How can Christians not condemn homosexual behavior?

[waitasec]

I was the first Christian to respond to this thread, and I thought I made my position, as a Christian, pretty clear.

do you speak for all christians?


remember when you responded, you where in a few glasses in of merlot...

 

[Kathryn]

do you speak for all christians?

No - was I supposed to?

My point is that the question keeps getting asked, and I gave what I thought to be a very logical and simple (and true) answer that most people who are concerned with civil rights (Christian or otherwise) would probably be able to either agree with or at least understand.

That's all.

 

[waitasec]

No - was I supposed to?

My point is that the question keeps getting asked, and I gave what I thought to be a very logical and simple (and true) answer that most people who are concerned with civil rights (Christian or otherwise) would probably be able to either agree with or at least understand.

That's all.

that's all good...
i didn't ask you to clarify your position...because i think, if i may say so, you are a part of the new and improved christian movement...i just wish your movement would edit out those parts in the bible that seem to be putting a stick in the wheel of progress.

 

[Skwim]

No. You don't get to twist what I said. The bible may speak out against homosexual behavior (believing it to be immoral), but it does not speak out against homosexuals, for "homosexual" didn't exist then.

"Oxygen" didn't exist then either. Think everyone was an anaerobe?

Since they didn't recognize orientation, the acts were thought to be immoral. Had they recognized the orientation (as we do), the content might have been far different.

Perhaps, but immaterial.

The act is not the same thing as the orientation. Since the orientation was unknown, they could not have been speaking out against people who were oriented that way, i.e., homosexual people. They were speaking out against "unnatural acts." There's a difference.

And the Bible says to kill those who commit such unnatural acts, doesn't it. Recall when I tried to tell you that ""homosexuality" has two (2) definitions? Back in post #70 I posted

homosexuality

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
​

And you blew them both off with "I love ya, Skwim, but ya gotta get offa the bath salts, m'kay?"

Now you insist on ignoring the second, "Sexual activity with another of the same sex" in favor of the first "Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex," but pretending the first was meaningless back then. Sorry but your tap dancing here just got you booed off stage.

 

[waitasec]

skwim,

i think you can
:beach:

 

[sojourner]

"Oxygen" didn't exist then either. Think everyone was an anaerobe?

Well, of course they existed! But they weren't identified as such. Therefore, your assertion is mistaken. The injunctions are not against homosexuals. They are against what are viewed as "unnatural" acts. That's the distinction I stressed, and I stressed it because it's vitally important.

If homosexuality isn't identified as extant, then homoerotic acts are simply "unnatural acts." Of course they're going to condemn unnatural acts, especially given that, in that culture, males embody honor and women embody shame. When a man "takes it like a woman," he acts like a woman -- acts shamefully.

Therefore, it's not homosexuality that the bible condemns, it's a shameful act that's condemned. That's why good Christians can support homosexuals today: We know that homoerotic acts are not "unnatural" or "shameful."

homosexuality

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
​

And you blew them both off with "I love ya, Skwim, but ya gotta get offa the bath salts, m'kay?"

Now you insist on ignoring the second, "Sexual activity with another of the same sex" in favor of the first "Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex," but pretending the first was meaningless back then. Sorry but your tap dancing here just got you booed off stage.

I think we're talking past each other here, and I think it's because you're failing to understand that I'm making a BIG distinction between the orientation and the acts associated with it.

We understand that acts do not constitute orientation. Prison rape, for instance, does not make the survivor homosexual. (Nor does it necessarily make the perpetrator homosexual). We understand that there is a completely normal orientation, and thus the acts associated with that normal orientation are also normal.

The biblical writers didn't understand any of that. To them, all homoerotic acts were unnatural and worthy of having the enactors killed.

I disagree with the second definition. Homosexuality is defined by orientation, not by action.

Does that clear up my position for you?

If you fail to understand the distinction and continue a line of "reasoning" that blurs those distinctions, it comes off as a little delusional (as if one is on drugs or something). It appeared as though you were arguing just to hear your head rattle, and to provoke me. I have no time for those shenanigans. I do have time for worthy, well thought-out debate.

 

[Skwim]

Well, of course they existed! But they weren't identified as such. Therefore, your assertion is mistaken. The injunctions are not against homosexuals.

Identified as such or not, the fact remains the injunction is against those engaged in homosexuality (2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.) Don't want to call those who engage in sexual activity with another of the same sex, "homosexuals"? Fine, call them whatever you like, but the fact is, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

They are against what are viewed as "unnatural" acts. That's the distinction I stressed, and I stressed it because it's vitally important.

So why punish those who "have sex with another man as with a woman"? Seems "they" are making a very real connection between the act and the actor. So much so that "they" call for the actor's death.

If homosexuality isn't identified as extant, then homoerotic acts are simply "unnatural acts."

And if homosexuality IS "identified as extant" does this make such acts natural? If pedophilia is identified as extant does this make pedophilic acts natural?

Therefore, it's not homosexuality that the bible condemns, it's a shameful act that's condemned.

And again, I remind you that the Bible makes a very real connection between the two. So much so that "they" call for the of death of anyone who "[has] sex with another man as with a woman." Why did they condemn murderers? Because they killed another human being. It didn't make any difference why or how the murder came to kill, or if there was some psychological reason for it they were not privy to. You kill another human you are condemned as a murderer. You have sex with another man as with a woman your condemned as someone who had sex with another man as with a woman. Condemn the act itself all you want, but the Bible goes one step further and condemns those who commit that act. With DEATH!

I think we're talking past each other here, and I think it's because you're failing to understand that I'm making a BIG distinction between the orientation and the acts associated with it.

Oh, I know you are. And I know you're trying to rid homosexuality of the negativity the Bible has attached to it. However, you can't escape the fact that the Bible does more than just condemn the act, it also condemns the actor. "They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

We understand that acts do not constitute orientation. Prison rape, for instance, does not make the survivor homosexual. (Nor does it necessarily make the perpetrator homosexual).

So what do you think the Bible writers had in mind when they said "They must both be put to death"? It implies mutual consent was at work, not rape. No need to cloud the issue with exceptions.

We understand that there is a completely normal orientation, and thus the acts associated with that normal orientation are also normal.

So what?

The biblical writers didn't understand any of that. To them, all homoerotic acts were unnatural and worthy of having the enactors killed.

They didn't understand the difference between rape and consensual sex? I'm afraid you're selling them way short.

I disagree with the second definition. Homosexuality is defined by orientation, not by action.

Fine. Pick another word for sexual activity with another of the same sex.. It makes no difference.

Does that clear up my position for you?

Oh, I've recognized your position long ago. You've been trying to justify homosexual behavior because as it was perceived in Biblical times it didn't come with our modern day perception of it. People who engaged in acts that today would be called homosexual behavior, were justifiably condemned because no one then recognized that such behavior was more than mere "acting out" but a manifestation of a homosexual orientation. If only people back then realized that some people preferred to be with and have sex with those of the same sex, then they could excuse such behavior. Fact is, it was doubtlessly quite apparent that many of those who "had sex with another man as with a woman" preferred it. It was a recognized sexual preference (sexual orientation) just as it is today, but without a named tagged to it.

 

[sojourner]

Fact is, it was doubtlessly quite apparent that many of those who "had sex with another man as with a woman" preferred it. It was a recognized sexual preference (sexual orientation) just as it is today, but without a named tagged to it.

This is the crux of your argument and you're simply quite wrong. it skews your thinking about the whole subject.

 

[Road Warrior]

In fact, this goes to the heart of my OP question: "How can Christians not condemn homosexual behavior?" If they don't then how do they reconcile this stand with their belief in the truth of the Bible?

I only cited the OT when a member here made no distinction.

Dude, a refutation of a member's comment is one thing, but you are going waaaaaay overboard with the OT stuff which is why I commented about it to you.

As for Christians reconciling homosexuality with their beliefs, it has been made clear to all (except those with a specific agenda) that there is no conflict as both I and Sojourner have pointed out to you several times. If you want to continue on your homophobic/anti-Christian rant, that is your choice, but I have seen nothing here which shows that there is a conflict between Christianity and homosexuality.

 

[waitasec]

i think it's high time for a new covenant...

 

[Kathryn]

The New Testament is the new covenant.

By the way, I should have clarified in my first post that as a Christian, I follow NT guidelines - the words of Jesus Christ in other words. The New Covenant.

 

[Skwim]

Dude, a refutation of a member's comment is one thing, but you are going waaaaaay overboard with the OT stuff which is why I commented about it to you.

I'm not about to argue if OT directives and laws are still relevant, but if someone considers they are, then it's reasonable to use them to find out how a person reconciles them with any belief they may have that stands in opposition. Don't want to explain? Fine, no need to enter into the discussion. And if I'm going "overboard" you're invited to explain.. . . . if you can.

As for Christians reconciling homosexuality with their beliefs, it has been made clear to all (except those with a specific agenda) that there is no conflict as both I and Sojourner have pointed out to you several times.

And all I'm asking is HOW? How do you reconcile the Bible's take on homosexuality with your belief? Don't want to explain? Fine, no need to enter into the discussion.

If you want to continue on your homophobic/anti-Christian rant, that is your choice, but I have seen nothing here which shows that there is a conflict between Christianity and homosexuality.

"Homophobic"? Either you're kidding, have misread my posts, or not read all of them. As I've explained, I support gay rights and have even contributed, monetarily, to their causes.

 

[waitasec]

The New Testament is the new covenant.

By the way, I should have clarified in my first post that as a Christian, I follow NT guidelines - the words of Jesus Christ in other words. The New Covenant.

a new and improved covenant....this one seems a bit out dated...

i think paul's words need to be revisited (edited) in the new and improved covenant in order for them to be consistent with todays understanding of homosexuality
since there are those who take paul's word over jesus' when it suits their bias

 

[Skwim]

Fact is, it was doubtlessly quite apparent that many of those who "had sex with another man as with a woman" preferred it. It was a recognized sexual preference (sexual orientation) just as it is today, but without a named tagged to it.

This is the crux of your argument and you're simply quite wrong. it skews your thinking about the whole subject.

To deny my claim is to claim the opposite; that same-sex attraction didn't exist in ancient times. That same-sex attraction is some how culturally or temporly related. Of course this is far from the actual case. To suggest that homophilia is a recent phenomenon is to assume innate human nature---the attraction to one sex or the other in this case---underwent some kind of radical changed in history. That people went from being strictly heterophiles to being heterophiles and homophiles. Well, the evidence simply doesn't support such a notion. Homosexuality, in particular homophilia, is not something one picks up in the school yard or bar, but an unconscious predisposition, just as heterophila is. No one choose to be gay or straight,and there is no reason to think that whatever elicits homophilia only popped up recently, never having existed in ancient times.

So to suggest that homosexuals---those partial others of the same sex---never existed in ancient days is simply ludicrous.

 

[Jove]

I don't understand your position. Why are you arguing so ardently against fair treatment of homosexuals as a moral thing to do?

I've already stated my defense. According to several eminent social scholars, the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation. Men loved women and women loved men. Period. Therefore, homoerotic acts were "unnatural." That's how that crap got in the bible. Why do you have a problem with that?

You seem to not be thinking clearly about this, which was the humorous reference to drug influence.

“According to several eminent social scholars the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation. Men loved women and women loved men. Period. Therefore, homoerotic acts were "unnatural."”

Aaaaaaa, I apologize if this has already been posted and I missed it, but the source and more specifically, which scholars say this?

 

[Jove]

To deny my claim is to claim the opposite; that same-sex attraction didn't exist in ancient times. That same-sex attraction is some how culturally or temporly related. Of course this is far from the actual case. To suggest that homophilia is a recent phenomenon is to assume innate human nature---the attraction to one sex or the other in this case---underwent some kind of radical changed in history. That people went from being strictly heterophiles to being heterophiles and homophiles. Well, the evidence simply doesn't support such a notion. Homosexuality, in particular homophilia, is not something one picks up in the school yard or bar, but an unconscious predisposition, just as heterophila is. No one choose to be gay or straight,and there is no reason to think that whatever elicits homophilia only popped up recently, never having existed in ancient times.

So to suggest that homosexuals---those partial others of the same sex---never existed in ancient days is simply ludicrous.

Exactly, homosexuals are not a spirit driven entity….if I am wrong and the Creator god exists, he created homosexuals, because homosexuality exist everywhere in the animal kingdom. To claim an evil spirit created such creatures in an unnatural moral fashioning (in recent times) denies the creation story itself. After all who married their sister after the garden, who married into the animal world that coexisted with those outside the garden (sorry for the grammar, but there are more than one distinction the story line). Homosexuality may not have existed in or for those ejected descendants of the garden…but there is nothing to suggest the general (animal/human) population already ousted the garden didn’t exist as they do today. Morality wise, nothing in the bible suggests that this NOW immorality wasn’t natural so let’s end that fishing expedition. And where does the bible stories instill this NOW immorality unto and for the animal kingdom and more importantly than when, is why!
Science, mankind carries both male and female genes, sometimes the balance of genes creates hermaphrodites which are both. While a gay gene has not been proven, it has not been disproven and both theories remain indecisive. Not an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) mind you, just inconclusive as of yet. The missing gay gene hasn’t been found in animal kind either…. and we know animals are sometime gay as well. Gay animals (pardon the term) also mate for life in some cases (of those that practice lifelong partnerships). While fundamentalist Christians may have a problem with this….they also have a problem with insects having six legs instead of the bibles depiction of four and the world wide flood to mention only a few…. 100s of millions of years of evolution has not sorted homosexuality from the animal kingdom…if it were NOT a part of Nature and Natural…..then homosexuality would have become extinct and wouldn’t exist today. But it does exist, therefore it is part of everyone’s genetic coding…. whether god created all or not. The unfounded fundamentalist view of course being that it never existed until a bad spirit

 

[Jove]

put it into the minds of the unsaved……which means it really sucks to be a Catholic priest I guess!

 

[sojourner]

And all I'm asking is HOW? How do you reconcile the Bible's take on homosexuality with your belief?

all I did was answer your question. It's really like asking how a good Christian can refute the Bible and assert that the earth was created in 6 days. answer: Science overrides ancient speculation.

 

[sojourner]

To deny my claim is to claim the opposite; that same-sex attraction didn't exist in ancient times. That same-sex attraction is some how culturally or temporly related. Of course this is far from the actual case. To suggest that homophilia is a recent phenomenon is to assume innate human nature---the attraction to one sex or the other in this case---underwent some kind of radical changed in history. That people went from being strictly heterophiles to being heterophiles and homophiles. Well, the evidence simply doesn't support such a notion. Homosexuality, in particular homophilia, is not something one picks up in the school yard or bar, but an unconscious predisposition, just as heterophila is. No one choose to be gay or straight,and there is no reason to think that whatever elicits homophilia only popped up recently, never having existed in ancient times.

So to suggest that homosexuals---those partial others of the same sex---never existed in ancient days is simply ludicrous.

But that's not what I said. I acknowledged that homosexuals existed then. But same-sex orientation was unidentified. It is the recognition and identification of orientation that is temporally and culturally-based.

 

[sojourner]

“According to several eminent social scholars the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation. Men loved women and women loved men. Period. Therefore, homoerotic acts were "unnatural."”

Aaaaaaa, I apologize if this has already been posted and I missed it, but the source and more specifically, which scholars say this?

Asked and answered. Do some checking.