Homosexuality

[intricatic]

I disagree. I believe that those who seek God nowadays are far, far closer to Him than those of Old Testament times. The apostles themselves couldn't even understand parables, so buried were they in the spiritual darkness of the time! Do you really think that the hedonism you see around you is a modern development? Such a worldview was even more prevalent back then! Are there still many who choose materialism and momentary pleasures at the expense of true happiness and doing what is right? Of course, but contrary to popular belief, they are a dying breed.

Of course, most evils existed even then - Ecclesiastes is probably my favorite book of the Bible because it seems to be universally relatable to any topic - but hedonism, and sexual immorality in Jewish culture were far more shameful than in our culture [considering that their culture was honor/shame based, unlike our own], but they had problems of their own with human philosophies corrupting their world view - the spiritual darkness that blinded them to the parables. But never, in the history of society has human philosophy so deeply disconnected the individual from the eternal. It does make the eternal much brighter in contrast to the total darkness of mankind, though.

 

[djbcrawford]

Ok, I know what you're refering to now. Basically, here is my take on it. He was asked about divorce. This statement is talking about divorce. It is impossible to make every conceivable point on a given topic, without obscuring the main point you want to make. For example, this verse plays an important role in the theological view of Progressive Revelation. Somebody could poke through here and see that we've discussed this scripture, but have not discussed Progressive Revelation (in the same sense that Jesus discussed marriage without discussing same-sex love). They might then draw all sorts of conclusions regarding our theological beliefs, given that we clearly don't believe in Progressive Revelation, or we would have said so, given this opprtunity.

Or, maybe, Progressive Revelation is completely irrelavent to this discussion, and that is why we haven't been discussing it, even though we had the opportunity.

Returning to Jesus, he was talking about divorce. His followers asked if they were allowed to, because Moses said they could, and he answered them. His description of marriage was just that, a description. That part of the statement was not a command. He was saying, when you marry, you become one. As God has made you one, you cannot split yourselves again. He had no reason to mention the idea of same-sex love or marriage, because none of his followers would have that conception of marriage. He described it as they knew it. I would be insterested in what Jesus said about the idea of same-sex marriage, had he been asked, and had he been speaking about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

For your point of view, 'fortunately, he wasn't' would be more appropriate. A description describes something. Marriage is described as between a man and a woman. Jesus quotes Genesis which also describes this (and doesn't describe any other type) and therefore gives his thumbs up on Genesis's definition as well. If he had meant otherwise, he could have easily said between two people. When Jesus updated OT law, such as an eye for an eye, he said so plainly.

This argument is like saying I can marry my sister/mother/dog because Jesus didn't say I couldn't.

What to you mean by Progressive Revelation? Is this where we realise a spiritual truth that we hadn't thought of before from scipture, or where we ignore/twist scripture to allow us to do something we want to that we shouldn't, using arguments that contain lots of nice sounding words and 'superior' modern wisdom?

 

[IisJustMe]

I would be insterested in what Jesus said about the idea of same-sex marriage, had he been asked, and had he been speaking about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

I ask the question knowing full well what He would have said. I just wonder what your fruitful mind envisions.

 

[Gukkor]

Of course, most evils existed even then - Ecclesiastes is probably my favorite book of the Bible because it seems to be universally relatable to any topic - but hedonism, and sexual immorality in Jewish culture were far more shameful than in our culture [considering that their culture was honor/shame based, unlike our own], but they had problems of their own with human philosophies corrupting their world view - the spiritual darkness that blinded them to the parables. But never, in the history of society has human philosophy so deeply disconnected the individual from the eternal. It does make the eternal much brighter in contrast to the total darkness of mankind, though.

And yet one cannot compare ancient Israel alone to the entire world now. You're right, Israel was and still is an honorable nation, war-torn though it may be. However, Israel is far from the entire world. I am saying that, for example, while the spiritual condition of Israel remains relatively unchanged, modern Europe is far better off spiritually and morally than the Roman Empire was in Christ's time.

You are right, though, the brighter the light gets, the deeper the contrasting darkness will become. While I do believe that the modern world is a spiritually brighter place for those who seek the light, the darkness is also that much deeper, which is reflected in the bleak modern philosophies you pointed out. I think this is a natural and mostly unavoidable phenomenon.

EDIT: And yeah, I'm an Ecclesiastes fan, too. A very existentialist work, in many ways. I can't help but feel that people get more out of it now than they did when it was written, simply because the subject matter seems so far ahead of its time.

 

[Mling]

I ask the question knowing full well what He would have said. I just wonder what your fruitful mind envisions.

If you already know the answer, why should I tell you? I'm not quite that easy to bait.

For your point of view, 'fortunately, he wasn't' would be more appropriate.

If I had meant "fortunately" I would have said, "fortunately." As it is, I would be very interested in knowing what he would have said. As I find unanswered questions extremely frustrating, it is unfortunate for me that he didn't say a word on the topic.

 

[intricatic]

And yet one cannot compare ancient Israel alone to the entire world now. You're right, Israel was and still is an honorable nation, war-torn though it may be. However, Israel is far from the entire world. I am saying that, for example, while the spiritual condition of Israel remains relatively unchanged, modern Europe is far better off spiritually and morally than the Roman Empire was in Christ's time.

You are right, though, the brighter the light gets, the deeper the contrasting darkness will become. While I do believe that the modern world is a spiritually brighter place for those who seek the light, the darkness is also that much deeper, which is reflected in the bleak modern philosophies you pointed out. I think this is a natural and mostly unavoidable phenomenon.

I totally agree. I just wish it manifest itsef in the most public faces of Christianity more than it does.

 

[IisJustMe]

If you already know the answer, why should I tell you? I'm not quite that easy to bait.

You reply, I don't. I'm jsut curious what you think.

 

[Mling]

You reply, I don't. I'm jsut curious what you think.

I think it's an interesting question to say the least. Obviously, no Christian thinks that Jesus would say something that wasn't true. And I've made no secret of my beliefs, here. The question is, how did Jesus ascertain what was true? Descriptions of him growing in wisdom show that he did not share his Father's omniscience (nowhere to grow to if you already know everything)--he learned by studying and experiencing the world like a human. His disregard for so many harmful social customs and boundries show that he went far beyond only learning from his environment. Some would claim that he was extremely insightful, others would say that he transcended human knowledge due to his divinity (as a side note, the first answer seems to diminsh Jesus's divinity, and the latter seems like a cop-out--an excuse for why we can't do the same..I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle).

Culturally speaking, the idea of same-sex marriage would probably have been completely foreign, even to Jesus. I don't think even the Romans had any such idea. Nero is known for marrying a male slave, yes--he had a (presumably crude) sex-change operation performed on him first, though. Nero did what he wanted. If he wanted to marry a man, he could have, and he was certainly not squeamish about the homosexual idea. I expect if even Nero felt the need to convert his intended into a woman first, it was because the idea of same-sex marriage was unheard of.

So, the question is, how would Jesus' divine-insightfulness have worked with an idea he had absolutely no exposure to? And can anybody really answer that question?

Well, one strong objection people had against same-sex conduct was that it violated gender roles. The problem wasn't the male/male contact, it was that the "passive" male was acting like a woman, which was considered degrading. (The Romans considered sex to be about power, not gender. The powerful person is "taking" the less powerful one, regardless of the genders. Women can only be passive, however, lacking the necessary anatomy to be the "active" partner, and so are inherently weaker.)

We can see that Jesus did not feel constrained by gender roles. Mary Magdalene calls him Rabboni, "my Rabbi." Few Rabbi's at that time allowed female followers. He conversed with women in public. He taught creative non-violence and meekness--not exactly macho ideals. He clearly did not consider femininity to be be degrading--I do not believe he would have been bothered by the idea on this level.

Sexuality--unlike today, there is no sign that Jesus considered sexual sins to be worse than others. In fact, it barely registers, compared to greed, pride and ignoring/abusing the weak. Even if I assume this is sinful (I've made it clear that I don't), I can't imagine he would get nearly as worked up about it as people today do. After all, we've seen what he openly stated about divorce, but look at his reactions to the woman at the well and the woman accused of adultury. I can't imagine he would have a stronger reaction to people who actually are living as "one flesh" and not straying (as we are discussing marriage, this is the sort of relationship I am assuming; adultury is a separate issue).

So...what? I don't know, but I can't imagine that it would get him too riled, even if it were sinful. Since I don't believe it is, and I can't see Jesus getting upset over worldy concerns like maintaining a macho image, I have to assume that he would see it as a loving, Godly relationship (assuming, of course, that it was).

 

[Polycarp1]

For your point of view, 'fortunately, he wasn't' would be more appropriate. A description describes something. Marriage is described as between a man and a woman. Jesus quotes Genesis which also describes this (and doesn't describe any other type) and therefore gives his thumbs up on Genesis's definition as well. If he had meant otherwise, he could have easily said between two people. When Jesus updated OT law, such as an eye for an eye, he said so plainly.

This argument is like saying I can marry my sister/mother/dog because Jesus didn't say I couldn't.

What to you mean by Progressive Revelation? Is this where we realise a spiritual truth that we hadn't thought of before from scipture, or where we ignore/twist scripture to allow us to do something we want to that we shouldn't, using arguments that contain lots of nice sounding words and 'superior' modern wisdom?

When St. Paul speaks of the four corners of the Earth, he doesn't mean that it's been divinely revealed that the Earth is square. Jesus is critiquing a legalistic system where divorce is made easy for the man who wants to get rid of his aging wife and marry a sweet young thing, and he makes it clear what God's intention about marriage is.

Now, he does quote Genesis. However, I seem to recall Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Judah, and several others having multiple wives. So it cannot be concluded that Jesus quoting Genesis is purely and simply endorsing one man/one woman as the sole form of marriage -- God blessed at least some other forms in some cases.

I have no hope or intention of demonstrating to you what God may or may not have thought about gay marriages; it would be founded in divergent views on Scripture, and fractured from the start.

Let me, rather, suggest the idea that we are all sinners saved by the grace of God, and that He is quite explicit that we will be judged as we judge others. See Matthew 7 and 25, and Romans 2, for explicit statements of this, among several other places.

It therefore seems prudent as well as commanded to me that we render mercy, forgiveness, and compassion to others, whatever sins we believe them to be committing, as we would want God to render mercy, forgiveness, and compassion unto us at the Judgment. For with the measure we judge we too shall be judged.

 

[IisJustMe]

However, I seem to recall Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Judah, and several others having multiple wives. So it cannot be concluded that Jesus quoting Genesis is purely and simply endorsing one man/one woman as the sole form of marriage -- God blessed at least some other forms in some cases.

How does what men did on their own mean God endorsed it? Where did God ever tell any of the patriarchs to take more than one wife? He didn't. They took them on their own volition, not through anything God said. Jesus most certainly was endorsing one man/one woman marriage, and only that definition. Just because God's people disobeyed and stepped outside the boundaries of what He laid down doesn't mean He endorsed what they did. Where does it say God blessed "some other forms in some cases?" It doesn't. Remember, God took no direct action when Abraham lied -- twice -- about the exact identity of Sarah. Did that mean He endorsed Abraham's lie?

You can't say man's action going seemingly unpunished justifies His actions or represents God's endorsement. All it means is that man sinned, and didn't face immediate consequences. The same can be said of the false premise of gay marriage. Just because it isn't met with fire from heaven doesn't make it any less sinful.

 

[Mling]

What to you mean by Progressive Revelation? Is this where we realise a spiritual truth that we hadn't thought of before from scipture, or where we ignore/twist scripture to allow us to do something we want to that we shouldn't, using arguments that contain lots of nice sounding words and 'superior' modern wisdom?

You know, I only just caught this bit of your post. You really think my words were nice-sounding? Aww, shucks... Thanks!

 

[Gukkor]

You know, progressive revelation really gets a bad rap nowadays, and I honestly don't know why. What, did God reveal Revelation to John of Patmos and then just say "Okay, that's enough revelation for one eternity, go play kids?" I'm inclined to think not. Now, does that necessarily mean that there are new scriptures that should be tacked on to the existing Bible? No, because spiritual revelation is in many ways much more personal nowadays. God is constantly revealing more of Himself to us as we are ready for it.

 

[romanov]

You know, progressive revelation really gets a bad rap nowadays, and I honestly don't know why. What, did God reveal Revelation to John of Patmos and then just say "Okay, that's enough revelation for one eternity, go play kids?" I'm inclined to think not. Now, does that necessarily mean that there are new scriptures that should be tacked on to the existing Bible? No, because spiritual revelation is in many ways much more personal nowadays. God is constantly revealing more of Himself to us as we are ready for it.

But is it spiritual revelation or is it creating God in our own image? I remember a sermon given by a preacher of mine when I was just a child. The sermon really had nothing to do with homosexuality but the preacher was on the book of Micah, I think. At any rate, what stood out is if a prophet or revelation is not consistent with the rest of the Bible then it should just be rejected.

 

[IisJustMe]

What, did God reveal Revelation to John of Patmos and then just say "Okay, that's enough revelation for one eternity, go play kids?"

First off, you do realize that "John of Patmos" is the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, writer of the gospel bearing his name and three latter epistles, right?

Having said that, this really isn't the place for this vein of thought -- the thread is about homosexuality, after all, not Pentecostal thought vs. other thought -- but yes, God closed the canon with the revelation. Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 that tongues, prophecy, and knowledge would soon cease. Tongues was in fact dying out in his time, and the Corinthian church was abusing a gift given only for confirmation of the gospel message to people who had never heard of Jesus Christ. Prophecy -- the direct revelation of God through men -- was soon to die out because the written word and testimony of God was nearly complete, and with it, God's thoughts and commands toward men. Knowledge -- the reception of the written word -- would be complete about 34 years after Paul's second letter to Corinth, with the completion of the Revelation in 96 AD.

Another reason "progressive revelation" gets a bad rap is because of the multitude of abuses of it in some denominations and congregations, besides the fact that it isn't biblically supportable.

 

[holo]

So he could turn off his inspiration like a light?

Well, if you claim that he was "inspired" to begin with, it's up to you to defend that view. Not that I disagree. Perhaps it was God's will that we who live after Luther and the printing press have access to the actual, flawless, authorative word of God, whereas catholics, Jews, Ethiopians and those before Luther didn't. I'm sure Paul was inspired. But I don't think inspired means flawless, just as a preacher may deliver a fantastic, true sermon, but still not speak falwlessly on every matter. If he claimed to, I'd sure get out of there pretty quick.

Do you have some reason to think Paul was speaking of his own opinion on the matter? This sin hasn't been absolved in the New Testament. It is spoken of in the OT and NT, and thus still stands.

I'm syaing "maybe he was". I don't really have very good reasons to conclude that the hair thing was merely his opinion, whereas homosexuality is God's. If you'ver researched it and found good reasons to distinguish them, more power to you.

 

[djbcrawford]

Culturally speaking, the idea of same-sex marriage would probably have been completely foreign, even to Jesus. I don't think even the Romans had any such idea.

Jesus would have been well aware of same gender sexual acts and their condemnation in scripture. What the romans thought isn't really relevent to a Christian discussion.

Well, one strong objection people had against same-sex conduct was that it violated gender roles. The problem wasn't the male/male contact, it was that the "passive" male was acting like a woman, which was considered degrading. (The Romans considered sex to be about power, not gender. The powerful person is "taking" the less powerful one, regardless of the genders. Women can only be passive, however, lacking the necessary anatomy to be the "active" partner, and so are inherently weaker.)

We can see that Jesus did not feel constrained by gender roles. Mary Magdalene calls him Rabboni, "my Rabbi." Few Rabbi's at that time allowed female followers. He conversed with women in public. He taught creative non-violence and meekness--not exactly macho ideals. He clearly did not consider femininity to be be degrading--I do not believe he would have been bothered by the idea on this level.

Interesting, but not really relevent to the discussion. You merely bring up your own argument which hasn't been mentioned and defeat it.

Sexuality--unlike today, there is no sign that Jesus considered sexual sins to be worse than others. In fact, it barely registers, compared to greed, pride and ignoring/abusing the weak. Even if I assume this is sinful (I've made it clear that I don't), I can't imagine he would get nearly as worked up about it as people today do. After all, we've seen what he openly stated about divorce, but look at his reactions to the woman at the well and the woman accused of adultury. I can't imagine he would have a stronger reaction to people who actually are living as "one flesh" and not straying (as we are discussing marriage, this is the sort of relationship I am assuming; adultury is a separate issue).

Agreed, but there is a difference between saying one sin is no worse than another, and saying a sin isn't a sin, which is the real discussion.

So...what? I don't know, but I can't imagine that it would get him too riled, even if it were sinful. Since I don't believe it is, and I can't see Jesus getting upset over worldy concerns like maintaining a macho image, I have to assume that he would see it as a loving, Godly relationship (assuming, of course, that it was).

I think he would be concerned about people disobeying his Father's law. He was pretty riled when they defiled his temple. There you go again, beating your own arguments. You must have a go at mine - 1) the act is universally condemned in scripture, and the only positive examples of sexual relations are between a man and a woman in marriage, and 2) we have 2 biological genders designed to be linked one particular way.

Incidentally, if this is a 'natural state', why do people of the same sex seem to fall into the 2 gender roles (one more male, one more female). Why have the desire to 'penetrate' when 'naturally' there is nothing to penetrate. Why the desire to have/adopt children when 'naturally' it can't happen between same sex couples?

 

[Mling]

You missed the entire purpose of the post. I was not directly answering the question "is it sinful or not?" I was answering the question, "What would Jesus have said about it?"

I used the Romans in the first part because they would have been most likely, of the various people Jesus interacted with, to have an awareness of the idea of same-sex marriage. And even they seem not to. Awareness of ss sexual acts is irrelavent, as we are discussing marraige, specifically. I'm not sure why you say I was "defeating my own arguments" as I wasn't arguing anything, or trying to defeat anything. I was exploring the ideas relavent to Jesus' hypothetical reaction--that included looking at reasons why other people had specific reactions, and then comparing Jesus' beliefs to theirs.

Agreed, but there is a difference between saying one sin is no worse than another, and saying a sin isn't a sin, which is the real discussion.

I have made it clear that I do not believe the bolded part. I am , however, perfectly willing to entertain the idea that I might be wrong, which is what I was doing in that part. Again, with the focus being on the various ways Jesus might have reacted.

In no part of this post was I trying to argue anything. I was exploring a hypothetical situation.

 

[djbcrawford]

You missed the entire purpose of the post. I was not directly answering the question "is it sinful or not?" I was answering the question, "What would Jesus have said about it?"

I used the Romans in the first part because they would have been most likely, of the various people Jesus interacted with, to have an awareness of the idea of same-sex marriage. And even they seem not to. Awareness of ss sexual acts is irrelavent, as we are discussing marraige, specifically. I'm not sure why you say I was "defeating my own arguments" as I wasn't arguing anything, or trying to defeat anything. I was exploring the ideas relavent to Jesus' hypothetical reaction--that included looking at reasons why other people had specific reactions, and then comparing Jesus' beliefs to theirs.

You have to accept though, that whether it was sinful or not, would have affected the answer Jesus would give. What I mean is, that in your post you brought up the idea that it was disapproved of because it made one of the men take the woman's role, which was against the macho view of the time. This was the argument you brought up, which you then went on to defeat yourself.

I have made it clear that I do not believe the bolded part. I am , however, perfectly willing to entertain the idea that I might be wrong, which is what I was doing in that part. Again, with the focus being on the various ways Jesus might have reacted.

In no part of this post was I trying to argue anything. I was exploring a hypothetical situation.

The problem with a hypothetical situation is we have no way of proving it 100% one way or another. We can however look at other questions Jesus was asked about behaviour and conduct. In many of these he seemed to reply with "well, what does scripture say", before giving a parable or explanation of it's real meaning.

I think the nearest example to your hypothetical situation is when they brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus so they could stone her. To them he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Then when they had sloped away in shame, he said to her, go and sin no more.

I wonder what would have happened if she had then replied "But how can it be wrong when I love him so much", or "God made me this way and God doesn't make mistakes". Oh well, another hypothetical question we can only guess about...

 

[djbcrawford]

You know, I only just caught this bit of your post. You really think my words were nice-sounding? Aww, shucks... Thanks!

Do we have one of those smiley faces that sticks it's tongue out?

 

[Mling]

I'll run through this one more time. Yes, I know that whether it is sinful or not would affect the answer, that's why I brought up the issue of sexual sins, the woman at the well and the woman accused of adultury--to show how he reacted to those sins. Then I went on to say, "but I don't think it is a sin..."

I wasn't bringing up Roman gender roles as any type of "argument." I was describing common thought at the time, and the reason it resulted in disapproval of ss acts, and then comparing it to Jesus' thoughts, and showing how his reaction would have been different. Basically--many men, then and now (I mentioned "then), considered acting in a feminine way to be degrading, and that was a reason they disapproved on male/male sexual acts. Jesus didn't think femininity was degrading, so he would not have been bothered on this level.
It is not argument/defeat; it is compare/contrast.

The problem with a hypothetical situation is we have no way of proving it 100% one way or another.

Which is why I occasionally said things like

I don't know

. I was asked, a couple of times what I thought he would have said. I hesitated to answer, and then I did. I stated right from the start that we can't know, but then poked through other questions, like "why did people at the time believe it was wrong", and "how did Jesus learn", and "what would his exposure to the idea have been" in order to try to get some background and guidance in the question.

We can however look at other questions Jesus was asked about behaviour and conduct. In many of these he seemed to reply with "well, what does scripture say", before giving a parable or explanation of it's real meaning.

I think the nearest example to your hypothetical situation is when they brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus so they could stone her. To them he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Then when they had sloped away in shame, he said to her, go and sin no more.

The second paragraph here, along with the woman at the well, is why I said he would not have flipped out, even if it is, a sin.

the first point is good, but it needs to be pointed out that he sometimes, after he quoted Scripture, he didn't always uphold it. Like "you've heard it said 'eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' but I tell you this, do not resist and evildoer..." turn the other cheek/walk the extra mile. Or "Moses allowed you to divorce because your hearts were hard, but I say, what God has put together, let no man set assunder." We can tell that he would have quoted Scripture, but where the conversation would have gone from there is anybody's guess.