Religion Christianity and Homosexuality

[JW Frogen]

Jesus never mentions homosexuality, indeed he thought all sex a distraction for the Kingdom of God.

Paul is the one quoted in this regard (other than the Old Testament which Jesus has little time for other than to sell his message) and I think Paul condemned it because he was a homosexual in a world that would kill you for it.

 

[The Speaker]

But you yourself just said that Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

He's clearly saying he came to fulfill the prophets and to fulfill the law. How does one fulfill a law?

And how are you certain that (whatever "fulfill" the law means), this refers to Mosaic law, but not those laws that predate Mosaic law (the prohibition against homosexuality being one of them)?

And how does one fulfill or abolish a prophet? As I said above, he's saying that he came to fulfill the purpose of the law and of the prophets. "The Law and the Prophets" were books of writings - those were the names they were given, and still are given by Jews today. They were written for a purpose, which he is saying he fulfills in the passage.

The law was understood to mean the Mosaic law. Everyone listening to him knew he was talking about the Mosaic law. But remember, the Mosaic law codified already existing laws, including commands that had previously been given to Abraham and his descendants. As early as Genesis 4, we see that murder is a sin, for example. So Jesus actually fulfills all those laws as well, in addition to the ceremonial laws about priests, and cleanliness, and so on, that were unique to Israel because they were introduced in the the Mosaic law for the purpose of making Israel unique/set apart/holy.

This is why I said above that there is no obligation to keep the law - any part of it! - because of Jesus. But that also doesn't mean that the definitions of good and evil that were in place before the Mosaic law existed no longer exist (which is why Jesus says he is not abolishing the law). As Christians, then, we desire to do what is right before God because he is God and he has saved us, and we know what is right and wrong because he has told us since creation.

Except for the fact that the OT doesn't point to Jesus.

If you look up the alleged fulfilled prophecies as described in the NT, it's logical to conclude that they're being taken out of context.

For example, Mt 2:15.

Oh? Then why does Jesus repeatedly say that it does, using justifications that work perfectly?

 

[Roylion]

Oh? Then why does Jesus repeatedly say that it does,

Well of course he would say that (or more probably his followers would say that Jesus had said that).

using justifications that work perfectly?

Christians wrote their Gospels with clear purposes in mind - one of which was that their Messiah (at that time one of many messiahs) would be seen as the true Messiah because he fulfilled OT prophecy. (Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27–30 and Luke 9:18–20 )

Biblical 'prophecy' in general is often so vague, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The interpreter can therefore find a meaning in the words that is true to them.

To give credibility to their new found religion, New Testament writers often distorted Old Testament scriptures or quoted them entirely out of context to shape them into "prophecies" that seemed to fit contemporary people and events they were writing about. For example the 'virgin' birth and the "prophecy" that Jesus was going to be a Nazarene. Another good example of this type is the "prophecy" by Micah, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this raises a couple of problems.

"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but quite possibly refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the grandson of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (2 Chronicles:50-52, 4:4).

The prophecy (if that is what it is) perhaps does not refer to the Messiah, at least as we understand Jesus, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.

The Gospel of Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

Lo and behold the "prophecy" is fulfilled.

Christopher Hitchens once remarked about prophecy in the New Testament.

"If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right."

Even the genealogies of Jesus are theological constructs rather than factual history designed to fulfil prophecy.

Distinguished genealogies served to legitimise a monarch because in most cases the right to rule (including being King of Israel) is passed through inheritance. How could a man from a poor family claim to be the 'messiah' other than by fulfilling prophecy AND having an august pedigree? Being a descendant of David and the Son of God at the same time meant there could be no question that Jesus was the Messiah. Claiming descent from various gods was also quite common, but also ultimately fictional.

It's not isolated to just the Bible either. Manufacturing descent from antiquity is not just confined to the Bible. It's a form of pseudohistory where the ancestry of a ruler is exaggerated or made up entirely to create the illusion of illustrious predecessors. The kings of England, Scotland, France and ancient Roman senatorial families (amongst others) were all traced back to Trojan ancestors.The kings of Ireland, England and Scotland, including the modern-day British royal family, were traced back to Adam and Eve as well as to the god Woden and/or Geat.

 

[The Speaker]

Roylion still yet to create an argument in here that isn't built on tenuous and very much debated statements that he instead asserts as unquestionable fact.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion still yet to create an argument in here that isn't built on tenuous and very much debated statements

Any prohibition against homosexuality in any culture is nothing more than a human construct made for manifestly human reasons. I see no reason to conclude otherwise. For reasons I have already explained in detail. Attaching the appellation of 'divine' to a set of laws is little more than an article of opinion in order to justify said laws to a wider cultural group or subordinate population and further supported by little more than 'faith'.

 

[Roylion]

... instead asserts as unquestionable fact.

Ironic.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Any prohibition against homosexuaity in any culture is nothing more than a human construct made for manifestly human reasons. I see no reason to conclude otherwise. For reasons I have explained in detail.

You've missed a big step. Homosexuaity in any culture was not defined as a human construct until the late 19th century, so there could have been no prohibition against it. There have been various levels of acceptance and rejection of same sex acts (and sodomy between male/female) over the centuries.

The concept of people identifying as someone with a permanent and exclusive attraction to the same sex is a modern Western concept. It is at odds with the phenomenon of male-male sexual bonds in other cultures. The western concept of homosexuality assumes a life long predisposition whereas other cultures have generally construed male-male sexual bonds as a temporary phase.

 

[Roylion]

You've missed a big step. Homosexuaity in any culture was not defined as a human construct

I didn't say homosexuality. I said the "prohibition against homosexuaity" s a human construct, as is any scoietal or religious prohibition. By definition that refers "same sex love" or "sexual behaviour between members of the same sex" (which has existed since the beginning of the human species). Such sexual behaviour, whether temporary or permanent, I would not class a social or human construct.

The concept of people identifying as someone with a permanent and exclusive attraction to the same sex is a modern Western concept. It is at odds with the phenomenon of male-male sexual bonds in other cultures.

Greek writings by Plato appears to have described individuals exhibiting exclusive homosexuality. The same has been observed in pre-Meiji Japan.

The western concept of homosexuality assumes a life long predisposition whereas other cultures have generally construed male-male sexual bonds as a temporary phase.

The term homosexuality was certainly invented in the 19th century in the West.

 

[raskolnikov]

Roylion still yet to create an argument in here that isn't built on tenuous and very much debated statements that he instead asserts as unquestionable fact.

Sounds like you.

 

[The Speaker]

Sounds like you.

Not really, at least not in this thread. I've stuck to the topic matter - ie. what does Christianity say about homosexuality, as demonstrated in the Bible? He has been much more interested in looking at anything but that, and when anyone might attempt to steer him back he adopts the postmodernist "it's just a human construct bro" which doesn't actually address the question.

 

[Roylion]

Not really, at least not in this thread. I've stuck to the topic matter - ie. what does Christianity say about homosexuality, as demonstrated in the Bible?

It;s blindingly obvious what the Old Testament says about "sexual behaviour between members of the same sex". I've also addressed the three references to the same in the new Testament.

He has been much more interested in looking at anything but that,

More responding to your virtual proselytizing. Some quick examples....

"....using justifications that work perfectly.."

"....we desire to do what is right before God because he is God and he has saved us, and we know what is right and wrong because he has told us since creation."

and when anyone might attempt to steer him back he adopts the postmodernist "it's just a human construct bro" which doesn't actually address the question.

I've addressed the question already. Quite a long time ago.

 

[The Speaker]

It;s blindingly obvious what the Old Testament says about "sexual behaviour between members of the same sex". I've also addressed the three references to the same in the new Testament.

Yes, it's blindingly obvious that it is prohibited because homosexuality is in opposition to the created order God put in place, and this is reaffirmed in the NT by Jesus' teaching on marriage to the Jews and Paul's teaching on sex to the Gentiles. Thanks for playing.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, it's blindingly obvious that it is prohibited because homosexuality is in opposition to the created order God put in place,

And as I said this is merely according to a number of Bronze Age / Iron Age religious tracts, composed, written, edited, and redacted over several centuries, that have an all too human origin and agenda. There are very human reasons for a societal prohibition of sexual behaviour between members of the same sex. As I've already explained. There is little if anything 'divine' about it. You may regard as a 'sin' , because of your religious beliefs, but I certainly don't.

Claims that there was 'a created order God put in place' is just more proselytizing for your faith.

and this is reaffirmed in the NT by Jesus' teaching on marriage to the Jews

And I've already stated several times, 'marriage' is but a social construct. As is 'sin'. See above.

and Paul's teaching on sex to the Gentiles. Thanks for playing.

As I said I've addressed the references to "sexual behaviour between members of the same sex' in the New Testament earlier. Why should non-Christians pay any attention to these newer religious tracts as a guide to conducting their own lives at all?

 

[The Speaker]

See what I mean? It's like trying to discuss philosophy with a parrot.

"The OP is asking for the internal logic within Christianity that puts it in opposition to something like homosexuality."
"SQUAWK - MORALITY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT"
"Even if that highly contestable statement was true, it doesn't address the question at all."
"I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED EVERYTHING - SQUAWK"

 

[Cooldude]

Sounds like you.

Self awareness has never been the hardcore Christians' strong suit, nor do they detect irony, so you gotta give them some slack

 

[The Speaker]

Self awareness has never been the hardcore Christians' strong suit, nor do they detect irony, so you gotta give them some slack

Your drive-bys are increasingly uninventive.

 

[Evolved1]

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.

There are true Christians and fake Christians. The true Jews called Jesus a fake Jew, which made him the true leader of either the the true or fake Christians...depending on your sect.

It's all too confusing for me. I prefer sticking with science and logic.

 

[raskolnikov]

See what I mean? It's like trying to discuss philosophy with a parrot.

"The OP is asking for the internal logic within Christianity that puts it in opposition to something like homosexuality."
"SQUAWK - MORALITY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT"
"Even if that highly contestable statement was true, it doesn't address the question at all."
"I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED EVERYTHING - SQUAWK"

"Homosexuality is wrong?"
"Why?"
"Because the Bible says so." (Even though we choose to ignore a lot of other things that the Bible says.)
"Well who says that the Bible is right?"
"Because the Bible says so ".

 

[Evolved1]

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.

Treating a homosexual with love using bible passages is much the same as Jeffrey Dahmer treating his victims with love using a knife and fork.

 

[Evolved1]

Once we presuppose that truths are nothing more than human constructs, truth ceases to exist. So ask yourself: can truth be absolute, or is it always relative?

An absolute truth is that God is a human construct.

 

[Work Hardery]

The sad modern state of children's education. Clown society.

 

[Evolved1]

Canada are moving forward with plans to ban LGBTQI conversion therapy which is sure to engage the knuckle dragging sections of the electorate.

The church is clearly being persecuted. There's no other explanation.

 

[Evolved1]

The sad modern state of children's education. Clown society.

View attachment 795223

 

[Gough]

The sad modern state of children's education. Clown society.

View attachment 795223

When I see posts like this I'm forever thankful I'm gay knowing how much it winds up people like you.

 

[Evolved1]

Oh? Then why does Jesus repeatedly say that it does, using justifications that work perfectly?

That's merely your opinion, and it's not my problem if you won't do the legwork necessary to see the other side of the debate.

After doing research for myself, I determined that the alleged miraculous fulfillment of prophecies was a combination of retrofitting and unverifiable bs.