Is "homosexuality" really a scriptural issue or is it a social issue?

[Ohioprof]

Hi, friends. Today I was eating lunch with some colleagues, including our college chaplain, who is a Christian minister. Someone asked him why many Christians have such strong views against gay people. (That is how she put the question.) He said that homosexuality is the most controversial issue within Christianity right now, just as the role of women was very controversial some years ago.

Then he said that people are against homosexuality because they have been taught to be growing up.

I said that I post in a Christian forum, and people here repeatedly point to the Bible and say that the Bible condemns same-sex relationships.

The chaplain replied that this is not really a Biblical issue; it's a social issue. People, he said, use the Bible to try to justify their anti-gay attitudes. But there is really very little in the Bible that addresses homosexuality, and it's not anything central in the Bible.

I said that this issue appears to be central to many of these folks with whom I post, who regard condemnation of homosexuality as an important part of the Bible.

The chaplain said that many Christians highlight those parts of the Bible that they think support their beliefs, to try to justify those beliefs. But, he said, there is much more in the New Testament calling for radical inclusivity of all people than there are statements condemning homosexuality.

The chaplain added that people use the Bible to try to justify the beliefs they were taught growing up that homosexuality is wrong, but this is really not what the Bible as a whole calls for, especially not the New Testament.

I just thought I would share the chaplain's insights. I leave it to folks here to consider whether questions about homosexuality are really Biblical questions, or whether they are in truth social questions.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Sexual immorality passes through cultural boundaries. So is the other sexual immorality described merely cultural? People do use the bible to justify wrong beliefs, but on this, is it really that open to interpretation? I wasn't taught anything about homosexuality as a kid, my parents are quite indifferent. The bible corrupted my little mind!

 

[Ohioprof]

Sexual immorality passes through cultural boundaries. So is the other sexual immorality described merely cultural? People do use the bible to justify wrong beliefs, but on this, is it really that open to interpretation? I wasn't taught anything about homosexuality as a kid, my parents are quite indifferent. The bible corrupted my little mind!

It seems wide open to interpretation to me, which is why Christians are debating questions about homosexuality so passionately.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

It's a very simple command to me. Just seems to be hard to wrap around those who won't take God's word for what it is, but then again I don't see what's so great about sex anyway.

 

[Ohioprof]

It's a very simple command to me. Just seems to be hard to wrap around those who won't take God's word for what it is, but then again I don't see what's so great about sex anyway.

I don't think the real issue is about sex. I think the issue is about whether gay people will be treated as fully equal citizens and will be accepted as we are.

Being gay is not primarily about sex. It's about whom we marry, with whom we choose to share our lives. It's about loving a spouse.

The real issue is will Christians accept gay people as we are, without trying to change us to make them feel comfortable?

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I don't think the real issue is about sex. I think the issue is about whether gay people will be treated as fully equal citizens and will be accepted as we are.

Being gay is not primarily about sex. It's about whom we marry, with whom we choose to share our lives. It's about loving a spouse.

The real issue is will Christians accept gay people as we are, without trying to change us to make them feel comfortable?

Most people these days care more about sex than marriage. Being gay primarily is about being sexually attracted to the same sex, it's on the inside, but the issues for the gay person are probably what you say.
Well, for Christians, God accepted us as we were, in our sins, and forgave us, but we loved him and changed our ways and strive to change our ways to better serve him and avoid sin. It's not like the straight person is without repentance.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It's a very simple command to me. Just seems to be hard to wrap around those who won't take God's word for what it is, but then again I don't see what's so great about sex anyway.

The problem is that taking a verse from a translation of the Bible at its prima facie meaning is an imperfect method. Part of the problem stems from the progressive nature of the revelation within the Bible. It is not one revelation but a series of revelations that occurred over the course of a millennium. What look like simple commands in the earlier revelations are explicitly contradicted by later revelations. For example, the Old Testament commands circumcision and not eating certain foods while Paul forbids circumcision and God commands Peter to eat those forbidden foods. Clearly, simply finding an apparently simple command somewhere is not the end of the discussion. Rather, it is the beginning.

 

[Ohioprof]

Most people these days care more about sex than marriage. Being gay primarily is about being sexually attracted to the same sex, it's on the inside, but the issues for the gay person are probably what you say.
Well, for Christians, God accepted us as we were, in our sins, and forgave us, but we loved him and changed our ways and strive to change our ways to better serve him and avoid sin. It's not like the straight person is without repentance.

There is no need to repent for being gay and for loving our spouses. Those are not sins.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

There is no need to repent for being gay and for loving our spouses. Those are not sins.

You're going to have trouble telling scripture adhering Christians this, Miss. fragmentsofdreams, explain the romans verse.

 

[Catholicon]

Which Romans verse?

 

[BreadAlone]

Which Romans verse?

I assume the "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." one from Romans chapter 1..

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

You're going to have trouble telling scripture adhering Christians this, Miss. fragmentsofdreams, explain the romans verse.

Before I take the time to discuss this with you, I need to know what you think of what I wrote earlier. If you don't agree that the interpretation that seems obvious at first glance can sometimes be wrong, such a discussion would be fruitless since anything I posted that disagreed with your current interpretation would be rejected.

 

[Christian Soldier]

The NEW Testament makes it pretty clear:

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

 

[Zaac]

The NEW Testament makes it pretty clear:

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

 

[Christian Soldier]

Do you have a degree in psychology Zaac?

Until you do, you are in no position to be mocking a professor who probably does, or at least something close.

Your appeal to false authority fails both logically and factually.

"probably" and "something close" doesn't cut the mustard. Even IF he does have a psychology degree, there are MANY psychologists who would disagree with him.

He's giving nothing more than his own personal opinion.

 

[Catholicon]

Even IF he does have a psychology degree, there are MANY psychologists who would disagree with him.

No there aren't. Not qualified psychologists.

 

[Christian Soldier]

No there aren't. Not qualified psychologists.

Your post is blatant hogwash.

I personally know a couple who are both qualified psychologists with over 30 years experience each, with Ph.D's from secular universities, and have done work for state government mental health facilities.

They disagree completely with you, so your statement is falsified.

 

[Zaac]

Your post is blatant hogwash.

I personally know a couple who are both qualified psychologists with over 30 years experience each, with Ph.D's from secular universities, and have done work for state government mental health facilities.

They disagree completely with you, so your statement is falsified.

Man she's got an axe to grind. If you are aligned with God's Word as given in the Bible, she's gonna disagree with anything you have to say.

 

[davedjy]

The NEW Testament makes it pretty clear:

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-27, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Your first clobber passage relies on an unknown Biblical translation (inconsistency) of the Greek word "arsenokoitai" in 1 Cor. 6:9. That same word has been translated as those who touch, a male pimp, and still to this day translates as a male prostitute in some translations.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm


Romans 1 is addressing those who went contrary to their natural instincts and dispositions (The Greek definitions of words phusis and phusikos used here). Gays and lesbians have a natural inclination to the same sex, so they never "abandoned" anything, hence that isn't what Paul was was referring to at all.

The historical context for Romans 1 is pagan idolatry mass orgy sex rituals (see verse 23 where they worshiped material images).

 

[Catholicon]

Man she's got an axe to grind. If you are aligned with God's Word as given in the Bible, she's gonna disagree with anything you have to say.

What does psychology have to do with "God's Word as given in the Bible"?

You're the one axe-grinding.

Psychologists stopped classifying homosexuality as an abnormality years ago. Any so-called "psychologist" who still claims homosexuality is wrong is an idiot who has no credibility.