The Biblical view of homosexuality

[The Liturgist]

Not only is your sex life not anyone elses business, but nobody want to know about it and nobody ever wants to check up on you either. I've never seen any of my neighbors having sex in the last 50 years. They can do what they want without my judgment.

Forgive me, but I am under a provisional vow of holy celibacy which will remain in place unless I discern a vocation for Holy Matrimony, just as @Anthony2019 practices holy celibacy. It is of course as inappropriate for people to engage in exhibitionist behavior as it is for them to engage in sexual promiscuity; while the sins of others are not our personal business, because we are the worst of sinners, the promotion of Christian morality is central to the work of the church, which should ideally not take a forensic approach to sin, or a judgemental, condemnatory attitude, as these are alienating, but rather, adopt the medicinal hamartiology of the Eastern churches, with Christian morality and sexual ethics held as an ideal to aspire to, with the assurance of forgiveness if one slips up.

 

[SkyWriting]

... the promotion of Christian morality is central to the work of the church...

Jesus forgave all sinners all their sins. There is no further morality work to be done by the church other than us accepting that's it's over and done.

Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Mark 11:25
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

 

[Anthony2019]

I think you are a virtuous Christian living a life of holy celibacy, like me (although in my case, I am heterosexual; I am celibate as I was engaged to be married, but it fell apart, and the pain was immense, and I have never engaged in casual sex and find the concept revolting and contrary to the Christian faith, so unless and until God leads me to a woman who loves me, I will assume he desires from me holy celibacy).

I remained celibate, not because I have any particular views on sexuality, but because I felt that is what God wants me to do personally. I think it seems to have been the right decision. I've found that being single and not in a relationship gives me a lot of freedom and happiness.

 

[The Liturgist]

I remained celibate, not because I have any particular views on sexuality, but because I felt that is what God wants me to do personally. I think it seems to have been the right decision. I've found that being single and not in a relationship gives me a lot of freedom and happiness.

Indeed, this has been my experience. After the failure of my engagement, which by the way would have canonically disqualified me from ever pursuing a priesthood in an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian church, because my fiancee had been married to an abusive Tunisian man (his threatening of her was the cause of our not getting married, as I did not at the time have enough knowledge or experience to deal with it, and he still felt possessive of her), I found over time that the intense love I felt for her began to be distributed into all of my relationships, so even people who I had historically regarded with animosity I now feel a certain love for. There is also a powerful passion with romantic relationships in which both times I was in love with someone, it altered my critical thinking and caused a certain degree of irrationality.

I have discerned that I should wait for someone not a member of any ministry I am serving in to fall in love with me, and if they are suitable, I will reciprocate, but otherwise I am content to remain celibate. There is one Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction which allows one to be married after ordination, but otherwise, with all the other Eastern churches, I have to commit to celibacy or matrimony before being ordained to subdeacon; readers are the highest ranking clergy who can get married, and bishops are required to be celibate, and are usually monastics (although in some cases, they are widows, or elderly married men who due to age practice continence within their marriage). Due to the difference in vocation between the ancient diaconate and the priesthood, I regard deacons and presbyters of being equivalent in rank, even though presbyters preside at the liturgy; I tend to regard deacons as more useful than presbyters and I wish there were more of them, and one of the few liturgical decisions the Roman Catholic Church has made in recent years that I agree with is opening up the diaconate to married men (previously, deacons and subdeacons were almost invariably either seminarians preparing for ordination to the priesthood, or priests serving as deacon or subdeacon in a Solemn High Mass).

 

[hedrick]

Jesus forgave all sinners all their sins. There is no further morality work to be done by the church other than us accepting that's it's over and done.

Yes, he did. But he also spent much of his time talking about how we should act and referring to judgement. While acting the way God wants us to could be considered morality by definition, much of what he taught it's what people think of as morality today. Going quickly through Luke I see

• skepticism about fasting (twice)
  
• an attack on Sabbath legalisml
• blessings on the powerless
• love for enemies
• rejection of judgmentalism
• telling us we should make a difference (twice)
  
• telling us that we should act on his words (several times, in various ways)
  
• the importance of forgiveness (several times)
  
• the importance of the Kingdom (several times)
• the importance of humility (several times)
  
• the importance of prayer (several times)
• God's love for us, that we need not worry
• the importance of faith (twice in different senses)

These are all instructions on how to live, but none of them is what is normally considered "morality." Makes you wonder. But I'm a bit concerned about saying that because he forgave sins, there's no further work to be done.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, he did. But he also spent much of his time talking about how we should act and referring to judgement. While acting the way God wants us to could be considered morality by definition, much of what he taught it's what people think of as morality today. Going quickly through Luke I see

• skepticism about fasting (twice)
  
• an attack on Sabbath legalisml
• blessings on the powerless
• love for enemies
• rejection of judgmentalism
• telling us we should make a difference (twice)
  
• telling us that we should act on his words (several times, in various ways)
  
• the importance of forgiveness (several times)
  
• the importance of the Kingdom (several times)
• the importance of humility (several times)
  
• the importance of prayer (several times)
• God's love for us, that we need not worry
• the importance of faith (twice in different senses)

These are all instructions on how to live, but none of them is what is normally considered "morality." Makes you wonder. But I'm a bit concerned about saying that because he forgave sins, there's no further work to be done.

You are forgiven. There is no further work needed to be forgiven.
Your concerns are directly addressed:


Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, he did. But he also spent much of his time talking about how we should act and referring to judgement. While acting the way God wants us to could be considered morality by definition, much of what he taught it's what people think of as morality today. Going quickly through Luke I see

• skepticism about fasting (twice)
  
• an attack on Sabbath legalisml
• blessings on the powerless
• love for enemies
• rejection of judgmentalism
• telling us we should make a difference (twice)
  
• telling us that we should act on his words (several times, in various ways)
  
• the importance of forgiveness (several times)
  
• the importance of the Kingdom (several times)
• the importance of humility (several times)
  
• the importance of prayer (several times)
• God's love for us, that we need not worry
• the importance of faith (twice in different senses)

These are all instructions on how to live, but none of them is what is normally considered "morality." Makes you wonder. But I'm a bit concerned about saying that because he forgave sins, there's no further work to be done.

"Morality" is limited to the difference between right and wrong.
Which each person decides for themselves.

John 8:11
She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

John 5:14
Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.”

 

[spiritfilledjm]

"Morality" is limited to the difference between right and wrong.
Which each person decides for themselves.

John 8:11
She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

John 5:14
Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.”

Regarding your post before the one I quoted:

"This, therefore is how you should pray...forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." - Jesus

Why would He instruct us to pray for forgiveness if all is already forgiven?

Also, regarding the post I quoted:

Jeremiah 17:9

The Bible dictates the morals that we should follow. As Jesus said in John 14:15, if you love Him, you will keep His commandments.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why would He instruct us to pray for forgiveness if all is already forgiven?

Prayer changes you , not God.
Praying for forgiveness is a form of repentance rather than begging.

 

[SkyWriting]

"This, therefore is how you should pray...forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." - Jesus

It could read "forgive us our trespasses, after we forgive those who trespass against us."
But God does not experience time, so "after" is not a good translation either.

Also these passages go back and forth with which goes first, illustrating that there is no linier timetable:


1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Colossians 3:13
Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Mark 11:25
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

 

[Tionbai]

It's just really interesting to me every behavior mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is about direct mistreatment of another human being in some way, except for the homosexual bit.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Idolator = mistreating God, betrayal
Adulterer = mistreating your spouse, betrayal
Thief = mistreating your neighbor, betrayal
Greedy = mistreating your neighbor, unfairness
Drunkard = mistreating yourself, escapism, waste of self
Abusive = mistreating others, betrayal
Swindlers = mistreating others, betrayal

Passive/homosexual partners = not aligning with nature. Mistreating the body? Mistreating the creative order?

I don't know, I just don't understand how it falls under the same category as the others. If Paul in fact meant the abusive sexual relations between master and slave and so on, that would make a lot more sense. It also makes a lot of sense that homosexuality in general is not the desired way. It is unnatural, and I argue that if you have 2 potential partners you are equally attracted to and they can offer you the exact same in every area of life except for one being the same sex as you and the other the opposite sex as you, then the better option is the opposite sex. But if you are not attracted to the one of the opposite sex, and the thought of being with them makes you feel nauseous, and you truly love the person of the same sex, and want to spend your life with them while simultaneously devoting your life to Jesus - is that not possible? Are you then sinning?

I am open to it being sinning, I just don't feel it...

Isn't it a bit odd though, that every behavior is specifically addressing direct betrayal and spiritual/psychological hurt of self and/or others, while homosexuality is only addressing a purely physical behavior?

Either Paul is addressing something specific that would be understood as in the same category as the others, or we are just so desensitized in this that we can't see the immediate damaging and harmful effects homosexuality has on self and others. I don't know...

 

[SkyWriting]

It's just really interesting to me every behavior mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is about direct mistreatment of another human being in some way, except for the homosexual bit.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Idolator = mistreating God, betrayal
Adulterer = mistreating your spouse, betrayal
Thief = mistreating your neighbor, betrayal
Greedy = mistreating your neighbor, unfairness
Drunkard = mistreating yourself, escapism, waste of self
Abusive = mistreating others, betrayal
Swindlers = mistreating others, betrayal

Passive/homosexual partners = not aligning with nature. Mistreating the body? Mistreating the creative order?

I don't know, I just don't understand how it falls under the same category as the others. If Paul in fact meant the abusive sexual relations between master and slave and so on, that would make a lot more sense. It also makes a lot of sense that homosexuality in general is not the desired way. It is unnatural, and I argue that if you have 2 potential partners you are equally attracted to and they can offer you the exact same in every area of life except for one being the same sex as you and the other the opposite sex as you, then the better option is the opposite sex. But if you are not attracted to the one of the opposite sex, and the thought of being with them makes you feel nauseous, and you truly love the person of the same sex, and want to spend your life with them while simultaneously devoting your life to Jesus - is that not possible? Are you then sinning?

I am open to it being sinning, I just don't feel it...

Isn't it a bit odd though, that every behavior is specifically addressing direct betrayal and spiritual/psychological hurt of self and/or others, while homosexuality is only addressing a purely physical behavior?

Either Paul is addressing something specific that would be understood as in the same category as the others, or we are just so desensitized in this that we can't see the immediate damaging and harmful effects homosexuality has on self and others. I don't know...

That's what I've been trying to explain. It refers to ABUSIVE relationships. No matter who the abuse is with, it's all about the abuse of other people. That includes the abuse of other people in the case of having multiple partners or serial partners.

 

[The Liturgist]

Edit: Posted in the wrong forum

 

[SkyWriting]

There are a number of harmful effects, especially when we look at the prevalent form of homosexuality in the Roman Empire, which was pederasty, but even in consenting adult relationships, I think we see plenty of evidence of harm when we look at the various psychological problems that arise from the social/familial isolation of homosexuals, and also, pederasty and homosexuality in the ancient world was commonly practiced by married men, so there is the adultery factor to consider as well. As a final anecdotal evidence, after spending much time with gay people; I have found a remarkable lack of gaiety in their disposition.

They do tend to act guarded and reserved. That may be do to unbridled and open hostility from conservatives. In my 20 years experience, they are great neighbors.

Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

Romans 15:2
Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

 

[The Liturgist]

Edit: posted in the wrong forum

 

[The Liturgist]

Posted in the wrong forum

 

[SkyWriting]

My experience is they are deeply traumatized...

....by society. And if forced underground, by the atmosphere that results from that. But my gay neighbors are far better adjusted than the general population. Fewer parties, fewer police raids, fewer drug busts, less hollering and screaming at each other, etc. Do all my gay neighbors even have sex? I have no idea. I've never asked them. How would I research this so I could treat them properly?