The Christian Attitude Toward Homosexuals and Homosexuality

[Ingledsva]

HOMOsexuality (or self-love) is just another form of selfishness. It is being reblious against God and is usually stemming from bitterness towards one or both parents.

You have got to be kidding!!!!

Homosexuals love another person, just as heterosexuals love another person!

Nor is it bitterness, or rebellion, that is just false.

 

[sojourner]

So you dont think the bible is completely accurate or the perfect word of God? You do understand it was limited by the ignorance of men?

I don't buy into the fallacy that the bible is infallible. It is limited as we are limited. The bible was never meant to be where the buck stops. Until sola scriptura reared its ugly head, that is.

 

[sojourner]

HOMOsexuality (or self-love) is just another form of selfishness. It is being reblious against God and is usually stemming from bitterness towards one or both parents.

Yeah, except that homo doesn't mean "self." It means "same" of "like." There's a difference there that bears noticing. Homosexuality isn't "just" anything. It's who some people are. Homosexuality isn't selfish. Homosexuality isn't "usually stemming from bitterness toward...parents."

Honesty in scholarship would serve you better.

 

[Skwim]

Sorry Skwim, your trying to pigeon hole this whole thing into two little neat groups.

Not really, just three:

It's okay to be homosexual but just don't practice homosexuality

It's Not okay to even be a celibate homosexual

It's okay to be a practicing homosexual.
​

Now if you can think of any other options please feel free to add to mine.

 

[Skwim]

Most people don't seem to understand that a word for homosexuality - is NOT in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, or 1 Timothy 1:8–10, - and Leviticus 18:22 is questioned because of its wording in Hebrew.

V'eith zakhar lo thish'kav mish'k'veiy ishah toeivah hi

Taking just the passage from 1 Corinthians, the word translated as "homosexual" is ἀρσενοκοίτης (transliteration: arsenokoitēs) and defined in Strong's Concordance as:

"1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual."
​

And exactly what wording in Leviticus 18:22 is questioned?

 

[Skwim]

I don't think that's a "given" at all!

Despite the fact that that's exactly what the Bible says? Hmm. I guess that's your prerogative.

What is known is that none of these passages speak of sexual orientation. Homosexuality as an orientation was unknown to these people.

Just because these people lacked our modern-day understanding of the difference (the nature of homosexuality) doesn't mean that they didn't recognize it.

So, logically, if the acts in question occur, they occur in spite of one's orientation toward the opposite sex, not as a result of one's orientation toward the same sex.

Which isn't a logical conclusion at all.

To act "unnaturally," therefore, would be an "abomination." IOW, what's unnatural is acting against one's nature -- and here, one's nature is to be drawn to the opposite sex.

See my second remark.

Now, if that's what's going on here, then I wholeheartedly agree. One shouldn't act in opposition to one's orientation. Where I wholeheartedly disagree is when people try to assert that the bible is against homosexual acts that are undertaken by homosexuals toward homosexuals.

Again, your prerogative, but a rather ill-conceived one I think.

edit: BTW, I'm "person A" in the example above,

Yes, I know.

 

[Ingledsva]

Most people don't seem to understand that a word for homosexuality - is NOT in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, or 1 Timothy 1:8–10, - and Leviticus 18:22 is questioned because of its wording in Hebrew.

V'eith zakhar lo thish'kav mish'k'veiy ishah toeivah hi

Taking just the passage from 1 Corinthians, the word translated as "homosexual" is ἀρσενοκοίτης (transliteration: arsenokoitēs) and defined in Strong's Concordance as:

"1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual."
​

And exactly what wording in Leviticus 18:22 is questioned?

Arsenokoites is not found as "homosexual" in any surviving ancient Greek text.

And it is found in texts dealing with women.

As to Lev 18:22 - there is no - "as with a" - woman in the text.

Read all of 18 - Every "don't" is what a male should not do with a female.

The reason laying down for sex in the beds of these particular women is "to'ebah" - idolatry - abomination - is because the text at 18:21 changes to Molech worship which includes his Sacred Prostitutes - and it continues about such through 18:23.

 

[Mandelbrot]

HOMOsexuality (or self-love) is just another form of selfishness. It is being reblious against God and is usually stemming from bitterness towards one or both parents.

Wow, that is some perverse way of thinking Heatherheart.

 

[Penumbra]

In another thread the following exchange took place:

Person A: "Why do you assume that homosexual identity is sinful? the bible doesn't say so."

Person B: " XXXXXXX has admonished me not to be using the bible any more on his thread, so I'm not going to be able to answer your question. Sorry."
​

Because no such thread has been forthcoming I've taken it upon myself to create one; showing that the while the Bible doesn't consider "homosexual identity" to be sinful, it does suggest that homosexual acts are.


OLD TESTAMENT

Leviticus 22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
​

NEW TESTAMENT

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 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, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8–10
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that 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, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


​

Now, given that homosexual acts are "an abomination," "shameless," and "unrighteous," and that such lawless individuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God" it appears the Bible feels that, if nothing else, homosexuals should at least abstain from sexually expressing themselves---I assume that homosexuals can live together as a couple as long as they remain celibate.

So, is this the prevailing attitude among those Christians who favor gay rights and such: it's okay to be homosexual, just don't practice homosexuality?

Or, is it:

A) Not okay to even be a celibate homosexual.

B) Okay to be a practicing homosexual.

The telling thing here is the consistency, or lack there of. The majority of Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin, and worth talking about repeatedly, generally disregard much of what these same people said in the texts.

Homosexual relations are mentioned in Leviticus (it's 18:22, not Leviticus 22 btw) and then mentioned in Paul's letters.

But in Leviticus, it also says things like:
-Do not wear clothes woven of two types of material.
-If a man sleeps with a female slave, he must offer a ram as a guilt offering to the Lord.
-Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
-Do not cut the hair on the sides of your head, or clip the edges of your beard.
-Do not get tattoos.

How many Christians that argue against homosexuality or homosexual marriage put any weight on these verses from the same text of Leviticus? How many get angry at the millions of medium-rare and rare steaks (with blood) that are eaten each year? How many make sure not to cut the hair on the sides of their head (pretty much only really Orthodox Jews do this). How many people care how many types of material are woven together in your shirt?

This is what tells me that most people that are against homosexuality are using verses to justify their own dislike rather than using their religious scriptures consistently. Because most of them don't care at all about this other stuff in Leviticus or the rest of the OT.

I mean, the OT is a set of texts where the protagonists were the ones committing genocide. Do these books have a place in the modern world?

.....

Moving onto the NT, notice how we jump right to Paul and skip Big Guns himself. That's a huge gap. Jesus never brought up homosexuality. Out of everything his character says, he never bothered to mention that. So the character in this set of books that presumably would have the most weight with Christians, doesn't mention it.

So then many Christians quote Paul's letters as though they're quoting their deity. Basing views on homosexuality from some remarks by a guy named Saul/Paul from 2000 years ago is a fairly empty position. Nobody would quote their church's preacher today as though they're quoting the words of their deity.

Paul said it's disgraceful for a guy to have long hair. But who should really care too much about what Paul said about anything?

.....

If Christians were generally more consistent about all this there would be a lot less hate or condemnation towards homosexuals from them. Instead, the small parts of the giant set of books that reference homosexuality seem to mostly be used by people who dislike homosexuality and wish to justify that dislike with their religion.

 

[Skwim]

The telling thing here is the consistency, or lack there of. The majority of Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin, and worth talking about repeatedly, generally disregard much of what these same people said in the texts.

Homosexual relations are mentioned in Leviticus (it's 18:22, not Leviticus 22 btw) and then mentioned in Paul's letters.

Yeah, bad typo. It should have been Lev. 18:22

If Christians were generally more consistent about all this there would be a lot less hate or condemnation towards homosexuals from them. Instead, the small parts of the giant set of books that reference homosexuality seem to mostly be used by people who dislike homosexuality and wish to justify that dislike with their religion.

Well the New Testament is pretty clear about homosexual acts, and it seems quite a few people don't take to St. Augustine's "love the sinner, hate the sin" very well.

 

[Penumbra]

Yeah, bad typo. It should have been Lev. 18:22

If anything that typo is almost an argument in and of itself.

Rather than directing people to the material about male homosexual actions being an abomination, you directed people four pages over to the page on how to properly select a cow to offer as a burnt offering to the Lord. I'd classify that as a reminder about the type of material we're working with here.

Well the New Testament is pretty clear about homosexual acts, and it seems quite a few people don't take to St. Augustine's "love the sinner, hate the sin" very well.

If by "New Testament" you mean "letters from a guy named Paul".

 

[Me Myself]

Yeah, bad typo. It should have been Lev. 18:22

Well the New Testament is pretty clear about homosexual acts, and it seems quite a few people don't take to St. Augustine's "love the sinner, hate the sin" very well.

It is also very clear aout slavery, and women teaching stuff to men, or wearing decorative clothing.

 

[dgirl1986]

When I saw the title for this thread I immediately thought "Oh no not another one" but I found the OP interesting. Fair point.

 

[Ingledsva]

The telling thing here is the consistency, or lack there of. The majority of Christians that believe homosexuality is a sin, and worth talking about repeatedly, generally disregard much of what these same people said in the texts.

Homosexual relations are mentioned in Leviticus (it's 18:22, not Leviticus 22 btw) and then mentioned in Paul's letters.

But in Leviticus, it also says things like:
-Do not wear clothes woven of two types of material.
-If a man sleeps with a female slave, he must offer a ram as a guilt offering to the Lord.
-Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
-Do not cut the hair on the sides of your head, or clip the edges of your beard.
-Do not get tattoos.

How many Christians that argue against homosexuality or homosexual marriage put any weight on these verses from the same text of Leviticus? How many get angry at the millions of medium-rare and rare steaks (with blood) that are eaten each year? How many make sure not to cut the hair on the sides of their head (pretty much only really Orthodox Jews do this). How many people care how many types of material are woven together in your shirt?

This is what tells me that most people that are against homosexuality are using verses to justify their own dislike rather than using their religious scriptures consistently. Because most of them don't care at all about this other stuff in Leviticus or the rest of the OT.

I mean, the OT is a set of texts where the protagonists were the ones committing genocide. Do these books have a place in the modern world?

.....

Moving onto the NT, notice how we jump right to Paul and skip Big Guns himself. That's a huge gap. Jesus never brought up homosexuality. Out of everything his character says, he never bothered to mention that. So the character in this set of books that presumably would have the most weight with Christians, doesn't mention it.

So then many Christians quote Paul's letters as though they're quoting their deity. Basing views on homosexuality from some remarks by a guy named Saul/Paul from 2000 years ago is a fairly empty position. Nobody would quote their church's preacher today as though they're quoting the words of their deity.

Paul said it's disgraceful for a guy to have long hair. But who should really care too much about what Paul said about anything?

.....

If Christians were generally more consistent about all this there would be a lot less hate or condemnation towards homosexuals from them. Instead, the small parts of the giant set of books that reference homosexuality seem to mostly be used by people who dislike homosexuality and wish to justify that dislike with their religion.

Indeed. Plus he didn't actually say anything about Homosexuals - just Sacred Sex with the Qadash.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah, bad typo. It should have been Lev. 18:22

Well the New Testament is pretty clear about homosexual acts, and it seems quite a few people don't take to St. Augustine's "love the sinner, hate the sin" very well.

Actually, Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuals, and neither does Paul.

Look at it carefully in the Greek.

These are Roman people that WORSHIP the ACT of CREATION = Qadash.

 

[APW]

I believe that if Jesus were to again walk the earth in physical form, there would be many people who would be confused and disappointed in his responses to questions like these.

Jesus lived his life to represent the Father to humankind. It was his sole mission on earth. He was the most dedicated religionist to ever live. He made no proclamations on homosexuality; spoke very little about politics and in general rose above the sordid details of everyday life. He could do that. He was a Son of God.

We are not.

It fell to his followers, early and recent, to twist and misinterpret his teachings to fit their own prejudices, wishes and beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

Actually, Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuals, and neither does Paul.

Are you saying that the only trustworthy statements in the NT are those attributed to either Jesus or Paul?

Look at it carefully in the Greek.

I don't pretend to understand the language. However, those that do understand it, e.g. those who compiled Strong's Concordance, say that in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the word translated as "homosexual" is ἀρσενοκοίτης (transliteration: arsenokoitēs) is defined as:

"1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual."
​

 

[Skwim]

I believe that if Jesus were to again walk the earth in physical form, there would be many people who would be confused and disappointed in his responses to questions like these.

Jesus lived his life to represent the Father to humankind. It was his sole mission on earth. He was the most dedicated religionist to ever live. He made no proclamations on homosexuality; spoke very little about politics and in general rose above the sordid details of everyday life. He could do that. He was a Son of God.

We are not.

It fell to his followers, early and recent, to twist and misinterpret his teachings to fit their own prejudices, wishes and beliefs.

Then it's a pretty much an untrustworthy book.

 

[sojourner]

Then it's a pretty much an untrustworthy book.

Untrustworthy as to what, exactly?

Sounds to me like you're trying to hold it to some arbitrary standard it was never meant to fulfill.

 

[Skwim]

Untrustworthy as to what, exactly?

Sounds to me like you're trying to hold it to some arbitrary standard it was never meant to fulfill.

I was simply taking APW's claim that "It fell to [Jesus'] followers, early and recent, to twist and misinterpret his teachings to fit their own prejudices, wishes and beliefs" to its logical conclusion. The logic being that it's only through the Bible that APW would be familiar with such early teachings.