Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Levicitus 18:22 (King James)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Ok, so here's my question to those of you on the religious right who oppose homosexuality:
Have you ever consumed shrimp?
Have you ever attended a restaurant that serves shrimp?
Have you ever consumed Calamari?
Have you ever attended a restaurant that servers Calamari?
If you have ever lobbied, protested, or otherwise had ANY political involvement with attempting to make Homosecuality illegal or otherwise supress homosexual rights:
Have you also lobbied for the closure of all seafood restaurants on your state, the seizure of all shrimp and other such products from local supermakets, and the levy of fines and possible jail time for those who make shrimp on the barbeque in the backyard?
If you haven't done these things, why not? What is it about homosexuality that make it "worse" than Shrimp when the Bible, your source for "knowing" that homosexuality is wrong, has the same thing to say about Shrimp? Shrimp is, I would argue, more pervasive in our culture than homosexuality. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an add for Red Lobster with succulent pictures of garlic shrimp all over it. Yet I hear no cries of protest that our children are being corrupted.
Seriously, what's up with that? I'm looking for an honest response from people who are anti-homosexual please.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I hope there is at least one honest response from an anti-homosexual poster on this thread. I really don't understand the point of view at all, and I'm really hoping there's something mroe than complete and total hypocracy to the position.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Even if it weren't, this wouldn't lead to a healthy debate. The OP isn't asking a legitimate question, he isn't asking something he genuinely wants an answer to. He's posting a "gotcha" trap question that is only a gotcha trap if you refuse to go beyond a cursory level.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate on the issue, unfortunately you and I (at least) are aware that it isn't going to happen here.
Feel free to read it, or not. It's up to you. (It's also incidentally the second google result if you search for "why can christians eat shrimp, but being gay is wrong")
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
That's because there's no reasonable argument against homosexuality that can be used by a thinking person. This is particualarly true in the context of this thread, which asks specifically to justify the belief that homosexuality is wrong while not adhereing to prohibitions that might affect the lifes of those with those beliefs (IE anti-rights christians that also eat shrip and mix fabrics).
It does seem strange that while the bible mentions homosexuality four times (please correct me if I'm wrong), it mentions a prohibition on shell fish EIGHT times. And there was that whole issue with homosexuality being so important to GOD that Jesus, the Lord made into flesh....completely forgot to mention it. Hmmm....
@OP: The reason people don't cry out (IMO) over shrimp like they do over homosexuality is because people can't stop themselves from thinking about sex when you mention the LGBT community. That doesn't happen when you think about shrimp unless you have a sexual shrimp fetus. I'd bet there has been a preacher with a fetish for shrip that cried out in the name of the bible for us to stop eating it (but that's pure conjecture).
If people could stop obsessing over sex, maybe they could get past their bigotry and denial with regard to gay people.
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Even if it weren't, this wouldn't lead to a healthy debate. The OP isn't asking a legitimate question, he isn't asking something he genuinely wants an answer to. He's posting a "gotcha" trap question that is only a gotcha trap if you refuse to go beyond a cursory level.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate on the issue, unfortunately you and I (at least) are aware that it isn't going to happen here.
Feel free to read it, or not. It's up to you. (It's also incidentally the second google result if you search for "why can christians eat shrimp, but being gay is wrong")
If it weren't easy to trap you it wouldn't happen so often. I think it would be great to have a debate on the issue, but as we've seen in the past, the moment you are asked to actually justify why you "hate homosexuality" you stop participating in the coversation. That's not much a debate.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Even if it weren't, this wouldn't lead to a healthy debate. The OP isn't asking a legitimate question, he isn't asking something he genuinely wants an answer to. He's posting a "gotcha" trap question that is only a gotcha trap if you refuse to go beyond a cursory level.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate on the issue, unfortunately you and I (at least) are aware that it isn't going to happen here.
That's not true and I contend that it is an unfounded assumption. Yes, I am not coming form an unbiased point of view- I think homosexuality is not sinful. However, I am looking for an honest answer, becuase I don't believe that everyone who believes homosexuality is sinful is a hypocrite or a stupid person.
The belief within Christianity that Homosexuality is wrong is base on Leviticus. Other biblical references are vague or unclear at best, and require Levitical assitance to support. Therefore, I concentrate on Leviticus, and I honestly want to know why homosexuality is the issue that is focused on, when other, more pervasive elements of society (like shrimp) are ignored despite being treated as equally sinful by the Bible. I want to know what I'm missing.
What's dishonest or "gotcha' about that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Other biblical references are vague or unclear at best, and require Levitical assitance to support. Therefore, I concentrate on Leviticus, and I honestly want to know why homosexuality is the issue that is focused on, when other, more pervasive elements of society (like shrimp) are ignored despite being treated as equally sinful by the Bible. I want to know what I'm missing.
What's dishonest or "gotcha' about that?
Read the link I left.
If you are genuinely curious and want to know, it has some good arguments (even if you aren't persuaded by them, if you're rational you'd have to admit that people could be persuaded by them).
It's up to you if you want to read the arguments or not. But, anyone with half a brain knows that any protracted debate on this topic on this forum is not going to be productive for anyone involve and will basically be a bunch of atheists flaming the lone (or few) Christian.
That was a very interesting link, and likely the most well-written scholarly post I've ever seen opposing homosexuality from a biblical perspective. As I hoped for, you gave me evidence of thinking Christians who can hold both views with being hypocritical.
My own beliefs on the subject aren't up for debate here, I agree that these things tend to lead to flame wars. I was honestly looking for exactly what you posted. Does it persuade me that Homosexuality is wrong? No, it does not, but it does persuade me that there is a legitimate Biblical arguement to be made, which I wasn't convinced of before.
Thank You
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Even if it weren't, this wouldn't lead to a healthy debate. The OP isn't asking a legitimate question, he isn't asking something he genuinely wants an answer to. He's posting a "gotcha" trap question that is only a gotcha trap if you refuse to go beyond a cursory level.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate on the issue, unfortunately you and I (at least) are aware that it isn't going to happen here.
That's not true and I contend that it is an unfounded assumption. Yes, I am not coming form an unbiased point of view- I think homosexuality is not sinful. However, I am looking for an honest answer, becuase I don't believe that everyone who believes homosexuality is sinful is a hypocrite or a stupid person.
The belief within Christianity that Homosexuality is wrong is base on Leviticus. Other biblical references are vague or unclear at best, and require Levitical assitance to support. Therefore, I concentrate on Leviticus, and I honestly want to know why homosexuality is the issue that is focused on, when other, more pervasive elements of society (like shrimp) are ignored despite being treated as equally sinful by the Bible. I want to know what I'm missing.
What's dishonest or "gotcha' about that?
It's also based on Paul saying that gay people can't inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).
The answer is that Paul specifically states that no Gentile is required to keep Kosher or obey any of the Law. What we are meant to do is worship God, and avoid certain sins such as sexual immorality.
What exactly sexual immorality means can be put up for debate. However, there is no question whatsoever that Paul refers to homosexuality as among the carnal sins. He gives mention of this.
So according to Paul, homosexuality is explicitly a sin.
That was a very interesting link, and likely the most well-written scholarly post I've ever seen opposing homosexuality from a biblical perspective. As I hoped for, you gave me evidence of thinking Christians who can hold both views with being hypocritical.
No no, they're still hypocrites. Don't give them too much credit.
The answer is that Paul specifically states that no Gentile is required to keep Kosher or obey any of the Law. What we are meant to do is worship God, and avoid certain sins such as sexual immorality.
What exactly sexual immorality means can be put up for debate. However, there is no question whatsoever that Paul refers to homosexuality as among the carnal sins. He gives mention of this.
So according to Paul, homosexuality is explicitly a sin.
That was a very interesting link, and likely the most well-written scholarly post I've ever seen opposing homosexuality from a biblical perspective. As I hoped for, you gave me evidence of thinking Christians who can hold both views with being hypocritical.
No no, they're still hypocrites. Don't give them too much credit.
Unless she gently grabs me by g'nads, she might send me to heaven
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Really? I think they're far too many in number.
Responding to your bolded points:
1. Why? I think they're wrong for quite a few reasons, but if there truly is a reasoned (based on the assumption what the Bible says is relevant) arguement from a Biblical perspective, they can be wrong without being hypocritical. What is the argument for hypocracy instead of mere failability?
2. I agree 100%. Personally, I think 1 anti-homosexual person is 1 too many.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
The answer is that Paul specifically states that no Gentile is required to keep Kosher or obey any of the Law. What we are meant to do is worship God, and avoid certain sins such as sexual immorality.
What exactly sexual immorality means can be put up for debate. However, there is no question whatsoever that Paul refers to homosexuality as among the carnal sins. He gives mention of this.
So according to Paul, homosexuality is explicitly a sin.
That was a very interesting link, and likely the most well-written scholarly post I've ever seen opposing homosexuality from a biblical perspective. As I hoped for, you gave me evidence of thinking Christians who can hold both views with being hypocritical.
No no, they're still hypocrites. Don't give them too much credit.
Unless she gently grabs me by g'nads, she might send me to heaven
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Really? I think they're far too many in number.
Responding to your bolded points:
1. Why? I think they're wrong for quite a few reasons, but if there truly is a reasoned (based on the assumption what the Bible says is relevant) arguement from a Biblical perspective, they can be wrong without being hypocritical. What is the argument for hypocracy instead of mere failability?
2. I agree 100%. Personally, I think 1 anti-homosexual person is 1 too many.
1. I think the "hypocrite" part was why they don't feel the same way about Shrimp.
2. I disagree. I am so very much pro-LGBT, I support same sex marriage, I believe all humans are equal (maybe not in basketball skills or fashion sense) but certainly in a sentient mammal sense.
However, I would never state that "1 homophobe is 1 too many" this seems to imply that I would get rid of them, or drive them out of society. To be compared to "The only good homophobe is a dead homophobe"
The goal I hope is that through love and acceptance of our family and friends, and to love and accept people for who they are naturally eliminates the existence of the bigotry. Not to round up bigots and put them on a train
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The answer is that Paul specifically states that no Gentile is required to keep Kosher or obey any of the Law. What we are meant to do is worship God, and avoid certain sins such as sexual immorality.
What exactly sexual immorality means can be put up for debate. However, there is no question whatsoever that Paul refers to homosexuality as among the carnal sins. He gives mention of this.
So according to Paul, homosexuality is explicitly a sin.
That was a very interesting link, and likely the most well-written scholarly post I've ever seen opposing homosexuality from a biblical perspective. As I hoped for, you gave me evidence of thinking Christians who can hold both views with being hypocritical.
No no, they're still hypocrites. Don't give them too much credit.
Unless she gently grabs me by g'nads, she might send me to heaven
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Really? I think they're far too many in number.
Responding to your bolded points:
1. Why? I think they're wrong for quite a few reasons, but if there truly is a reasoned (based on the assumption what the Bible says is relevant) arguement from a Biblical perspective, they can be wrong without being hypocritical. What is the argument for hypocracy instead of mere failability?
2. I agree 100%. Personally, I think 1 anti-homosexual person is 1 too many.
1. I think the "hypocrite" part was why they don't feel the same way about Shrimp.
2. I disagree. I am so very much pro-LGBT, I support same sex marriage, I believe all humans are equal (maybe not in basketball skills or fashion sense) but certainly in a sentient mammal sense.
However, I would never state that "1 homophobe is 1 too many" this seems to imply that I would get rid of them, or drive them out of society. To be compared to "The only good homophobe is a dead homophobe"
The goal I hope is that through love and acceptance of our family and friends, and to love and accept people for who they are naturally eliminates the existence of the bigotry. Not to round up bigots and put them on a train
1. Yes that was my original post. The essay bLatch linked to did a very good job of explaining why the belief is not hypocritical. It's wrong IMHO, but it's nto actually contradictory if you investigate the passages in detail. I didn't know that, which is why I created the topic.
2. I'm not implying I would get rid of them at all. That's extra baggage you applied to my words. If I could, I'd get rid of thier wrong-headed belief, but not the people themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
People generally don't read the bible literally. (Slavery!!!)
At best they read the parts that support their viewpoints literally.
I haven't met anyone who was ok with homosexuality and changed his/her mind after seeing Leviticus. Hence, this might not be the best way to approach the subject...
You might get better answers/debates if you ask 'Who thinks homosexuality is unnatural?' or 'Who thinks homosexuality is unnatural from a biological point of view?'.
Or 'Who sees a link between the wellfare state/pension schemes (a society where you don't need to have children to protect yourself against old age) and homosexuality?'
No religious tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
No Lance Armstrong in church:
Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose ***** is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."
And don't protect your husband by going after the crown jewels:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
People generally don't read the bible literally. (Slavery!!!)
At best they read the parts that support their viewpoints literally.
I haven't met anyone who was ok with homosexuality and changed his/her mind after seeing Leviticus. Hence, this might not be the best way to approach the subject...
I'm not trying to approach the subject in a broad sense. I'm trying to understand rational Christians (a less prominant subset of our Faith, unfortuantely) and how they can reconcile differences in levitical passages. bLatch gave me that. Now, I'm waiting on Highroller to respond - as a debater I respect, I'm hoping he can shed some light on why he thinks they are in fact hypocritical where is seems perhaps they are not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I would also begin with questioning the canon process itself and looking at the history of how Christianity became Christianity. There's some good books out there that go over the process on how canon was formed, and the availability for apocryphal texts is abundant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's also based on Paul saying that gay people can't inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).
First off, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I suspect Paul grappled with his religious history. I think that Paul assumed that it was inherently exploitive (sex ROUTINELY was back then. Fornication was as often rape as not. I think we forget that factor.)
BUT... I know I have little insight into the matter. I am here only to suggest that the passages like this are ambiguous, even if we assume Paul's authority.
Consider what Christ said to the thief on the cross. In this light, what does 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage mean?
"If you do these sins 30 minutes before you die, you won't go to heaven OR
"If you do these sins after you are 'saved' you won't go to heaven" OR
"This is depiction of the kingdom of heaven and we should try to emulate it here on earth." After all, there may not be ANY sexuality in heaven, even heterosexuality.
"Inheriting" the kingdom of heaven is a different degree of salvation. One can go to heaven, but there are various rewards given based on behavior. (7th Day Adventists for instance have this sort of belief.)
Etc.
The heart of the question is the "what do I have to do to get to heaven?" and "when do I have to do it?" Can we renounce sin as we die and be saved? Can we renounce sin after death?
What constitutes this renunciation? Does merely having desires damn us? Is it a matter of actions? Or is just willingness to become sinless enough?
First off, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I suspect Paul grappled with his religious history.
Paul didn't grapple with anything. The religious history of homosexuality being a sin in Judaism is clear and well-documented.
I think that Paul assumed that it was inherently exploitive (sex ROUTINELY was back then. Fornication was as often rape as not. I think we forget that factor.)
No, this does not follow. Paul very clearly wrote that sex amongst two consenting homosexual adults was turning away from God.
BUT... I know I have little insight into the matter. I am here only to suggest that the passages like this are ambiguous, even if we assume Paul's authority.
They really aren't.
From Romans 1:18-27:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
There really is no argument that Paul wouldn't consider two consenting adults having gay sex sexual immorality. Once again, it comes down to either accepting what Paul says, or rejecting it, but his opinion on the matter is quite clear.
Was going to post the quote from the book of Romans but Highroller beat me to it. The very strong preponderance of the evidence is that homosexuality is largely condemned by the bible, although more specifically Romans refers to homosexual acts being evil.
I do think the question about dealing with homosexuality is more complicated than that however.
It's not so simple a matter of whether the bible says, "homosexual acts" are evil, therefore all gay people should be stoned.
The bible after all condemns a number of other things as well, including adultery. Jesus' response to adultery however was very different from what the law says:
Taken from John Chapter 8, NIV
2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
The point made in this story above is in many ways symbolic of what the new testament stands for--Jesus' fulfillment of the law,
--the idea that in spite of the law, we are to forgive one another (seventy seven times),
--that the call to love thy neighbor as thyself is a higher priority than sacrifice or the condemning of sin,
--the fact that under the law (yes including the law of leviticus) All are sinners; all have fallen short of the glory of God
--and the emphatically made point that it is not by our works (No one's good deeds or obedience is sufficient) that we can be saved, but it is only by the grace of God.
In light of the spirit of the above, even if homosexuality is 'sinful', I think its very clear the new testament points out that no christian is really in a position to condemn it, and that the call to love is higher. Which is explicitly why I as a christian detest the marginalization of homosexuals. It is also clear to me that much of the gay marriage debate is really about animus to homosexuals, under a thin veneer of conjured up rationales.
Of course, there are many in the christian community that disagree with me.
In light of the spirit of the above, even if homosexuality is 'sinful', I think its very clear the new testament points out that no christian is really in a position to condemn it, and that the call to love is higher.
Again, this is definitely not what Paul says.
I know that what you're saying comes from good intentions. We see the mistreatment of homosexuals by Christians, we see the call to love that is central to Christianity, and we recognize that these are opposed. And wouldn't it be so easy if we could just say, "No, they're wrong, what they're saying is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible, and that's not really what the Bible says."
It would be easy, but the truth is not so simple. Their attitudes are indeed consistent with Paul's teachings. We can't just say, "That's not what the Bible says," because what they're doing is consistent with what Paul says.
It's why we need to lose this necessity for the Bible to be 100% correct and for our moral stance to be in line with it. The Bible consists of numerous different books written by a multitude of people, all with different opinions. It was is not a unified work with a unified stance, nor is it the end all be all of Christianity.
In light of the spirit of the above, even if homosexuality is 'sinful', I think its very clear the new testament points out that no christian is really in a position to condemn it, and that the call to love is higher.
Again, this is definitely not what Paul says.
I know that what you're saying comes from good intentions. We see the mistreatment of homosexuals by Christians, we see the call to love that is central to Christianity, and we recognize that these are opposed. And wouldn't it be so easy if we could just say, "No, they're wrong, what they're saying is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible, and that's not really what the Bible says."
It would be easy, but the truth is not so simple. Their attitudes are indeed consistent with Paul's teachings. We can't just say, "That's not what the Bible says," because what they're doing is consistent with what Paul says.
It's why we need to lose this necessity for the Bible to be 100% correct and for our moral stance to be in line with it. The Bible consists of numerous different books written by a multitude of people, all with different opinions. It was is not a unified work with a unified stance, nor is it the end all be all of Christianity.
You say the bible is not a unified work with a unified stance. But it's frankly for that very reason that I try to adopt a perspective of scripture that emphasizes forgiveness, compassion, and love. There are indeed many places in the bible that speak of condemnation. But there's also no shortage of scripture that calls for neighbors to love each other as thyself.
I think without reading condemnation in light of a perspective of compassion, condemnation simply becomes a vehicle for hate. Religiously legitimized reasons to hate others.
In the parable I quoted earlier, Jesus basically said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' Jesus does not say that adultery is ok. He does however challenge someone anyone to judge her--to throw the first stone at her. In the sense that all are sinful, no one appears up for the challenge.
Jesus then himself has a chance to marginalize the adulterious woman, but then forgives her saying "then neither do I condemn you"
Here, you could very well replace adultery with homosexuality and maintain the spirit of the writing. The opportunity to forgive was taken over the opportunity to condemn.
As for Paul's writing on homosexuality, I'm going to offer a ripple in your reasoning, not necessarily a counter, but a qualification.
To me, Paul's view seems to be one of expelling those of sexual immorality from the church. You are well aware of the Gnostics, and other sects of Christianity which were pervading the early church at the time. I think Paul's primary concern was really keeping the heart of the church pure from doctrines which did not accord with his view of Christianity.
But even if homosexuals were sexually immoral in his eyes, he still retreats from a complete condemnation of them. Specifically Paul declines passing judgment on homosexuals who are not a part of the church.
From 1 Corinthians 5:
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sisterc but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
You say the bible is not a unified work with a unified stance. But it's frankly for that very reason that I try to adopt a perspective of scripture that emphasizes forgiveness, compassion, and love. There are indeed many places in the bible that speak of condemnation. But there's also no shortage of scripture that calls for neighbors to love each other as thyself.
But do you understand why it makes statements such as "I think its very clear the new testament points out that no christian is really in a position to condemn it [homosexuality]" is wrong, given that Paul is a major part of the New Testament?
As for Paul's writing on homosexuality, I'm going to offer a ripple in your reasoning, not necessarily a counter, but a qualification.
To me, Paul's view seems to be one of expelling those of sexual immorality from the church.
Yes, and included amongst "sexual immorality" according to Paul was indeed gay sex.
But even if homosexuals were sexually immoral in his eyes,
No, there's no "if." Reread Romans 1 again. There's no "if" here. Homosexuals were certainly immoral in his eyes.
he still retreats from a complete condemnation of them.
No he doesn't. There's benevolent intentions and there's denial, and you're in the second category right now.
Paul didn't grapple with anything. The religious history of homosexuality being a sin in Judaism is clear and well-documented.
Sure he did. The concept of Jesus as the Christ was previously unknown to him. Sometimes he argues two different opinions in the same book. (Edit: Specifying the revelation of Christ as Jesus, not the concept of "messiah")
No, this does not follow. Paul very clearly wrote that sex amongst two consenting homosexual adults was turning away from God.
Context is relevant. We do not know what context Paul associated with homosexuality. If temple prostitution (which went hand in hand with slavery) was in his mind inextricably intertwined with the practice, of course he thought it was bad. Consider how many Christians today ignorantly insist people are made gay by sexual predation. Same deal there.
That said, I believe you are probably correct. However, I am not willing to fully discount the "Paul was talking about rape" theories.
Moreover, I do not think Paul's authority is beyond question. As you know, having a revelation does not prevent mistaken conclusions, or even outright delusion after a revelation occurs.
Sure he did. The concept of Jesus as the Christ was previously unknown to him. Sometimes he argues two different opinions in the same book. (Edit: Specifying the revelation of Christ as Jesus, not the concept of "messiah")
I meant regarding homosexuality.
Context is relevant. We do not know what context Paul associated with homosexuality.
Men lusting for one another.
That said, I believe you are probably correct. However, I am not willing to fully discount the "Paul was talking about rape" theories.
See, I am. What goes under "lust" for Paul is a pretty large list.
Remember, this is a man who believed the ideal was a celibate lifestyle, and all sexual passions were inherently obstacles to that. His attitude towards marriage, for instance, seems one of damage control.
Moreover, I do not think Paul's authority is beyond question.
I would agree there.
The problem is this need many have for the Bible to match exactly what they believe.
Homosexuality is a sin because it makes me feel icky
I have a book by the word of White-Jesus, it also says that homosexuality should make you feel icky. I personally find much comfort in the fact that god's word whole-heartedly supports my personal bias
If you're wondering about whether or not I care about the 100's of times the word of god has been rewritten by man, the answer is no I don't. I'm more concerned with stroking my ego
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Levicitus 18:22 (King James)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination
Ok, so here's my question to those of you on the religious right who oppose homosexuality:
Have you ever consumed shrimp?
Have you ever attended a restaurant that serves shrimp?
Have you ever consumed Calamari?
Have you ever attended a restaurant that servers Calamari?
If you have ever lobbied, protested, or otherwise had ANY political involvement with attempting to make Homosecuality illegal or otherwise supress homosexual rights:
Have you also lobbied for the closure of all seafood restaurants on your state, the seizure of all shrimp and other such products from local supermakets, and the levy of fines and possible jail time for those who make shrimp on the barbeque in the backyard?
________________________________________________________________
If you haven't done these things, why not? What is it about homosexuality that make it "worse" than Shrimp when the Bible, your source for "knowing" that homosexuality is wrong, has the same thing to say about Shrimp? Shrimp is, I would argue, more pervasive in our culture than homosexuality. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an add for Red Lobster with succulent pictures of garlic shrimp all over it. Yet I hear no cries of protest that our children are being corrupted.
Seriously, what's up with that? I'm looking for an honest response from people who are anti-homosexual please.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
I don't see this leading to a healthy debate. The number of anti-homosexual posters here at MTGS is severely lacking.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Even if it weren't, this wouldn't lead to a healthy debate. The OP isn't asking a legitimate question, he isn't asking something he genuinely wants an answer to. He's posting a "gotcha" trap question that is only a gotcha trap if you refuse to go beyond a cursory level.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate on the issue, unfortunately you and I (at least) are aware that it isn't going to happen here.
If anyone is truly interested in the question, I'll just leave this here: http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-eating-shrimps-is-not-like-homosexuality/
Feel free to read it, or not. It's up to you. (It's also incidentally the second google result if you search for "why can christians eat shrimp, but being gay is wrong")
That's because there's no reasonable argument against homosexuality that can be used by a thinking person. This is particualarly true in the context of this thread, which asks specifically to justify the belief that homosexuality is wrong while not adhereing to prohibitions that might affect the lifes of those with those beliefs (IE anti-rights christians that also eat shrip and mix fabrics).
It does seem strange that while the bible mentions homosexuality four times (please correct me if I'm wrong), it mentions a prohibition on shell fish EIGHT times. And there was that whole issue with homosexuality being so important to GOD that Jesus, the Lord made into flesh....completely forgot to mention it. Hmmm....
@OP: The reason people don't cry out (IMO) over shrimp like they do over homosexuality is because people can't stop themselves from thinking about sex when you mention the LGBT community. That doesn't happen when you think about shrimp unless you have a sexual shrimp fetus. I'd bet there has been a preacher with a fetish for shrip that cried out in the name of the bible for us to stop eating it (but that's pure conjecture).
If people could stop obsessing over sex, maybe they could get past their bigotry and denial with regard to gay people.
If it weren't easy to trap you it wouldn't happen so often. I think it would be great to have a debate on the issue, but as we've seen in the past, the moment you are asked to actually justify why you "hate homosexuality" you stop participating in the coversation. That's not much a debate.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
That's not true and I contend that it is an unfounded assumption. Yes, I am not coming form an unbiased point of view- I think homosexuality is not sinful. However, I am looking for an honest answer, becuase I don't believe that everyone who believes homosexuality is sinful is a hypocrite or a stupid person.
The belief within Christianity that Homosexuality is wrong is base on Leviticus. Other biblical references are vague or unclear at best, and require Levitical assitance to support. Therefore, I concentrate on Leviticus, and I honestly want to know why homosexuality is the issue that is focused on, when other, more pervasive elements of society (like shrimp) are ignored despite being treated as equally sinful by the Bible. I want to know what I'm missing.
What's dishonest or "gotcha' about that?
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Read the link I left.
If you are genuinely curious and want to know, it has some good arguments (even if you aren't persuaded by them, if you're rational you'd have to admit that people could be persuaded by them).
It's up to you if you want to read the arguments or not. But, anyone with half a brain knows that any protracted debate on this topic on this forum is not going to be productive for anyone involve and will basically be a bunch of atheists flaming the lone (or few) Christian.
My own beliefs on the subject aren't up for debate here, I agree that these things tend to lead to flame wars. I was honestly looking for exactly what you posted. Does it persuade me that Homosexuality is wrong? No, it does not, but it does persuade me that there is a legitimate Biblical arguement to be made, which I wasn't convinced of before.
Thank You
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
It's also based on Paul saying that gay people can't inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).
The answer is that Paul specifically states that no Gentile is required to keep Kosher or obey any of the Law. What we are meant to do is worship God, and avoid certain sins such as sexual immorality.
What exactly sexual immorality means can be put up for debate. However, there is no question whatsoever that Paul refers to homosexuality as among the carnal sins. He gives mention of this.
So according to Paul, homosexuality is explicitly a sin.
No no, they're still hypocrites. Don't give them too much credit.
Really? I think they're far too many in number.
Responding to your bolded points:
1. Why? I think they're wrong for quite a few reasons, but if there truly is a reasoned (based on the assumption what the Bible says is relevant) arguement from a Biblical perspective, they can be wrong without being hypocritical. What is the argument for hypocracy instead of mere failability?
2. I agree 100%. Personally, I think 1 anti-homosexual person is 1 too many.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
1. I think the "hypocrite" part was why they don't feel the same way about Shrimp.
2. I disagree. I am so very much pro-LGBT, I support same sex marriage, I believe all humans are equal (maybe not in basketball skills or fashion sense) but certainly in a sentient mammal sense.
However, I would never state that "1 homophobe is 1 too many" this seems to imply that I would get rid of them, or drive them out of society. To be compared to "The only good homophobe is a dead homophobe"
The goal I hope is that through love and acceptance of our family and friends, and to love and accept people for who they are naturally eliminates the existence of the bigotry. Not to round up bigots and put them on a train
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
1. Yes that was my original post. The essay bLatch linked to did a very good job of explaining why the belief is not hypocritical. It's wrong IMHO, but it's nto actually contradictory if you investigate the passages in detail. I didn't know that, which is why I created the topic.
2. I'm not implying I would get rid of them at all. That's extra baggage you applied to my words. If I could, I'd get rid of thier wrong-headed belief, but not the people themselves.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
At best they read the parts that support their viewpoints literally.
I haven't met anyone who was ok with homosexuality and changed his/her mind after seeing Leviticus. Hence, this might not be the best way to approach the subject...
You might get better answers/debates if you ask 'Who thinks homosexuality is unnatural?' or 'Who thinks homosexuality is unnatural from a biological point of view?'.
Or 'Who sees a link between the wellfare state/pension schemes (a society where you don't need to have children to protect yourself against old age) and homosexuality?'
No religious tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."
No Lance Armstrong in church:
Deuteronomy 23:1 "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose ***** is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."
And don't protect your husband by going after the crown jewels:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
(c) huffpost
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
I'm not trying to approach the subject in a broad sense. I'm trying to understand rational Christians (a less prominant subset of our Faith, unfortuantely) and how they can reconcile differences in levitical passages. bLatch gave me that. Now, I'm waiting on Highroller to respond - as a debater I respect, I'm hoping he can shed some light on why he thinks they are in fact hypocritical where is seems perhaps they are not.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
First off, I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I suspect Paul grappled with his religious history. I think that Paul assumed that it was inherently exploitive (sex ROUTINELY was back then. Fornication was as often rape as not. I think we forget that factor.)
BUT... I know I have little insight into the matter. I am here only to suggest that the passages like this are ambiguous, even if we assume Paul's authority.
Consider what Christ said to the thief on the cross. In this light, what does 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage mean?
What constitutes this renunciation? Does merely having desires damn us? Is it a matter of actions? Or is just willingness to become sinless enough?
This is the stuff that causes denominations.
Paul didn't grapple with anything. The religious history of homosexuality being a sin in Judaism is clear and well-documented.
No, this does not follow. Paul very clearly wrote that sex amongst two consenting homosexual adults was turning away from God.
They really aren't.
From Romans 1:18-27:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
There really is no argument that Paul wouldn't consider two consenting adults having gay sex sexual immorality. Once again, it comes down to either accepting what Paul says, or rejecting it, but his opinion on the matter is quite clear.
I do think the question about dealing with homosexuality is more complicated than that however.
It's not so simple a matter of whether the bible says, "homosexual acts" are evil, therefore all gay people should be stoned.
The bible after all condemns a number of other things as well, including adultery. Jesus' response to adultery however was very different from what the law says:
Taken from John Chapter 8, NIV
2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
The point made in this story above is in many ways symbolic of what the new testament stands for--Jesus' fulfillment of the law,
--the idea that in spite of the law, we are to forgive one another (seventy seven times),
--that the call to love thy neighbor as thyself is a higher priority than sacrifice or the condemning of sin,
--the fact that under the law (yes including the law of leviticus) All are sinners; all have fallen short of the glory of God
--and the emphatically made point that it is not by our works (No one's good deeds or obedience is sufficient) that we can be saved, but it is only by the grace of God.
In light of the spirit of the above, even if homosexuality is 'sinful', I think its very clear the new testament points out that no christian is really in a position to condemn it, and that the call to love is higher. Which is explicitly why I as a christian detest the marginalization of homosexuals. It is also clear to me that much of the gay marriage debate is really about animus to homosexuals, under a thin veneer of conjured up rationales.
Of course, there are many in the christian community that disagree with me.
Again, this is definitely not what Paul says.
I know that what you're saying comes from good intentions. We see the mistreatment of homosexuals by Christians, we see the call to love that is central to Christianity, and we recognize that these are opposed. And wouldn't it be so easy if we could just say, "No, they're wrong, what they're saying is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible, and that's not really what the Bible says."
It would be easy, but the truth is not so simple. Their attitudes are indeed consistent with Paul's teachings. We can't just say, "That's not what the Bible says," because what they're doing is consistent with what Paul says.
It's why we need to lose this necessity for the Bible to be 100% correct and for our moral stance to be in line with it. The Bible consists of numerous different books written by a multitude of people, all with different opinions. It was is not a unified work with a unified stance, nor is it the end all be all of Christianity.
You say the bible is not a unified work with a unified stance. But it's frankly for that very reason that I try to adopt a perspective of scripture that emphasizes forgiveness, compassion, and love. There are indeed many places in the bible that speak of condemnation. But there's also no shortage of scripture that calls for neighbors to love each other as thyself.
I think without reading condemnation in light of a perspective of compassion, condemnation simply becomes a vehicle for hate. Religiously legitimized reasons to hate others.
In the parable I quoted earlier, Jesus basically said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' Jesus does not say that adultery is ok. He does however challenge someone anyone to judge her--to throw the first stone at her. In the sense that all are sinful, no one appears up for the challenge.
Jesus then himself has a chance to marginalize the adulterious woman, but then forgives her saying "then neither do I condemn you"
Here, you could very well replace adultery with homosexuality and maintain the spirit of the writing. The opportunity to forgive was taken over the opportunity to condemn.
As for Paul's writing on homosexuality, I'm going to offer a ripple in your reasoning, not necessarily a counter, but a qualification.
To me, Paul's view seems to be one of expelling those of sexual immorality from the church. You are well aware of the Gnostics, and other sects of Christianity which were pervading the early church at the time. I think Paul's primary concern was really keeping the heart of the church pure from doctrines which did not accord with his view of Christianity.
But even if homosexuals were sexually immoral in his eyes, he still retreats from a complete condemnation of them. Specifically Paul declines passing judgment on homosexuals who are not a part of the church.
From 1 Corinthians 5:
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sisterc but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
But do you understand why it makes statements such as "I think its very clear the new testament points out that no christian is really in a position to condemn it [homosexuality]" is wrong, given that Paul is a major part of the New Testament?
Yes, and included amongst "sexual immorality" according to Paul was indeed gay sex.
No, there's no "if." Reread Romans 1 again. There's no "if" here. Homosexuals were certainly immoral in his eyes.
No he doesn't. There's benevolent intentions and there's denial, and you're in the second category right now.
Sure he did. The concept of Jesus as the Christ was previously unknown to him. Sometimes he argues two different opinions in the same book. (Edit: Specifying the revelation of Christ as Jesus, not the concept of "messiah")
Context is relevant. We do not know what context Paul associated with homosexuality. If temple prostitution (which went hand in hand with slavery) was in his mind inextricably intertwined with the practice, of course he thought it was bad. Consider how many Christians today ignorantly insist people are made gay by sexual predation. Same deal there.
That said, I believe you are probably correct. However, I am not willing to fully discount the "Paul was talking about rape" theories.
Moreover, I do not think Paul's authority is beyond question. As you know, having a revelation does not prevent mistaken conclusions, or even outright delusion after a revelation occurs.
I meant regarding homosexuality.
Men lusting for one another.
See, I am. What goes under "lust" for Paul is a pretty large list.
Remember, this is a man who believed the ideal was a celibate lifestyle, and all sexual passions were inherently obstacles to that. His attitude towards marriage, for instance, seems one of damage control.
I would agree there.
The problem is this need many have for the Bible to match exactly what they believe.
I have a book by the word of White-Jesus, it also says that homosexuality should make you feel icky. I personally find much comfort in the fact that god's word whole-heartedly supports my personal bias
If you're wondering about whether or not I care about the 100's of times the word of god has been rewritten by man, the answer is no I don't. I'm more concerned with stroking my ego
Troll warning.