scriptural basis for christian objection to homosexuality

[Dondi]

Well, I know that the abrahamic religions forbid homosexuality as an evil. And you can find guys arguing with me on this.

And I know that Paul advocated slavery, which was told to me by a good christian friend of mine.

And you can find Wil himself saying that the bible advocating slavery ( though i am not aware of jesus saying this ). So you can ask him on this.

Peace

Is Paul advocating slavery, or is he just mandating the behavior of a servant to his master in a situation that already exists?

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;" - Ephesians 6:5

As far as homosexuality, aside from the obvious scriptural references in Leviticus and Romans, along with the marriage commandment that a man should leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, there is the considerations of the natural order of procreation and biological functions to consider. But these have already been exhaustively discussed.

I would entertain by what authority you present your viewpoint.

Of course, since the OP suggests that the current discussion is from a Christian perspective, by what weight would we have in believing you anyway?

 

[Dondi]

oh well, that's that.

niranjan has left the building

 

[iBrian]

Sorry, Dondi - but I really don't think you would have had much of anything but a generally reactionary answer.

 

[Dondi]

Indeed.

 

[paul]

niranjan has left the building

I find that disapointing

I wanted to prove to him that paul and Christianity has never advocated any one to treat another as a slave, but moreso that we are to submit to the love of God and be a servant to all mankind in it.

And as turn the other cheek goes, and not repaying evil for evil, in that matter of being slaves it was Christians Paul was speaking to, to be content even in hardships and be witnesses of the love of God.
Some Saints even go as far as martydom, and are very hatefully treated, but remain in love even to their persecutors.

Paul didn't say treat others as slaves, but quite the opposite.
And as we lower ourselves to others in love, how can this be encouraging to treat others as slaves, when he taught to repay others with more love than they had given them, and even return love for hatred.

I think the confusion lays in that he encouraged a true Christian to suffer hardships and slavery, but their souls to be free in love.
But to the people he was teaching it was just in their state, for even to masters he taught to be kind to their servants.
There in may lay confusion.

But a don't see this as even encouraing masters to then be evil, or to treat anyone as a slave, but with love and respect.
If a master had set a servant free, they would be unemployed, they themselves wouldn't want such.

What is it you say, that the master should have made him completely equal to himself, and maybe give him half of everything he owned or made him joint master of all he owned?
I doubt many would do that or call for it, would you do it.
People would take advantage, everbody would be lazy.

Surely we have to work, and in work you usually work for someone and there is a boss or master.

How can it be evil to teach a master, a boss, an owner to be good to those who are in service to them, or employed.

In some places in the new testament they did even sell their possesions, property, land and distribute to others.

All you who criticise Paul, lets hear your better teaching.
I'm sure we will find more to criticise truly in your teachings, and if we truly examine Pauls will find nothing to criticise only praise.

It's hard for a rich man to give up all his possesions, or even to distribute to make others as equal in wealth as himself.
He would not then be rich.
Saints have forsaken all.
And what do you say that Paul should have given such a teaching to every master.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, paul!

I wanted to prove to him that paul and Christianity has never advocated any one to treat another as a slave, but moreso that we are to submit to the love of God and be a servant to all mankind in it.

I applaud your desire to reason. Unfortunately, this person was not here to reason or even dialogue. He had an agenda which boiled down to him being correct while all others are not. I spent a considerable amount of time attempting to reason with him, to no avail. Sorry.

 

[Dondi]

You cannot prove a closed mind.

 

[17th Angel]

oh well, that's that.

niranjan has left the building

I am so freaking glad he is gone.... He started making a snowball effect, brought up the Nazi's I started feeling my old ways... I wanted to call him things and do things.... I stopped and realised what the hell was going on... His hate snowball..... Got bigger and bigger, and it can easily drag others into the same feeling.... Suprising how it just happens... But also, in the light of such a situation it is funny to see how others that are very different from each other draw together to kind of "take on" the 'problem'......

 

[Dondi]

I am so freaking glad he is gone.... He started making a snowball effect, brought up the Nazi's I started feeling my old ways... I wanted to call him things and do things.... I stopped and realised what the hell was going on... His hate snowball..... Got bigger and bigger, and it can easily drag others into the same feeling.... Suprising how it just happens... But also, in the light of such a situation it is funny to see how others that are very different from each other draw together to kind of "take on" the 'problem'......

Well, no one likes rudeness...

 

[17th Angel]

It is rude that I am glad he has gone? Becuase it was encouraging certain things within me that are far from pleasant? Odd...

 

[Dondi]

It is rude that I am glad he has gone? Becuase it was encouraging certain things within me that are far from pleasant? Odd...

I didn't mean that YOU were the rude one.

 

[17th Angel]

My deepest apologies.... I can become confused more than often.... Thank you for clearing that up.....

 

[paul]

I'm not glad he's gone, because he's still out there feeling the same.
But think he probably had to be banned for the bad feeling he would continue to cause within himself and maybe have a "snowball effect" on others.

It's sad, but he must be sort of searching coming to a place like this.
I hope he finds some answers in the real world, and that some people can have a positive effect on him.

I think it's a fact, where someones bad behaviour can have a "snowball effect" on others so can someones good behaviour.
That's why i think it's so important to show love to those who have hate within them, even if it is towards us.
For if we hate back, or get drawn into it, then there is two losers.

If we love back at least there is one winner and maybe the chance of two.

It's not easy for any of us to accomplish, but i beleive it is the best way for peace and love within ourselves and hopefully it can have some positive effect on others.

 

[17th Angel]

I'm not glad he's gone, because he's still out there feeling the same.

Didn't think of it that way....

I think it's a fact, where someones bad behaviour can have a "snowball effect" on others so can someones good behaviour.
That's why i think it's so important to show love to those who have hate within them, even if it is towards us.

Not as much as negative behaviour.....

To show love I do not think makes this spontaneous snowball of joy and peace... But it helps dull the blade of the "attacker".

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Paul and Angel!

Not as much as negative behaviour.....

To show love I do not think makes this spontaneous snowball of joy and peace... But it helps dull the blade of the "attacker".

Very astute! Great points Angel!

I'm not glad he's gone, because he's still out there feeling the same.
But think he probably had to be banned for the bad feeling he would continue to cause within himself and maybe have a "snowball effect" on others.

I don't know if you saw the other threads he posted on...I really tried with this guy, but I cannot make seeds grow. Nobody can except G-d.

None of the mods enjoy banning people. Its not the most pleasant part of the job.

It's sad, but he must be sort of searching coming to a place like this.
I hope he finds some answers in the real world, and that some people can have a positive effect on him.

Indeed, I hope he finds some way to reconcile his anger and hurt and hatred, without which he cannot grow spiritually.

I think it's a fact, where someones bad behaviour can have a "snowball effect" on others so can someones good behaviour.
That's why i think it's so important to show love to those who have hate within them, even if it is towards us.
For if we hate back, or get drawn into it, then there is two losers.

Yes, but negative emotions draw us with a greater immediate strength, an immediate reaction.

Let me give an example. What television shows consistently draw greater crowds? Shows like the Sopranos or Alias, or shows like Highway to Heaven or Touched by an Angel? TV execs aren't stupid, they use all the psychology they can to their favor...and people are drawn to naughtiness. Sex sells, I am sure you have heard. People are fascinated with crime, murder and torture, etc. The evening news is full of the stories of how people are so cruel to each other...it is not that there are no nice people doing good things in the world...it is because people do not care to hear about the "good things" we are "supposed to do." We want to hear about the bad guys getting over on the system, we want to cheer for our Robin Hoods and our Bonnie and Clyde's, even if they are in actuality raving lunatics.

While I would love to agree in "snowballing love," the psychological evidence isn't there. Love is a building that has to be constructed with great care and diligence. It is far easier to hate than to love. But love is far more rewarding in the end.

If we love back at least there is one winner and maybe the chance of two.

Agreed, but not for the same reasons, see above.

It's not easy for any of us to accomplish, but i beleive it is the best way for peace and love within ourselves and hopefully it can have some positive effect on others.

Certainly. One hopes for the best, and cultivates that eventuality. We are also told to be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. I take that to mean we have to be prepared to meet hatred head-on...but not to encourage it. I did what I could to diffuse the situation...but the other person was determined to continue in hatred. I cannot stop his hatred, but I can assist in deflecting it to where it does no more harm here.

I hope this helps. Pray for niranjan. Pray that he finds a way to let go of his hatred.

 

[17th Angel]

I hope this helps. Pray for niranjan. Pray that he finds a way to let go of his hatred.

It ain't easy..... You get lost in tunnel of hate... Hard to find your way out... I can kind of see the exit now... But, it is still hard to make it to that exit.... I hope he (and everyone else.) Does one day find the end..... Oh and thanks for your comment on my post.

 

[wil]

To show love I do not think makes this spontaneous snowball of joy and peace... But it helps dull the blade of the "attacker".

Oft times the display of anger, or silence, or demanding recognition is a cry out for love....definitely an indicatation of something missing in ones life...tis a lesson we can all learn from.

 

[Dream]

This is preparation for starting a new thread in defense of apostle, Paul; which should probably go in the Abrahamic religion section. I'll be referring to this present thread at some point, because it underscores the need to show whether Paul could be in agreement with standard Halakhic interpretation as well as Jesus' own views of Halacha. Paul's treatment of homosexuality, women, and correct Halakhic practice must come under scrutiny to answer today's modern challenge to Christianity -- if it is to be answered at all.

The first two pages of this thread are the most informative. After page 7, the subject changes and I stopped reading there. Here are some quotes from throughout the thread. I left out the names as a lighthearted tribute to 'Don't ask -- don't tell'

: ...the way we understand this section is that the Law is not something that sits off in some theoretical field somewhere - it is something we are commanded to interpret and understand; but this means *through the prism of tradition* which means via the halakhic process, *not* everyone deciding for themselves what something means. there must be a majority opinion, as it says in the Torah - see exodus 23:2....

...I don't think activism is necessary for sexual crimes such as rape, for society at large can agree that it is wrong. What we cannot agree on is on the issues like homosexual behavior and abortion. Both of which oppose clear teaching from the scriptures....

....Homosexual behavior is disruptive because it undetermines the sanctity of marriage ordered by God. It doesn't procreate the species. Furthermore, it is subject to the spreading of all kinds of disease which can affect the health of the society. These and other issues affects more than just the two conscending adults....

...Look, this is an extremely well worn topic. It's kinda like, oh I dunno, Christians asking- yet again- about the whole messiah thing. The Bible, old and new T, bloody condemns homosexuality. Let's just be honest and say we don't buy what the Bible says because it's silly and out of date. Why rationalize? I don't accept it and neither do you, so let's just dispense with it.

I wrote this with a smirky grin on my face, so don't take it personally....

...it can only be established with certainty that a particular homosexual behaviour, namely anal sex, is not permitted to jews, along with a bunch of other stuff we're not allowed to do. we have also established that "sexual immorality" is in the noahide laws (which are not, of course explicitly listed in the Torah, but derived via halakhic interpretation) is not to be understood simply as referring to homosexuality but to a whole set of exploitative, violent, non-consensual and idolatrous behaviours - it is *not at all* clear that this refers to committed, monogamous, consensual, loving homosexual partners, who i cannot see as being at all harmful to me, to society or to G!D...

.....(in reference to Christian sects that accept homosexuals in office, etc he says) but i am wondering how these sects/denominations deal with the passages from romans and corinthians?

...there is no support in the Text for this view. we do not agree that everyone has been cursed - this is a christian view which is presumably required in order for salvation and so on. we don't believe this is necessary, so i suppose this is at the bottom (so to speak) of our different attitudes to sexuality....

...you may also be unaware that our tradition says that one of the reasons G!D decided to split the sexes is that the proto-adam was starting to get a little too friendly with the animals in the garden, if you catch my drift. even after the split, but before the fruit-eating, there was sex, but it was animal-style, meaning that the specifically female end of it did not involve much desire; there were no female orgasms in the garden, or something like that (see gen. 3:16) - so the "order of creation" is nothing like as straightforward as you suppose....

....this is absolutely not our understanding of the difference between the edenic state. we do not believe that the world is unnatural, or that sex is bad, or that work is bad. choice implies free-will, as i've said before - and real life requires challenge. without challenge, how can you have choice to meet the challenge or fail it?

...Good point! We dont have to bring scripture into this, the truth is obvious enough. For this fact, the Bible says, "if you want to believe a lie, God will give you over to a depraved mind whereby you will believe and live this lie." Romans 1 speaks about this indepth and it is scary. The truth about homosexuality is axiomatic, we all know intrinsically that it is wrong. We, however, choose to supress the truth and choose to believe that it is OK....

......yes, but where the christian scripture relies on the jewish scripture for authority, i have a case to argue whether the interpretation is correct. plus, when you originally jumped in, you were appealing to *nature* and other "intrinsic" stuff as evidence that homosexuality was wrong. stick to christian scripture, because judging from the science and the empirical evidence from biology, you're on a bit of a sticky wicket........

...From a Christian perspective.. any sexual sin is "bad" because you are sinning against the body which is the temple of God. You cannot live in a homosexual lifestyle ever and be in Christ. You can be homosexual and be in Christ.. its the act of sinning that is the lifestyle that is abhorrent to the Spirit and because He is God he cannot be in your sin....

....Yes homosexuals were in the closet because they knew and everyone else knew it was wrong. Just because they dont do that today doesnt make it automatically "right" sin is sin. Sin is the same as it was when it was first committed as it is now.....

 

[GlorytoGod]

there is some stuff in Romans

Romans 1:24-27 (New International Version)

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[Dream]

The scriptural basis for Christian objection to what ?

Romans 1:24-27 badly needs its context, because it is often used to accuse gay individuals of blasphemy, when the verse actually indicts whole societies of idolatrous uncaring. Notice that according to Scripture, *all* of Gibeah and *all* of Sodom altogether "became futile in their thinking." We ought to ask ourselves "How is it that not some but all people were affected and why was it cities of supposed believers?" Paul only made a passing reference to these events. He didn't go into a detailed explanation of why the entire societies were affected, because he assumes we understand what happened to Benjamin and to Sodom. It falls to us today to figure out why every person in both cities was affected and in what way did they "exchange the truth of God for a lie?" If we're going to quote Paul, we ought to find out where he was coming from. (He was after all of the tribe of Benjamin and familiar with all aspects of the story.)

When Paul says "God gave them over" he is talking about a plague upon believing societies, because he says "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.... 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened..." Not only Sodom, but Paul alludes to several passages about Israel, especially the tribe of Benjamin in the book of Judges. Two cities are described as uncaring, inhospitable to widows, to aliens, and to orphans. In each place, all of society was affected before judgment came. While it was considered uncleanness, homosexuality was not the reason for the judgment but a warning of the destruction of the entire city in both cases. That is what Paul's commentary tells us. Since he says it is God who gives us over to futile thinking which is invisible, we should understand that there is more than one visible affectation; and we are all connected. In fact, these cities of believers are held jointly responsible for the mistreatment of the weak in their midst.

Was Lot, who lived in Sodom, called righteous for his sexuality? Wasn't it for his hospitality and reverence for God? No, it certainly wasn't for his sexuality. Yes, it was for his reverence and concern for the alien, the widow, and the fatherless. If you find error in your neighbor -- in your society especially in fellow believers, then that means you too are affected. Time for introspection not accusation, for who can undo what God has done? Let us repent of our own sins of neglect and uncaring, and then we will be like David who "...offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD was intreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel."(2 Samuel 24:25)

Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Romans 12:4-5 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Ephesians 3:3-5 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Jude 1:9 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation,...

I Corinthians 12:25-27 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.