Religion Christianity and Homosexuality

[raskolnikov]

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?

The Anglican church is dying. The average age of the parishioner is about 70 and there are no new people coming in. And it's attitudes like this that are why. You can deny modern science as much as you like but you're only going to alienate the church further from the rest of society.

What is your solution for gay people then? Are they just automatically consigned to hell when they are born? Do they just live a life of celibacy which has worked really well in the case of priests? Ex-gay programs routinely fail usually with the leader announcing that he has fallen back into "immorality".

Not to mention the huge inconsistencies in Christians teaching. Why has the church moved on from women being silent in church but refuses to in the case of gay people.

By the way that bit you have bolded is talking about people abandoning their natural inclinations. For gay people same sex relationships are their natural inclinations.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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?

I wasn't aware of that distinction. Thank you for clarifying.

But if you're asking me to justify a position for the church to take, you've got the wrong guy. I have no skin in this game whatsoever. I'm not asking as a member of a church, I'm asking as a member of Australian society. Even if Davies made the distinction you say he did, plenty of other Christians don't.

I would hazard a guess, though, that that "small minority" disagree because their reading of the bible is fundamentally different to that of the majority.

Which is a problem for Christians. As I said in an unrelated thread, you can't have it both ways with the bible. If you want it to be the clear and unambigous word of god, you can't also be claiming there are different interpretations possible surely.

Plus, if we didn't allow for minority viewpoints within the church, we'd never have had the Reformation, would we? Glenn Davies would be having to toe the line from Rome.

 

[The Speaker]

I wasn't aware of that distinction. Thank you for clarifying.

But if you're asking me to justify a position for the church to take, you've got the wrong guy. I have no skin in this game whatsoever. I'm not asking as a member of a church, I'm asking as a member of Australian society. Even if Davies made the distinction you say he did, plenty of other Christians don't.

I would hazard a guess, though, that that "small minority" disagree because their reading of the bible is fundamentally different to that of the majority.

Which is a problem for Christians. As I said in an unrelated thread, you can't have it both ways with the bible. If you want it to be the clear and unambigous word of god, you can't also be claiming there are different interpretations possible surely.

Plus, if we didn't allow for minority viewpoints within the church, we'd never have had the Reformation, would we? Glenn Davies would be having to toe the line from Rome.

Ah, but he's not telling them to leave the church as a whole, he's saying that they should leave the Anglican Church. There are other denominations, above all the Uniting Church (which has an even more rapidly declining membership trend), which would happily accept them into their fold because their mindsets have much more in common.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Ah, but he's not telling them to leave the church as a whole, he's saying that they should leave the Anglican Church. There are other denominations, above all the Uniting Church (which has an even more rapidly declining membership trend), which would happily accept them into their fold because their mindsets have much more in common.

I've no doubt that might be the best option for that cohort you identified.

But none of the points you've raised address the question of some Christians vigorously policing some biblical laws, but falling silent on others.

 

[Cooldude]

Which is a problem for Christians. As I said in an unrelated thread, you can't have it both ways with the bible. If you want it to be the clear and unambigous word of god, you can't also be claiming there are different interpretations possible surely.

Yes you can, and they will do it, Christianity has been doing it since its inception.

The first step in being conned by a religious person/organisation is to believe that their faith or god actually matter to them; it doesn't. It only matters when it benefits them, if it doesn't then they will duly ignore it. Religion is largely an ego-centric exercise, you mold it to suit your own needs and discard the bits that don't.

Beating on homosexuality is just easy virtual signalling and photo ops to show how "pious" and "Christian" they are, it's just branding. The gays are easy targets, they are a minority and they don't fight back, perfect easy targets for bullies.

We have to stop thinking Christianity is driven by dogma, they are not, in fact Christianity is the most pragmatic religion in history. That is how they have thrived and gained power throughout history, be it in feudalism, monarchies, theocracies, and now capitalism and democracy. Christianity has always playdoed itself for their own interests, it is the ultimate playdo religion. They are like T2000

Which is largely why they have been so popular, because followers can mold it in any which way to suit their own needs

 

[The Speaker]

I've no doubt that might be the best option for that cohort you identified.

But none of the points you've raised address the question of some Christians vigorously policing some biblical laws, but falling silent on others.

I did actually address that in my original post.

 

[The Speaker]

The Anglican church is dying. The average age of the parishioner is about 70 and there are no new people coming in. And it's attitudes like this that are why. You can deny modern science as much as you like but you're only going to alienate the church further from the rest of society.

We all know that census data shows that the number of people calling themselves any Christian other than Pentecostal is dropping, and sometimes quite rapidly. But the more important and relevant statistic is weekly attendance (as that's about the best gauge of practicing Christians that can be quantified, even though not all practicing Christians can or do go to church weekly), which is always significantly smaller. Of the Anglican dioceses, the Sydney one is comfortably among the youngest, largest and, crucially, is not rapidly losing active members - in fact, many of its congregations are growing.

This lines up with worldwide statistics that suggest that the churches that lose members most rapidly are those that abandon Biblical orthodoxy.

What is your solution for gay people then? Are they just automatically consigned to hell when they are born? Do they just live a life of celibacy which has worked really well in the case of priests? Ex-gay programs routinely fail usually with the leader announcing that he has fallen back into "immorality".

It depends on the person, of course. Keep in mind, a Christian who is same-sex attracted will not see their attraction of the primary definer of their identity, unlike what your questions imply. Some, like Vaughan Roberts, choose to remain celibate. Some others choose to marry people of the opposite sex. Some struggle with same-sex attraction their whole lives, others find that their desires change over time.

But whatever solution and whatever their lives entail, it cannot include deliberately, consciously include ignoring God's created order of things for their whole lives, of what is good and what is evil.

Not to mention the huge inconsistencies in Christians teaching. Why has the church moved on from women being silent in church but refuses to in the case of gay people.

Depends what you mean by women being silent in church, but either way, follow the logic from my previous post. The nature of homosexuality has not changed since creation, marked as sinful for being in opposition to God's created order - his design for sex and marriage. The question of what church is and what women's role in it is is not marked out in quite the same way.

By the way that bit you have bolded is talking about people abandoning their natural inclinations. For gay people same sex relationships are their natural inclinations.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. That's clearly not what Paul saying within the context of the verses around it, and given the wider context of the Bible as a whole that's definitely not right. Within the passage, he is showing how people have rejected their creator God - that although they have been created with the knowledge of God and how he has created things and how to honour him, they have exchanged that for their own desires. They have exchanged the truth for a lie that they desire.

 

[Gough]

You having shellfish for Christmas?

 

[raskolnikov]

I just googled Vaughan Roberts. Denying his true nature and consigned himself to a loveless life from some morbid fear of hell.

Sad.

 

[The Speaker]

You having shellfish for Christmas?

No, because I don't like seafood.

But, as I have said, the law is fulfilled by Jesus. No-one is under obligation to obey it as it was given to Moses. This does not, however, mean that sin is not sin.

There are things which predate the law of Moses which are affirmed in the New Testament as well, things that include the sinfulness of murder, and of sexual relations outside of marriage. Shellfish, and other laws about what not to eat and wear, were given to Israel specifically in order to differentiate them from the nations around them. Because Jesus has fulfilled the law, and the people of God are now defined by belief in him, his death and resurrection, instead of by the law (which he kept perfectly unlike anyone else ever has or will), there is no longer any obligation for God's people to adhere to such things. For ease of teaching, the law is often separated into different constituent parts when we look at it today, to help demonstrate how some of it (such as the Ten Commandments) are codifications of laws that have always existed and continue to be true to this day, while others (such as shellfish) are purely for Israel to keep them distinct. But ultimately, anyone who has faith in Jesus is no longer under the law as they are saved by his mercy and grace, and therefore will choose to obey God not out of obligation, but out of a desire to honour him.

If not being under the law meant that there was no longer any such thing as sin, Jesus' death and resurrection would be meaningless, as we wouldn't have sins to be paid for and, therefore, we wouldn't die.

I just googled Vaughan Roberts. Denying his true nature and consigned himself to a loveless life from some morbid fear of hell.

Sad.

Roberts has done wonderful work for the kingdom of God, knowing that his 'true nature' is to be a servant of Jesus Christ, who is himself the great servant, and who has shown Roberts a greater love in his death and resurrection than anything he else he could ever receive, and so he will have a wonderful, joyful eternity in the new creation. I look forward to seeing him there. I hope you will join us.

 

[Roylion]

No, because I don't like seafood.

But, as I have said, the law is fulfilled by Jesus. No-one is under obligation to obey it as it was given to Moses. This does not, however, mean that sin is not sin.

As is commonly defined a 'sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a 'sin'. Why for example are sexual relations outside of 'marriage' a sin? The legal and religious concepts of marriage are social constructs. The nature of these social constructs varies hugely from place to place and over time within a place and they vary in every regard. For example at various times in human society marriage was for protecting property and blood lines and only truly benefited patriarchy - a very human construct. Hence attaching divine law to the human institute of marriage by adding the concept of sin to coerce participants to observe the construct gives the construct a sense of gravitas. Committing 'adultery' or blasphemy' is only a 'sin' in the eyes who accept the social construct or who are forced to accept the social construct through scoial or physical coercion.

Same with homosexuality. It only became a 'sin' in the eyes of some because for the early Israelites / Hebrews who worshipped Yahweh because homosexuality posed a threat to societies with a high infant mortality rate and a very slow population growth. The Hebrews / Israelites were originally a minority in the land of Canaan and were trying to increase their numbers and so there was a practical human reason to discourage homosexuality and 'go forth and mutiply'. Homosexuality was also associated with the rival worship of Baal and was another good reason for the priests of Yahweh to speak out against the practice.

 

[The Speaker]

As is commonly defined a 'sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

This is a useful definition for you construct your own arguments against, but it doesn't correlate with Biblical reality, which pretty clearly defines sin as a rejection of God's absolute moral order (in opposition to your definition's relative morality).

 

[raskolnikov]

As is commonly defined a 'sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a 'sin'. Why for example are sexual relations outside of 'marriage' a sin? The legal and religious concepts of marriage are social constructs. The nature of these social constructs varies hugely from place to place and over time within a place and they vary in every regard. For example at various times in human society marriage was for protecting property and blood lines and only truly benefited patriarchy - a very human construct. Hence attaching divine law to the human institute of marriage by adding the concept of sin to coerce participants to observe the construct gives the construct a sense of gravitas. Committing 'adultery' or blasphemy' is only a 'sin' in the eyes who accept the social construct or who are forced to accept the social construct through scoial or physical coercion.

Same with homosexuality. It only became a 'sin' in the eyes of some because for the early Israelites / Hebrews who worshipped Yahweh because homosexuality posed a threat to societies with a high infant mortality rate and a very slow population growth. The Hebrews / Israelites were originally a minority in the land of Canaan and were trying to increase their numbers and so there was a practical human reason to discourage homosexuality and 'go forth and mutiply'. Homosexuality was also associated with the rival worship of Baal and was another good reason for the priests of Yahweh to speak out against the practice.

Don't waste your time. You may as well be arguing with Lyle Shelton. Lyle, Izzy and their ilk, including this guy, think that they have the truth and won't be told otherwise. They'll meet their ruin soon enough and drown, still screaming that they have the truth. This is them.



I've seen it too many times.

 

[Cooldude]

The Anglican church is dying. The average age of the parishioner is about 70 and there are no new people coming in. And it's attitudes like this that are why. You can deny modern science as much as you like but you're only going to alienate the church further from the rest of society.

What is your solution for gay people then? Are they just automatically consigned to hell when they are born? Do they just live a life of celibacy which has worked really well in the case of priests? Ex-gay programs routinely fail usually with the leader announcing that he has fallen back into "immorality".

Not to mention the huge inconsistencies in Christians teaching. Why has the church moved on from women being silent in church but refuses to in the case of gay people.

By the way that bit you have bolded is talking about people abandoning their natural inclinations. For gay people same sex relationships are their natural inclinations.

About time the Anglican church die, tells you everything about Christianity that the church of England is somehow relevant, when it only existed because a fat English king wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give it to him, so he started his own church to make his own rules.

The so called "absolute" morality of Christianity is only as absolute as whatever the ruling body of the church wanted it to be at the time, so absolute that it has chopped and changed and molded and weaved over centuries. If it is so absolute, then they'd still be murdering left handed people, and scourging/breaking children's left hands to prevent them using it. If it's absolute then adultery and divorce would still be a criminally punishable offense

 

[The Speaker]

Don't waste your time. You may as well be arguing with Lyle Shelton. Lyle, Izzy and their ilk, including this guy, think that they have the truth and won't be told otherwise. They'll meet their ruin soon enough and drown, still screaming that they have the truth. This is them.



I've seen it too many times.

How quickly you wilted in the face of a reasonable response.

 

[Cooldude]

As is commonly defined a 'sin' is an 'immoral' act considered to be a transgression against 'divine law.' Both the definition of 'immoral acts' and 'divine law' are subjective - in that both are the products of certain groups of humans entering into some sort of social contract. Social constructs only exist because humans in a social group agree that a particular construct exists.

Each culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a 'sin'. Why for example are sexual relations outside of 'marriage' a sin? The legal and religious concepts of marriage are social constructs. The nature of these social constructs varies hugely from place to place and over time within a place and they vary in every regard. For example at various times in human society marriage was for protecting property and blood lines and only truly benefited patriarchy - a very human construct. Hence attaching divine law to the human institute of marriage by adding the concept of sin to coerce participants to observe the construct gives the construct a sense of gravitas. Committing 'adultery' or blasphemy' is only a 'sin' in the eyes who accept the social construct or who are forced to accept the social construct through scoial or physical coercion.

Same with homosexuality. It only became a 'sin' in the eyes of some because for the early Israelites / Hebrews who worshipped Yahweh because homosexuality posed a threat to societies with a high infant mortality rate and a very slow population growth. The Hebrews / Israelites were originally a minority in the land of Canaan and were trying to increase their numbers and so there was a practical human reason to discourage homosexuality and 'go forth and mutiply'. Homosexuality was also associated with the rival worship of Baal and was another good reason for the priests of Yahweh to speak out against the practice.

You have posted a perfectly reasonable and knowledgeable response linking history and facts with it but I suspect you won't be getting a likemindedly reasonable response

The Christian church has been fighting among themselves since forever about which part of the Old Testaments/Covenant they should still adopt or abolish depending on their convenience, denominations and theologians centuries apart cannot agree on it. The interpretation largely depend on which denomination you're talking to, it's yet another case of each Christian making up their own rules for the bible depending on what suits them. Don't let anyone be dishonest enough to tell you that the New Covenant Theology has been the staple for the way Christians have interpreted the Old Covenant, it is simply a lie

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I did actually address that in my original post.

Well no, I don't believe you did. Your first post was all about why the Bible doesn't go on and on about homosexuality, not about why some Christians insist on the biblical exhortations against homosexuality but not other exhortations.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

But, as I have said, the law is fulfilled by Jesus. No-one is under obligation to obey it as it was given to Moses. This does not, however, mean that sin is not sin.

There are things which predate the law of Moses which are affirmed in the New Testament as well, things that include the sinfulness of murder, and of sexual relations outside of marriage. Shellfish, and other laws about what not to eat and wear, were given to Israel specifically in order to differentiate them from the nations around them. Because Jesus has fulfilled the law, and the people of God are now defined by belief in him, his death and resurrection, instead of by the law (which he kept perfectly unlike anyone else ever has or will), there is no longer any obligation for God's people to adhere to such things. For ease of teaching, the law is often separated into different constituent parts when we look at it today, to help demonstrate how some of it (such as the Ten Commandments) are codifications of laws that have always existed and continue to be true to this day, while others (such as shellfish) are purely for Israel to keep them distinct. But ultimately, anyone who has faith in Jesus is no longer under the law as they are saved by his mercy and grace, and therefore will choose to obey God not out of obligation, but out of a desire to honour him.

If not being under the law meant that there was no longer any such thing as sin, Jesus' death and resurrection would be meaningless, as we wouldn't have sins to be paid for and, therefore, we wouldn't die.

Well gee, a few unexamined assumptions underpinning that reasoning.

 

[Roylion]

This is a useful definition for you construct your own arguments against, but it doesn't correlate with Biblical reality, which pretty clearly defines sin as a rejection of God's absolute moral order (in opposition to your definition's relative morality).

"God's absolute moral order" is just another human construct. To be accepted or rejected as one sees fit. You choose to accept such a construct. Others see fit to reject it.

I for example see myself as sinless. You of course will disagree. What human / social construct that you accept and attempt to apply to my life means very little, if anything, to me.

 

[Roylion]

You have posted a perfectly reasonable and knowledgeable response linking history and facts with it but I suspect you won't be getting a likemindedly reasonable response

I don't expect one. In the end what I write isn't really for the person I'm directly replying to.

The Christian church has been fighting among themselves since forever about which part of the Old Testaments/Covenant they should still adopt or abolish depending on their convenience, denominations and theologians centuries apart cannot agree on it. The interpretation largely depend on which denomination you're talking to, it's yet another case of each Christian making up their own rules for the bible depending on what suits them. Don't let anyone be dishonest enough to tell you that the New Covenant Theology has been the staple for the way Christians have interpreted the Old Covenant, it is simply a lie

Well that is essentially my point. Religion and the application of so-called 'divine law' to various societies are little more than the expression and maintenance of power over society that belief in a particular divine law allows them to wield.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Without even reading the OP Alan Joyce and Iffy Izzy say Hi.

 

[M Malice]

Surely people still don't believe that the drivel in the bible is the word of some omnipresent, omniscient, judgmental creator.

God- Created in mans image by man for control/power, the biggest con in history.

 

[raskolnikov]

How quickly you wilted in the face of a reasonable response.

I've been arguing with your like all my life. I couldn't be bothered anymore. It's just bashing my head against a brick wall.

 

[The Speaker]

Well gee, a few unexamined assumptions underpinning that reasoning.

You asked for the Christian understanding of the answer to that question in accordance with the Bible - I have given it to you in a condensed form.

 

[The Speaker]

I've been arguing with your like all my life. I couldn't be bothered anymore. It's just bashing my head against a brick wall.

I have no idea who said people are, so I cannot ascertain the truth of that claim. I only hope that they treated you with love. But you were quite willing to ask questions initially, and given your response now it seems to me that your intention wasn't really to have a discussion about what the Bible says - it was simply to ascertain whether I was someone who you could leap upon for contradictions, or instead someone who knows what the Bible teaches (which you have decided you don't like). Once I showed I was the latter, you dismissed me.