Homosexuality and Nature

[Chipsj15]

Yes.



Because sin always shows itself and produces bad fruit, and I haven't seen enough of the fruit that comes from same-sex marriage.

Thats interesting. So what about the verses in Romans, 1 Timothy, and 1 Corinthians that speak against homosexual acts? Again, Im just trying to learn why people believe in this, thats the only reason I keep asking these questions.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I can understand why you believe what you said initially when studying the Old Testament, but when people think that way they usually do not understand what is going on and in reality there is a loving God and a loving purpose behind it..

What about the commanded genocide and slavery and the like that it's in the OT?

Now in the New Testament, I have no idea how you are coming to that conclusion. And, the New Testament does not look down upon women. I can assure you (and I can explain how if you'd like) that the Bible places men and women on the same level. And whats interesting about this is 2000 years ago women were not looked at with near as much respect as they are now. So the Bible to actually elevate women and place them equal to men is pretty incredible. In fact, Mary was one of the first to see Jesus resurrected - this is one of the few apologetic evidences for the resurrection, since women's opinions were usually discredited.

That's the thing though. It's great that by the NT there seemed to be a view that women were more equal to men, but there are several problems with that:
1. If God's Word is "eternal and unchanging", then either the hateful sexist version of the OT would be prevalent, or the kinder NT policy would have been present in the OT. But it's different. Then again so are quite a few other things, but that's another can of worms altogether.
2. Even in the NT it's said that the man is the head of the woman just as Jesus is the head of the church, thereby still putting this "women are inferior" thing.
3. Jesus didn't have any female disciples.

Regarding you last paragraph, yes, the Bible has nothing wrong with it whatsoever, that is true.. I don't understand what you are trying to say about the Bible.

I can cite PLENTY of things that are especially morally wrong with the Bible (and factually too, but those ones are minor).

 

[Kenny'sID]

Humans wrote the Bible, God didn't directly pen it, not even Jesus. So it's entirely possible that the human Bible writers had things fit with their own ideologies. Given the presence of other books that didn't make it in the Bible I say that's most likely.

See, when we start picking technicalities like that, it worries me. God wrote it like a boss would dictate to his secretary what they want written in a letter, and if I were Gods secretary, you can bet your sweet bippy, I'd get it right. I did expect that excuse, but it never really holds any water, you believe the bible or you believe it can't be believed for whatever reason.

A God as powerful as ours can easily see to it we get his word, and get it right, of that I have no doubt, and I think that is "most likely" the case here and with the rest of the Bible.

And even if that were a problem, they got it wrong every time it was mentioned? Seriously? I doubt it.

 

[Chipsj15]

What about the commanded genocide and slavery and the like that it's in the OT?



That's the thing though. It's great that by the NT there seemed to be a view that women were more equal to men, but there are several problems with that:
1. If God's Word is "eternal and unchanging", then either the hateful sexist version of the OT would be prevalent, or the kinder NT policy would have been present in the OT. But it's different. Then again so are quite a few other things, but that's another can of worms altogether.
2. Even in the NT it's said that the man is the head of the woman just as Jesus is the head of the church, thereby still putting this "women are inferior" thing.
3. Jesus didn't have any female disciples.



I can cite PLENTY of things that are especially morally wrong with the Bible (and factually too, but those ones are minor).

So the first thing we need to understand here is that God is just in all of His ways. Your faith says that you are Catholic, so you should agree with me on that, right? But I know that is the most stereotypical answer and I get that, but that doesn't mean the statement isn't true. I guess one example could be the genocide of the Canaanites? So if we take a look at what their society was like, they were incredibly wicked in their ways. But what I think we missed here is that God commanded them to be driven out (if I am correct on this..); thus, He Himself did not command a genocide. Now, the strong language that was used is what I believe to be hyperbolic. Think about it, when you're playing a competitive game with someone and you say "I am going to destroy you!" you don't literally mean that. But look at the other examples like God keeping His promise to Abraham even though Abraham lied and pharaoh was punished. Look at all the times the Israelites disobeyed and cursed God. God has a purpose with every action He takes to protect His people.
1)Eternal and unchanging is in reference to the finished product, if you will. God's Word has never changed since it was written and put together, that is what it is in reference to. We need to look at what Jesus said, He said that He didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. So how does this apply? Within the New Covenant, through Jesus Christ, things changed from the old to the new. So to keep things short, it is ok that everything isn't the same as the Old Testament because of the New established Covenant. Does that make sense at all? Matthew's account covers this well, read what Jesus said about the old law and how He has fulfilled it.
2)God established roles for the family and/or for the relationship. Wouldn't it be logical for there to be roles? If you take a look at everything else there are roles - jobs for example. Its not that God made guys in charge of women, He gave us the role, or the responsibility, to be the head of the household. Did you know that if a man goes against his wife conscious, he is sinning? Did you know that the man must lay down his life for his wife just like Jesus laid down his life for the church? Did you know if a man doesn't respect his wife then his prayers will be hindered? If you are interested in great sermons regarding the submission discussion, look up the subject matter with the Village Church - very good and you'll love it.
3)I don't want to get into that. I do not think that is a logical argument at all. There are quite a few reasons for that but again I just do not want to get into that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is also the Liberal Christian subforum, so most us do not believe the same things about the Bible as you do, we do not go to the Bible for scientific answers, which is where many of us find our answers to what is and is not natural.

And?

2 questions...When you say you don't believe the same about the Bible as I, are you saying you don't believe homosexuality is a sin? And if so, your only defense it people wrote the bible down wrong? I can go into denial about anything I want to do, and the Bible is very clear I am not supposed to do, and simply claim the bible got it wrong. But that would just be me in denial, nothing less.

1 question...How do you decide what part of the Bible is written correctly?

Your claiming Science validates homosexuality is just a claim, and you are jumping the gun big time in thinking some of us are going to buy the claim. Huge assumption.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Thats interesting. So what about the verses in Romans, 1 Timothy, and 1 Corinthians that speak against homosexual acts? Again, Im just trying to learn why people believe in this, thats the only reason I keep asking these questions.

I'm not convinced they're talking about a loving, comitted, monogomous same-sex relationships. Yes, there were same-sex relationships that existed at the time, but they were either about idolatry or power and control in the cases of the soldiers or appretenceships.

 

[SnowyMacie]

And?

2 questions...When you say you don't believe the same about the Bible as I, are you saying you don't believe homosexuality is a sin? And if so, your only defense it people wrote the bible down wrong? I can go into denial about anything I want to do, and the Bible is very clear I am not supposed to do, and simply claim the bible got it wrong. But that would just be me in denial, nothing less.

1 question...How do you decide what part of the Bible is written correctly?

Your claiming Science validates homosexuality is just a claim, and you are jumping the gun big time in thinking some of us are going to buy the claim. Huge assumption.

Scripture was written to a different culture, at a different time, in a different language, and contains a variety of literary genres. Most of us in this subforum believe you have to take all of that into account in order to accurately understand what scripture means.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Scripture was written to a different culture, at a different time, in a different language, and contains a variety of literary genres. Most of us in this subforum believe you have to take all of that into account in order to accurately understand what scripture means.

Taking that into account is one thing, but using that fact to twist and turn things, and as excuse to steer meanings into the direction you prefer it to go, is another thing altogether.

The Bible is clear on this one, and no weasel words will change that..

 

[SnowyMacie]

Taking that into account is one thing, but using that fact to twist and turn things, and as excuse to steer meanings into the direction you prefer it to go, is another thing altogether.

The Bible is clear on this one, and no weasel words will change that..

Yeah...I'm not debating you, I'm telling you the view of this subforum. If you are not a member of this subforum, you can ask questions like Chips is doing, but you cannot debate or preach against the beliefs stated in the SOP.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yeah...I'm not debating you, I'm telling you the view of this subforum. If you are not a member of this subforum, you can ask questions like Chips is doing, but you cannot debate or preach against the beliefs stated in the SOP.

Oh, I see what you were trying to convey now with the sub-forum stuff. This is one of those threads where no one can disagree. I really wish they would make those more obvious so this problem didn't occur.

Good day.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Oh, I see what you were trying to convey now with the sub-forum stuff. This is one of those threads where no one can disagree. I really wish they would make those more obvious so this problem didn't occur.

Good day.

To avoid this problem from happening again, it would be beneficial for non-liberal guests to first acknowledge the title of this particular faith forum, which specifies the word liberal, and then read its Statement of Purpose before commenting in a thread posted in a congregational sub-forum like this one. Hopefully, taking these steps before commenting in a congregational specified thread should help prevent this kind of problem from happening again. And on a brief side note, CF's own Terms of Service also has the Congregational Forum Restrictions rule, which clearly states that "Member who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum." So, non-liberal guests now know what the rules are for this specific liberal Christian sub-forum. And good day to you too.

 

[Kenny'sID]

To avoid this problem from happening again, it would be beneficial for non-liberal guests to first acknowledge the title of this particular faith forum, which specifies the word liberal, and then read its Statement of Purpose before commenting in a thread posted in a congregational sub-forum like this one. Hopefully, taking these steps before commenting in a congregational specified thread should help prevent this kind of problem from happening again. And on a brief side note, CF's own Terms of Service also has the Congregational Forum Restrictions rule, which clearly states that "Member who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum." So, non-liberal guests now know what the rules are for this specific liberal Christian sub-forum. And good day to you too.

But that simply does not always happen, it's a fact, and I'm far from the only one who has innocently jumped int to a thread like this. So I naturally think more could/should be done to avoid the problem for everyone.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

What about the commanded genocide and slavery and the like that it's in the OT?

Commanding genocide, allowing slavery, commanding that a woman who's caught in the act of adultery should be stoned to death and not to suffer a witch to live aren't exactly the signs of a loving God.

That's the thing though. It's great that by the NT there seemed to be a view that women were more equal to men, but there are several problems with that:
1. If God's Word is "eternal and unchanging", then either the hateful sexist version of the OT would be prevalent, or the kinder NT policy would have been present in the OT. But it's different. Then again so are quite a few other things, but that's another can of worms altogether.
2. Even in the NT it's said that the man is the head of the woman just as Jesus is the head of the church, thereby still putting this "women are inferior" thing.
3. Jesus didn't have any female disciples.

I can cite PLENTY of things that are especially morally wrong with the Bible (and factually too, but those ones are minor).

Sexism, male chauvinism, and the belief in a male dominated patriarchal society are ancient and simple minded. All I will say at this time is, hopefully these absurd and ancient beliefs will eventually die out in future generations as more younger people (both men and women) realize that the belief in male dominance over women is repulsive and completely unacceptable behavior, and that kind of behavior won't be supported or tolerated in a technological advanced society in the 21st Century or beyond.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Commanding genocide, allowing slavery, commanding that a woman who's caught in the act of adultery should be stoned to death and not to suffer a witch to live aren't exactly the signs of a loving God.



Sexism, male chauvinism, and the belief in a male dominated patriarchal society are ancient and simple minded. All I will say at this time is, hopefully these absurd and ancient beliefs will eventually die out in future generations as more younger people (both men and women) realize that the belief in male dominance over women is repulsive and completely unacceptable behavior, and that kind of behavior won't be supported or tolerated in a technological advanced society in the 21st Century or beyond.

Finally other people get it. How some Christians try to defend it with loose and nonsensical logic makes them seem irrational at best and blind and sadistic at worst.

 

[xpower]

Finally other people get it. How some Christians try to defend it with loose and nonsensical logic makes them seem irrational at best and blind and sadistic at worst.

I think we are getting off-topic.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I think we are getting off-topic.

You're right, we are. My apologies. Back to the OP.

 

[hedrick]

Getting back to the question in the OP: It's unlikely that Paul was claiming that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, although he might not have known that it does. More likely, based on his argument in Rom 1, he thinks people were created to live in marriage, and that homosexual relations violate that purpose.

Of course virginity does too, and he was OK with that.

What our conservative friends don't appreciate is that we don't think the Bible directly represents God's views. Rather, it was written by someone who God had called, and who was helping his charges understand how to live out the Gospel. One can experience God and be called by him to do important work, without having perfect understanding of all topics.

I think we know today what he didn't know, that there are people who are better off living with those of the same gender, both in terms of how well they can serve God and in terms of the impact on others. That's not to devalue the importance of Paul's witness to the Gospel, and his help for the early Church in dealing with the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. There's no reason to think that he gave sexuality the kind of serious thought he gave circumcision and eating of idol meat. He had no call to do so. What we see in Rom 1 was a typical 1st Cent Jewish understanding.

 

[Silmarien]

3. Jesus didn't have any female disciples.

Not to drag things off topic again, but Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna are all recorded as having been amongst his disciples. There's Mary and Martha as well, though they don't seem to have been followers in the literal sense. And the Samaritan woman at the well was an apostle of a sort.

Mary Magdalene is particularly interesting, given that Holy Tradition puts her on equal footing with the Apostles as an evangelist afterwards. She may not be counted amongst the Twelve, but there's a certain element of "Apostle to the Apostles" going on with her.

 

[Chipsj15]

I'm not convinced they're talking about a loving, comitted, monogomous same-sex relationships. Yes, there were same-sex relationships that existed at the time, but they were either about idolatry or power and control in the cases of the soldiers or appretenceships.

That's interesting, thank you for explaining this to me. But I've got to ask, how to do you come to that conclusion after reading Romans 1:26-27? Isn't Paul talking about men and women abandoning natural relationships for unnatural?

 

[SnowyMacie]

That's interesting, thank you for explaining this to me. But I've got to ask, how to do you come to that conclusion after reading Romans 1:26-27? Isn't Paul talking about men and women abandoning natural relationships for unnatural?

I think that same-sex attraction is natural, psychology has done a lot of research, and the research has concluded that homosexuality is just as naturally occuring as heterosexuality and homosexuality. It is not a philia (disorder revolving around physical pleasure), nor even just about having sex; it is about the same thing as heterosexuality, finding a partner in life just like heterosexual people. Basically, the only difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is that in one you are attracted to your same-sex, and the other one it is the opposite sex. It is not anymore perverted, depraved, etc. than heterosexuality.* The men and women who have same-sex attraction are not abandoning their natural relationships because same-sex attraction is what is natural to them.
*It is not a philia (disorder revolving around physical pleasure), nor even just about having sex; it is about the same thing as heterosexuality, finding a partner in life just like heterosexual people. Basically, the only difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is that in one you are attracted to your same-sex, and the other one it is the opposite sex. It is not anymore perverted, depraved, etc. than heterosexuality.

The passage in Romans actually starts in verse 18, which you are correct about, but it's really read as one long passage instead of what many people actually do and break it up into multiple parts. We have to remember that scripture was not written with headers, chapter, verses, and to a specific audience for a specific problem. Paul wrote his letter to the church in Rome who were having issues between the Gentiles and Jews in the church about the law, sin, righteous, etc.

What Paul is doing in this passage is uniting the church by helping them find common ground, he says in the first passage, "The gospel was preached first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' Beginning in verse 18, goes into what it looks like to not live by faith, by contrasting how they (the church) are all distinct from those not in the church. Verse 18 is actually parallel to the verse above, which you can see if you remove the verses and the headers "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth." Paul uses the same word "apokaluptetai", in both passages.

The remainder of the passage is just read as cause and effect, he's explaining how the wrath of God plays out. These people ignored what they could about God, so they worshiped idols (19-23), because they worship idols instead of God, they had impure hearts (24-25), because of their impure hearts they were inflamed by passions and temptations because of their hearts and chose to act on them (26-27), and because of these actions this lead to all wickedness in society (28-32).

Then Paul goes into chapter 2 and address the church again saying "Just because you have truth, but go around doing the same things, you are ultimately no different than them, because God will repay everyone according to their own deeds, which he then transitions into talking about the law, saying that what ultimately matter is following the law and not just believing in it, because even though you do not have it, showing that when they do it, it is written on their hearts. He then address the Jews saying that you aren't superior to either of them just because you have the law. It's sort of a similar process as in chapter 1: saved gentiles you are not better than unsaved gentiles because you have the truth, and Jews you are not superior because you have the law.Then in chapter 3 (Paul even uses the word superior) he gets into why no one is superior, and because ultimately no one is actually righteous.