Yes, this has been done to death to some extent. That being said, I think that I have come up with a different way to view this debate and I wanted some input from our Christian friends. I will state from the onset that I am an atheist, but do have more than a passing knowledge of matters Biblical and would like to engage this issue on a Theological level.
So, here are several thoughts that I have. First, the most common cite that I keep encountering for why homosexuality is wrong usually centers on Leviticus. I am at a loss to understand how Christians see this as relevant at all, as my understanding of the New Testament was that it “fulfilled” the covenant of the Old Testament rendering it moot. This is, for example why, within the Christian view of morality, it is now OK to eat shellfish and pork and why menstruating women are allowed to cook. So, why cite Leviticus folks?
On I guess what we could call a more Philosophical level I put this question to you: We have God (well I don’t, but you get the idea). God is the prime creative force in the universe, right? Help me to understand how it is that a supposedly perfect and divine being could hate one of his (?) creations. I mean, I can understand a petty human such as myself hating something that I made, but then I am not perfect so the possibility exists that the thing that I made might suck.
Moreover, given that homosexuals overwhelmingly tend not to reproduce it is reasonable to posit that homosexuality is not an inherited trait. If we accept this, then homosexuality should then be viewed as a spontaneous act of creation. Closer, indeed, to the Godhead by their nature than we lowly breeders. Should they not be held in reverence for this?
OK, I can be cool with that. I am not a geneticist so was kind of going on the theory that if it were something as simple as a recessive trait that we would see a lot more of it than we do. Also, in my naiveté I probably overlooked the “homosexuality is a choice” angle because I probably assumed that it had been thoroughly debunked by now.
Two reasons -
[ul][li]There are several other passages other than Leviticus mentioning the Biblical view that homosexual acts are wrong, in both the Old and the New Testaments. It is not merely Jewish, but traditionally Christian to classify homosexual acts as sinful, as well.[/li][li]There are three aspects to the Old Testament and its prohibitions. One is ceremonial - keeping kosher, two kinds of fiber in cloth, and so forth. Another is civil - the rules that God gave to the Jewish people on how they should run their society. This covers stuff like the jubilee year, civil and criminal law, and so forth. The last part is moral - acts which are prohibited because they are morally wrong, not because they violate rules of kosher or incur ritual uncleanness, but because they are wrong - murder, theft, etc. Most of these are in the Ten Commandments. [/ul][/li]With the advent of Christ, the ceremonial part of the law is more or less superceded, or at least is not binding on Gentile Christians. Thus Christians don’t, by and large, keep kosher. The civil part of the Law is also not binding, since we don’t live in Israel as it was intended to be by the Laws of the Old Testament.
The moral part, however, remains. Jesus said, “I come, not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it”. One way to understand this is that part of Jesus’ mission was to point out the important part of the Jewish tradition - loving God above all things, and loving your neighbor as yourself - and to extend that to all people, Jew and Gentile alike.
Those who argue that the prohibition on homosexuality is still binding are basing it on the belief that that prohibition is moral, and thus a different animal from the laws about shellfish. This is reinforced by the prohibition given by St. Paul in the New Testament, implying that the prohibition continues to be in force for Christians in the same way that the law against murder is still in force.
God doesn’t hate homosexuals. He hates sin of all kinds, but He does not hate sinners. Fred Phelps is lying, in other words.
God does exactly the opposite of hating sinners - He loves them (us). Jesus died on the cross to demonstrate that love.
Those who argue that homosexual acts are sinful believe that those acts are choices. God does not hate us for our mistakes, any more than He hates me for my many sins. The theoretical genetic basis for homosexual orientation is seen, in that world view, as a temptation, rather similar to a heterosexual’s temptation to adultery, or an alcoholic temptation to drink.
I don’t think so, any more than anyone else with a genetically produced variation. There are several causes for many phenomena, but Christianity doesn’t hold them all in reverence. An analogy for those who believe in the sinfulness of homosexual acts might be Feta Alcohol Syndrome. This is not genetically produced, but those who suffer from it are not held in any special reverence.
You have the false impression that homosexuals are singled out in some sense for God’s hate.
First of all, there is no biblical word for “homosexual.” The texts refers to men who do such-and-such an act. This is a key point in the Christian view. It is not about what someone is but about what someone does. Those who are suffering from same-sex attraction are treated in the Christian view no way differently from those who are tempted to any other serious sin. One may have difficulty with a God that allows some to be tempted more than others and with different temptations, but this is a much broader theological question.
Secondly, there are two words in the old testament translated sometimes as “hate.” The word in question here does not have quite the same connotation as hate in modern English. I would say that “hate” in English connotes malice in the hater, that he would derive satisfaction in the misfortune of the hated one. The Hebrew word does not connote that. It only means that object is extremely offensive and cannot be tolerated. More like what we mean we say we “hate” an impersonal object. A better word might be abhor. Anyway, in the sense that I mean the word, a father could both love and abhor his own son, if his son’s behavior was so offensive to the father that the father could not bear to be around him. (Imagine how a parent would feel whose daughter – whom they love – wanted to turn tricks in their own house.)
The traditional Christian view is easy to understand. Sex is for procreation. Period. Anything else is perverted and disordered, in the same way that gluttony or binging and purging is a perversion of eating. This seems so obviously true to me that I find it difficult to elaborate further.
All sin is a perversion of some good. There is nothing evil-in-and-of-itself. Homosexual acts are in this way no different than any other sin.
The controversy arises because we have this strange new twist of people identifying themselves with their sin. It is a unique situation as far as I know. Their have been others who have criticized aspects of traditional Christian morality, but I can’t think of any other instance where those who are being condemned by the Christians adamantly maintain that by hating their sin that we hate them, the persons, no matter how much we say, “No, we don’t. We just hate what they do.” I cannot see why this should be the case with homosexuals and not with pedophiles, sadists, nymphomaniacs, etc, but there it is.
Good Questions… and from Shodans input above I ask:
Shodan you said ceremonial laws and civil laws don’t apply or are not binding. Why not ? Are some of them kept ?
Are all moral laws followed or have some of them also become “not applicable” ?
My case is if some moral laws are not followed then the treatment is not consistent and these laws go the same way as the ceremonial laws…
You’re also under the false impression that Christians agree, or that we all jump on Leviticus with both feet and say “Aha!”
Some Christians feel that Christian teachings are unequivocal on this point; others say they’re not clear at all. My denomination states that it doesn’t really know how to judge homosexuality. And goes on to say why not take the high road and just treat gays like people. In so many words, that is.
Actually, I hear more about Leviticus from folks arguing **against ** its applicability than I do from those who appeal to its authority. People I’ve talked to who have Bible-based concerns almost invariably start with Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:26-17) instead.
The trouble with Paul is, apparently, in the translation of a few key words, leading to some uncertainty as to how broad Paul’s castigation was. The most common interpretations are: that it’s an indictment of homosexuality in general; **or **, that it describes temple prostitution of young boys, with no opinion on Paul’s part of sexuality or sexual identity.
It’s dangerous to pick out bits of scripture to “prove” a point on a single issue - I think it needs to be read as a whole, a continuum describing the relationship between God and man, describing his will for humanity as a whole. My simple view on it is that, while the passages in Romans may be unclear on homosexuality in general, the whole of it the New Testament is very clear on love of neighbor and forebearance - especially from judging others.
I’m convinced homosexuality is not a “choice”, and I know beyond a doubt that I am called to love people as and where I find them. This means that, for me, my faith informs my take on public policy - same-sex marriage is a justice issue, a civil-rights issue. I won’t argue in the public square that SSM is right because God wants it so, but that SSM is **a ** right because our society has declared it so (all men being created equal, and all).
I don’t believe that God selects the characteristics of each individual in the womb, so I can’t sign on to the innovative idea that homosexuals are somehow set apart by their nature. It sure would be fun to watch that argument get trotted out in public debate!
No offense, but I’ve heard the same argument cited several times by the religious (“It can’t be genetic- gays don’t reproduce”) and the same logical flaw always seems extremely apparent to me, so I’d like to take just a moment to address it. Please correct me if you think I’m mistaken on any of the following points.
The concept of a homosexual as we know it is only about as old as the word itself- just over a century. In the vast majority of cases the fact that a person’s primary or even exclusive sexual orientation is same-sex doesn’t necessarily mean that s/he is unable to have intercourse with a person of the opposite sex (or even that they’re unable to physically enjoy the sex); most heterosexuals are probably capable of engaging in and enjoying sex with members of their own gender. The limitation of a same-sex orientation only means that heterosexual sex is not a preference or an inclination and, all factors of age and physical attractiveness being equal, it will never seem as natural or as fulfilling as sex with a consentual member of their own gender.
While for all of human history there have been men and women who would by the terms of our own society be considered homosexual, only for the last few decades has it truly been acceptable for them to publicly pair bond in large numbers and or openly express and indulge in their natural orientations. The social unacceptability of homosexual couplings as well as the need (not the desire, but the need) for children (prior to social security and mechanization the questions “Without children who’s going to help you do the work? Who’s going to take care of you when you’re old? Who’s going to serve in the army in 20 years?”) meant that for thousands of years most people who would today be considered homosexual did marry and did reproduce. It’s almost a mathematical certainty that we are all the direct descendants of many men and women whose orientations would today be classified as “gay” even though they were married for 50 years and had 15 children.
Point: If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, it would have been passed along so many millions of times in every generation just from “homosexual” parents alone that the potential to transmit it is probably found in every human who walks the earth. Those of us who are gay today just happen to have much more of an option about how to express it.
Well, all that I can say is that when I have encountered Christian folks in real life it has always been Leviticus that I hear cited. I don’t pretend that Christianity is some monolithic entity that has some sort of a consensus (although a non-believer I do know better) but overwhelmingly this has been my experience.
The ceremonial/civil/moral aspects of the Old Testament are interesting to me, and do raise some questions. Specifically, is it just interpretation of the “I don’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it” statement that has lead to which are still observed and which are not, or is this spelled out specifically at some point. Also, when you start getting in to letters to the Romans or the Corinthians and the like, is there a school of though that considers this less valid that direct quotes from Jesus or what?
I’ve heard for years about this distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial OT law, but I’ve never heard anyone explain why that distinction should be made. I mean, the Bible certainly doesn’t seem to make a distinction. Is there some Biblical reason for doing this, or is it just an “out” for Christians who want to eat shrimp and denounce homosexuals at the same time?
As far as the last question, no, all moral laws are still followed. Or should be. Jesus’ teaching was that 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength", and “Love your neighbor as yourself” summed up all the Law, and the prophets as well. But Christians are still bound by the Ten Commandments, which is sort of the Reader’s Digest version of the moral laws of the Old Testament.
The civil law is not in force because Israel as an independent nation essentially ceased to exist from about AD 70 to AD 1948. And it is not enforced AFAIK in modern Israel. There are ultra-orthodox Jews who argue that it should, along with the other laws of the Talmud, but I know relatively little about them. Perhaps a Jewish Doper could address my ignorance here, if they like.
The ceremonial part of the law no longer applies for a couple of reasons. First, most Christians are Gentile, and the ceremonial law was not understood to apply to Gentiles. Some of it did - the prohibition against work on the Sabbath applied to “the foreigner in your gates”, or non-Jewish resident in Israel. There is in modern Judaism a phenomenon called the “shabbas goy”, where a non-Jewish person can perform tasks for Jews on the sabbath, since he is not bound by the Law. (Other teachers say even this is non-kosher.)
There was a group in first-century Israel called the “God-fearers”, who were sort of semi-converts to Judaism, who admired the monotheism of the Jewish faith but did not undergo circumcision or keep kosher. The centurion whose servant Jesus healed is thought to have been one of those, since he donated so much money to the building of the local synagogue.
There was a famous meeting of early Christians mentioned in Acts 15:22-35, where it was decided that Gentile converts did not need to keep the whole Jewish law, or undergo circumcision. Since then, the Jewish ceremonial law is largely of historical interest to Christians.
Of course, the hard part is deciding what is ceremonial and what is moral of the Jewish law. It gets argued both ways.
I’d like to second/third/whatever this “given” as being an incorrect assumption. I know of a number of homosexuals who married and fathered multiple children before they came out and got divorced.
The seventh chapter of Mark is where the distinction is first drawn in Christian thought. There the author even says explicitly, in verse 19, that Jesus declared all foods kosher. This is reinforced in Acts 11:1-18, where St. Peter has a vision and God declares to him that [LIST=a][li]All foods are clean to eat, and [*]It is OK to associate with Gentiles and admit them to the church.[/list][/li]
There are many instances in the Gospels where Jesus says what the real “Law and the prophets” should be, and it is always moral rather than ceremonial.
Shodan, you beat me to it. As I was reading this thread, I was going to say that in Mark 7 Jesus specifically and explicitly does away with kosher. Here’s the whole passage in question (Mark 7:17-23, lifted from www.biblegateway.com):
As a Christian who sees homosexuality as no more inherently sinful than heterosexuality and who argues for it a lot around here, I find it interesting that Christ condemns “sexual immorality”, which different Christians read different ways, and “envy, slander, arrogance and folly”, the first three of which strike me as being a lot less ambiguous. (I’ll leave folly alone, since I suspect trying to convince folks that a person on his 3rd marriage has a lot of nerve saying marriage is under attack from homosexuals may well constitute the height of folly.)
I’m a heterosexual. I’m also celibate. Even if there were a fellow around with whom I could ethically choose not to be celibate, or even when there was such a person around, I would not and did not choose to have children. Given my particular make up and, I suspect, a potentially disastrous lack of parenting skills, I don’t think it would be a good idea for me to do so. I see sex as another gift given to us by God and another way to experience joy. Yes, it leads to reproduction, but if that were its sole purpose, somehow I don’t think He would have made it half as much fun! To me, it is also a way of binding two people together. (And before anyone makes the obvious comment, I’ll say two things: 1) I already thought of it; 2) this is GD, after all. Show Gaudere some mercy!)
I don’t know anyone who’s perfect. Ironically, one of the most moral people I know happens to be homosexual. As a Christian, my stance is this. If this old friend of mine is to be condemned to hell or somehow judged inherently less moral because of who he is attracted to and who he has chosen to spend the rest of his life with, then the god who would condemn him for one aspect of his character and overlook the others could just as easily condemn me for one aspect of my character. Such a god would be far too harsh a god for me, and I will not worship him.
OK, fine. I may not have commited “sexual immorality” recently (although if you include fantasies, which some Christians do, I may have at that!) . A week ago I was most assuredly thinking evil thoughts and even indulged in a bit of malice. I’ve been known to envy the odd convertible owner or lottery winner or two, especially now that spring is coming. On my way home tonight, I was definitely thinking a couple of evil thoughts about the guy sitting six inches off my rear bumper (yes, I was in the slow lane, and the car ahead of me was going the same speed if not slower). I don’t understand why it would be more sinful for me to go to a bar, pick up a woman and have sex with her than it would be for me to do so to a man. Both actions constitute “sexual immorality” in my book, but I’m not sure I can believe they’re worse than slander or envy.
Right, and I don’t think people are correct when they say that homosexual acts are any more sinful than other sins.
Homosexual acts get more attention because [list=a][li]they are seen as unrepented []gay people are more vocal about not repenting than they used to be []people who don’t feel attracted to same-sex acts are often disgusted by the idea [/list] Which leads to a lot of the talk about “the gay lifestyle”.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
On the other hand, isn’t the advertising industry based on promoting and encouraging envy?
As I’ve mentioned a few times, I loved the television show Frasier, but I had to quit watching it because I didn’t think Niles’ desire to have an adulterous affair with Daphne and divorce his wife was funny. I wasn’t aware of anyone protesting that show because it promoted adultery. Then of course there’s the whole category of reality shows which revolve around marriage.