Since today was Christmas, I'll wait another day for answers to my questions about how you use passages such as Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. In the interim, I'll comment on Christcentrist's remarks.
In general I like the balance that he shows, though I think that he has an unrealistically high opinion of the motivations of the average church-going American who self-identifies as a Christian. I do not know him, so I don't know whether he lives up to the ideal himself or not. But it does not matter. That issue is between God and him, and Paul tells me that it is none of my business (Romans 14)
There are so many misconceptions about Christianity's view on homosexuality. I would like to address a dozen of them below:
Misconception 1: Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus mention homosexuality
Jesus did not talk explicitly about many things. For example, Jesus did not talk about zoophilia. Does that mean he thought it was ok to have sex with animals? Ofcourse not!The Gospels (which talk about Jesus and his teachings) are contained in only 4 books out of 66 books in the Bible and out of 27 books in the New Testament. Jesus did not have to talk about homosexuality because he lived in Palestine where homosexuality was rarely practised. Whereas Paul mentions it because he was a Roman citizen and travelled throughout the Roman empire as a missionary were homosexuality was widely practised (for instance, he talks about homosexuality in his epistle to churches in Rome and Corinth). And dont forget the fact that Paul was a Christ-follower and is known as an ‘Apostle of Christ’. We Christians believe that his epistles which constitutes 13 out of 27 books in the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit and obviously, Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity. It is impossible for the Holy Spirit to think homosexuality was wrong and Jesus to think otherwise. That contradicts the very nature of Trinity. Moreover, it is evidently clear from Biblical and other 1st century Christian literature that homosexuality was considered an abomination by early Christians who lived during and after the time of Jesus.
It is true that the Gospels are only 4 out of 66 books of the Bible, but it is not true that Jesus was silent on the subject of homosexuality as an orientation. In Matthew 19:12 He tells us that gays were born that way. He is silent on same-sex practices, but not all of the other 62 books are. Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27 do describe sins that, as described have a same-sex practices aspect to them, and Genesis 19, Judges 19, 1 Chronicles 19 and 2 Samuel 10 all discuss the humiliating practice of raping suspected spies. The sins in the first three incidents are idolatry(Lev 18, Rom 1), adultery (Lev 20), rape (Lev 18) and hedonistic addiction (Rom 1) it is not necessary to add same-sex practices to see them as sinful, and the Bible does not tell us that it is the same-sex practices that make them sinful. In the case of raping spies, only one of the four accounts is ever used in attempts to condemn homosexuality, and that has been falling out of favor because it proves to a particularly ineffective argument. 1 Corinthians 6:8-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 are even less persuasive, for reasons I'll get into in a later post. So there are no passages in any of the 66 books that condemn homosexuality the orientation, but several that treat it neutrally, including one from the Gospel, quoting Jesus. And while there are sins described that include same-sex practices as an element, all would be sins if the sexual element were cross-sex or were left out altogether. In the case of one of the sins, Paul goes to lengths to
downplay the sexual aspects of the sin and to emphasize the
hedonistic/addictive aspects, in order to keep the focus where it belongs
.
Misconception 2: Christians are not being oppressed by proponents of homosexuality but Christians are oppressing homosexuals by saying homosexuality is wrong.
Believing and saying homosexuality is wrong is NOT oppression. And we dont call you ‘Christophobe’ or ‘bigots’ or ‘haters’ when you disagree with us. We are not physically oppressed (yet). But we are mentally. Try saying homosexuality is a sin in a mainstream media platform (except Fox News) or in a New York/London street or even in Youtube. The abuse we get is numerous.And many Christians in Europe have lost their jobs for being negative about homosexuality on Twitter and other social media. But Jesus did say that the world will hate us for believing in him. (Mt. 10:22,15:18). So, we will preach the truth…no matter what may happen to us.
In this answer, especially, what I said about your unrealistically high opinion of the motivations of the average American church-goer who calls himself a Christian comes to the fore.
Seventy to one hundred years ago, there were self-professed Christians, who prayed and read their Bibles who were members of the KKK. There were even more such Christians who had the opportunites to condemn the actions of the KKK, but chose not to do so. It is possible to claim that they were not "real" Christians, but they blackened the reputation of Christianity and "real" Christians did nothing -- or at least not enough -- to correct that blackening.
Today there are gay-bashing gangs that go out and assault gays, leaving them crippled or even dead. They are encouraged by "Christian" groups such as the Westboro Baptists. And "real" Christians do not raise their voices against this violence often enough.
Misconception 3: By legalising gay marriage, the government is not forcing you to marry the same gender. If you dont like gay marriage, dont marry gays!
We argue against gay marriage not because the government is forcing us to marry the same gender. We are against it because the word ‘marriage’ by definition is exclusive. Exclusivity is what makes marriage unique and without it marriage is simply an emply word. In other words, marriage is a union between heterosexuals and raising a biological family is an essential purpose of marriage. Procreation is what makes biological family possible which homosexuality obviously cannot. (P.S. The infertility argument does not apply here because infertility is an exception not the rule). Thats why many Christians are ok with the phrase ‘civil partnerships’. When the government allows gay marriage, it is essentially taking the side of homosexuals and discriminating against us. And such a stand will be reflected in current and future laws regarding marriage which will increase prosecutions against those of us who are against the redefinition of marriage. Either the government drop out from the whole marriage business or use the term ‘civil partnership’. That is all we ask for.
Misconception 4: Marriage is a legal right. Religion did not invent it.
Marriage is not a government invention. The states did not get involved in marriage in the US until after the civil war and the federal government only got involved in 1921. The reason was economic. Marriage has always been religious and social and throughout history it has always been between heterosexuals. Gay marriage is state-sanctioned re-definition which the government does not have any right to do according to the Constitution. ‘Civil partnerships’ will solve the economic issue and covers the legal rights that married couples have. Those arguing for gay marriage instead of civil partnership are doing it deliberately to discriminate against the religious.
I'm treating these two points together because, as you have argued them, they are two sides of the same coin. Marriage belongs to neither Church nor State, but to the individuals involved, their families, and possibly society. You are correct that government did not get directly involved until rather recently, because the Church used to handle it (at least in the Christian West). The Church could handle it because when there was a single, State-sanctioned Church, it acted like an arm of the government. The Church first got directly involved in the 12th Century.
Marriage pre-dates civilization. It was, and still is, a private covenant, compact, contract between two individuals, and sometimes, also their families. Because inheritance and next-of-kin can become involved, it is often imperative that the society record and perhaps ratify the marriage. But different societies have different standards fo what they will ratify, so their ratification or withholding of ratification has no bearing on what marriage
is. Different societies have ratified different marriage arrangements The prejudices of any one society, even our own Christian West civilization, cannot restrict a marriage itself, just the recognition of it.
There have been societies that recognized third sex marriages, which are specific forms of same-sex marriage, just as there have been societies that recognize polygamous marriages. There is no secular reason to forbid same-sex marriage, except spite. All more serious attempts to explain a ban are religious in nature.
Misconception 5: Jesus said, ‘Do not judge’. You are judging homosexuals when you say homosexuality is wrong.
Saying homosexuality is a sin/wrong is not ‘judging’. When I say ‘murder is a sin’, I am not judging anyone. I’m simply stating a moral truth. If I say, ‘homos are the worst people on earth and they’re all going to hell’ then we’re judging and some among us are guilty of that. I agree. But that does not change the moral fact that homosexuality is sin and wrong.
This is the same issue as my questions, but approached from a different angle. I'll wait to see if anyone answers them tomorrow before I comment on them. I will say that your opinion is a little more balanced than I expected.
