Why should homosexuality be a sin?

[davedjy]

Actually, I pay a huge deal of attention to historic context. Nothing I can speak about in the Bible isn't at least moderately researched.

In ancient Israel especially, marriage was as much about inheritance rights as anything, which resulted in such bizarre practices as levirate marriage (where men were required to take a dead brother's wife and produce heirs for him - Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8) and God-ordained polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8). Even more shocking, a master could buy wives for his male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for himself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4), and women were forced to marry their rapists (Deut. 22:28-29). There's a lot more that could be said about these practices and the rationales behind them, but that would be a bit off-topic. The point is this: Biblical examples of marriage reflect the culture both in what they include and what they do not.

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is a question that I've been wanting the religious right to answer for a while:

Why should homosexuality be a sin?

NOTE: This is not a debate on whether homosexuality is or is not a sin, this is a discussion on why it ought or ought not be a sin. All comments are welcome.

Because GOD SAID SO.


God is the final authority. He said so, SO IT IS.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

That's not the question but at any rate...

I cannot logically conceive any reason for homosexuality to be a sin. I can see why it might have been considered a bad thing in light of an evolutionary ideology but that's about it.

What about "ABOMINATION" is hard to understand?


.

 

[davedjy]

What about "ABOMINATION" is hard to understand?


.

Abomination = ritual impurity

 

[intricatic]

In ancient Israel especially, marriage was as much about inheritance rights as anything, which resulted in such bizarre practices as levirate marriage (where men were required to take a dead brother's wife and produce heirs for him - Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8) and God-ordained polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8). Even more shocking, a master could buy wives for his male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for himself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4), and women were forced to marry their rapists (Deut. 22:28-29). There's a lot more that could be said about these practices and the rationales behind them, but that would be a bit off-topic. The point is this: Biblical examples of marriage reflect the culture both in what they include and what they do not.

Biblical examples of marriage reflect the symbolic implications of what marriage as a whole stood to say about our relationship with God. If you think I'm going to be baffled and amazed by those pieces of scripture, that's a novel approach, but it's not the topic of this thread. You asked me to explain something and I did. If you don't like the explanation, I'm not going to push it.

 

[intricatic]

Abomination = ritual impurity

In a very strange interpretation of the word, but let's not start this whole debate up again. I'd be tempted to copy/paste what I've already posted on it.

 

[davedjy]

In a very strange interpretation of the word, but let's not start this whole debate up again. I'd be tempted to copy/paste what I've already posted on it.

It doesn't work, it's not in context. Purity code violations and moral code violations are mixed into Leviticus 18 and 20. You want to try your "breakthrough" interpretation studies on the most knowledgable of Scholars, that agree it's a purity code violation?

 

[intricatic]

It doesn't work, it's not in context. Purity code violations and moral code violations are mixed into Leviticus 18 and 20. You want to try your "breakthrough" interpretation studies on the most knowledgable of Scholars, that agree it's a purity code violation?

These 'most knowledgeable Biblical scholars' are further removed from when the text was written than at any time in past history (which should be obvious) and are interpreting things in a way that contradicts what past Biblical scholarship which existed closer to the time the text was written had to say about it. I'd not consider their input of much worth.

In the context, abomination stood as a reference of something extremely deplorable to God - regardless of context.

 

[davedjy]

These 'most knowledgeable Biblical scholars' are further removed from when the text was written than at any time in past history (which should be obvious) and are interpreting things in a way that contradicts what past Biblical scholarship which existed closer to the time the text was written had to say about it. I'd not consider their input of much worth.

In the context, abomination stood as a reference of something extremely deplorable to God - regardless of context.

Yes, and so did "mixed fabrics", "sexual relations w/woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle (death worthy), and plowing the field w/mixed seed.

You seem to love to take historical context into account, when it is convenient for you (God ordained polygamy, marriage of a rape victim), but not in this argument...how hypocritical.

 

[intricatic]

Yes, and so did "mixed fabrics", "sexual relations w/woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle (death worthy), and plowing the field w/mixed seed.

You seem to love to take historical context into account, when it is convenient for you (God ordained polygamy, marriage of a rape victim), but not in this argument...how hypocritical.

No, I've taken the historical context into account universally.

Biblical examples of marriage reflect the symbolic implications of what marriage as a whole stood to say about our relationship with God. If you think I'm going to be baffled and amazed by those pieces of scripture, that's a novel approach, but it's not the topic of this thread. You asked me to explain something and I did. If you don't like the explanation, I'm not going to push it.

The same applies for all the Laws in the OT. The laws which have been completed in events recorded in the Bible stood also to make statements about our relationship with God. I'm merely pointing out what the definition of the word in context of God calling X an abomination, or abominable, or etc...etc... universally implies.

 

[davedjy]

That doesn't mean that God doesn't bless homosexual marriages.
You STILL have not answered my questions

1) Where does the bible talk about homosexuality as an orientation?

2) Where does the Bible talk about same sex attraction (different from lust or eroticism)?

3) Show me where it CONDEMNS a loving, monogamous gay relationship

4) Show me where it talks about how you "overcome" your homosexual tendencies, attractions, lusts, SPECIFICALLY.

And finally, and the one that really will ***plague***

5) Show me where it says that gay marriage is not allowed and where it talks about it in Revelation or as a prophecy to come*******

LOLOLOL!!!!!

 

[Gusoceros]

I don't argue design.

1) Show God's design for retarded people

2) Show God's design for deaf people

3) Show God's design for conjoint twins

4) Show God's design for hermaphrodites


LOL

God's design was without defect- these things entered the world with sickness, disease, death, etc.

G

 

[Gusoceros]

It doesn't work, it's not in context. Purity code violations and moral code violations are mixed into Leviticus 18 and 20. You want to try your "breakthrough" interpretation studies on the most knowledgable of Scholars, that agree it's a purity code violation?

You mean like Tony Campolo- what does he believe about the homosexual act?

G

 

[Gusoceros]

Abomination = ritual impurity

It would seem, you have quite a few words that are redefined, or their meaning is truncated from the accepted meaning:

Abomination
This word is used in the following ways in the Bible:

To express the idea that the Egyptians considered themselves as defiled when they ate with strangers (Gen. 43:32). The Jews followed the same practice, holding it unlawful to eat or drink with foreigners (John 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:3).

Every shepherd was "an abomination" unto the Egyptians (Gen. 46:34). This aversion to shepherds, such as the Hebrews, arose probably from the fact that Lower and Middle Egypt had formerly been held in oppressive subjection by a tribe of nomad shepherds (the Hyksos), who had been expelled, and partly also perhaps from this other fact that the Egyptians detested the lawless habits of wandering shepherds.

Pharaoh was so moved by the fourth plague, that while he refused the demand of Moses, he offered a compromise, granting to the Israelites permission to hold their festival and offer their sacrifices in Egypt. This permission could not be accepted, because Moses said they would have to sacrifice "the abomination of the Egyptians" (Ex. 8:26); i.e., the cow or ox, which all the Egyptians held as sacred, and which they regarded it as sacrilegious to kill.

Daniel (11:31), in that section of his prophecies which is generally interpreted as referring to the fearful calamities that were to fall on the Jews in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, says, "And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Antiochus Epiphanes caused an altar to be erected on the altar of burnt-offering, on which sacrifices were offered to Jupiter Olympus. (Compare 1 Macc. 1:57 - apocrypha). This was the abomination of the desolation of Jerusalem.

The same language is employed in Dan. 9:27 (compare Matt. 24:15), where the reference is probably to the image-crowned standards which the Romans set up at the east gate of the temple (A.D. 70), and to which they paid idolatrous honors. "Almost the entire religion of the Roman camp consisted in worshipping the ensign, swearing by the ensign, and in preferring the ensign before all other gods." These ensigns were an "abomination" to the Jews, the "abomination of desolation."

This word is also used symbolically of sin in general (Isa. 66:3); an idol (44:19); the ceremonies of the apostate Church of Rome (Rev. 17:4); a detestable act (Ezek. 22:11).

 

[artybloke]

God didn't say it. A bunch of old foggies in ancient times said it. Why should what a bunch of dead folk who knew nothing about biology have any bearing on the matter?

 

[Nadiine]

OOOOOOOOOOOOH, good heavens help us all.

ANOTHER GAY THREAD????????????????????????

I'm officially going on a 'gay thread strike' as of now (I'd do a hunger strike, but I don't think it's that critical lol).

Maybe CF can make a whole pro & anti GAY section & spare us common folk. [pretty please???]

 

[Gusoceros]

God didn't say it. A bunch of old foggies in ancient times said it. Why should what a bunch of dead folk who knew nothing about biology have any bearing on the matter?

I find it an interesting paradox, the number of christians that disregard the Holy Scriptures, as the Word of God. I dont understand how that works, without leaning on our own understanding.

G

 

[davedjy]

You mean like Tony Campolo- what does he believe about the homosexual act?

G

He says he is caving in more and more w/this, and he does vote for gay marriage and rights. I believe he wouldn't do that
unless he thought that it was OK, he is just used to show another side of an argument. You have to be extremely hypocritical
to vote for gay marriage and rights and still hold a strong opposition. LOL thanks for bringing Tony up, tho, nice try!

And I agree with Nadine...more of these threads? ROFL!!!!

 

[Myriah]

In this discussion then- you dont care what God says about the topic? You would then lean unto your own understanding?

G

Well, there are many other Christian denominations that say protestants are "leaning on their own understanding" regarding the real presence in communion. So, one obviously has to be wrong... as there is only one Holy Spirit.

Therefore, aren't we, as protestants, leaning on our understanding, just as we perceive the other denominations to be doing the same?

-----------------------------------------------

To address the OP as to why would it be a sin? I would suppose because it cannot produce children, but as davedjy said, neither can celibacy, and I think that is a valid point.

For myself, I am a heterosexual, and there isn't any way I could make myself homosexual. I enjoy female friends, but have no sexual attraction to them whatsoever. Therefore, I don't think homosexuals are just "chosing" this... I think it is who they are, i.e., born that way.

Next, if all those Hindu's worshipping over 300 gods, one is the Elephant god, I know that one, well then my question is "why aren't all those who are serving and worshipping created things rather than the Creator, homosexual?

Some of the biblical passages do not make sense in that if we took that passage literally, then all Hindus should be homosexuals because they serve "created" things, such as the Elephant god.

Praying for understanding in all this.

And next illogical point, let's say I now chose to serve the Elephant god... am I know suddenly going to become a homosexual? I don't think so. I can tell you with my whole heart I have no attraction to women in a sexual way at all.

 

[BigBadWlf]

That doesn't mean that God doesn't bless homosexual marriages.

And there is the real kicker. No one can say God does not bless same sex marriages.