Religion Christianity and Homosexuality

Rusty Brookes

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 9, 2001
5,013
5,158
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
One thing that I found very interesting during the marriage equality debate was the concept of traditional marriage. It made me do a bit of reading on the history of marriage - traditional marriage is NOT what a lot of opponents made it out to be. It certainly did not start out as a religious ceremony - it was co-opted by the Catholic Church (well, at least in Europe) around the 13th century. And you'd better be eyeing up your cousin if you want your marriage to be traditional.

 

NeutralZone

Debutant
Jun 24, 2017
65
11
AFL Club
Melbourne
OK, prompted by the Sydney Anglican Archbishop's call this week for gays to leave the church -

This is for all the practising Christians out there.

The Bible doesn't actually say a lot about homosexuality - a few mentions in the Old Testament, and some choice words from St Paul in the New.

But, let's assume (not that I'm necessarily saying this is so) that in those few mentions, the Bible is unequivocally against homosexuality.
That is incorrect. The Judeo-Christian Bible says a lot about homosexuality. Although the rejection of that behavior appears in only a "few mentions" within the New Testament aka Christian Greek Scriptures, in each instance, the language used is very strong. Therefore a great deal is said within those "few mentions" in that they get the point across that Almighty God Jehovah is unequivocally against homosexuality.

Let me know when you are ready, and I will provide you with scriptural quotations to that effect.

NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
45,550
75,729
AFL Club
Hawthorn
That is incorrect. The Judeo-Christian Bible says a lot about homosexuality. Although the rejection of that behavior appears in only a "few mentions" within the New Testament aka Christian Greek Scriptures, in each instance, the language used is very strong. Therefore a great deal is said within those "few mentions" in that they get the point across that Almighty God Jehovah is unequivocally against homosexuality.

Let me know when you are ready, and I will provide you with scriptural quotations to that effect.

NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
Shouldn't you be genuflecting somewhere at this time of day?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
11,241
13,626
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
That is incorrect. The Judeo-Christian Bible says a lot about homosexuality. Although the rejection of that behavior appears in only a "few mentions" within the New Testament aka Christian Greek Scriptures, in each instance, the language used is very strong. Therefore a great deal is said within those "few mentions" in that they get the point across that Almighty God Jehovah is unequivocally against homosexuality.

Let me know when you are ready, and I will provide you with scriptural quotations to that effect.

NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
Um, don’t sweat the small stuff.

If I’m incorrect in saying that the bible doesn’t much mention homosexuality, fine, I stand corrected.

Now could you address the actual point of my post?
 

raskolnikov

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2002
28,560
21,122
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Lions
That is incorrect. The Judeo-Christian Bible says a lot about homosexuality. Although the rejection of that behavior appears in only a "few mentions" within the New Testament aka Christian Greek Scriptures, in each instance, the language used is very strong. Therefore a great deal is said within those "few mentions" in that they get the point across that Almighty God Jehovah is unequivocally against homosexuality.

Let me know when you are ready, and I will provide you with scriptural quotations to that effect.

NeutralZone


________________
". . . be swift about hearing, slow about speaking, slow about wrath. . . . " (James 1:19-20)
What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
 

scotty88

Team Captain
Feb 23, 2009
471
44
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues

This is probably the most rational sermon I've ever seen on homosexuality. He really breaks down every verse that mentions homosexuality. Worth checking out.
 

NeutralZone

Debutant
Jun 24, 2017
65
11
AFL Club
Melbourne
Um, don’t sweat the small stuff.

If I’m incorrect in saying that the bible doesn’t much mention homosexuality, fine, I stand corrected.

Now could you address the actual point of my post?
The "actual point" of your post was not particularly clear, because you raised several issues. You started off with "The Bible doesn't actually say a lot about homosexuality...." which, as I pointed out, is erroneous, because the Bible does indeed say a lot about that subject. In fact Bible readers are aware of what God did to the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the widespread practice of homosexuality. Jehovah destroyed both cities (and the inhabitants within them) by raining down fire and sulfur. Are you familiar with the term: "Action speaks louder than words"?

In case you are not familiar with the Sodom and Gomorrah event, I will give you some of the details by quoting scripture below.

Genesis 18:20 -- Almighty God, speaking to Abraham:
"Then Jehovah said: 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy.'"

Genesis 18:23-24, 26 -- Abraham bargained with Jehovah to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if 50 righteous people could be found therein.
"[23] Then Abraham approached and said: 'Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? [24] Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it?' [26] Then Jehovah said: 'If I find in Sodom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.'"

Abraham continued bargaining with God (in Genesis chapter 18) to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were 45 righteous persons found therein (verse 28); if there were 40 righteous persons therein (verse 29); if there were 30 righteous persons therein (verse 30); if there were 20 righteous persons therein (verse 31). If 10 righteous persons were found therein (verse 32). You see that? See how reasonable and accommodating Almighty God Jehovah is toward wicked humans?

Genesis 18:32
"Finally, he [Abraham] said: 'Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.' He [Jehovah] answered: 'I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.'"

Homosexuality was rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah. When the two angels that were sent by Jehovah to get Lot out of Sodom arrived there, Lot invited what he thought were two ordinary men to spend the night in his house. The homosexuals decided the angels (who appeared as humans) were fresh meat and decided to gang-rape them, as follows:

Genesis 19:4-5
"[4] Before they could lie down to sleep, the men of the city--the men of Sodom from boy to old man, all of them--surrounded the house in one mob. [5] And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: 'Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may have sex with them.'"

Suffice it to say, not even ten righteous persons could be found in Sodom and Gomorrah, and those cities were destroyed.

Genesis 19:24-25
"[24] Then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah--it came from Jehovah, from the heavens. [25] So he overthrew these cities, yes, the entire district, including all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground."


For your information, homosexuality is mentioned as objectionable behavior in the Greek Scriptures aka New Testament as well.

I will address another of your points in a separate post.

NeutralZone
 

NeutralZone

Debutant
Jun 24, 2017
65
11
AFL Club
Melbourne
What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
Jesus instructed his First Century apostles on what to say on the subject of homosexuality. Just before he returned to heavenly life, he told them to make disciples and to teach the new disciples all that he [Jesus] had commanded. Thereafter, the Apostles Paul wrote on the subject of homosexuality to the effect that it was objectionable behavior, condemned by Jehovah.

NeutralZone
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
11,241
13,626
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
The "actual point" of your post was not particularly clear, because you raised several issues.
On the contrary, my OP quite clearly ended with:

Could someone please explain to me, in simple, logical language, why do some Christians insist the Bible is dead against homosexuality, but not these other weird and wonderful prohibitions?

I would like someone to explain what look to me like massive inconsistencies.

What is the official conservative, anti-gay rationale on following some biblical laws, but not others
?

Feel free to address that. I don't need great slabs of biblical quotes thanks.
 

Sainteric

Premiership Player
Aug 5, 2016
3,509
1,988
AFL Club
St Kilda
If the old testament is the word of god why did it have to be reviewed, reinterpreted and edited if god is an omnipresent, omniscient, ineffable creator of all things?

Why pick and choose what you want to follow if god is so infallible?

In saying that... IMO the whole god/jesus/creator story strikes me as gibberish horseshit.
Having worked for a lot of self absorbed CEOs wanting to leave a legacy ( Whatever t f that is). Jeebus wasn't leaving without saying the Old testament stuff is old hat.
 

Sainteric

Premiership Player
Aug 5, 2016
3,509
1,988
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thanks everyone, some really interesting responses here, but we're not really getting into the point I was wanting to get into -

There are plenty of practising Christians on BF.

Is one of them prepared to intellectually defend Sydney Anglican Archbishop Glenn Davies' insistence that gays leave the church?

To me, the Bible is more than a little contradictory in many regards, but he seems pretty confident he has the weight of the Bible behind him.

So what would be his reasoning? I'd really like to hear that.

(Or even, can a practising Christian on here who disagrees with his stance, try and play devil's advocate?)

Because if his stance is as logically unsupportable as it looks to me (as an outsider with zero skin in the game), why doesn't someone close to him straighten him out on it?
Firstly at his level you can't, they can hold their opinion and someone like Tutu can hold the opposite. It a communion the Archbishop of Canterbury and York are not a pope equivalent.

The Bible is thin on being gay is bad about the same as supporting slavery. This is more about supporting the religious ideal of marriage
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,451
9,341
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Jesus instructed his First Century apostles on what to say on the subject of homosexuality. Just before he returned to heavenly life, he told them to make disciples and to teach the new disciples all that he [Jesus] had commanded. Thereafter, the Apostles Paul wrote on the subject of homosexuality to the effect that it was objectionable behavior, condemned by Jehovah.

NeutralZone

At most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity. None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that, so far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, and we simply have no way of determining what his attitude toward it might have been.

Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Further, homosexuality is not mentioned in ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality.

And even this is doubtful.

To the extent that it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality, and it speaks on the basis of assumptions about homosexuality that are now regarded as highly dubious. If we were to paraphrase what the New Testament says about homosexuality it would read as follows: If homosexuality is exploitive, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is rooted in idolatry, then it is wrong; if homosexuality represents a denial of one’s own true nature, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust, then it is wrong. So homosexuality in itself is not prohibited, but when practiced in certain contexts, it is 'morally wrong'.

But couldn't we could say exactly the same things about heterosexuality?

Speaking specifically of the Pauline letters but in words that are applicable to the New Testament as a whole, the Pauline scholar Victor Paul Furnish (Ph.D., Yale University, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of the New Testament) stated:

"[Paul’s] letters . . . cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. Shall practicing homosexuals be admitted to church membership? Shall they be accorded responsibilities within a congregation? Shall they be commissioned to the church’s ministry? The Apostle never asks or answers these questions. . . . On these points there are no proof texts available one way or the other. It is mistaken to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position on these matters." [i.e. homosexuality]

And if Paul does not actively prohibit these types of people from figuring in the governance and participation in the Church can it be argued that the so-called "New Covenant" condemns homosexuality?

Many of the early Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr (about 100 to 165), Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235), Tertullian (ca.160 – ca. 220 AD) and Augustine (354–430) interpreted the writings of Paul and the Gospels to mean that the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law) was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the 'New Covenant' in Christ, which did not directly and clearly condemn homosexuality.



In short, there is nothing in the New Testament that tells us directly whether homosexuality per se is a good thing or a bad thing (i.e a sin) or is simply a fact of life.
 
Last edited:

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
11,241
13,626
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
At most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity. None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that, so far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, and we simply have no way of determining what his attitude toward it might have been.

Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Further, homosexuality is not mentioned in ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality.

And even this is doubtful.

To the extent that it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality, and it speaks on the basis of assumptions about homosexuality that are now regarded as highly dubious. If we were to paraphrase what the New Testament says about homosexuality it would read as follows: If homosexuality is exploitive, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is rooted in idolatry, then it is wrong; if homosexuality represents a denial of one’s own true nature, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust, then it is wrong. So homosexuality in itself is not prohibited, but when practiced in certain contexts, it is 'morally wrong'.

But couldn't we could say exactly the same things about heterosexuality?

Speaking specifically of the Pauline letters but in words that are applicable to the New Testament as a whole, the Pauline scholar Victor Paul Furnish (Ph.D., Yale University, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of the New Testament) stated:

"[Paul’s] letters . . . cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. Shall practicing homosexuals be admitted to church membership? Shall they be accorded responsibilities within a congregation? Shall they be commissioned to the church’s ministry? The Apostle never asks or answers these questions. . . . On these points there are no proof texts available one way or the other. It is mistaken to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position on these matters." [i.e. homosexuality]

And if Paul does not actively prohibit these types of people from figuring in the governance and participation in the Church can it be argued that the so-called "New Covenant" condemns homosexuality?

Many of the early Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr (about 100 to 165), Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235), Tertullian (ca.160 – ca. 220 AD) and Augustine (354–430) interpreted the writings of Paul and the Gospels to mean that the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law) was fulfilled and replaced (superseded) by the 'New Covenant' in Christ, which did not directly and clearly condemn homosexuality.



In short, there is nothing in the New Testament that tells us directly whether homosexuality per se is a good thing or a bad thing (i.e a sin) or is simply a fact of life.
Very interesting post. (Readable too!)
 

NeutralZone

Debutant
Jun 24, 2017
65
11
AFL Club
Melbourne
On the contrary, my OP quite clearly ended with:

Could someone please explain to me, in simple, logical language, why do some Christians insist the Bible is dead against homosexuality, but not these other weird and wonderful prohibitions?

I would like someone to explain what look to me like (Point #2) massive inconsistencies.

What is the official conservative, anti-gay rationale on following some (Point #3) biblical laws, but not others
?

Feel free to address that. I don't need great slabs of biblical quotes thanks.
At Post 33, I provided you with a detailed scriptural account, from the book of Genesis, where Jehovah used action (which speaks louder than words) by literally destroying of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah--as clear evidence that He, the Almighty, will not tolerate homosexuality. I notice you conveniently skipped over the info that I provided at Post 33, so that you could argue about the supposed single point of your OP. The fact is that you made numerous points in your OP.

Your Point #1 is this statement: "The Bible doesn't actually say a lot about homosexuality...." As I already stated, that is incorrect in light of the action Jehovah took by destroying the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. You are familiar with the saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words" are you not? Well, follow that with the saying: "Action speaks louder than words."

Notice Points #2 and #3 above that you yourself quoted. In Point #2, you claim there are "massive inconsistencies" between the rejection of homosexuality by Christians who have no problem eating shellfish, and the like. In reality, there are no inconsistencies for the following reasons:

(1) The restriction against the eating of shellfish, shrimp, etc. was given only to the Jews/Hebrew people under the Mosaic Law Covenant. The Mosaic Law is named after Moses--one of the descendants of Abraham. At the time, the Jews/Hebrews were in a covenant relationship with Jehovah due to the fact they were direct descendants of Abraham. Gentiles (non-Jews/non-Hebrews) were excluded from the Mosaic Law because they are not direct descendants of Abraham.

(2) Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and cancelled it out. Below are Jesus' own words confirming this.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."

After Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, he established Christianity, which enabled Gentiles (non-Jews) as well as Jews (Abraham's descendants) to become Christians. Once the Mosaic Law Covenant ended (when Jesus fulfilled it), the prohibition against eating shellfish, etc. also ended for all Jews--regardless of whether they became Christians.

On the other hand, Jehovah's rejection of homosexuality occurred many generations before the Mosaic Law was established. Recall the scriptures I presented at Post 33 where Jehovah was having a conversation with Abraham, during which he informed Abraham that he intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, as follows:

Genesis 18:20 -- Almighty God, speaking to Abraham:
"Then Jehovah said: 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy.'"

Genesis 19:24-25
"[24] Then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah--it came from Jehovah, from the heavens. [25] So he overthrew these cities, yes, the entire district, including all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground."

Since God's restriction against homosexuality was never tied to the Mosaic Law Covenant, that restriction continues to this day. In other words, when Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, he did not cancel out restrictions that preceded the Mosaic Law; he only cancelled out the restrictions found within the Mosaic Law (including the restriction against eating shellfish).


NeutralZone
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,451
9,341
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
At Post 33, I provided you with a detailed scriptural account, from the book of Genesis, where Jehovah used action (which speaks louder than words) by literally destroying of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah--as clear evidence that He, the Almighty, will not tolerate homosexuality.

Your Point #1 is this statement: "The Bible doesn't actually say a lot about homosexuality...." As I already stated, that is incorrect in light of the action Jehovah took by destroying the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. You are familiar with the saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words" are you not? Well, follow that with the saying: "Action speaks louder than words."
How do you know that Sodom and Gomorrah were "destroyed" because of the "sin" of homosexuality".

Genesis is unclear about the specific sins that led God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore various interpreters throughout the ages have disagreed on the nature of those sins. The notion - now commonplace - that the people of Sodom promoted sexual contact between men, and were destroyed for this reason, does not appear in the Hebrew Bible at all, nor in the earliest biblical commentaries. There's another similar story in Judges. Jesus himself criticises Sodom not for its irregular sexual practices, but for its inhospitality and arrogance.

This is quite apart from the fact that what likely destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - if they existed at all - was an earthquake, which is hardly a divine punishment, given that the area is part of the Dead Sea Transform (DST) fault system, also sometimes referred to as the Dead Sea Rift. If Sodom and Gomorrah existed at all it was probably north east of the Dead Sea, along this fault system in the early Bronze Age between 2300 - 1800 BC, when there was a wetter climate than today.

There is archaeological and geological evidence that frequent earthquakes occured at this time in this area, many of which were at least 6 on the Richter Scale, which could have easily destroyed Bronze Age settlements. These settlements coud have been utterly destroyed rather than just left as piles of rubble by the disincti possibility the towns were built quite close to the water edge of the Dead Sea and therefore the loosely packed ground that would have contained water was shaken up by the earhquake, rushed to the surface and the ground subsequently turned to water - a phenomenon called liquefaction. On a slope, this then would have become a landslide which woud have utterly destroyed settlements.

Dr Gopal Madabhushi, at the Cambridge University Centrifuge Laboratory simulated the effect of liquefaction on a Bronze Age settlement built on or near the shores of the Dead Sea. His conclusion was that an earthquake of 6 or more magntiude would have resulted in a scene of utter calamity - the ground under Sodom and Gomorrah would have turned to effectively quicksand, with the houses sliding as far as they could until they reached the bottom of the Dead Sea.

My point?

Firstly we can conclude Sodom and Gomorrah were most likely not "destroyed" because of the "sin" of homosexuality".

Secondly the use of religious writings of Bronze Age / Iron Age cultures (which attempt to explain natural phenomenon as the work of 'god' or 'the gods') and subsequently using those conclusions to condemn or approve of cultural mores of later / modern societies is fundamentally flawed.
 
Last edited:

Emptyorangeseat

Team Captain
Oct 6, 2019
578
1,114
AFL Club
Fremantle
Um, don’t sweat the small stuff.

If I’m incorrect in saying that the bible doesn’t much mention homosexuality, fine, I stand corrected.

Now could you address the actual point of my post?
No but trying to be woke and intellect by singling out Christianity as the root of all evil!
Most religions speak out against homosexuality!
Wouldn’t you be more concerned with the evil religion of Islam.
In several countries where Islam is the dominant religion the death penalty occurs
 

Bareth Garry

Senior List
Jan 20, 2014
221
160
AFL Club
Adelaide
When I was younger I was influenced by my parents and their generations views on homosexuality. I was brought up that it was a sin in the religious sense but also that there was some sort of mental disorder about it. I look back at that with regret because as I got older I just realised it makes no difference to my life. I consider myself a Christian although I don't attend Church frequently anymore but one of the lessons of my religious upbringing is only God can cast judgement on another person. You can disapprove of a certain way of life, but you know, there is always someone else out there who disapproves of you. Therefore as I said above a gay couple being out of the closet makes no difference to my life so who am I to stop them.
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
11,241
13,626
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
No but trying to be woke and intellect by singling out Christianity as the root of all evil!
Most religions speak out against homosexuality!
Wouldn’t you be more concerned with the evil religion of Islam.
In several countries where Islam is the dominant religion the death penalty occurs
Thanks for your input. And would you also care to address the point of my post?
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
11,241
13,626
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
At Post 33, I provided you with a detailed scriptural account, from the book of Genesis, where Jehovah used action (which speaks louder than words) by literally destroying of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah--as clear evidence that He, the Almighty, will not tolerate homosexuality. I notice you conveniently skipped over the info that I provided at Post 33, so that you could argue about the supposed single point of your OP. The fact is that you made numerous points in your OP.

Your Point #1 is this statement: "The Bible doesn't actually say a lot about homosexuality...." As I already stated, that is incorrect in light of the action Jehovah took by destroying the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. You are familiar with the saying: "A picture is worth a thousand words" are you not? Well, follow that with the saying: "Action speaks louder than words."

Notice Points #2 and #3 above that you yourself quoted. In Point #2, you claim there are "massive inconsistencies" between the rejection of homosexuality by Christians who have no problem eating shellfish, and the like. In reality, there are no inconsistencies for the following reasons:

(1) The restriction against the eating of shellfish, shrimp, etc. was given only to the Jews/Hebrew people under the Mosaic Law Covenant. The Mosaic Law is named after Moses--one of the descendants of Abraham. At the time, the Jews/Hebrews were in a covenant relationship with Jehovah due to the fact they were direct descendants of Abraham. Gentiles (non-Jews/non-Hebrews) were excluded from the Mosaic Law because they are not direct descendants of Abraham.

(2) Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and cancelled it out. Below are Jesus' own words confirming this.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."

After Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, he established Christianity, which enabled Gentiles (non-Jews) as well as Jews (Abraham's descendants) to become Christians. Once the Mosaic Law Covenant ended (when Jesus fulfilled it), the prohibition against eating shellfish, etc. also ended for all Jews--regardless of whether they became Christians.

On the other hand, Jehovah's rejection of homosexuality occurred many generations before the Mosaic Law was established. Recall the scriptures I presented at Post 33 where Jehovah was having a conversation with Abraham, during which he informed Abraham that he intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, as follows:

Genesis 18:20 -- Almighty God, speaking to Abraham:
"Then Jehovah said: 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is very heavy.'"

Genesis 19:24-25
"[24] Then Jehovah made it rain sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah--it came from Jehovah, from the heavens. [25] So he overthrew these cities, yes, the entire district, including all the inhabitants of the cities and the plants of the ground."

Since God's restriction against homosexuality was never tied to the Mosaic Law Covenant, that restriction continues to this day. In other words, when Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, he did not cancel out restrictions that preceded the Mosaic Law; he only cancelled out the restrictions found within the Mosaic Law (including the restriction against eating shellfish).


NeutralZone
OK, if I may say so, you do seem a little obsessed about asserting that the bible in fact says a lot about homosexuality, even though I’ve already twice stated that if I’m in error on that, I happily stand corrected, and even though I see you chose to ignore another poster, Roylion, who appears to have mounted a more than decent rebuttal of your view.

But, moving on to the topic, if I understand your post here, you’re saying there are some laws that are unchanged because they predate Mosaic Law, and there are new laws that Jesus brought in, and that Mosaic Law no longer stands because Jesus “canceled” it - because he “fulfilled” it (even though those two words have no particular relation to each other, and even though in the quote your provided, Jesus did not actually mention Mosaic Law by name)?

As an outsider, I’d have to say that require a fairly tortured deductive path to reach that conclusion, and hardly commensurate with the vociferousness with which some Christians seem to hold to their anti-gay stance.
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
7,737
5,806
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
OK, if I may say so, you do seem a little obsessed about asserting that the bible in fact says a lot about homosexuality, even though I’ve already twice stated that if I’m in error on that, I happily stand corrected, and even though I see you chose to ignore another poster, Roylion, who appears to have mounted a more than decent rebuttal of your view.

But, moving on to the topic, if I understand your post here, you’re saying there are some laws that are unchanged because they predate Mosaic Law, and there are new laws that Jesus brought in, and that Mosaic Law no longer stands because Jesus “canceled” it - because he “fulfilled” it (even though those two words have no particular relation to each other, and even though in the quote your provided, Jesus did not actually mention Mosaic Law by name)?

As an outsider, I’d have to say that require a fairly tortured deductive path to reach that conclusion, and hardly commensurate with the vociferousness with which some Christians seem to hold to their anti-gay stance.
I think what is clear is that some Christians (and non-Christians) will try and grasp onto anything to try and justify their anti-gay stances.
That a major pillar of Australian Conservatism - the Anglican Diocese of Sydney - is leading this stance comes as no surprise to me or anyone else.
If you were to say travel 50 kms north of Sydney, to the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle, you would however encounter a much more progressive view on homosexuality within the Church these days.
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
11,241
13,626
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
I think what is clear is that some Christians (and non-Christians) will try and grasp onto anything to try and justify their anti-gay stances.
That a major pillar of Australian Conservatism - the Anglican Diocese of Sydney - is leading this stance comes as no surprise to me or anyone else.
If you were to say travel 50 kms north of Sydney, to the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle, you would however encounter a much more progressive view on homosexuality within the Church these days.
Yes, one thing that strikes me, as an outsider, is the clamp-like grip with which some people of faith hold to certain views, despite the clear existence of others who profess the same faith holding a vastly different view.

It can't be explained away as mere technicalities. Are they really saying those other believers are heathen and wrong?

Life's complex, and just for the record, I'm actually fine with contradiction, as long as it's acknowledged.

But some people are walking, talking contradictions and yet would insist quite the opposite.
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
7,737
5,806
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
Yes, one thing that strikes me, as an outsider, is the clamp-like grip with which some people of faith hold to certain views, despite the clear existence of others who profess the same faith holding a vastly different view.

It can't be explained away as mere technicalities. Are they really saying those other believers are heathen and wrong?

Life's complex, and just for the record, I'm actually fine with contradiction, as long as it's acknowledged.

But some people are walking, talking contradictions and yet would insist quite the opposite.
Politics as in religion - there are those who will maintain a vice-like grip as to what they choose to believe despite the views of others.
You'll probably find that those in the church who hold anti-gay views are often the same ones who hold conservative political views.
 
Mar 5, 2011
31,538
24,381
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
The main reason the Bible doesn't go on and on about homosexuality is because it doesn't need to. Once a) it establishes that man and woman were created for each other and marriage is to bind them together and b) sex should only take place inside marriage, it's pretty plain what that means for any other form of sexual activity, including homosexuality. At no point are either of these facts, established since the creation of the world as seen in Genesis, made obsolete elsewhere in Scripture. Within the NT, homosexuality was associated by the Jews with paganism - there was never any need to point out the inherent sinfulness of it to them, because it was established by creation and made abundantly clear in the Law as given to Moses but, because it was established at the creation of the world, the fulfillment of the law by Jesus does not change its sinful nature, unlike the classic "oh but shellfish" laws.

That is why when we do see it mentioned in Paul's letters, it is to the Gentiles that he talking - to those pagans who either have come or he wishes to come to Christ. For example, in his letter to the church in Rome he begins by talking about how Jesus gave him the ministry of teaching to the Gentiles, and that the Romans are among those Gentiles who belong to Jesus (ie. they are Christians). After telling them how he longs to visit them, he then says this (Rom 1:24-27):

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

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

This is part of a prelude to his argument to the church in Rome that they themselves are not without fault, including some of the same faults he goes on to list in the rest of chapter 1, so they should not be judging others for doing the same things that they do. It is clear why he write such a thing to the church in Rome - Rome was the capital of a pagan empire, in which we know homosexuality was practiced. What he would not need to tell the Jews, he certainly would need to tell the Gentiles, who were not familiar with the Scriptures in the same way as the Jews were.

As to the OP's reason for starting this thread, Davies himself has pointed out that this was in the context of Anglican church leaders, and his statement was directed to them, not to the entire church - perhaps he can answer why, exactly, a small minority of leaders who fundamentally disagree with the beliefs of the organisation at large should not leave it?
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom