Homosexuality

[Irenaeus]

Holo,

"Compassion" without truth in my view is so many feathers that tickle souls into hell. It is like a doctor who is too afraid to disturb the patient, and therefore does not reveal the cancer. Truth does not equal bluntness (because prudence must be applied always), but we are called upon as Christian people to bear witness to the commandments of God, whether natural or positively revealed. We need not thunder like Moses, but we need not cower like mice. Love does not rejoice in iniquity, but with the truth - simultaneously, love is kind.

Of course, homosexuality can't be compared to a cancer: no analogy may be taken too far. There are counselors who take a Christian point of view, and who help men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions to overcome what caused them to adopt this pattern of behavior.

It is a serious misunderstanding of the nature of Christianity to suggest that "our God" is so intolerant to expect what is best for his creatures, (what may truly be called, in contradistinction to your definition, "well-being") rather than to merely allow them to be governed by every disordinate appetite of concupiscence.

This talk of "love" and soforth neglects something that is so basic to the Christian understanding of man that to neglect it calls into question everything from the creation to the redemption: that something is wrong with man. Whether you are Catholic or Reformed and you definitely call this original sin, or take a little less defined view as an Orthodox Christian, the point is that by and large our desires are disordered, and we "Do not know what we do." The flesh wages war against the spirit.

In heterosexual attraction, and even in other sensible goods like food, drink, recreation and other lawful pleasures, there is always that inclination to pursue what is inordinate - and reason, so often deceived and subjective, usually capitulates to these inordinate appetites, unless informed by a higher moral law, aided by grace, above both passion and mere human reason.

The idea of mere "love", or the feeling of love, governing the hierarchy of morality is an inverted pyramid of Christian belief and moral theology. Both agape and eros, taken in themselves, can be holy, and they can be wicked. Like all passions, and even intellectual powers like the memory and the will, we do not call one or the other "Evil" or "good" unless first we consider what they apply to. We call a man "evil" because his will is evil, like the murderer. We call a man "good" because his will is good, like a loving mother.

We as Christians are called not to merely be ruled by the automation of our emotional attachments and feelings. We are called to live by the intrinsic law of creation, and also by the revealed law of God, which even with the law of Moses was to be "inscribed on your hearts...teach them to your children...post them on your gates."

Any sort of Christian morality that defies the moral authority of God as teacher and as revealer through both created reality and his own self-disclosure, inevitably does not make man more free, but disfigures humanity. "Whoever sins is a slave to sin."

Inevitably one neglects the moral authority of God for fluid personal moral autonomy. If this illogic were to be applied to society at large, the result would be moral anarchy, and power, not the good, will rule the world.

 

[IisJustMe]

... this:

Both agape and eros, taken in themselves, can be holy, and they can be wicked.

Agape is the perfect love of God, and while we are not able to consistently or constantly exhibit this unconditional love, it is achievable on occasion, and when it is achieved, it is the exact state in which God desires us to be. If agape becomes tainted with self interest, lust, greed, pride, jeolousy or covetousness, then it is no longer agape but something else, perhaps not even "love" at that point.

Agape is always holy, because it is the pure unconditional and perfect love of God, and the perfect will of God for us. But the love we exhibit is not always -- in fact, seldom -- agape in nature, but more likely phileo (brotherly love) or eros which is sexual in nature and cannot claim a hold on the concept of love, except in marriage between one man and one woman.

You are absolutely right, equating love with obedience and the perfect will of God is not a valid measure of any relationship, be it heterosexual or otherwise. What appears to be love can easily be well-disguised lust, covetousness, etc. One only need look at the "before-and-after" relationship of a an abusive man and the woman he cons into marrying him to see that picture.

Still, your post is excellent, and is good food for thought.

 

[IisJustMe]

I could have sworn a Christian was someone who believed and followed in Christ's way.As for contradicting myself I disagree ... The laws of Leviticus were laws made at that time for those people...not for us in this day and age...

Point me to the place where Jesus said any sin as defined in the Law was no longer a sin. He never said it, and in fact said the Law stands until "all things are accomplished" and as yet, that hasn't happened. Paul called the Law our "tutor" meaning we measure our behavior by what the Law says. No longer subject to the punishments of the Law if we are under Christ's blood, we nonetheless are to check our behavior according to God's measuring rod. We don't stone people for their sins now, because Christ died on the cross for those sins, and even those who have not yet claimed His salvation by faith in His sacrifice can still be redeemed. As long as they draw breath, they are still able to come to that faith. There are consequences in our society for those acts, including prison time and perhaps even the death penalty, but God is the ultimate judge, and there will be a lot of surprises for each of us in heaven.

The Bible says menstrating women are unclean, we know that that is untrue...(not to share a bed with a menstuating women- hmmm this is still considered a sin??).

This was the hygenic law, as women then didn't have a corner drug store and the convenient feminine products available today.

And yes HOmosexuals are sinners just as Heterosexuals are sinners...but not sinners because of their sexuality or sinners because they are in a loving relationship...

Because we are still to measure ourselves by the Law, this statement is plainly and simply incorrect. Sorry.

and our sins whatever they maybe are totally separte than a murderer or rapists

All sin separates us from God, and while the consequences in man's law are long prison sentences for murder or rape, and nil for a lie, God's economy is different, and in His sight those sins are equal. Jesus pretty much settled that in the Sermon on the Mount:

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27, 28)

"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

The latter passage is where the Law truly changed through Christ's words. Don't be quick for revenge, but be quick to forgive, and provide Christian assistance. Be the Samaritan, and that is where we are to model our behavior toward homosexuals. We do not condone their acts, but we render to them Christian love, to serve as a witness of Christ and what He would do. We cannot condone sin -- but we can love the sinner, to win them to Christ.

Though again Im sure God still loves them also-murderers and rapists and other evil people whose sexuality have nothing to do with their sins or why they are evil...

There is the real dichotomy. You seem less willing to forgive murderers and rapists than you do homosexual activity, in that you are willing to accept those who engage in homosexual acts without expecting repentance. What of the repentant murderer or rapist? Not only repentant, but having let Christ change their heart? Are they still evil? And if God speaks plainly against their sin and yet is willing to welcome them into His kingdom, why do you not think He requires the same of the homosexual?

 

[Mling]

Point me to the place where Jesus said any sin as defined in the Law was no longer a sin. He never said it, and in fact said the Law stands until "all things are accomplished" and as yet, that hasn't happened. Paul called the Law our "tutor" meaning we measure our behavior by what the Law says. No longer subject to the punishments of the Law if we are under Christ's blood, we nonetheless are to check our behavior according to God's measuring rod. We don't stone people for their sins now, because Christ died on the cross for those sins, and even those who have not yet claimed His salvation by faith in His sacrifice can still be redeemed. As long as they draw breath, they are still able to come to that faith. There are consequences in our society for those acts, including prison time and perhaps even the death penalty, but God is the ultimate judge, and there will be a lot of surprises for each of us in heaven.

This was the hygenic law, as women then didn't have a corner drug store and the convenient feminine products available today.

I find it interesting that you claim the Law still holds, and then, as soon as a law is mentioned that may affect you (I'm assuming you don't ask a woman if she's menstrating before interacting with her?), that law is outdated.

 

[djbcrawford]

No one told me I had to call homosexuality a sin.

No, but the bible says you have to call the act a sin...

Please dont tell me what I have to do.
I did not contradict myself as I do not have to look at homosexuality as a sin and a homosexual or bisexual do not have to look at themselves as sinful either.

As long as you ignore what it says in the bible about the act being sinful...

God made everyone unique....
God does not make mistakes...

Two true statements, neither of which justifies doing something which is condemned consistantly in the bible. I mean, by this thinking, every feeling and urge we have must be right, so we can do as we want. If this was true we wouldn't need Christ at all...

 

[Irenaeus]

Dear It'sjustme,

This is truly a "jot and tittle", but in classical thought Agape and Eros were both natural emotions of love - the former self-sacrificing, the later seeking to possess. It is in this context that I used them, devoid of the great light which Christian theology, especially regarding grace and charity, sheds upon these two great human loves. I feel the fundamental flaw with modernist logic regarding homosexuality is a serious deficiency in their observation "naturalness" of creation and how nature has it's own "code", if you will, of self-preservation, independent of subjective and mutable human subjectivity. Agere sequitur esse - doing follows being, i.e.; what you do follows from what you are.

It is true that among the Greeks eros (where we get erotic) often devolved into a certain lasciviousness; regardless, this is not it's only meaning - rescued by Christian charity, natural eros can be transformed into supernatural eros, which seeks the possession of God. In other words, it is an auxiliary to the virtue of hope.

 

[united4Peace]

Good article, recieved 2 months back via e mail.

Thanks...Great article!!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I find it interesting that you claim the Law still holds, and then, as soon as a law is mentioned that may affect you (I'm assuming you don't ask a woman if she's menstrating before interacting with her?), that law is outdated.

And what if I or others do adhere to that scripture?
What business would that be to others?

Leviticus 18:19 (NIV)
'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Personally, as if it were any business of complete strangers what transpires in my marriage bed, I see no reason offered as to why sexual relations MUST be committed while a woman is going through her natural cycle. The concept that some time apart or at least agreed upon abstinence in sexual gratification increases passion and appreciation for one's mate can and does apply in a marriage.

 

[lilymarie]

This debate still doesn't address the truth that Jesus Christ himself declared what a marriage is as only between one man and one woman period.

Nor also the fact that when Jesus was discussing eunuchs, no one has brought up the definition that means either born castrated, made castrated by men, or castrated their "hearts, soul and mind" so that they could be in service to the Kingdom of God only. In other words, the defintion of eunuch means castrated, and meant a male unable to function either sexually or to reproduce children.

As I just studied on the internet, "the castrated by men" was for slaves of that time so that they would not rape nor be disodient, and Jesus took pity on them, as he loves all people, and that this refers back to the phrase "in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, freed nor slave"... we are all one in his salavation, but not without repentance.

____________________

Also, some have said: Well, only Paul said this and that regarding unnatural relations between men with men and women with women.

Well, that begs the question... are we now to think that what Paul wrote is not the inspired word of God, and that Paul was merely "just a man" used for God's purposes of that time only?

And, then so what about all the other scriptures... were those written by just mere men also?

Romans 1:24-27, are we to assume this had one time and place only and was written by "Paul" only, not by God?

Romans 1:24-27

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

[Mling]

Paul, in places, openly admits that it is him speaking, and not God...and then goes on to state things that only God has the authority to say.

If we assume that God is speaking through God, what should we make of the statement "I am saying this, not God."

Paul was a brilliant writer and recruiter, but he was not God, nor was he a prophet.

 

[IisJustMe]

Dear It'sjustme,

This is truly a "jot and tittle", but in classical thought Agape and Eros were both natural emotions of love - the former self-sacrificing, the later seeking to possess. It is in this context that I used them, devoid of the great light which Christian theology, especially regarding grace and charity, sheds upon these two great human loves. I feel the fundamental flaw with modernist logic regarding homosexuality is a serious deficiency in their observation "naturalness" of creation and how nature has it's own "code", if you will, of self-preservation, independent of subjective and mutable human subjectivity. Agere sequitur esse - doing follows being, i.e.; what you do follows from what you are.

It is true that among the Greeks eros (where we get erotic) often devolved into a certain lasciviousness; regardless, this is not it's only meaning - rescued by Christian charity, natural eros can be transformed into supernatural eros, which seeks the possession of God. In other words, it is an auxiliary to the virtue of hope.

But classical thought has no bearing on the Bible at all. In fact, the Gnostics and Epicureans, who inherited the mantle of classic thought in Paul's time, were chastised by Paul for their claims to adopt Christianity but failed to go beyond the intellectual, never delving into the spiritual.

Eros is never used in the Bible. It had no bearing or place in Jesus' economy of marriage, it being strictly for the private enjoyment of a man and a woman in a marital relationship.

 

[ThyNeighbor]

Eros is never used in the Bible. It had no bearing or place in Jesus' economy of marriage, it being strictly for the private enjoyment of a man and a woman in a marital relationship.

Have you never read the Song of Songs?

 

[holo]

Also, some have said: Well, only Paul said this and that regarding unnatural relations between men with men and women with women.

Well, that begs the question... are we now to think that what Paul wrote is not the inspired word of God, and that Paul was merely "just a man" used for God's purposes of that time only?

And, then so what about all the other scriptures... were those written by just mere men also?

Well, that is indee an interesting question. As somebody already mentioned, Paul himself says somewhere that "this is me speaking now, not God". It's also quite common to explain Paul's position on women's hair and such with cultural context etc. Why not with homosexuality?

 

[Mling]

Well, that is indee an interesting question. As somebody already mentioned, Paul himself says somewhere that "this is me speaking now, not God". It's also quite common to explain Paul's position on women's hair and such with cultural context etc. Why not with homosexuality?

I do find it...odd...that he considered getting a haircut more natural than...not getting a haircut. It calls into question his view of nature, regardless of the word he used to describe it.

 

[Gukkor]

I've personally never had any problem disagreeing with Paul on certain matters, scripture or not. This is one of those matters.

 

[IisJustMe]

Have you never read the Song of Songs?

For one thing, that's Hebrew, not Greek, and eros is decidedly a Greek word. For another, you still can't find a Hebrew word that names or describes the sexual act in Song of Songs.

 

[intricatic]

Well, that is indee an interesting question. As somebody already mentioned, Paul himself says somewhere that "this is me speaking now, not God". It's also quite common to explain Paul's position on women's hair and such with cultural context etc. Why not with homosexuality?

Is that when the evil, uninspired Paul appeared?

 

[lilymarie]

Paul, in places, openly admits that it is him speaking, and not God...and then goes on to state things that only God has the authority to say.

If we assume that God is speaking through God, what should we make of the statement "I am saying this, not God."

Paul was a brilliant writer and recruiter, but he was not God, nor was he a prophet.

Paul was writing about what God destests as shown all throughout the Bible. I see how you glossed over that in the scripture I gave you, and how you glossed over Jesus' marriage law of one man and one woman only.

However, if Iraneus has spoken, a great theologian on this website, I fear there is nothing more I can do to add to the testimony of how The Lord wants us to live our lives and what ALL immoral sexual sins are as listed in the Bible.

If Iraneus has spoken and you still refuse to listen to God, I see no further reason to spend my time on a worthless debate.

I gave my best and all for God and his glorious son Jesus.

Whether someone takes the words of The Lord to heart or not is their choice.

However, as Jesus said, a marriage is only between one man and one woman. If you chose to disobey The Lord's commands, I can show you your err, but I cannot make you drink of the life thereof.

 

[Proselyte]

Well, that is indee an interesting question. As somebody already mentioned, Paul himself says somewhere that "this is me speaking now, not God". It's also quite common to explain Paul's position on women's hair and such with cultural context etc. Why not with homosexuality?

Homosexuality is talked about in many Bible passages. Homosexuality is a sin, and is not to be practiced by Christians.

 

[lilymarie]

I had been waiting on a friend to send me further definitions of forniation in the Greek. Here they are. And, this is the last I can contribute to this debate. Perhaps go to a local college and look up the Greek words for fornication in the text books there yourselves to find out for yourselves. I have been allowed for free in a wonderful college art library I have near my home. I am sure they will allow you in, but you need to explain to the head librarian I would suppose as I did to help you find what you are looking for.

Many give a skimpy rendering of the Greek and obviously on purpose to ignore the weight of the evidence that would come forth. I am going to post the entire meanings from Strongs #4202, 4203, 4204, & 4205:
Greek4202. porneia, por-ni'-ah; from Grk4203; harlotry (includ. adultery and incest); fig. idolatry:-fornication.
Greek4203. porneuo, porn-yoo'-o; from Grk4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (lit.) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practise idolatry:-commit (fornication).
Greek4204. porne, por'-nay; fem. of Grk4205; a strumpet; fig. an idolater:-harlot, harlot.
Greek4205. pornos, por'-nos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of Grk4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by anal.) a debauchee (libertine):-fornicator, whoremonger.


Also, I was told because of all the above defintions, this is where our word "pornography" comes from. It is the acts of all of the above.