Homosexuality the early churches view should be ours

[pescador]

Why are so many people obsessed with homosexuality? There are many other sins mentioned in the Bible, for example in Romans 1...

Romans 1:29-31, "They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless." Twenty-one sins, yet these are ignored by the same people who are obsessed with one sin.

Why the obsession people? Is homosexuality worse than murder? Is homosexuality worse than hating God? Is homosexuality worse than contriving all sorts of evil? Are heartlessness and ruthlessness better than homosexuality?

 

[CeBe]

OK. Good as far as it goes.

I think they had hard hearts and that God could work with them on some levels but not necessarily all levels. We know that Abraham should have stuck with Sarah alone. That he created all sorts of trouble when he went farther afield. The Bible describes what Abraham did, but does not approve of it. Ditto for king Solomon. He made a mess of things because of the hardness of his heart. Which is the reason the Jews practiced divorce. It didn't come from God but from their own hard hearts. And it was sin.

What was it like for David then from your point of view. Of course he also screwed up hugely with adultery with Bathseba. Therefore he was punished. But he was not punisched in any way for pologamy. As well the other nation-fathers or leaders also weren't.
It is said many times that god loved David very much. Still David had more than one wife the most days of his life and of his days as king. How can one be loved by god that much if god does not approve with that.

My loint is that everything in the bible has to be seen in context with the history. With the facts that were normal around their time.

From my point of view it is likewise with homosexuality and it's assumed connection with lack of sexual restraint.
God gave the forbiddance of sexual relationships in Gen 18 because he wanted his nation to be holy and different from other (unholy) nations, which lacked of sexual restraint. Yet those laws hadn't been given before and obviously didn't apply to Adam and Eve or Noah. I highly believe that this was due to the lack of population on the planet. God wanted to see lots of people living here, they wanted them to multiply.

So do the laws also change if there's an overflow of population?

 

[CeBe]

People argue about what is 'natural' all the time. I think that has to be addressed from the point of view of natural law.

It's not 'my' norm. It is the norm of the Church from it's beginning.

By the way, the word is 'intercourse' and not 'intercurse'. The latter implies a curse, and sex is supposed to be a blessing. And leading to the blessing of children.

Possibly.

We do know that incest compounds genetic flaws where bad recessive genes can have very bad effects on people. Inbreeding is dangerous.

Good.

So in terms of "normal" you do speak of "natural".
Please give me a definition of the natural law then.

Do you refer that natural law and the "norm" of the church from its beginning to Gen 18 or whereto?

Sorry. English is not my mother language. Thanks for telling me.

Yes. I know the science/biology. But that is what the bible tells us what happened, isn't it? That there were judt two human beings and they are the father and mother of all of us.

I do believe that the first people had a slightly different DNA from us... But thats a different theme...

 

[chevyontheriver]

What was it like for David then from your point of view. Of course he also screwed up hugely with adultery with Bathseba. Therefore he was punished. But he was not punisched in any way for pologamy. As well the other nation-fathers or leaders also weren't.
It is said many times that god loved David very much. Still David had more than one wife the most days of his life and of his days as king. How can one be loved by god that much if god does not approve with that.

My loint is that everything in the bible has to be seen in context with the history. With the facts that were normal around their time.

From my point of view it is likewise with homosexuality and it's assumed connection with lack of sexual restraint.
God gave the forbiddance of sexual relationships in Gen 18 because he wanted his nation to be holy and different from other (unholy) nations, which lacked of sexual restraint. Yet those laws hadn't been given before and obviously didn't apply to Adam and Eve or Noah. I highly believe that this was due to the lack of population on the planet. God wanted to see lots of people living here, they wanted them to multiply.

So do the laws also change if there's an overflow of population?

David had a very unsatisfactory relationship with his wife Michal. I think you could make the case that he got things very badly wrong about marriage not just with Bathsheba. Point is that the historical books of the Bible record the failures and foibles of the patriarchs. They do not endorse everything as good or the way it should be. David was a screw-up who was at his best only when he was repenting.

God had a lot of teaching he needed to do to get the Israelites to come out right. And still, for a while, they sacrificed their children to Moloch. Imagine killing your own children? But what is abortion but an antiseptic way of doing the same thing? We are still miles away from getting sexuality right. Not for a lack of trying on God's part. But we have hard hearts. We divorce and fornicate and all sorts of sins. And it's all 'normal' for us. But what if we were Christians acting like Christians?

 

[chevyontheriver]

So in terms of "normal" you do speak of "natural".

When I speak of 'normal' it relates to the norms and canons of a particular community. For Christians sex outside of marriage is outside of the norm, the normal, the expected if we are living like Christians.

Please give me a definition of the natural law then.

Natural law - Wikipedia

Do you refer that natural law and the "norm" of the church from its beginning to Gen 18 or whereto?

From the nature of what it is to be human. Natural law is outside of and independent of what the Bible may say. It's beginning is from creation.

Sorry. English is not my mother language. Thanks for telling me.

No problem. I would be much worse trying to communicate in German than you do in English. You actually do very well.

Yes. I know the science/biology. But that is what the bible tells us what happened, isn't it? That there were judt two human beings and they are the father and mother of all of us.

I do believe that the first people had a slightly different DNA from us... But thats a different theme...

We might be able to say that there was a community of individuals, a population as it were, that became human together over generations and that there was no literal single Adam and literal single Eve. Hypothetically anyway. I don't know. I wasn't there. Genesis implies one man and one woman, so I will not speak against that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why are so many people obsessed with homosexuality? There are many other sins mentioned in the Bible, for example in Romans 1...

Romans 1:29-31, "They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless." Twenty-one sins, yet these are ignored by the same people who are obsessed with one sin.

Why the obsession people? Is homosexuality worse than murder? Is homosexuality worse than hating God? Is homosexuality worse than contriving all sorts of evil? Are heartlessness and ruthlessness better than homosexuality?

Who is 'obsessed'?

So far we don't have people promoting murder. I suppose that if someone here did promote that some other people would be 'obsessed' with the sin of murder.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Please move this if it is inappropriate for this forum.

I would like to contest for the faith.

The basic premise of the World, or the secular society, is the following premise:

Homosexuality is a biological issue, as such a homosexual has no control over their preference, they are born homosexual, as such it is wrong to class it as a sin, or something wrong.

This however is not the truth. It is an opinion of man. God’s word, or the way he describes the sin is entirely different. Any church that accepts the sin of homosexuality has deviated away from God’s word and seeks to please man.

O you who are false to God, do you not see that the friends of this world are not God's friends? Every man desiring to be a friend of this world makes himself a hater of God. - Jas 4:4

So what does God’s word say about homosexuality. I will give a brief description of it here before moving to the bible’s description of it.

The bible basically says that the sin shows it’s presence the most where a person has chosen to remove themselves from the knowledge of God. Where they have chosen to ignore his commands, and call consistently. They have chosen, witchcraft, sexual sin, hatred, unloving attitudes, over God’s call to live with restraint, and true gentleness. As such the worlds view that homosexuality is love, is far removed from the truth, it actually shows a rejection of God’s love.

It is not however a sin that is unpardonable, meaning that a person can leave that life style and receive God. But no man may live in the sin and think they have the forgiveness of God. For God lists it as an abomination.

The civil law of God given by Moses, states:

And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them. - Lev 20:13

This shows that God does not want people to be homosexual, any law that promotes homosexuality is against God. One of the primary reason is that God has shown through scripture that homosexuality manifests it’s self in the rejection of God, and his commands. Now the bible says that God is love. That his attributes are:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, a quiet mind, kind acts, well-doing, faith, Gentle behaviour, control over desires: against such there is no law. Gal 5:22-23

A person who has moved into the sin of homosexuality according to the bible has in the past been exposed to God’s love and word, but have chosen to ignore it and rather give into passion, and lust. As such, being a God rejector, and a hater of what is good, should have no part in church ministry.

Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish, And by them the glory of the eternal God was changed and made into the image of man who is not eternal, and of birds and beasts and things which go on the earth. For this reason God gave them up to the evil desires of their hearts, working shame in their bodies with one another: Because by them the true word of God was changed into that which is false, and they gave worship and honour to the thing which is made, and not to him who made it, to whom be blessing for ever. So be it. For this reason God gave them up to evil passions, and their women were changing the natural use into one which is unnatural: And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing. And because they had not the mind to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to an evil mind, to do those things which are not right; Being full of all wrongdoing, evil, desire for the goods of others, hate, envy, putting to death, fighting, deceit, cruel ways, evil talk, and false statements about others; Hated by God, full of pride, without respect, full of loud talk, given to evil inventions, not honouring father or mother, Without knowledge, not true to their undertakings, unkind, having no mercy: Who, though they have knowledge of the law of God, that the fate of those who do these things is death, not only go on doing these things themselves, but give approval to those who do them. - Rom 1:21-32

Homosexuality is not the only abomination sexual immorality of any sort is just as bad. So while I do agree with your post I would politely point out that even fornicators are just as guilty as homosexuals.

 

[CeBe]

[... Deleted]

 

[CeBe]

David had a very unsatisfactory relationship with his wife Michal. I think you could make the case that he got things very badly wrong about marriage not just with Bathsheba. Point is that the historical books of the Bible record the failures and foibles of the patriarchs. They do not endorse everything as good or the way it should be. David was a screw-up who was at his best only when he was repenting.

God had a lot of teaching he needed to do to get the Israelites to come out right. And still, for a while, they sacrificed their children to Moloch. Imagine killing your own children? But what is abortion but an antiseptic way of doing the same thing? We are still miles away from getting sexuality right. Not for a lack of trying on God's part. But we have hard hearts. We divorce and fornicate and all sorts of sins. And it's all 'normal' for us. But what if we were Christians acting like Christians?

Yes, David made mistakes like all of us is doing.
Yet it does not explain why he was so loved by god. One can read so often that god really loved him. God was also always by his side all the time and blessed him in so many ways. Why would god do that if he thought that David was sinning all the time and so much in the open. Wouldn't he have shown him that mistake too - like he did with Bathseba? And why didn't god make a law about polygamy too in Gen 18?

- We have to admit that those stories were written by men who fully approved polygamy. Yes, the bible just reports about everything. But still my question about a non-existance polygamy-law in Gen 18 remains.

 

[CeBe]

When I speak of 'normal' it relates to the norms and canons of a particular community. For Christians sex outside of marriage is outside of the norm, the normal, the expected if we are living like Christians.

Natural law - Wikipedia

From the nature of what it is to be human. Natural law is outside of and independent of what the Bible may say. It's beginning is from creation.

No problem. I would be much worse trying to communicate in German than you do in English. You actually do very well.

We might be able to say that there was a community of individuals, a population as it were, that became human together over generations and that there was no literal single Adam and literal single Eve. Hypothetically anyway. I don't know. I wasn't there. Genesis implies one man and one woman, so I will not speak against that.

Okay. If you refer to those canon, that is something different. Those canons were made by men. I do not say that they might not be blessed by god or were created withoit praying about them. But still they are made by human. Every argument or words I refer to and want, can and believe in to is only the bible, because god is represented here.

The definition of natural law on wikipedia refers to any sorts of religion, culture and beliefs. It is thus not fully convincing to me.
Could you somehow do an own definition?


Thanks. I appreciate that.

I see what you mean. I think so myself as well.. But still I also believe of the different DNA, but I don't know either... and we probably can't ever say what the exact situation looked like.



But as to that many things - especially of the old testament and thus also from Gen 18 - are getting vague and not really reliable.

I don't know. My questions still remain. All of them....

 

[pescador]

Who is 'obsessed'?

So far we don't have people promoting murder. I suppose that if someone here did promote that some other people would be 'obsessed' with the sin of murder.

Where were you on January 6?

 

[pescador]

Okay. If you refer to those canon, that is something different. Those canons were made by men. I do not say that they might not be blessed by god or were created withoit praying about them. But still they are made by human. Every argument or words I refer to and want, can and believe in to is only the bible, because god is represented here.

The definition of natural law on wikipedia refers to any sorts of religion, culture and beliefs. It is thus not fully convincing to me.
Could you somehow do an own definition?


Thanks. I appreciate that.

I see what you mean. I think so myself as well.. But still I also believe of the different DNA, but I don't know either... and we probably can't ever say what the exact situation looked like.



But as to that many things - especially of the old testament and thus also from Gen 18 - are getting vague and not really reliable.

I don't know. My questions still remain. All of them....

Why do you capitalize your name (or handle) -- CeBe -- but not God's?

 

[CeBe]

Why do you capitalize your name (or handle) -- CeBe -- but not God's?

Is important that I capatalize him really? He nows that I'm reverently or not by knowing me, not by looking how I write.

My name is like a metaphor. This cannot be set on a similar level. This is not and will not be a productive discussion.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Where were you on January 6?

Working.

 

[pescador]

Is important that I capatalize him really? He nows that I'm reverently or not by knowing me, not by looking how I write.

My name is like a metaphor. This cannot be set on a similar level. This is not and will not be a productive discussion.

Yes, it is important to capitalize God's name. To not do so is disrespectful toward God.

God may or may not understand your intent but other readers do not.

 

[CeBe]

Yes, it is important to capitalize God's name. To not do so is disrespectful toward God.

God may or may not understand your intent but other readers do not.

Yet I won't be judged by you or anyone on this platform. God will be my judge and so he and only he will be yours. It doesn't matter if capatalize or not. God is looking at our hearts if they respect or not. This is unproductive. I won't answer anymore.

 

[pescador]

Yet I won't be judged by you or anyone on this platform. God will be my judge and so he and only he will be yours. It doesn't matter if capatalize or not. God is looking at our hearts if they respect or not. This is unproductive. I won't answer anymore.

You're writing to human beings on a Christian (capitalized) forum. It does matter if you capitalize God's name. God may be looking at your heart, but humans are looking at what you write.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have to ask where that came from.

There is a book which is a compendium of all of the canon laws a monk of Mt. Athos named Nicodemus thought applicable to the Eastern Orthodox church. It’s called “The Rudder” and translations can be found online.

I think the most plausible answer is that the purity culture that characterized parts of Judaism continued into Christianity. While I think it's important to pay attention to Christian tradition, I also think there are areas where it was influenced by the cultures around it. In many ways that is a strength. We have to be able to operate within a variety of cultures. But I don't feel compelled to require ancient sexual ethics for mainline Christianity.

Christianity was very far removed from ancient sexual ethics, because even in the Roman Empire, for people who weren’t Christians, sexual abuse of a slave was entirely legal and one would assume unlikely to attract criticism if done “in moderation” which is one of certaun key flaws in the Roman sexual-ethical and moral system (which was still an improvement on the Athenian system, which other than the theoretical exhortations of Plato, suggests a society of gross perversion).

That doesn't, of course, mean no sexual ethics. There's another thread about sexual ethics in the liberal churches. There are certainly things in Jesus' teachings that apply across cultures.

You can’t “contextualize” sexual ethics while claiming an authentic Christian morality, because sexual ethics are integral to the system, and to argue otherwise I would argue constitutes a case of the fallacy of division.

You might counter that in asserting sexual ethics integral I am engaged in the fallacy of composition, to which I would argue, parenthetically referencing Scripture, using a verse from the Apocalypse which normally I don’t use in this context, but I think it applies here, which you know and therefore I won’t quote it, that the Gospel is indivisible and the central ethical teachings of it are integral, and no one who reads the canonical New Testament or the Fathers could think there was a positive attitude concerning homosexuality.

I also propose you have erred in your initial assumption, in that if we want to see the purity culture of that era par excellence, we need to look at the Essenes and at Gnostic sects which mandated celibacy. Christianity openly embraced monogamous heterosexuality and routinely uses matrimonial language evocative of the Song of Solomon, which is a text with abundant shall we say applicability, to this discussion, in the discussion of the actual process of Salvation. This is shocking to some people, and it is actually shocking compared to most of the Gnostic sects. The Christian faith does not take a Stoic attitude towards sexuality but is positive towards it in holy matrimony. “The marriage bed is undefiled.” We also see rejection of Judaic purity culture elsewhere, in Acts 15, in the removal of the dietary restrictions and so on.