• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can Christians not condemn homosexual behavior?

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
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.

If you want to shadowbox demons, go for it....but I don't have to watch nor listen/read. Have a nice day! :angel2:
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
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 today's understanding of homosexuality
since there are those who take Paul's word over Jesus' when it suits their bias
;)

It wouldn't be right to edit Paul's words. I just think that people need to realize that- 1. Some of Paul's epistles (letters) were not written by Paul. 2. Paul was writing to certain groups of people or even just one person in his letters. 3. Maybe they shouldn't have been added to the NT as scripture because of reasons 1 & 2.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
It wouldn't be right to edit Paul's words. I just think that people need to realize that- 1. Some of Paul's epistles (letters) were not written by Paul. 2. Paul was writing to certain groups of people or even just one person in his letters. 3. Maybe they shouldn't have been added to the NT as scripture because of reasons 1 & 2.

Agreed. The Council of Nicaea managed early Christianity by picking and choosing which books would be in the Bible and which would be excluded. Anyone who disagreed was soon branded a heretic with severe penalties imposed. This was all done three centuries after Christ. Longer than the time between the present and the American Revolution. Yet, as history shows, the ramifications changed the world.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
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
;)

for example:

the waitasec version
1 cor 6:6 If any of you has a dispute with believers or non believers, do you dare to take it before the Lord’s people instead of those who represent the laws of the land whom God has ordained? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people have a tendency to judge the world thereby subjecting unbelievers to their biases?

what do you think?
:D
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
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.
And I disagree. I believe that anyone who exhibited a same-sex orientation was recognized as such---how could they not be?---even though they had no name for it. If a man went around dressed as a female how could this not be noticed? It would be, EVEN if the culture lacked a name for such a psychological predisposition. To say that no one back then noticed that some men preferred other men to women, is ridiculous. People back then were no less bright than people today. And just because they had no word for such a preference doesn't diminish the fact that they recognized it. It's like claiming that no one recognized that cumulus clouds are different from cirrus clouds because they never called them by different names.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And I disagree. I believe that anyone who exhibited a same-sex orientation was recognized as such---how could they not be?---even though they had no name for it. If a man went around dressed as a female how could this not be noticed? It would be, EVEN if the culture lacked a name for such a psychological predisposition. To say that no one back then noticed that some men preferred other men to women, is ridiculous. People back then were no less bright than people today. And just because they had no word for such a preference doesn't diminish the fact that they recognized it. It's like claiming that no one recognized that cumulus clouds are different from cirrus clouds because they never called them by different names.
Well, you'd be on the wrong side of the fence from considered scholarship on the matter.
Your problem.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Well, you'd be on the wrong side of the fence from considered scholarship on the matter.
Your problem.
Not a problem.
"Latin had such a wealth of words for men outside the masculine norm that some scholars argue for the existence of a homosexual subculture at Rome; that is, although the noun "homosexual" has no straightforward equivalent in Latin, literary sources reveal a pattern of behaviors among a minority of free men that indicate same-sex preference or orientation.
source

"But there are certainly some passages in the literature of antiquity which suggest that sexual preference was seen as a very profound matter. The one that comes first to mind is Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium, in which, after all, we are being offered, playfully, an archeogenealogical explanation of the three different sexual orientations. Halperin's book has an extensive discussion of this passage, in which he defends his thesis against the apparent counterexample.

I would like to make three observations about Aristophanes' explanation, or rather about his explanandum. The first is that he doesn't seem to want to explain just an anatomical or mechanical sexual preference, but a whole way or tenor of life. The males who desire males do not just want to copulate with them, but to spend their lives with them (192c);"
source

"Although Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded."
source
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
i understand that. i just want to understand why would one call their self self a christian if they are not upholding original christian values...why not start a movement called "the new and improved christian movement' and edit out the questionable doctrine
:shrug:

There is no need to edit out parts of stories or letters. IMO the error here is in taking bits and pieces of stories/letters and mistaking that for the establishment of doctrine.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
There is no need to edit out parts of stories or letters. IMO the error here is in taking bits and pieces of stories/letters and mistaking that for the establishment of doctrine.

but didn't the holy spirit have an idea that this very mistake would occur?
the holy spirit gets the credit for giving us the truth but goes missing when it's time for interpreting it. an author of a book makes sure their readers are getting what is intentionally meant to be understood...why can't the holy spirit work the same way?
when it rains we are aware of the rain and are in agreement of what that means...god, what god wants and what god is, is not understood that way.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
In both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality is clearly condemned. So, if a Christian believes in the correctness of the the Bible I fail to see how they can condone or support homosexual behavior, even if they believe the homosexual disposition arises as naturally as the heterosexual disposition. Not that I'm not thankful for those who renounce or simply ignore these Biblical positions, but this picking and choosing in the Bible appears to be less than honest. So while I appreciate the many Christians who don't adhere to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, I have to wonder how they explain/rationalize it away.

Anyone care to take a stab at answering?

It's easy when Jesus goes against traditional OT mindset and never spoke against homosexuality.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
It's easy when Jesus goes against traditional OT mindset and never spoke against homosexuality.

i think we need to clarify something...homosexuality among men.
the OT never says anything about lesbians...
as women didn't count. so does that mean women don't count or do they...? so much for objective morality...
:rolleyes:
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Not a problem.
"Latin had such a wealth of words for men outside the masculine norm that some scholars argue for the existence of a homosexual subculture at Rome; that is, although the noun "homosexual" has no straightforward equivalent in Latin, literary sources reveal a pattern of behaviors among a minority of free men that indicate same-sex preference or orientation.
source

"But there are certainly some passages in the literature of antiquity which suggest that sexual preference was seen as a very profound matter. The one that comes first to mind is Aristophanes' speech in the Symposium, in which, after all, we are being offered, playfully, an archeogenealogical explanation of the three different sexual orientations. Halperin's book has an extensive discussion of this passage, in which he defends his thesis against the apparent counterexample.

I would like to make three observations about Aristophanes' explanation, or rather about his explanandum. The first is that he doesn't seem to want to explain just an anatomical or mechanical sexual preference, but a whole way or tenor of life. The males who desire males do not just want to copulate with them, but to spend their lives with them (192c);"
source

"Although Roman law did not recognize marriage between men, in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites. Same-sex weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded."
source
The OT is considerably older than that.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
but didn't the holy spirit have an idea that this very mistake would occur?
the holy spirit gets the credit for giving us the truth but goes missing when it's time for interpreting it. an author of a book makes sure their readers are getting what is intentionally meant to be understood...why can't the holy spirit work the same way?
when it rains we are aware of the rain and are in agreement of what that means...god, what god wants and what god is, is not understood that way.
How many authors are you reading that are as old as the biblical texts? How many of these books are written in arcane, foreign languages?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
i think we need to clarify something...homosexuality among men.
the OT never says anything about lesbians...
as women didn't count. so does that mean women don't count or do they...? so much for objective morality...
:rolleyes:
Since women were not bound to act honorably, there was no injunction against women acting shamefully.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
How many authors are you reading that are as old as the biblical texts? How many of these books are written in arcane, foreign languages?

why must god depend on arcane, foreign languages, isn't he able to convey his will straightforwardly? why can't he speak for the time that is at hand and not through the echoes of subjective understanding via arcane and foreign languages?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
It's easy when Jesus goes against traditional OT mindset and never spoke against homosexuality.
If the only Biblical laws or dictums you put stock into are those uttered by Jesus, then so be it. However, most Christians go beyond this.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
If the only Biblical laws or dictums you put stock into are those uttered by Jesus, then so be it. However, most Christians go beyond this.
I've seen enough law versus grace arguments to know better especially when so many christians claim to be above the OT laws.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
but didn't the holy spirit have an idea that this very mistake would occur?
the holy spirit gets the credit for giving us the truth but goes missing when it's time for interpreting it. an author of a book makes sure their readers are getting what is intentionally meant to be understood...why can't the holy spirit work the same way?
when it rains we are aware of the rain and are in agreement of what that means...god, what god wants and what god is, is not understood that way.

I think you are arguing against someone from your past, or something else unknown to me. None of my posts on this thread have mentioned the holy spirit.

If you are going to argue that there are NT verses in the Bible that establish a doctrinal requirement of condemning homosexuals -- that supercedes the words of Jesus -- then please present those verses, including your justification as to why they should be considered to establish doctrine.

I can't find a way to reconcile your above response to me as having any relevence to the subject of this thread -- or anything that I have written on it.
 
Top