scriptural basis for christian objection to homosexuality

[bananabrain]

guys,

i have a question: what is the basis for the christian objection to homosexuality?

i am assuming:

a) arguments based upon the "old testament" do not apply, otherwise you'd also have to keep the rest of the "mosaic law"
b) you "hate the sin but love the sinner" - so we are talking about a specific action or behaviour

what is the basis for the determining these actions and on what basis can one concentrate on this issue (which is considered by us to be between human and G!D as opposed to between human and human, assuming that consenting adults are involved) as opposed to say social injustice and inequality? why is activism against homosexuality considered more important?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

There are several I could dig up, but the two most referenced are from both "testaments":

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." - Leviticus 20:13

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to." - Romans 1:26-28

While it is true that Chrsitians do not adhere strictly to the Mosiac Law, we take what we read in the "spirit" of the law. If something is mentioned as being an abomination to the Lord, then that is a pretty good indication that God does not want us to be engaged in that particular behavior.

Chrstians view all sin as grievious in the eyes of God. In James 2:10, we read that if one breaks one commandment, it is the same as breaking them all. So in God's eyes, sin is sin. After all, what was so grievious for eating the wrong fruit, yet that was enough to kick Adam and Eve out of Eden.

On a human level, I suppose that homosexuality is such an unnatural state of affairs that there is a tendency to elevate this sin above others, because socially speaking, it runs so counter to the image of a typical family of husband and wife.

To me, the acceptance of homosexual lifestyle is a sign a severe moral breakdown of society (along with the disregard of the sanctity of life in the issue of abortions). While it wasn't specifically the cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was an indication of the unrighteousness and total disregard to God and His commandments. I fear that we are heading toward the type of judgement that was meted out back then. It is plain that God judges nations as well as individuals, so I suppose that is one reason for the activism you perceive.

I am not an activist, myself, but I am prayful and concerned for the moral decay of my country. The US has been blessed so much by God, financially speaking, yet our arrogance and contempt for the things of God may withdraw those blessings. So yeah, I can see that as a Christian living in this country wants things to remain financially healthy, it will depend largely on the moral health of the country.

[17th Angel]

I think the -main- thing, would be the right question...

What is god's purpose with Earth and mankind?

He made a man, and to compliment the man he made a woman. He wanted a perfect world were mankind populated it and subdued the lands... So his will was made present that man and woman was to mix and populate... He didn't mention anything about man being with man or woman with woman... Could then be the argument.... But he didn't mention, that you can't dress up like chickens and sodomise smoked haddocks.... Does that mean you can do that? Please...

--Edit--

One more thought, I started to ponder if homosexuals were mentioned at all in the bible, and they are in one story I can remeber parts of.... What happened to them? The ending isn't a good one... Sodom and Gormorrah... anyone recall?

I then thought about those who god said where shining examples of his people... Noah? (family man) Job? (family man) Abraham? (family man)

[wil]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

I then thought about those who god said where shining examples of his people... Noah? (family man) Job? (family man) Abraham? (family man)

Interestingly enough many a homosexual are 'family' men. I don't think America or our planet ever had a time when homosexuals weren't in existence. The only change recently is whether they behind closed doors or not and those who are straight being aware of how many homosexuals there are out there.

I can't speak for everywhere, but straight folks have been in denial for years. In the 60's and 70's folks like Elton John and Liberace, while flamboyant and obviously gay most of society said..."No that is just a costume, they are just entertainers" But instead as time goes on we find that many leading actors and singers that many a woman swoon over, and many a man admired...were leading a lifestyle that would have met approval of those same folks.

But more to the point, I truly think that the big item on the OP is the fact that we all pick and choose when it comes to the bible as to which scriptures we want to point at and which we gloss over.

thanx BB

[17th Angel]

True, but the difference is... The ones I mentioned were not gays.

[cavalier]

There are some obvious Biblical arguments against homosexuality, Dondi has presented a few.
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know what arguments Christian homosexuals have to counter these texts?

[BlaznFattyz]

that which the lord has called as holy is holy. though we are not saved by law, we are saved by grace where there is life, upon which the lord calls us to be holy as he is holy. because being homosexual is not holy as the lord has made clear; therefore, being obedient to god we should refrain from unholy acts and behaviour as it grieves the spirit.

[bananabrain]

While it is true that Chrsitians do not adhere strictly to the Mosiac Law, we take what we read in the "spirit" of the law. If something is mentioned as being an abomination to the Lord, then that is a pretty good indication that God does not want us to be engaged in that particular behavior.

but it seems to me that you are violating both its plain meaning and its context. if something is described as "an abomination to you", that means jews (to whom the Law is addressed) aren't allowed to do it. the same language is used about eating pork. i cannot see a difference in the language which would allow you to eat pork but not have gay sex. besides, as far as we are concerned the "spirit" of the Law is inseparable from the *practice* of the Law. and we say that the Law says "pork bad"-"bum fun bad"-"shabbat violation bad". i can't see how there's a methodology here - it just sounds like you're picking and choosing.

"For this cause G!D gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, G!D gave them over to." - Romans 1:26-28

ok - so reading the text in its context, the "them" refers to the "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" from verse 18, right? so who are these guys exactly?

Christians view all sin as grievious in the eyes of G!D

so do we - you will note that the punishment for sabbath violation is the same as that for homosexuality - stoning. so they're both seen as equally bad. but are we all lining up to complain about sabbath violation? not on your nelly.

In James 2:10, we read that if one breaks one commandment, it is the same as breaking them all.

ah - but by this logic, there's no point in keeping any of them - might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. that's not the way judaism sees it: see deuteronomy 30:11-14.

So in G!D's eyes, sin is sin.

in the Text, there are various different words, denoting various different things that G!D is trying to teach us, so it's not as simple as that.

After all, what was so grievious for eating the wrong fruit, yet that was enough to kick Adam and Eve out of Eden.

it makes sense if you understand it our way - it was not a sin of eating fruit, but a *choice* - a choice to "choose choice", if you like. without choice, there can be no sin. and without choice there can be no repentance.

On a human level, I suppose that homosexuality is such an unnatural state of affairs that there is a tendency to elevate this sin above others, because socially speaking, it runs so counter to the image of a typical family of husband and wife.

but this objection surely falls over when you consider the various different forms of family life that have evolved in human cultures. the monotheist "nuclear family" is definitely not the only game in town. moreover, the documented proof from at least 1500 species of homosexual behaviour in animals, advanced ones like bonobos (pygmy chimps) and dolphins and less advanced ones like those gay penguins (who are nonetheless in a monogamous relationship) at the toronto zoo i think it is. so if it's part of the natural world, how can it possibly be "unnatural"? doesn't this argue that it's been misunderstood? moreover, the society of the animals in question has not suffered.

you may of course not accept this for whatever reasons. i do have to ask, though - if it could be established, for the sake of argument, that animals can be gay and therefore that it is somehow part of the Divine Plan and has some kind of biological necessity, how are you to reconcile this with your faith? i mean, it's not a problem for me, because the acts in question are treated, *in the Text* like pork or sabbath violation - not intrinsically bad in and of themselves, but something jews aren't allowed to do. i cannot find a reason why they would be prohibited to the general population if they occur naturally and cannot be definitively shown to be harmful.

To me, the acceptance of homosexual lifestyle is a sign a severe moral breakdown of society

i would argue the same about violence and lack of respect for property and the environment. in fact, more so. it is hard for me to see how meddling in someone else's bedroom activities is a bigger priority than crime, global warming and terrorism. i don't see how people shooting each other in the street is less of a priority than homosexuality.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would argue the same about violence and lack of respect for property and the environment. in fact, more so. it is hard for me to see how meddling in someone else's bedroom activities is a bigger priority than crime, global warming and terrorism. i don't see how people shooting each other in the street is less of a priority than homosexuality.

b'shalom

bananabrain

that is not really an argument, but an agreement upon the things the lord is not happy about which also manifests itself in the destruction of lives. all sin is bad, and all are in need of salvation. good points i'm sure we all can agree on.

[bananabrain]

all sin may be bad, but not all sin is equal. picking your nose is not murder, unless one is a nose-dwelling creature.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[BlaznFattyz]

When Jesus had called all the multitude to himself, he said to them, "Hear me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"

When Jesus had entered a house away from the crowd, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. So he said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" And he said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

it is not enough to follow ceremonial rituals of cleanliness if one is spiritually immoral and thus defiled internally. its not food that causes you to be defiled, but your actions that come from within your heart.

[wil]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

True, but the difference is... The ones I mentioned were not gays.

We didn't think Rock Hudson was either...I'm not saying they were, but like most of the bible, we only get what is printed, we don't know went on behind closed doors.

Originally Posted by cavalier

There are some obvious Biblical arguments against homosexuality, Dondi has presented a few.
Out of curiosity, does anyone here know what arguments Christian homosexuals have to counter these texts?

Wiki has a lot of info, and relgious tolerance has some ideas as well.

and in searching one of the fun ones I read...

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner

[Silas]

Religion aside. Is this really a topic we have to discuss? I mean, isnt it unnatural for a man and man to have sex? Look at the way the human body is made, you know... sort of "lock and key." If nature suggests opposites attracting, why do some opt for guy and guy or girl for girl. Romans 1:20-26 comes to mind:

"For the wrath of God is (present tense) revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 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 foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

God's judgment is being revealed on all those who look at nature and see that man is made for woman and vise versa and they still choose to have sex with their own gender. In doing this, God gives them up (wrath is being revealed) to do those shameful acts. What they are doing, IS their judgement. Thats scary!

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but it seems to me that you are violating both its plain meaning and its context. if something is described as "an abomination to you", that means jews (to whom the Law is addressed) aren't allowed to do it. the same language is used about eating pork. i cannot see a difference in the language which would allow you to eat pork but not have gay sex. besides, as far as we are concerned the "spirit" of the Law is inseparable from the *practice* of the Law. and we say that the Law says "pork bad"-"bum fun bad"-"shabbat violation bad". i can't see how there's a methodology here - it just sounds like you're picking and choosing.

I'm sure you have considered that many of the dietary laws commanded by God were hygienic in nature in the ancient Jewish culture, i.e. eating pork was just plain unhealthy. They didn't have refridgerators or preservatives that we have today, so I can see the value in God keeping His people healthy. But you are right, it is still a command.....for the Jews.

But most Christians are Gentiles. And thus, according to your view, are Noahides, and therefore under the Noahidic Law:


1. The practice of equity.
2. Blaspheming the Name.
3. Idolatry
4. Sexual immorality
5. Bloodshed
6. Robbery
7. Eating limb torn from a live animal.

Since sexual immorality is listed, then it stands to reason that the Noahide might just want to learn what exactly "sexual immorality" consitutes. Where else to go but to the OT and the Mosiac Law. Thus when coming to Leviticus 13:15, we have an understanding that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. It may not be a requirement for Noahides to obey the Law, but we can certainly use it as a guide.

But there is nothing here in the Noahide Law that speaks of dietary laws, with the exception of eating a lib torn from a live animal, so the pork law does not apply.

ok - so reading the text in its context, the "them" refers to the "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" from verse 18, right? so who are these guys exactly?

Well, the first part of that verse states thus, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..."
So these are they that have no regard to godly living and live unrighteously. They are the unrepentent. It is not addressing any particular group of people specifically.

so do we - you will note that the punishment for sabbath violation is the same as that for homosexuality - stoning. so they're both seen as equally bad. but are we all lining up to complain about sabbath violation? not on your nelly.

As noted above, Christian Gentiles as Noahides fall under the Noahidic Law, which doesn't contain the sabbath observance, which, oddly, is the only one of the Ten Commandments that doesn't have a corresponding Noahidic Law. But then Jesus stated that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.

ah - but by this logic, there's no point in keeping any of them - might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. that's not the way judaism sees it: see deuteronomy 30:11-14.

"If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;" - Deut. 30:11-15

Exactly. It is not with the outward observance that God wants, but the inward obedience. Didn't God say of Israel in Ezekiel 36:26-28:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

in the Text, there are various different words, denoting various different things that G!D is trying to teach us, so it's not as simple as that.

All the same, if you want to dabble in semantics and call one thing a sin and another thing a tresspass, it is still unpleasing to God.


it makes sense if you understand it our way - it was not a sin of eating fruit, but a *choice* - a choice to "choose choice", if you like. without choice, there can be no sin. and without choice there can be no repentance.

but this objection surely falls over when you consider the various different forms of family life that have evolved in human cultures. the monotheist "nuclear family" is definitely not the only game in town. moreover, the documented proof from at least 1500 species of homosexual behaviour in animals, advanced ones like bonobos (pygmy chimps) and dolphins and less advanced ones like those gay penguins (who are nonetheless in a monogamous relationship) at the toronto zoo i think it is. so if it's part of the natural world, how can it possibly be "unnatural"? doesn't this argue that it's been misunderstood? moreover, the society of the animals in question has not suffered.

Yeah, but animals are not create in the image of God.

And what do "cultures" have to do with obeying God?

you may of course not accept this for whatever reasons. i do have to ask, though - if it could be established, for the sake of argument, that animals can be gay and therefore that it is somehow part of the Divine Plan and has some kind of biological necessity, how are you to reconcile this with your faith? i mean, it's not a problem for me, because the acts in question are treated, *in the Text* like pork or sabbath violation - not intrinsically bad in and of themselves, but something jews aren't allowed to do. i cannot find a reason why they would be prohibited to the general population if they occur naturally and cannot be definitively shown to be harmful.

I answered this above with the Noahide discussion.

i would argue the same about violence and lack of respect for property and the environment. in fact, more so. it is hard for me to see how meddling in someone else's bedroom activities is a bigger priority than crime, global warming and terrorism. i don't see how people shooting each other in the street is less of a priority than homosexuality.

Homosexuality, along with all the other things you listed, are but symptoms of a bigger problem: rebellion against God.

Love and grace,

Dondi

[Paladin]

For your consideration:

Ask Father Joe - Homosexuality

Peace
Mark