liberal approaches to homosexuality and transgender

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's helpful to know that the actual scripture does not refer to a vague, uncertain thing like our modern word 'gay' or even our modern word 'homosexual' in the literal text (in literal translations I've seen), but instead to a precise action, intercourse sodomy, only, and not other things which people like to add in today, against scripture (adding to scripture is prohibited in scripture).

It's interesting to note that "intercourse sodomy" is defined in many states as any type of sex that is not legal. Perhaps that's the scriptural definition as well since "other" things are alluded to.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,188
9,197
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's interesting to note that "intercourse sodomy" is defined in many states as any type of sex that is not legal. Perhaps that's the scriptural definition as well since "other" things are alluded to.
By "other" do you mean in Lev 18 which is the chapter in the bible on sexual sins ? Very exact and precise other things we see when reading. Not broad categories, but precise things. And a very complete list. Read and see for yourself. Also, Deu 4:2 instructes not to add anything!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
By "other" do you mean in Lev 18 which is the chapter in the bible on sexual sins ? Very exact and precise other things we see when reading. Not broad categories, but precise things. And a very complete list. Read and see for yourself.

Also, Deu 4:2 instructs not to add anything!

Lev 11:12 Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you.

no-lobster.gif


It's a complete list of who in your family you should not have sex with. And yes, it is a list of local laws of the time. And no, it is not a current list of laws. Some states allow marriage between first cousins, some do not. And you may cook a lamb in the milk of it's mother if you wish. Exodus 34:26 Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

Deu 4:2
At your request, we will send congress home and no further laws will be written.

And we will enforce the biblical ban on all shellfish without scales as they are an abomination to God.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Your definition here seems to preclude any volitional aspect. As such, it's a blank check for anything. And it also offers no hope of change.
No, we have sexual ethics. There are plenty of ways to abuse sex, whether same-gender or not.

We don't think it makes sense to ask for change in sexual orientation.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Very likely same sex couples existed. But if monogamous and well behaved, they are virtually invisible.
There's reason to believe that they did exist. But in the 1st Cent, there was an obsession with the difference between the active and passive partner. It was considered disreputable for a free citizen to play the receptive role. My conjecture, based on what I've read, is that this approach tended to encourage same-gender sex between people of different levels of status. These are precisely the relationships that today we'd consider abusive.

I believe it was also more acceptable to have a wife to bear your legitimate children, and then whatever sex you wanted on the side. Christians today would consider this abuse of the wife, though of course it does happen.

So while relationships close to gay Christian marriage (though without the formal endorsement) probably existed, I'd guess that they were a smaller fraction of the same-gender relationships than today.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I hope you're not asking me to marry a gay woman or that you are looking for one. I did date a gay woman in high school and am personally glad the relationship did not progress. You are suggesting that, as a Christian, I should have married her and kept her straight.
Sort of like what happened to my cousin. She married an evangelical man whose faith led him not to acknowledge that he was gay. Or maybe transgender. It was never clear. (Obviously she didn't know this when they got married.) The results were not good.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There's reason to believe that they did exist. But in the 1st Cent, there was an obsession with the difference between the active and passive partner. It was considered disreputable for a free citizen to play the receptive role. My conjecture, based on what I've read, is that this approach tended to encourage same-gender sex between people of different levels of status. These are precisely the relationships that today we'd consider abusive.

I believe it was also more acceptable to have a wife to bear your legitimate children, and then whatever sex you wanted on the side. Christians today would consider this abuse of the wife, though of course it does happen.

So while relationships close to gay Christian marriage (though without the formal endorsement) probably existed, I'd guess that they were a smaller fraction of the same-gender relationships than today.

And my point continues to be that the same-gender relationships brought to the attention of scripture and non-monogamous, multiple partner, promiscuous relationships, which are the only visible kind. I have never even heard of one person discussing sex they have had with their current spouse. Not one time in my life. Such relationships cannot be noted by the church becasue the sex lives of loving bonded relationships are invisible to the public, which God approves of.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
My guess: the absolute forbidding of what we now call same-sex unions is an instance of the church conforming to the world.

You're an Orthodox catechumen, right? Can you get away with this sort of approach in EO circles?

(I ask because I'm drawn in that direction as well, despite thinking that Christianity has been conforming to the world on a whole bunch of gender issues.)
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,931
4,649
USA
✟256,152.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You're an Orthodox catechumen, right? Can you get away with this sort of approach in EO circles?

(I ask because I'm drawn in that direction as well, despite thinking that Christianity has been conforming to the world on a whole bunch of gender issues.)
I am, yes.

I think the answer is that it depends on the circles. Mind a PM?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DW1980

Don
Site Supporter
Dec 12, 2017
521
547
44
Scotland
✟121,809.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK - SNP
By "other" do you mean in Lev 18 which is the chapter in the bible on sexual sins ? Very exact and precise other things we see when reading. Not broad categories, but precise things. And a very complete list. Read and see for yourself. Also, Deu 4:2 instructes not to add anything!

This has interested me for some time, it does seem to prohibit same sex relationships. This is my understanding of it:

Lev 18:9 says "Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere."

Lev 20:17 says, "If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible."

If this is a law for all time, Abraham was in trouble. Sarah was his half sister, in Genesis 20:12 Abraham says, "...she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."

So clearly there was a point where these laws did not apply, right? Otherwise Abraham would have to have been removed from the people he was to father! So these cannot be laws that have always applied or be inferred from what God had revealed or created, up to the point that law was given.

This brings us back to the question of whether we as Christians are under the law. Paul says, "the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." (Gal 3:24-25)

He also comments on the law itself, in verse 12 when he says, "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”" He's quoting Leviticus 18:5 to make the point. So he is expressly identifying this chapter with "the law" which we are not under because we live by faith in Jesus, and his finished work on the cross.

So to me, you cannot argue against same sex relationships using Leviticus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You also can't use Paul. I'm repeating context from a different thread.

Read Mark 2:23-28. Jesus uses the example of David violating the Law because he's hungry to support helping people on the Sabbath. Because of the example of David, you can't argue that this passage is just about the Sabbath. It is a general policy that we should be willing to make exceptions where people's welfare is at stake.

I think it's pretty clear that Paul had never been presented with cases that called for exceptions. In both Rom and 1 Cor he was speaking of pagan sexuality. In Rom he was dealing with the consequences of idolatry. In 1 Cor he was describing what people were before their conversion. I think conservatives give Paul a bad name. They make it look like he's a legalist. But there's no reason to think he would reject what Jesus was saying in Mark. He simply had never been presented with a case that would call for an exception to traditional Jewish sexual ethics.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
(I ask because I'm drawn in that direction as well, despite thinking that Christianity has been conforming to the world on a whole bunch of gender issues.)[/QUOTE]

If you do unto others as you would have them do unto you
then gender differences can not be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DW1980
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
(I ask because I'm drawn in that direction as well, despite thinking that Christianity has been conforming to the world on a whole bunch of gender issues.)
"conforming to the world" isn't a criterion for making decisions. You've got to ask: why did non-Christians change? Why didn't Christians? What position is actually in accordance with Jesus' teachings?

There are plenty of things going on in the world that Christians shouldn't follow. Some of the trends really bother me. But there are also things going on where it seems like Christian commitment to tradition has actually prevented us from doing things we should have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baryogenesis
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
"conforming to the world" isn't a criterion for making decisions. You've got to ask: why did non-Christians change? Why didn't Christians? What position is actually in accordance with Jesus' teachings?

We were both using the term "conforming to the world" to refer to where the traditional Christian understanding comes from, not as a criticism of modern theology. I love Orthodoxy, but I have got some unpopular opinions that I doubt will go over very well. For example, I'm pretty adamant on the marginalization of women in Christianity being a result of it having conformed to Greco-Roman secular society 1700 years ago, since you can see women in leadership roles in the New Testament and in very early Christian history.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DW1980
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The OP wasn't intended to be new. It was intended to be a summary, for reference.

I didn't expect to change anyone's mind. It's a matter of what you think Paul's letters are. I think they're letters, by someone who had experienced Christ, guiding 1st Cent churches. You think they're eternal law. The evidence is on my side, but there's nothing I can do to change someone's basic faith commitment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DW1980
Upvote 0

DW1980

Don
Site Supporter
Dec 12, 2017
521
547
44
Scotland
✟121,809.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK - SNP
after reading through all this it doesn't seam like the gay advocates have come up with anything new. nothing here that hasn't been refuted.

Equally I could say, from my perspective, reading the anti-gay advocates that they've come up with nothing new, that hasn't been refuted. This reasoning only serves to silence discussion and "debate" (in the, hopefully, helpful and God-honouring sense).

I am not a liberal Christian at all, my closest label would be evangelical - except for my disagreement on same sex relationships.

But I would hope for open, honest, and prayerful study of the scriptures, and dialogue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baryogenesis
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Equally I could say, from my perspective, reading the anti-gay advocates that they've come up with nothing new, that hasn't been refuted.
you could say it, you just wouldn't be able to prove it, which is why this has been moved to a safe space.
 
Upvote 0