Biblical Pronouncements on Homosexuality and Related Topics

[axordil]

In Osgiliatio Veritas, you know.

[halplm]

I don't know if I'm going backwards or off topic, or what, but I saw a comment about "love the sinner, hate the sin" and I've got to say I've grown to really dislike that phrase and thought process.

If you "hate the sin" that someone is commiting, you are automatically judging that persons actions as wrong and no matter what love you might have for that sinner, they are doing somethign you "hate" and you are judging them for it.

We don't have that right or obligation. That's what God is for. What most Christians fail at, and what most Non-Christians misunderstand about Christianity because of those failures, is that all Jesus tells us to do is love.

No mention of hating sin, no mention of excluding sinners, no mention of creating law or enforcing it. When Jesus rose, he did not tell us to go out and "convert" people to a cause or religion. He told us to "make disciples of all nations... and baptize them" In other words, to go out and teach what he had taught... and then they make their own CHOICE, and can be baptized for it.

Converting people is the job of a politician... getting everyone to agree with you. Teaching is the job of a teacher. Jesus was no politician (exhibit A: The Gospels), but was very much a teacher.

So all this talk of hating sins, or defining sins, or outlawing sins, or condemning sinners... is flawed, or just plain wrong.

Sin is all around us. It's in our nature. I wish it wasn't but, but it's simply there. Even as I believe I'm free of it, and God will never view me as a sinner again, i still do not act as I should. I believe the difference between when I sin now, and when I sinned before I was a Christian, is that now, I do not embrace it. I WANT to avoid it, even as I find myself failing constantly.

So what does that mean about hating the "sin of homosexuality?" It means it shouldn't matter. If someone chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, that's their choice (I'm not talking about there being a choice in what you are attracted to). Is it a sin? Probably, but so is almost everything else we do on a daily basis. It doesn't matter if it's a sin or not. What matters, is if you want to be forgiven for your sins (all of them) or if you don't. And if you do, and you become a Christian, then you have to trust that God will guide you and lead you through whatever sins you still have to commit, however they may affect you.

I'm kind of wandering, I think, but I'll try to summarize: What is or is not a sin doesn't matter, and should certainly not be the basis for laws (as Ax points out, we'd be a very hypocritical society). What matters is love and acceptance, of everyone, and everyone's sin, and not caring about that sin, and not judging a person for it.

Why are we worrying about the speck in someone else's eye when we have a log in our own? no single sin is worse than any other. it's a "state of sin" that matters, and we all live in it.


On another note, Lidless... Your position is pretty well known, and you can make all the argumetns you like about how the Bible cannot be the Word of God literally... but the Bible beign the word of God does not mean it makes perfect sense, or applies to everyone literally for all time... it means that it tells us what we need to know to live the life God has given us to live.

Do we need Leviticus to tell us how to sacrifice animals, or what sexual acts are unclean? I don't think so, but perhaps people did then, and perhaps other people do now, I don't know. I do see how it can both not make sense to you or I, and still be the word of God.

[yovargas]

No mention of hating sin, no mention of excluding sinners, no mention of creating law or enforcing it.

No, but it does speak of forgiveness. The "don't judge anything" only goes so far practically - who doesn't condemn murder?. Perhaps you would prefer "forgive the sin, love the sinner"?

[halplm]

accept it's not my job to forgive. I can certainly try, but ultimately my forgiveness doesn't do someone any good. I suppose the acceptance I talked about included forgiveness.

As for condemning Murder. Obviously Murder is wrong and horrible, and as a society we need laws to protect us from people that would murder. However, because someone has murdered, that makes them no less worthy of forgiveness from God. It makes it really hard for many of us to love someone, and I don't blame anyone for that. But that's why I can't be for the death penalty... if it takes someone a lifetime in prison ot repent and recognize their sin, then they deserve that lifetime...

[Ethel]

accept it's not my job to forgive. I can certainly try, but ultimately my forgiveness doesn't do someone any good. I suppose the acceptance I talked about included forgiveness.

I disagree with this a little bit. I do think it's your job to forgive people who have wronged you personally, as fully and as freely - and as quickly - as you can possibly manage. (Though only if and when it can be done with a sincere heart.) It's for your own sake, really, as much as the sake of the person who did the wrong.

But that isn't the same thing as forgiving generalized sin, which I would agree is for God to do - or would agree if I believed.

[MithLuin]

The list of sins that "matter" are the ones that are going to get me condemned to hell if I don't repent of them and give them up (with God's grace). Homosexuality isn't even on that list. So, "talking back to my parents" rates as a much more serious problem, as far as I'm concerned. The Bible has plenty to say about the respect I ought to show my Mom and Dad . As far as sexual sin goes, I (personally) am more worried about reading smutty fan-fiction or entertaining thoughts (however brief or ephemeral) about friends' husbands. Why? Because both of these things can get me into trouble. As far as I know, I have never been attracted to a woman who was a lesbian, and no woman has ever been attracted to me. So, the opportunity to start up a relationship has been pretty much nil . Like I said, it's off the radar. One of the most nefarious situations that I've been in is semi-suicidal depression - trust me, I'm putting more effort into avoiding that than into monitoring how much cleavage I show in public .

Having a moral code (determining that certain actions are wrong, and why) is not necessarily judgemental - after all, you don't have to personally go apply that code to anyone or try to enforce it. But I do think that our main responsibility is to apply that code to ourselves, let grace change us...and what we do for our neighbor is love. Love often involves just listening and being there - and yes, sometimes it involves calling people out (see above: there's a reason I talk back to my parents!) But that isn't the first task - that's the job of a close friend, who doesn't want to let you make a mess of your life. I do not take well to criticism, but I do need it at times - it keeps me honest. I'm sure we all have had people warn us, "you know, you really ought not to do that..." whether because it's stupid or wrong, but mostly just because we're going to end up hurting ourselves (and hurting others). Like driving recklessly, that sort of thing. I don't know if that has anything to do with "love the sinner, hate the sin," but the "nobody's judging anybody" thing can be misinterpreted, I guess.

[Lidless]

On another note, Lidless... Your position is pretty well known, and you can make all the arguments you like about how the Bible cannot be the Word of God literally... but the Bible being the word of God does not mean it makes perfect sense, or applies to everyone literally for all time... it means that it tells us what we need to know to live the life God has given us to live.

Do we need Leviticus to tell us how to sacrifice animals, or what sexual acts are unclean? I don't think so, but perhaps people did then, and perhaps other people do now, I don't know. I do see how it can both not make sense to you or I, and still be the word of God.

So, I pose the question again, whether you make sense of it or not. Do you consider the list I made sinful? Is having sex with a menstruating woman a sin? Is eating prawns or a rare steak? It's all there up with homosexuality. In the bible.

[halplm]

and you've missed my point entirely.

It doesn't matter if it's a sin. Maybe it is. Maybe it was then and isn't now. Maybe it never was, and Leviticus was not about sin, but about law. And maybe it doesn't matter because we can't help but sin, and one is as damning as a million...

Lots of people get hung up on rules and laws, and what is or isn't right, and what is or isn't SIN.

Why does it matter when it's all forgiven?

[Lidless]

and you've missed my point entirely.

It doesn't matter if it's a sin. Maybe it is. Maybe it was then and isn't now.

Why does it matter when it's all forgiven?

God calmed down once he had a kid? God's laws are a function of time? Maybe it's a sin? It says specifically to emphasize, it is the word of God. You're not starting to cherrypick are you? For if you or Cerin take that route, you cannot use the bible as a reference point anymore in the argument.

If you believe homosexuality is definitely a sin (because the bible says so), why are you so ready to say that the complete list may be a sin, even though the bible also states these explicitly?

And it does matter. I'm sure yov would not like to be viewed by some as a sinner, whether they love him or not.

[halplm]

I'm saying that In Leviticus, God gave the Israelites Law to follow, and it would be wrong for them to break that law. Do the laws God gave the Israelites thousands of years ago apply today?

That is a question I do not know the answer to. If I thought the laws determined our spiritual health and fate, I would say the most certainly would still apply today. However, because "he had a kid," God has given us a new way to determine our spiritual health and fate.

Maybe it is wrong to eat pork, or even touch it. Maybe that's enough to damn me to hell forever. It's a good thing I've been forgiven for it.


Lidless, you really really want to pin me down in some sort of contradiction, fix me up with an impossible question, that I don't have an answer for, because for some reason you're vindictive in your dislike of Christianity. You lost your faith, and now you want everyone who still has it to acknowledge how you must have made the right choice, and so we all should to.

It's not goign to happen. You think I'm cherrypicking what I want from the Bible? You're fee to think that. I know you're a smart guy, and can see perfectly well just how easily God's LAW can change as a function of time. Law is not equal to SIN.

And it's still sidestepping my point. What is or is not a sin is irrelevant.

I hope you've enjoyed this little forsy into how I view Leviticus as I'm sure you were quite pleased to see I rose to the bait of your callign out my name even though I've not been near this thread in months. I'm done now, though, you'll have to pick a fight with me another day, or another Christian. I'm sure you'll feel just as smug trying trap any of us.

ETA: I think everyone is a sinner, Lidless. You, Me, Yov... that's the whole point. Romans 3:23: "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." It doesn't say "all Lawbreakers have fallen short..." or "all homosexuals have fallen short" or "all non-Christians" even... it says "All" It's a pretty simple concept.

[yovargas]

I don't wanna get into it here but everytime I hear somebody start going off on the whole "Look at Leviticus! You're just cherry-picking!" bit, it always sounds very ignorant. What, do you think Christians didn't notice that book? Do you think that in Sunday school when asked why we don't follow those laws, the teachers say "Cuz we don't wanna"? Christians have studied the matter - more than you, Liddy, I dare say - and come to certain conclusions about what God intends us to do with the law.

[Pearly Di]

Lordy. A discussion on Leviticus!

OK, I'll have a go at this.

I'm reading the Bible through this year. Reading it right through gives one a good overall picture of the big themes in the Bible - the Big Picture, as it were.

But I must confess that I skipped Leviticus. Most of the Torah I can cope with. But the reason I skipped Leviticus is that, well, to be blunt, it's just a bit of a TRIAL. It's hard not to find it boring, and indeed hard not to find it rather, even, pretty darned 'unspiritual'. All that 'don't do this and don't do that' and all those SACRIFICES ...

I have read bits of it, and intend to go back and study it again, with the help of commentaries.

Leviticus is there for a reason. It's part and parcel of ancient Judaism. You can't begin to understand Judaism (and heavens, I'm no expert on the Jewish faith and would never presume to be) without reading its ancient texts and what Leviticus - probably the most difficult book in the Hebrew Bible to interpret or engage with - illustrates is purity. What the God of Israel wants from his people is purity. Purity inside and out. The Mosaic laws are symbols and illustrations of this. What Leviticus illustrates is the vast distance between a holy God and a flawed people. (Who isn't flawed? Who doesn't struggle with God?) The distance between God and his people can only be covered by a sacrificial system and laws that emphasise purity.

This is a huge and sharp contrast to everything else that was going around the Jewish people at the time, and a good book to read on that is The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill.

Leviticus is not a silly book for those Jews who still practice a kosher table. As I say, it forms an essential part of the background. My own faith has Jewish roots. If I don't try to understand that, I will not truly understand my own faith.

For me as a Christian, true purity comes through the new covenant. None of us succeed at being good, really good inside and out, however hard we try. It's impossible. We're human. We're flawed. We screw up. Sometimes we can act like angels but very often the human race acts more like devils.

So I believe that in the new covenant Jesus gives us his new life, his righteousness, in exchange. The impossible purity portrayed in Leviticus (a purity that none of us can possibly hope to live up to) is, for me, fulfilled in Christ.

-edit-

Edited to say that I totally agree with Ethel on forgiveness.

[Windfola]

yovargas:

I'm going to try to address the question you asked when you bumped this thread - I think it was in relation to Mith's use of Genesis as the foundation for beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality. That is a reasoned and reasonable statement and I think you were looking for rebuttal. I don't know if this qualifies, but it definitely provides another way of looking at the issue. I hope you can bear with me through this rambling post.

The argument goes something like this:

Genesis is a richly metaphorical text that provides some important truths about the human condition. But there is a simple test that should be used when attempting to take meaning from any sacred text. And that test was provided by someone with impeccable credentials. Here it is: What we are called to do is *always* view these difficult and complicated matters through the lens of the Great Commandment, upon which Jesus said the whole law rests.

This biblical message of love, empathy and compassion is a Truth made more powerful by the way those themes continually surface in all of the great and enduring religious traditions of the world.

So, the mention of "male" and "female" in Genesis notwithstanding, and the fact that for heterosexuals the "parts" fit and there is reproductive potential, aside, Jesus told us what it is all about, and that is love. And John's gospel tells us that God is love. (!!) Therefore, to deny the morality of relationships where two gay people are united in love, and to disparage and discourage them by any means - active or passive, is to actively thwart love in the world and to thwart God's purpose. And such ideas, especially when they lead to negative actions, have the potential themselves to be sin.

Of course, as Cerin points out, heterosexual sex sometimes has a different (procreational) dimension to it. But does that recognition lead to the conclusion that homosexual sex is therefore a sin? Is it not possible that a spiritual union occurs when homosexual partners share the trust and intimacy of a sexual relationship - allowing them to create something which transcends themselves? It seems a long journey in the wrong direction to start from a simple acknowledgement that there is, afterall, a difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex, and end up at the finish line concluding that homosexual sex is somehow sinful.

Now, there are many arguments against this position. No doubt the point could be made that using the Great Commandment as *the* critical key - *the* critical lens through which to view everything else - puts our imperfect view of what love is above "God's view". There are those who would argue that what gay people are engaged in only seems like love, but that there must be something wrong with it because the bible says so afterall, and that by loving the sinner and hating the sin, they are rescuing gay people from their own sinful nature. You know . . tough love.

It is true that anyone who uses the Great Commandment test must indeed rely on their own imperfect understanding of what love is. But I would submit that falling back on an understanding of the biblical texts to supply "God's view" is no less an exercise in relying on one's imperfect human understanding. We are all relying on ourselves and our own understandings whether we admit it or not. And we are all interpreting when we read and take meaning from the bible. Those who choose to take literal 21st century meanings from ancient texts are making an interpretation through that very act, and they are picking . . . . and choosing . . . and prioritizing . . . . and placing emphasis . . . . just like the rest of us.

It is a human choice, for example, to emphasize the mention in Genesis of male and female over the love which god is. And it is a human choice to emphasize the potential for procreation over the love which god is. Everyone is making these kinds of choices whether they realize it or not. And, of course, there is always the problem that even though we may have ascertained a "meaning" from a text, we may not have necessarily understood the "truth". Hence the power and attractiveness of Jesus' simple key.

There is also the question of why a creator would endow us with reason and then not allow us use it. The bible is not a cookbook where god has said: "Just do A, B, and C and don't ask questions. I know it might seem unloving to you to deny that gay couple who are so in love, but I am god and you are not, so just follow orders."

So . . . . is it reasonable to believe that this is the way for the god who is love to have relationship with the creation? Does it make sense that his creatures can never quite be sure of what love truly is, even in their heart of hearts where god has supposedly written the truth? Doesn't that turn god into a trickster? When the apparent "plain meaning" of a text seems to thwart love, do we have a responsibility to look harder?

These are questions we all have to answer for ourselves. But I believe that most people who have had the privilege of knowing a committed gay couple and have seen their love in action have no doubts about the rightness of it, or the wrongness of society's condemnation. Of course, the gay couple also has the potential to screw things up, just like countless straight couples do. But that's another issue entirely.

I hope you can see that this argument answers the question:

3) Can a belief that would otherwise be prejudiced and discriminatory become ratified by virtue of the fact that the Bible endorses it?

with a resounding “NO!” :D

Lastly, let me leave you with some wonderful guidance from the great Protestant theologian Paul Tillich:

"Distrust every claim for truth where you do not see truth united with love."

[yovargas]

Great post, Windy.

[JewelSong]

WINDY!!!

[Impenitent]

Windfola, I had an "Aha!!!" moment reading that post. Yea, and it was good!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not to be too sheep-like, but Windy, that was indeed a wonderful post.

[Cerin]

Therefore, to deny the morality of relationships where two gay people are united in love, and to disparage and discourage them by any means - active or passive, is to actively thwart love in the world and to thwart God's purpose.

As you pointed out, that would be to assume that our understanding of love is accurate and complete, that what we label 'love' is the same thing spoken of by God. It is God who is love, but people sometimes seem to have turned (their concept of) love into their god.

Is it not possible that a spiritual union occurs when homosexual partners share the trust and intimacy of a sexual relationship - allowing them to create something which transcends themselves?

Not if one views that it is God who affects the spiritual union between a man and a woman (when they commit to one another and become one flesh). Unfortunately, two people who love each other cannot become one flesh (achieve a completing physical union) if they happen to both be of the same gender. It's simply definitional.

It seems a long journey in the wrong direction to start from a simple acknowledgement that there is, afterall, a difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex, and end up at the finish line concluding that homosexual sex is somehow sinful.

In case that referred to my comment I wanted to clarify that that comment went to the ideas of equality and bigotry, not sinfulness.

We are all relying on ourselves and our own understandings whether we admit it or not.

The difference is that some are relying on our understandings in order to interpret what we take to be God's directive to us, whereas some are relying on those understandings to define for themselves what is right and wrong.

It is a human choice, for example, to emphasize the mention in Genesis of male and female over the love which god is.

That is not what is happening there. One is taking the mention in Genesis along with the concept that God is love, to try to understand that love and one way in which it is to be expressed.

And it is a human choice to emphasize the potential for procreation over the love which god is.

That is not what is being done. The reproductive model (that is, opposite sex) is the only model the Bible presents as the basis for marriage. To those who look to the Bible for guidance, this is significant.

Everyone is making these kinds of choices whether they realize it or not.

No, not everyone is making those choices, Windy. Not everyone is balancing a Biblical concept of love against a competing concept of their own devising; some people value what the Bible says above their own understanding of what is right and desirable.

There is also the question of why a creator would endow us with reason and then not allow us use it.

One can continue to exercise reason while at the same time acknowledging a greater authority than oneself.

Does it make sense that his creatures can never quite be sure of what love truly is, even in their heart of hearts where god has supposedly written the truth? Doesn't that turn god into a trickster?

To say that we now see as in a mirror, darkly (but then face to face), that we now know in part (but then shall know even as we are known) makes God a trickster? No, indeed. Unless you're saying that we can in fact, now know all the mind of God in our finite human condition when it suits us. It seems to me that that the 'God is greater than our understanding' argument has to work both ways.

I'm quite sure that I don't fully understand real love from my selfish, carnally motivated, sinful perspective. We know from scripture that we can do things that would seem to demonstrate love, yet be without it. That is enough to caution me from holding up my own idea of what love is, as being equal with God.

When the apparent "plain meaning" of a text seems to thwart love, do we have a responsibility to look harder?

Just to be clear, I do not think the plain meaning here seems to thwart love, any more than admonishing against extra-marital heterosexual sex seems to thwart love. It seems to thwart certain human desires, but there is plenty of scripture that seems to do that. I do not worship this concept we call 'love'. I do not believe 'God is love' defines God according to our understanding of that concept.

Scripture does not prohibit anyone from loving anyone else. It sets some pretty narrow boundaries for the sexual expression of love. I see nothing inconsistent about that, with my understanding of love; quite the contrary. As I think was pointed out earlier in this thread, it is up to me to come to terms with the scriptural admonitions that apply to my life. It isn't up to me to decide how other people should deal with the scripture that applies to theirs.


There were a few comments you made, Windy, that I felt the need to respond to; however, I have no desire to get into an argument about this, so I hope everyone will excuse me if I do not necessarily respond to any further comments.

[halplm]

Excellent post, Cerin.

[yovargas]

Also an excellent post, Cerin.



*has flashback of Cerin vs Windy debates of old*