcile what he says in 1 Corinthians 7, where he seems to suggest that a number of his teachings were his opinions?
What about the Old Testament passages then? Well, according to Leviticus 20, we should put to death homosexuals. Does the Old Testament really have anything to say to us who live in the 21st Century about homosexuality?
Comment by Smithy — 9/8/2005 @ 10:20 am | Edit This
Smithy Jesus on more than one occassion spoke about sexual immorality (porniea) which is any sex outside the act of marriage.
On that logic He didn’t talk about bestiality directly either so that must be okay.
When talking about marriage he never mentioned anhthing but a man and a woman becoming one body.Another thing to note is that under Roman law one act of homosexuality was lawful but the other illegal. Paul says both are inherently sinful.
Paul makes it quite clear when he is speaking from God and when he is not.
Leviticus is concerning the NATION of Israelites. The punishment ( note the ones which have the same punishment) is now different but the all the acts still sinful unless otherwise stated.
Comment by Homer Paxton — 9/8/2005 @ 10:49 am | Edit This
Homer Paxton: You didn’t really answer my questions. Where does the Bible talk about innate homosexuality? And if Scripture doesn’t talk about innate homosexuality, aren’t you arguing from silence, since Scripture only talks about the relationship between a man and a woman? You mention beastiality, which is of course emotive. But what about something less emotive, such as IVF? Jesus doesn’t talk about that either.
Also, you say that Paul makes it clear when he is speaking from God and when he is not. Outside of 1 Corinthians 7, where does he make it clear that he is speaking from God and when he isn’t? Or can we make the assumption that when he doesn’t mention that he is speaking his own opinions, he is speaking from God? But if we do this, isn’t this only an assumption and isn’t the contrary opinion just as valid–that whenever he doesn’t mention that he is speaking his opinions, he is doing exactly that, since in 1 Corinthians 7, he sees the need to mention that he has received a word from the Lord for a specific issue?
Comment by Smithy — 9/8/2005 @ 11:11 am | Edit This
Smithy sorry I forgot.
There is no innate homosexuality.
look at 1 Cor 6:9 and then 6:11People used to indulge in all those practices and now they don’t.
This includes the passive and active parts of homosexuality.Paul makes it clear on the occassions when he is not speaking from God as he says so.
I only mentioned bestiality as it is mentioned with adultery, incest et al with homosexuality in Levicitus.
It is your argument not mine.Comment by Homer Paxton — 9/8/2005 @ 11:45 am | Edit This
Homer: porniea only refers only to sex outside of marriage??? Wha????? So nothing that occurs between a married couple would ever be porneia?
Comment by Bec — 9/8/2005 @ 11:58 am | Edit This
I’m sorry Bec But I am not on yuor wavelength.
What exactly are you saying?Comment by Homer Paxton — 9/8/2005 @ 12:07 pm | Edit This
Homer, you said “Jesus on more than one occassion spoke about sexual immorality (porniea) which is any sex outside the act of marriage.” I don’t believe that the mere fact that a couple is married necessarily has any bearing on whether or not a sexual act is porneia.
Comment by Bec — 9/8/2005 @ 12:22 pm | Edit This
Homer Paxton: If Paul had specifically mentioned heterosexual offenders in addition to homsexual offenders, would you deduce from this, that heterosexuality is a sin? In the context that Paul writes in (temple prostitution etc), I–with many theologians throughout the world–cannot read into the text innate homosexuality. The context in these texts is always promiscuity; whether homosexuality or heterosexuality.
You write: ‘Paul makes it clear on the occassions when he is not speaking from God as he says so.’ So, I ask you again: Can we make the assumption that when he doesn’t mention that he is speaking his own opinions, he is speaking from God? On what basis can we do this?
And again I say: If we do this, isn’t this only an assumption and isn’t the contrary opinion just as valid–that whenever he doesn’t mention that he is speaking his opinions, he is doing exactly that, since in 1 Corinthians 7, he sees the need to mention that he has received a word from the Lord for a specific issue?
I would be keen to hear your reply.
Comment by Smithy — 9/8/2005 @ 12:23 pm | Edit This
Keep it to this thread, people.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
From Lev. 18:6 “Don’t have sex with a close relative. I am God. 7 “Don’t violate your father by having sex with your mother. She is your mother. Don’t have sex with her. 8 “Don’t have sex with your father’s wife. That violates your father. 9 “Don’t have sex with your sister, whether she’s your father’s daughter or your mother’s, whether she was born in the same house or elsewhere. 10 “Don’t have sex with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter. That would violate your own body. 11 “Don’t have sex with the daughter of your father’s wife born to your father. She is your sister. 12 “Don’t have sex with your father’s sister; she is your aunt, closely related to your father. 13 “Don’t have sex with your mother’s sister; she is your aunt, closely related to your mother. 14 “Don’t violate your father’s brother, your uncle, by having sex with his wife. She is your aunt. 15 “Don’t have sex with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; don’t have sex with her. 16 “Don’t have sex with your brother’s wife; that would violate your brother. 17 “Don’t have sex with both a woman and her daughter. And don’t have sex with her granddaughters either. They are her close relatives. That is wicked. 18 “Don’t marry your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sex with her while your wife is living.
19 “Don’t have sex with a woman during the time of her menstrual period when she is unclean. 20 “Don’t have sex with your neighbor’s wife and violate yourself by her. 21 “Don’t give any of your children to be burned in sacrifice to the god Molech - an act of sheer blasphemy of your God. I am God. 22 “Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent. 23 “Don’t have sex with an animal and violate yourself by it. A woman must not have sex with an animal. That is perverse. 24 “Don’t pollute yourself in any of these ways. This is how the nations became polluted, the ones that I am going to drive out of the land before you.
I put it in the message translation for easy reading. It seems like the only problem we have comes to verse 22. For those of you who insist that the Bible is silent on the matter -this Bud’s for you.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
I know what semantics is. I’m a linguist.
There is a difference between trying to find an accurate interpretation, which needs to take into account everything from linguistic change, to historical context, author, purpose of the document (or spoken words), the characteristics of the language, etc. and playing games that suggest that the omission of some words implies something about them- which we can’t even guess at because of our very different cultural context.
Anyone who knows that the word “black” meant “bright white” in old English, could make a guess at how fiendishly difficult translation is, let alone when you’re talking about a document that was written 2000 years ago, by different authors and in different languages.
And anyone who has ever been told that two negatives make a positive, when they’ve said “I don’t know nothing” knows how semantic games work and how little they have contribute to actual understanding.
I was under the impression that this thread was an attempt to gain a bit of understanding of the former: ie. what the bible had to say about homosexuality, whether it had anything to say about homosexuality and what is and is not ambiguous about those scriptures.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Laura - Leviticus 18:22 covers homosexual acts, would you agree?
October 13th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Following on as it does from the verse relating to Molech, it could be relating to temple prostitution, another practice of Molech worship….?
October 13th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
sacrifice to Molech included throwing your children in the fire. You have to use some real semantics games to come up with that Luke.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
We’ve covered this ground.
-sexual acts vs orientation
-temple prostitution vs monogamous homosexual relationship
-sins that are no longer recognised as such because of the new testament.
I’m not a biblical scholar, and I read with interest what other people here and elsewhere have to say about their areas of expertise. There is by no means consensus on the Leviticus verse. In http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
there is a detailed discussion of the verse and I’ll copy here their conclusion:
Which is the correct translation?
Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:
All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
All sexual behavior between two men, or
Only anal sex between two men, or
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
Sexual activity between two men in a woman’s bed?
Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.
This is what they have to say about English translations of Leviticus 22:
English translations of this verse:
These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian and Jewish liberals.
It’s quite long, so I haven’t pasted it all here. The website doesn’t state definitively what the correct translation is, just that it’s ambiguous.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Luke - since the previous sentence is structured thusly - 21 “Don’t give any of your children to be burned in sacrifice to the god Molech - an act of sheer blasphemy of your God. I am God.
Should not your “possible” meaning of verse 22 have been written as this.
22 “Men, don’t give your body to be used sexually by another man as a prostitute in sacrifice to the god Molech - an act of sheer blasphemy of your God. I am God.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Going grocery shopping now before the market closes. see ya tomorrow guys
October 13th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
A review about religioustolerance.org from their own site.
2000-JUN-5: Apologetics Index is a counter-cult group that disseminates information about what it regards as heretical Christian groups. They review our web site at: http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/o00.html The concluded:
“Unfortunately, while you’ll find an extensive collection of documented, cross-referenced information, many articles are not as balanced as advertised. The site promotes pluralism, and has a decidedly dim view of the anti-cult and counter-cult movements. It prefers to believe cult-apologists, and promotes many of their arguments. In public and private messages, staff and supporters of the Scientology-backed [Cult Awareness Network] CAN, refer people to the site rather than their own.”
I hardly think it is useful in evaluating scripture. Here is some other interesting thoughts from their website.
We believe that: Religions are very different.
Religions teach very different perceptions of God.
Some religions and their followers have committed terrible atrocities.
All religions cannot be absolutely true.
This site describes both the positive and negative aspects of religions.
This site describes dozens of faith groups, from Asatru to Christianity to Wicca to Zoroastrianism. We cover new religious movements, including dangerous cults. We describe ethical belief systems, like Agnosticism, Atheism and Humanism.
We describe all sides of each controversial topic, from abortion, to physician assisted suicide, including capital punishment, evolution & creation science, and homosexuality.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Kevin, I have sent George your email address. As for the rest of this thread, I think I’ll step out for a bit.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
“Going grocery shopping now before the market closes. see ya tomorrow guys”
Does that mean you are going shopping to buy a grocery store, or the groceries within that store?
Or does it mean the groceries themselves are going shopping, which would be something worth observing as groceries are inanimate objects, and the sight of groceries ’shopping’ would be one to behold.
And when you said ’see you tomorrow guys’….did you mean that we are ‘tomorrow guys’, as in a metaphor for ‘People of the Future’ or ‘People with their finger on the pulse of tomorrow’….
There is ample contemporary evidence for this interpretation ….as in the Ziggy Marley song ‘Tomorrow People’.
“Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?
Today you say you deyah
Tomorrow you say you’re gone
But you’re gone so long
If there is no love in your heart - so sorry
Then there is no hope for you - true, true
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last?
So you’re in the air
But you still don’t have a thing to spare
You’re flying high
While we’re on the low o-o-oh
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last? Tell me now
Tomorrow people, where is your past? No where
Tomorrow people, how long will you last? Ten years!
Stop tellin’ me the same story
Today you say you deyah
Tomorrow you say you’re gone and you’re not coming back
If there is no love in your heart oh now
There will never be hope for you
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, how long will you last? Ten years!
Tomorrow people, where is your past?
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, come on
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, come on
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, no soon come
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, soon come
Tomorrow people, tomorrow people, today is here
If you don’t know your past, you don’t know your future
Everyone
Don’t know your past, don’t know your future everyman
Don’t know your past, don’t know your future, come on
Don’t know your past, don’t know your future
How many nations
How many people did that one catch
How many”
And when you suggested you would ’see’ us, is there some way you can ’see’ us without us knowing?
And why do you have to do your ‘grocery shopping’ before the ‘market closes’.
Are you expecting the late buyers to bolster the All Ordinaries Index?
I find interpreting this sentence troublesome.
But Homer will know exactly what it means…because…well….that prick knows everything
(except what the bible teaches about being conceited)
October 13th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
thank you dan - I’m out too.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
[…] ursday, October 13, 2005 at 4:56 pm by dan under bumping uglies Okay, the comments on this thread are out of control, and I think are contributing to ou […]
October 13th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Hey all, if you want to continue this conversation, please do so on the new post linked in the trackback above - the number of comments on this thread is causing traffic issues for us.
April 4th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I suppose it would put an end to all the controversy if everyone just became homosexual. As a matter of fact that would put an end to the human race since there would be no offspring produced. Isn’t that really why homosexuals hate herterosexuals so intensely, because they have to keep going to them for newbies since they can’t produce their own? If no life can be produced by homosexuality isn’t that God’s judgement against it’s practice. Everything of God’s creation brings forth after it’s own kind.
We know that Satan tries to substitute something that will pervert every good thing that God has done with something that leads us astray from the intended purpose of God, that includes “the way of a man with a maid”.
April 4th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
“I suppose it would put an end to all the controversy if everyone just became homosexual.”
Well, that’s not going to happen, most people would chew their own arm off, before becoming homosexual. If you could turn Fred Nile or Sam Newman homosexual, then I’d be very impressed. No-one is suggesting that ‘everyone become homosexual’.
“As a matter of fact that would put an end to the human race since there would be no offspring produced. Isn’t that really why homosexuals hate herterosexuals so intensely, because they have to keep going to them for newbies since they can’t produce their own?”
Again, the premise of the statement is silly, because there is absolutely no way that the vast majority of hetrosexual people could become homosexual. There is no hatred of heterosexuals per se, just hatred for heterosexuals like yourself who can’t recognise the realities of the world, as they exist.
“If no life can be produced by homosexuality isn’t that God’s judgement against it’s practice.”
Make that argument to infertile husbands and wives, and the parents of still-born children. Just remember to duck when they try and punch your fucking head in.
“Everything of God’s creation brings forth after it’s own kind.”
Therefore, since you’re a dickhead, then God is a dickhead. I think God would disagree with that.
“We know that Satan tries to substitute something that will pervert every good thing that God has done with something that leads us astray from the intended purpose of God, that includes “the way of a man with a maid”.
Just as being a mindless pud-pulling conservative is a perversion of Christ’s way as the friend of ’sexual sinners’.
April 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Geez, Bert, there’s no other way to say it. You’re a fuckhead.
Anyway, wasn’t there that whole subliminal thing between you and Ernie?
April 5th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
” If you could turn Fred Nile or Sam Newman homosexual, then I’d be very impressed. No-one is suggesting that ‘everyone become homosexual’.
I’m sorry - is Sam not gay?
Oh…
my bad…
April 5th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Every time I see Freddy, it strikes me that the person who spend the most time out of everybody thinking about gay sex is him….
….a bit of worry. I wonder if Fred’s voters know he spends so much time thinking about sodomy?
April 14th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Just thought I’d put in my 2 cents…
If someone is homosexual, they were always going to be, and always will be. Likewise for those who are heterosexual.
We discover we are gay/straight as we go through puberty. Some discover their leanings as early as 10 years old - others much later. Acceptance and denial are also a major factors to consider.
I must say this is quite a neanderthalean discussion - to be going over such old ground in todays society is shameful.
I am a Christian - and I am gay. I believe the Lord is loving of all his creatures and that it is terribly naive to believe all of what is written in the Bible. I lead my life as best I can and try to provide the best example to those near and dear to me.
April 15th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Oh, and Bert, may the Lord bless and forgive your ignorance. Believe me when I say that nothing in my life to date (I’m 22) has been more difficult than accepting my sexuality. There was a stage during my teen years where I was near suicidal, and I still on occasion pray it weren’t so. But if it is to be, so it must be.
Even to this day I dream of having a family and fathering kids (with a wife) and the knowledge it will never happen deeply hurts.
I cannot change - it is who I am. You often hear stories of those who have been able to change their “evil” ways. Bah, rubbish. The only reason homosexuality is viewed upon unfavourably by a select (and diminishing) few is the sheer lack of understanding of the matter since time began. As society has matured over the years so have views on these very matters, and how we as God’s people treat one another.
I continue to pray when I can for a world without prejudice - a place where we all accept each other peacefully and live together without malice or prejudgement. If we all learn to live by the CORE values Jesus taught us, and accept Him into our lives, the world will be a better place.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Excellent comments Matt, it saddens me greatly that the Church lags so far behind on this issue. It saddens me that the place you are least likely to find acceptance is in a church. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
April 15th, 2006 at 1:28 am
I’m glad you’ve found your peace between your sexuality and your faith Matt.
I thought I had found that peace, but in recent months have found that at a core level, that Christianity and being gay don’t co-exist well…and that one or the other has to go..and since the gay thing’s not going anywhere……………well…….
I’m not saying that to say that they don’t….but for one reason or another …for me, the two don’t fit.
I think it’s easier when you’re a bit younger…(in your 20’s) to walk the tightrope between being gay and the straight church world and mindset……but when you get on a bit….a desperate need arises with to live as one person…not two……..I can’t really explain why that is…..it just is….
It’s probably the reason why a lot of pastors (in their 30’s) are jettisoning the traditional church..because they can’t live within someone else’s defined framework..and start exploring what it means to be ‘emerging’.
I’ll be interested to see how things are going for you Matt once you enter different stages of your life.
April 15th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Lance, it saddens me that you now feel that way but I can understand why you do, lets face it you are right. In 99.9% of churches being gay and being Christian are not an option, how terribly sad. I personally feel that the only way for the church, is to allow gay people to be gay and to expect no more or less of them than we do of straight people, ie committed monogamy. To expect gay Christians to turn straight is ridiculous, and to enforce life time celibacy on gay Christians is just as wrong and unhealthy.
You have hit the nail on the head Lance “a desperate need arises with to live as one person…not two” It saddens me that you feel these days, that you can not be christian and gay. But to be honest, I would just be happy for you to find peace within yourself….. whatever that means. It can be no fun to walk a tight rope for the entirety of your life.
April 15th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
I dont mean to poke my nose in… I agree with Lances anguish, the splitting off that takes place inside can be overwhelming.. Your ostracised by society at large, as well as the church.. and in a sense, yourself.. which leaves you feeling, well, perhaps Jesus is the only one qualified to understand that pain… And I believe he does… He understands us more intimately than we ourselves can know.. Perhaps Jesus is all that is left to cling to when your so ripped apart by lifes inexplicable tornadoes.. I understand that Lance ( hope thats not presumptuous of me) If there is anyone who is able to share our woundedness, it is our Father in Jesus…
Easter proclaims that from thegutters while our churches are singing about Ressurection power.. Jesus cries out, My God, why have you forsaken me? He was numbered with the transgressors… Healing is not in overcoming, but in the recognition that God sits with us, the transgressors.. And transforms us, even as we remain broken.. Remember Jesus lance.. Sit with him… Let him sit with you… He is the only one that understands the depths of our anguish.. that is the real Easter message, I believe!
Oh dear.. Hope thats not insulting.. forgive me if it is..
Having said all that, I am not sure that I believe that orientation is something that is fixed, though there does seem to be evidence in its favour. There is, however, in my view also some evidence for the view that orientation can be fluid, probably more often seen in lesbianism than male homosexuality. ( hope that doesnt discredit everything I have just said Lance) I have learnt a bit from your perspective on groups like Sy Rogers, Exodus and the like, Lance. There seems to be a conformity and model to their many “testimonies” that doesnt always add up, or at least seems to add up far too easily doesnt there? I dont know much about the scientific view of orientation except the basic “genetic” view. But I do believe there are many factors that can, ( not necessarily always) contribute to the formation of a Homosexual orientation. Probably one of the most valuable things i have learnt is that if someone says they are born gay, who am i to argue with them? Its hard enough to come to terms with, without some ignorant, tunnel visioned Christian insisting that how I feel deep down inside myself is wrong.. and then proving it by trying to apply 2000 year old ( or 3500 year old) documents to todays context.. its this kind of insensitivity that is the most insulting, I beleive..
Stick with Jesus Lance, buddy, hes all you and I need…
Perhaps you think Im just another shit talker, I sincerely dont mean to be…I am someone who is familiar with your kind of anguish, and someone who believes that the “grief stricken Christ” can be a healing friend in the places where we feel most abandoned. Thats easter people!!
Lamentations 3 begins;
I am the man who has seen affliction,
he has turned his hand against me again and again, all day long
He has besieged me and surrounded me with bitterness and hardship
Even when i call out or cry for help, he shuts out my prayer
He has trampled me in the dust, I have been deprived of peace
( the message)
But theres one other thing I remember,
And remembering, I keep a grip on hope:
Gods loyal love couldnt have run out…
Im sticking with God, ( I say it over and over)
Hes all Ive got left
God proves to be good to the man who passionately waits
Its a good thing to quietly hope,
Quietly hope for help from God..
When life is heavy and hard to take,
Go off by yourself. Enter the silence.
Bow in prayer. wait for hope to appear.
I know that may be cold comfort… or perhaps none at all,
But I hope something Ive said helps…
April 15th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Want to know what absolute freedom is guys? It’s riding public transport in the nude. Nothing more than that.