Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[sojourner]

Ok, do you want to try and defend your position against my argument?

Also, I thought you were a Christian. The bible clearly condemns homosexuality so why do you disagree.

1) I dismiss sola scriptura, so my ethic is also informed by sources outside biblical texts.
2) the Bible does not “clearly condemn” homosexuality. Where it condemns the homosexual act, that condemnation centers around either cultural issues endemic to the particular society of the intended audience that have nothing to do with us, or around a situation of rape.
3) As a Christian, I find a much stronger directive for advocacy of love, hospitality, compassion, equity and justice, and inclusion of the other, than I do a polemic against homosexuals. Since Jesus weighed scriptural texts with regard to the above criteria, I don’t have a problem with weighing the message of love and forgiveness heavier than the few admittedly weak passages that *appear* to condemn the orientation.

I don’t think you could present an argument based on a solid exegesis of the texts that would either impress or intimidate me. For me, where the Bible stands against the well-being of people, the well-being of people always wins, and I don’t have a problem dismissing those texts as useless.

Also, I’m a member of the clergy, so don’t try to call my theology, commitment, maturity or ethics into question.

 

[sojourner]

Do you want to discuss what God thinks about homosexuality?

I don’t think “what God thinks” about a dimension of human sexuality that God created is useful to the discussion. Pretending to know what “God thinks” based on outdated and culturally-biased information is rather high-handed, IMO.

 

[1robin]

1) I dismiss sola scriptura, so my ethic is also informed by sources outside biblical texts.

This is one dangerous stance to take for Christians. Not taking the scriptures as the final authority is to reject the only possible objective truth.

2) the Bible does not “clearly condemn” homosexuality. Where it condemns the homosexual act, that condemnation centers around either cultural issues endemic to the particular society of the intended audience that have nothing to do with us, or around a situation of rape.

I strongly disagree here but my argument against homosexual acts is not scriptural. My argument against homosexual sex is secular. Also keep in mind my argument condemns homosexual acts not necessarily the homosexual orientation.

3) As a Christian, I find a much stronger directive for advocacy of love, hospitality, compassion, equity and justice, and inclusion of the other, than I do a polemic against homosexuals. Since Jesus weighed scriptural texts with regard to the above criteria, I don’t have a problem with weighing the message of love and forgiveness heavier than the few admittedly weak passages that *appear* to condemn the orientation.

I was not contrasting the love that God has for us against being a homosexual. In my view God loves the homosexual as strongly as any other believer. To use a platitude, I believe God hates the sin but loves the sinner so your argument is irrelevant in this context.

I don’t think you could present an argument based on a solid exegesis of the texts that would either impress or intimidate me. For me, where the Bible stands against the well-being of people, the well-being of people always wins, and I don’t have a problem dismissing those texts as useless.

I could easily use the bible to condemn homosexuality but again the argument I use is not based on the bible, it is secular. Do you wish me to post it? It's very short and simple.

 

[kiwimac]

I don’t think “what God thinks” about a dimension of human sexuality that God created is useful to the discussion. Pretending to know what “God thinks” based on outdated and culturally-biased information is rather high-handed, IMO.

Indeed.

 

[sojourner]

what preachers and ministers tell their flock is invariably what their denomination has decided

I don’t think that’s universally true. There have been HUGE fights within UCC, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist, ECUSA, Presbyterian USA and other denominations, with clergy bringing pressure to bear to change denominational policy on more than one social justice issue.

 

[sojourner]

This is one dangerous stance to take for Christians. Not taking the scriptures as the final authority is to reject the only possible objective truth

The Bible wasn’t taken as the “final authority” for the first 1500 years of the church’s existence. In orthodox churches, it still isn’t. That’s because the Bible doesn’t present objective truth. It presents theological stances.

I was not contrasting the love that God has for us against being a homosexual. In my view God loves the homosexual as strongly as any other believer. To use a platitude, I believe God hates the sin but loves the sinner so your argument is irrelevant in this context

Since homosexuality isn’t a sin, I don’t see how that platitude is in any way valid theologically.

I could easily use the bible to condemn homosexuality but again the argument I use is not based on the bible, it is secular. Do you wish me to post it? It's very short and simple

If you want. But I bet it’s going to be based on anal penetration, which is not strictly a homosexual act, and I know many homosexuals who don’t engage in it. If it includes an argument based on some faux-psychological justification, it won’t get very far with me either.

 

[1robin]

I don’t think “what God thinks” about a dimension of human sexuality that God created is useful to the discussion. Pretending to know what “God thinks” based on outdated and culturally-biased information is rather high-handed, IMO.

When I talk about what God thinks, I am not claiming that I have some unique connection with God (even though the bible says I very well could have). When I say what God think I am talking about his revelations in the bible. However you have reserved the right to deny the bible whenever you disagree with it some I am not sure we share an objective standard by which to settle disagreements between us. Let me add some points of clarification.

1. My argument against homosexual acts is secular.
2. God does condemn homosexual acts but I am not making a biblical claim.
3. When I say "God thinks" I am referring to biblical revelation.
4. I regard the bible as the ultimate authority concerning morality but you believe your own preferences are the objective standard.
5. I am condemning homosexual acts not the orientation itself.

Please keep these in mind.

 

[1robin]

The Bible wasn’t taken as the “final authority” for the first 1500 years of the church’s existence. In orthodox churches, it still isn’t. That’s because the Bible doesn’t present objective truth. It presents theological stances.

I strongly disagree but I am not sure how to demonstrate this. I suppose I should point out that the writings of the early church fathers contain 95% of the new testament. You could reconstruct the bible from their writings alone. The bible itself claim it is the final authority. What (from the bible) could you quote that would demonstrate that the apostles did not consider it the final authority?

Since homosexuality isn’t a sin, I don’t see how that platitude is in any way valid theologically.

I am condemning homosexual acts not the orientation however why do you think God is fine with the orientation?

If you want. But I bet it’s going to be based on anal penetration, which is not strictly a homosexual act, and I know many homosexuals who don’t engage in it. If it includes an argument based on some faux-psychological justification, it won’t get very far with me either.

I did not suggest that anal penetration was exclusively homosexual or that is was moral for anyone to do it. That is not a defends of anything.

My argument is as following.

1. Homosexual acts carry costs that are not justifiable by it's benefits therefore I condemn them.
For example the 4% of us in the united states that are gay produce almost 70% of new aids cases. It
does not produce life but dang sure costs lives.
2. Heterosexual acts do have sufficient justification for it's costs.
For example to perpetuate the human race. It takes lives but also creates and improves them.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I believe sinners who wish to legitimize their sin will go to any lengths to get the Bible to say what they want it to say but Jesus testifies to me directly that it is a sin.

How convenient for you. What happens when Jesus testifies to me directly but the testimonies differ?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

When I talk about what God thinks, I am not claiming that I have some unique connection with God (even though the bible says I very well could have). When I say what God think I am talking about his revelations in the bible. However you have reserved the right to deny the bible whenever you disagree with it some I am not sure we share an objective standard by which to settle disagreements between us. Let me add some points of clarification.

1. My argument against homosexual acts is secular.
2. God does condemn homosexual acts but I am not making a biblical claim.
3. When I say "God thinks" I am referring to biblical revelation.
4. I regard the bible as the ultimate authority concerning morality but you believe your own preferences are the objective standard.
5. I am condemning homosexual acts not the orientation itself.

Please keep these in mind.

Very interesting, because I consider homosexual activity sinful, but secularly neutral, and the orientation to be perfectly OK. What secular argument do you have against it?

 

[Skwim]

I don’t think it’s a matter of changing the Bible, so much as it is broadening the interpretational platform through the exegetical process, especially through historic and linguistic criticism.

I don't see it as an exegetical process at all, but rather an attempt to fabricate an interpretation that conforms to their needs.

I don’t think that’s universally true. There have been HUGE fights within UCC, Disciples of Christ, United Methodist, ECUSA, Presbyterian USA and other denominations, with clergy bringing pressure to bear to change denominational policy on more than one social justice issue.

Yes there have. The united Methodist Church is supposed to resolve its position on homosexual clergy and conducting marriages for same-sex couples this February. But it's not surprising that such change only comes after a lot of resistance and "fighting." In fact, I would expect it. And, of course, all such general conference "meetings" are never single-issue affairs.

Is this a question or a declaration?

Why would think it's a question? It's a statement.

Do you want to discuss what God thinks about homosexuality?
Or
Do you want me to condemn homosexuality and you defend it?
Or
Or do you want me to defend Christian behavior?

I am not sure where this discussion is going.

Do whatever you please. If I find it discussion/debate worthy I'll respond.

.

 

[1robin]

Very interesting, because I consider homosexual activity sinful, but secularly neutral, and the orientation to be perfectly OK. What secular argument do you have against it?

Well I would say that homosexuality is a sin and my secular argument shows why it is wrong. Does that make sense? Being secularly wrong I mean that it's costs are vastly greater than its theoretical benefits.

 

[1robin]

Why would think it's a question? It's a statement.

Never mind I figured it out.

Do whatever you please. If I find it discussion/debate worthy I'll respond.

.

Ok lets go with this. I find homosexual sex wrong on a secular level because it's costs are unjustifiable based on its theoretical benefits. Its a very simplistic but inescapable claim.

 

[Skwim]

Ok lets go with this. I find homosexual sex wrong on a secular level because it's costs are unjustifiable based on its theoretical benefits. Its a very simplistic but inescapable claim.

You're right, it is simplistic, and it's an inescapable claim, but inescapable only in the sense that it was made. But reasonable? Without supporting evidence, hardly.

.

 

[columbus]

You're right, it is simplistic, and it's an inescapable claim, but inescapable only in the sense that it was made. But reasonable? Without supporting evidence, hardly.

.

1robin and I have been around this block a couple of times.
He will refuse to agree that sex has any value unless it's procreating. Nor will he see basic facts, like the vast majority of AIDS victims are heterosexuals.
Tom

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

secularly wrong I mean that it's costs are vastly greater than its theoretical benefits.

What "costs"?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

He will refuse to agree that sex has any value unless it's procreating. Nor will he see basic facts, like the vast majority of AIDS victims are heterosexuals.

Ahh.

 

[1robin]

What "costs"?

I can post many but lets start with just one example.

In the US the 4% of us that are homosexual create over 60% of new aids cases.

 

[1robin]

You're right, it is simplistic, and it's an inescapable claim, but inescapable only in the sense that it was made. But reasonable? Without supporting evidence, hardly.

.

Lets start with one simplistic example. According to the CDC the 4% of us in the US that are homosexuals create over 60% of new aids cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets start with one simplistic example. According to the CDC the 4% of us in the US that are homosexuals create over 60% of new aids cases.

So I take it that you are pro-marriage equality then.