scriptural basis for christian objection to homosexuality

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I hope this helps. Pray for niranjan. Pray that he finds a way to let go of his hatred.

It ain't easy..... You get lost in tunnel of hate... Hard to find your way out... I can kind of see the exit now... But, it is still hard to make it to that exit.... I hope he (and everyone else.) Does one day find the end..... Oh and thanks for your comment on my post.

[wil]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

To show love I do not think makes this spontaneous snowball of joy and peace... But it helps dull the blade of the "attacker".

Oft times the display of anger, or silence, or demanding recognition is a cry out for love....definitely an indicatation of something missing in ones life...tis a lesson we can all learn from.

[Dream]

This is preparation for starting a new thread in defense of apostle, Paul; which should probably go in the Abrahamic religion section. I'll be referring to this present thread at some point, because it underscores the need to show whether Paul could be in agreement with standard Halakhic interpretation as well as Jesus' own views of Halacha. Paul's treatment of homosexuality, women, and correct Halakhic practice must come under scrutiny to answer today's modern challenge to Christianity -- if it is to be answered at all.

The first two pages of this thread are the most informative. After page 7, the subject changes and I stopped reading there. Here are some quotes from throughout the thread. I left out the names as a lighthearted tribute to 'Don't ask -- don't tell'

Originally Posted by post #40

: ...the way we understand this section is that the Law is not something that sits off in some theoretical field somewhere - it is something we are commanded to interpret and understand; but this means *through the prism of tradition* which means via the halakhic process, *not* everyone deciding for themselves what something means. there must be a majority opinion, as it says in the Torah - see exodus 23:2....

Originally Posted by post #47

...I don't think activism is necessary for sexual crimes such as rape, for society at large can agree that it is wrong. What we cannot agree on is on the issues like homosexual behavior and abortion. Both of which oppose clear teaching from the scriptures....

....Homosexual behavior is disruptive because it undetermines the sanctity of marriage ordered by God. It doesn't procreate the species. Furthermore, it is subject to the spreading of all kinds of disease which can affect the health of the society. These and other issues affects more than just the two conscending adults....

Originally Posted by post #57

...Look, this is an extremely well worn topic. It's kinda like, oh I dunno, Christians asking- yet again- about the whole messiah thing. The Bible, old and new T, bloody condemns homosexuality. Let's just be honest and say we don't buy what the Bible says because it's silly and out of date. Why rationalize? I don't accept it and neither do you, so let's just dispense with it.

I wrote this with a smirky grin on my face, so don't take it personally....

Originally Posted by post #62

...it can only be established with certainty that a particular homosexual behaviour, namely anal sex, is not permitted to jews, along with a bunch of other stuff we're not allowed to do. we have also established that "sexual immorality" is in the noahide laws (which are not, of course explicitly listed in the Torah, but derived via halakhic interpretation) is not to be understood simply as referring to homosexuality but to a whole set of exploitative, violent, non-consensual and idolatrous behaviours - it is *not at all* clear that this refers to committed, monogamous, consensual, loving homosexual partners, who i cannot see as being at all harmful to me, to society or to G!D...

.....(in reference to Christian sects that accept homosexuals in office, etc he says) but i am wondering how these sects/denominations deal with the passages from romans and corinthians?

...there is no support in the Text for this view. we do not agree that everyone has been cursed - this is a christian view which is presumably required in order for salvation and so on. we don't believe this is necessary, so i suppose this is at the bottom (so to speak) of our different attitudes to sexuality....

...you may also be unaware that our tradition says that one of the reasons G!D decided to split the sexes is that the proto-adam was starting to get a little too friendly with the animals in the garden, if you catch my drift. even after the split, but before the fruit-eating, there was sex, but it was animal-style, meaning that the specifically female end of it did not involve much desire; there were no female orgasms in the garden, or something like that (see gen. 3:16) - so the "order of creation" is nothing like as straightforward as you suppose....

....this is absolutely not our understanding of the difference between the edenic state. we do not believe that the world is unnatural, or that sex is bad, or that work is bad. choice implies free-will, as i've said before - and real life requires challenge. without challenge, how can you have choice to meet the challenge or fail it?

Originally Posted by post #68

...Good point! We dont have to bring scripture into this, the truth is obvious enough. For this fact, the Bible says, "if you want to believe a lie, God will give you over to a depraved mind whereby you will believe and live this lie." Romans 1 speaks about this indepth and it is scary. The truth about homosexuality is axiomatic, we all know intrinsically that it is wrong. We, however, choose to supress the truth and choose to believe that it is OK....

Originally Posted by post #79

......yes, but where the christian scripture relies on the jewish scripture for authority, i have a case to argue whether the interpretation is correct. plus, when you originally jumped in, you were appealing to *nature* and other "intrinsic" stuff as evidence that homosexuality was wrong. stick to christian scripture, because judging from the science and the empirical evidence from biology, you're on a bit of a sticky wicket........

Originally Posted by post #80

...From a Christian perspective.. any sexual sin is "bad" because you are sinning against the body which is the temple of God. You cannot live in a homosexual lifestyle ever and be in Christ. You can be homosexual and be in Christ.. its the act of sinning that is the lifestyle that is abhorrent to the Spirit and because He is God he cannot be in your sin....

Originally Posted by post #83

....Yes homosexuals were in the closet because they knew and everyone else knew it was wrong. Just because they dont do that today doesnt make it automatically "right" sin is sin. Sin is the same as it was when it was first committed as it is now.....

[GlorytoGod]

there is some stuff in Romans

Romans 1:24-27 (New International Version)

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[Dream]

The scriptural basis for Christian objection to what ?

Romans 1:24-27 badly needs its context, because it is often used to accuse gay individuals of blasphemy, when the verse actually indicts whole societies of idolatrous uncaring. Notice that according to Scripture, *all* of Gibeah and *all* of Sodom altogether "became futile in their thinking." We ought to ask ourselves "How is it that not some but all people were affected and why was it cities of supposed believers?" Paul only made a passing reference to these events. He didn't go into a detailed explanation of why the entire societies were affected, because he assumes we understand what happened to Benjamin and to Sodom. It falls to us today to figure out why every person in both cities was affected and in what way did they "exchange the truth of God for a lie?" If we're going to quote Paul, we ought to find out where he was coming from. (He was after all of the tribe of Benjamin and familiar with all aspects of the story.)

When Paul says "God gave them over" he is talking about a plague upon believing societies, because he says "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.... 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened..." Not only Sodom, but Paul alludes to several passages about Israel, especially the tribe of Benjamin in the book of Judges. Two cities are described as uncaring, inhospitable to widows, to aliens, and to orphans. In each place, all of society was affected before judgment came. While it was considered uncleanness, homosexuality was not the reason for the judgment but a warning of the destruction of the entire city in both cases. That is what Paul's commentary tells us. Since he says it is God who gives us over to futile thinking which is invisible, we should understand that there is more than one visible affectation; and we are all connected. In fact, these cities of believers are held jointly responsible for the mistreatment of the weak in their midst.

Was Lot, who lived in Sodom, called righteous for his sexuality? Wasn't it for his hospitality and reverence for God? No, it certainly wasn't for his sexuality. Yes, it was for his reverence and concern for the alien, the widow, and the fatherless. If you find error in your neighbor -- in your society especially in fellow believers, then that means you too are affected. Time for introspection not accusation, for who can undo what God has done? Let us repent of our own sins of neglect and uncaring, and then we will be like David who "...offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel."(2 Samuel 24:25)

Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Romans 12:4-5 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Ephesians 3:3-5 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Jude 1:9 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation,...

I Corinthians 12:25-27 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

[Radunzel]

Well the only real arguement is the fact homosexual people cant reproduce without a 3rd party.. therefore they can never have children.. thusly they cannot progress the religion

[bob x]

"I touch the future: I teach" -- Christy Macauliffe.

[bananabrain]

i think you'll find bob_x has you with that one, radunzel.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Funny that the bible doesn't condemn lesbianism like it does male homosexual behavior...I wonder why?

I might have an answer for you - a little later. By way of a quick comment for now:

There is no mention of lesbian love in the OT. We therefore surmise that the Christian doctrinal objection to homosexuality among women is based on a single phrase about natural/unnatural relations from Romans 1:24-27 Note that it's mentioned in passing: "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." Note: Paul's mention of it would appear to be a comment on a historical situation; it's not a clear doctrinal statement concerning the moral/spiritual significance of sexual preferences. That is, there's no clear statement of the spiritual significance of sexual preference or behavior or their potential impact on a person's salvation.

OT references to male homosexuality suggest that it was seen as a crime. The question is why. I'll get back to that later. In the meantime, there is no explanation of its potential impact on a person's salvation. The fact that the Old Testament doesn't have much to say about the soul's future might have something to do with that.

As for the New Testament, I don't believe Jesus himself ever said anything about gayness. And still church groups would have you believe that there is a scriptural basis for their views, attitudes, and policies. Consider earlier this year Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, recently affirmed what is called "the classical Christian doctrine on sexual morality," which includes a stand against "gay sex."

In the same article we find a survey of Protestant Christians in Britain: "81 percent continue to believe that homosexual activity is sinful. Only 3 percent of those polled believe homosexual activity is not a sin."
Archbishop Williams Affirms Christian Doctrine Opposing Homosexual Acts - Catholic Online

I think it would be fair to say that there is virtually no scriptural basis for Christian objection to homosexuality. Whatever elaborate positions religious groups have been espousing over the years has involved layers of assumptions and inferences, with no meaningful explication as to the moral/spiritual significance of sexual preferences and only a single reference to lesbian love from someone who was writing long after Jesus was gone.

It is astonishing to me that anyone would refer us to Church theologians as though doctrine and theological argument could have authority without reference to scriptural proof.