Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[ChanaR]

To deny anyone their full, human capacity for sexual expression based on some arbitrary “ethic” is to deny them their full humanity. It’s dehumanizing, which means it’s violence of the systemic sort. Which is why some can’t live with themselves. It’s a rare human being who can stand the open contempt of society. I find your attitude here vile. Which surprises me, coming from you.

We are not hamsters. We realize there are times to forego our animal instincts for the better good, whether for ourselves, for another, or for the community. For example, the full sexual expression of the pedophile would harm little children. We expect that the pedophile must live a life of celibacy, unless he is the sort who can also find a lesser pleasure in adult sex (although this would not be full sexual fulfillment for him). We do expect the pedophile to live with the contempt of society if they have raped a child, molested them in a lesser way, or viewed child porn. No, I'm not putting homosexuality on par with pedophilia. I'm simply giving an example of a class of people whom we fully expect to be sexually unfulfilled, so let's not have this hypocricy.

BTW, there is nothing contemptible about any sort of attraction to anything, even little children, so long as one does not ACT upon it.

I personally know people, both gay and straight, who are celibate, and they are happy and fulfilled.

Now, I've said what I needed to say, and the subject is closed.

 

[sojourner]

Do you think that there was ever a time when Leviticus 18:22 was ever interpreted in a way that would be considered positive or tolerant, even with the Oral Torah, Holy Tradition, or other supplementary source?

Probably not, but with the proviso that the Levitican text sits squarely within the context in which it was written, and in the manner in which the homosexual acts described were understood at that time, and for those circumstances.

Today, it’s certainly being reconsidered in a much more tolerant light, especially by more progressive groups.

 

[sojourner]

Hey - don't blame me for your holy book.

The book isn’t to blame here. The behavior apparent in your post bears responsibility. Now you’re deflecting. Just stop. Stop the goading. You’re wasting everyone’s time and bandwidth.

 

[sojourner]

he pedophile must live a life of celibacy, unless he is the sort who can also find a lesser pleasure in adult sex (although this would not be full sexual fulfillment for him). We do expect the pedophile to live with the contempt of society if they have raped a child, molested them in a lesser way, or viewed child porn. No, I'm not putting homosexuality on par with pedophilia. I'm simply giving an example of a class of people whom we fully expect to be sexually unfulfilled, so let's not have this hypocricy

Pedophilia is an illness — not a normal, healthful expression of human sexuality. Therein lies the difference.

BTW, there is nothing contemptible about any sort of attraction to anything, even little children, so long as one does not ACT upon it.

There is certainly something sick about it, though, which precludes the attainment of wholeness. Wholeness, by definition cannot be found in illness, so thoughts born out of illness cannot foster wholeness, and that IS contemptible.

I personally know people, both gay and straight, who are celibate, and they are happy and fulfilled

Anecdotal. As you said, not everyone fits in the cookie cutter mold. Many are not fulfilled by celibacy, and to deny them healthful and holistic experiences that do fulfill them is, likewise, contemptible. Your example is one of individual choice. But there’s also the kind that is the product of systemic violence, and that’s not cool in any way, for any reason. Nor is advocating for such violence through excuse or justification.

 

[Skwim]

It does assume, though, certain cultural understandings of homosexual behavior that are endemic to ancient, middle eastern culture, and does not make allowances for modern, social science or psychological findings. Therefore, the directive can not apply to us. It’s moot information, whose basis can only be understood in the broader context of how interpersonal relationships are informed by mutual love and respect.

Where?

.



.

 

[Skwim]

Actually, there is reason to consider it in that context, according to a body of research by eminent biblical scholars. One also has to consider other factors not explicitly spelled out, which I’ve mentioned before, and which you’re omitting.

Not omitting; ignoring, and for good reason. But go ahead with your tap dancing, it obviously makes you happy.

.

 

[ChanaR]

Pedophilia is an illness — not a normal, healthful expression of human sexuality. Therein lies the difference.

Irrelevant. We deny them their full sexual fulfillment. Thus the hypocricy. And by the way, you go back 5000 years ago to the Levant, and child sex was practiced. Even as recently as Greek civilization, sex with pubescent BOYS was considered the IDEAL.

I'm not trying to say we should accept pedophilia. IMHO pedophiles should be locked up and the key thrown away. I'm just saying that it is hypocricy to argue that we should allow full sexual fullfilment as the argument for gay sex, and then not allow it for pedophiles.

 

[Lyndon]

this thread has really degenerated!!

 

[kiwimac]

Not omitting; ignoring, and for good reason. But go ahead with your tap dancing, it obviously makes you happy.

.

Informed, learned study of the textus is neither 'ignoring' the text nor is it tap-dancing although it may look like that to the ignorant regardless of whether that ignorance is chosen or simply accidental.

 

[Skwim]

Informed, learned study of the textus is neither 'ignoring' the text nor is it tap-dancing although it may look like that to the ignorant regardless of whether that ignorance is chosen or simply accidental.

I'M ignoring it.

this thread has really degenerated!!

Not unusual after this many posts.

.

 

[sojourner]

Where?

.



.

It’s not a question of “where,” it’s a question of “how.” One poster pointed out the context of where the passage appears in the text that points to some kind of ritual prostitution. You dismissed it. In that culture, shame and honor were embedded in sexual identity: men embodied honor; women embodied shame. There were social mores dictated by this view. One of them was that, to act like a woman was to act shamefully. Another had to do with acts that treated equal men as inequal (as in bending over and “taking it like a woman,” and treating an equal man as a shameful woman. But I’m sure that, instead of accepting the word of one who has studied the social anthropology, you’ll just dismiss it out of hand.

There are others, but this would be sufficient in most other contexts.

 

[sojourner]

Not omitting; ignoring, and for good reason.

.

In a pigs eye.
It does no good to yell at a deaf man to convince him he’s deaf when he believes otherwise. I don’t know why you insist on turning away from reasonable (and correct) evidence. Unless it’s to save face...

 

[sojourner]

Irrelevant. We deny them their full sexual fulfillment. Thus the hypocricy

No, we deny them the continuation of their illness. It’s not the same thing at all. There’s no comparison one can reasonably make from a scientific, medical, psychological standpoint, between loving, consensual relationships and statutory rape. None.

Even as recently as Greek civilization, sex with pubescent BOYS was considered the IDEAL

Irrelevant. Different culture.

 

[SomeRandom]

Aren't there passages about slaves being good slaves? I don't think I'd reasonably expect Christians to support slavery because of that. It's called adapting to the times. A biblical literalist might condemn gay people, but I'm pretty sure Christians should follow the teachings of Jesus. Humility, charity, compassion etc. Not go around calling gay people an abomination.
I would think it a good thing that Christians aren't all like the WBC. I, for one, embrace the more Liberal minded Christians. Less hate is spread.

 

[Skwim]

It’s not a question of “where,” it’s a question of “how.” .

My "where?" was in question as to where it (the Bible---which is what was being talked about) assumes that "certain cultural understandings of homosexual behavior that are endemic to ancient, middle eastern culture, and does not make allowances for modern, social science or psychological findings."

In a pigs eye.
It does no good to yell at a deaf man to convince him he’s deaf when he believes otherwise. I don’t know why you insist on turning away from reasonable (and correct) evidence. Unless it’s to save face...

My ignoring wasn't a matter of not reading what was said, but finding that it wasn't worth addressing.

.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Sure it does. It says homosexual sexual relationships are "sinful." And because it doesn't specify monogamous or otherwise, monogamous relationships are included.

.

No, it does NOT say that homosexual relationships are sinful. Nowhere does it mention homosexuality. You also need to consider the culture at the time those scriptures were written, and, actually, much of those cultural activities are still in practice today in Middle Eastern countries.

Today, there are those who are known as bacha boys who dress in women's clothing and dance for men who very often engage in sexual relations with these boys. Neither they nor the men for whom they dance are homosexuals...they are heterosexuals who engage in male/male sexual activities due to the strict rules surrounding marriage and sexual relations with women. Many of these boys do this so that they can earn money that will help them pay for their, hopefully, future female brides.

You need to look at things in the context of the time when they were written and not take something that is not applicable and twist it to suit your prejudices.

These types of "relationships" have been common in Middle Eastern countries for centuries, and most definitely during the time period that those scriptures were written. There were also same sex relations engaged in with regard to pagan worship.

THESE are the types of sexual relations that were condemned and they had nothing to do with homosexuality. They dealt with heterosexuals engaging in same-sex relations that were not "natural" for them.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

How do you think Christians should interpret the anti-LGBT passages in the Bible?

They should interpret them by relating them to the cultural times and mores when they were written, and not take something written several thousand years ago that referred to same-sex relations among heterosexuals and twist it to try to support an anti-LGBT agenda.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

It does assume, though, certain cultural understandings of homosexual behavior that are endemic to ancient, middle eastern culture, and does not make allowances for modern, social science or psychological findings. Therefore, the directive can not apply to us. It’s moot information, whose basis can only be understood in the broader context of how interpersonal relationships are informed by mutual love and respect.

The thing is, though, that the "homosexual behavior" was almost exclusively engaged in by heterosexuals, and it still is today.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think he's trying to encourage Christians not to accept homosexuality, purely so he can point at them and say look how bad Christians are. He's very transparent.

Could be. I was wondering if it's meant to wedge progressive Christians from their faith? Maybe the twist is "see? You don't believe this part of the Bible, therefore you're not really Christians!" Which is, ironically, exactly what the uber-literal robochristians say.

Or maybe something else? It's clear to see there's some deeply cunning plan here, I'm just not sure how it's meant to play out.

 

[Skwim]

No, it does NOT say that homosexual relationships are sinful. Nowhere does it mention homosexuality. You also need to consider the culture at the time those scriptures were written, and, actually, much of those cultural activities are still in practice today in Middle Eastern countries.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

NCV
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.(1 Corinthians 6:10)

TLB
Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers. (1 Corinthians 6:10)


The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. (1 Timothy. 1:9-10)

ERV
10 It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

NOG
Laws are intended for people involved in sexual sins, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for those who lie when they take an oath, and for whatever else is against accurate teachings. (1 Timothy. 1:10)

ESVUK
the sexually immoral, men who practise homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy. 1:10)

.
​