Christianity and Love, Part III

Great Debates
41

And I’m saying that it simply isn’t as clear-cut as some people believe.

Bear in mind that I did NOT say that there are multiple prohibitions of homosexuality in the Bible, merely that there are multiple passages that are cited by those who want to believe that homosexuality is a sin. In context, those passages can mean many different things. Paul’s admonition in ICor 6:9 is translated very differently in the KJV1611, the NIV, the RSV, etc. A thorough reading of the story of Sodom leaves the critical reader (yes, even the Christian) with more questions than answers, not to mention that in most translations there is no mention of homosexuality in it at all. Cross-referencing two completely unrelated passages can “prove” anything.

To say that “homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you look at it” is, in my mind, simply untrue. There are many ways of looking at it. Now, they aren’t all your way of looking at it, or mine, or Poly’s, or FoG’s. But it’s hardly a universal, undebatable rock of certainty.

-andros-

42

You know I have often wondered how sex became the cornerstone of Christian morality. When Christians speak of moral values it is always sex, abortion, homosexuality etc. yet Jesus never spoke of abortion, homosexuality and hardly ever mentioned sex. This could be the start of a new thread, why are Christians so obsessed with sex?

43

I apologize for mis-quoting you, andros. But there are many passages in the Bible which, while they may not be anti-homosexual, they definitely say that the homosexual act is sinful. As I said earlier, “Man shall not lay down with another man.” (Keep in mind ‘lay down with’ was a common expression for sexual relations back in those days, for those of you who would want to split hairs about it) I’d say that is very clear cut. But if you have another interpretation, I’d like to hear it.

To answer your question, Icerigger, the reason Christians are ‘obsessed with sex’ is because the World’s culture today is obsessed with sex. Pornography (as an industry) is the #1 (or if not, one of the highest) money maker on the internet. Today’s sitcoms are basically half hour sessions of jokes with underlying sexual connotations, and people jumping into bed with each other. And while they are very entertaining, the moral standards are very low. I’m a teen myself, and to just listen to how other people talk in the halls at school is a reminder of how far the morals have sunk for today’s youth. Christians are trying to tackle issues that are corrupting today’s society. Sexual immorality, and abortion are at the top of the list, since they’re the biggest problems.

44

Just time for a quick comment, I’ll try to respond more indepth this weekend …

Polycarp, I just emailed my friend and told him about the discussion we’re having. I have no idea what he’ll say but I’ll let you know when he responds.

Chocobo … welcome to the boards. Love your comments.

Regarding judging, quick response:

“Stop judging by mere appearances and make a RIGHT judgment.” (Jn 7:24)

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” (I Cor 5:12-13a).
So there’s more to that issue than meets the eye. The whole “Judge lest you be judged” is probably the # 1 most mis-used and abused scripture in the entire Bible.

More later this weekend, but there’s some food for thought.

45

Don’t forget “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son”. (John 5:22) because otherwise, see, you’d have to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

46

I read an interesting article at http://www.losingmyreligion.com which discussed this. It said that Christians are forever giving elaborate reasons why they need to fight sexual immorality, but the fact is that millions of people who meet the Christian definition of sexual morality go to hell anyway. Why fight homosexuality, when you could be converting people to Christianity? Why feed the hungry, when you could be converting them? Why do anything at all, why, for that matter, have a job or sit at home watching “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” when every precious second could be spent ringing another doorbell or dropping off another Jack Chick comic, in an effort to stop God’s Ongoing Holocaust?

And for that matter, if all aborted babies go to heaven, why fight the only evangelical mission with a 100% success rate?

-Ben

47

According to the relevant passages in the Bible, only homosexual behavior is a sin. This is in accordance with most mainstream Christian theologies.

Please proffer me evidence of anyone who has ever chosen to be homosexual, and then discuss the reasons why someone would do this.

Neither God nor Jesus Christ has said anything about homosexuality at all. Other passages in the Bible, written by others, do reference sexual activity.

And since there are, as you mention, a wide range of interpretations of Scripture, how can anyone say one is right and one is wrong? What is the definition of “in a good and decent fashion, as according to Scripture?” Answer that and you’ll be hearing from the Vatican, no doubt.

Esprix

48

Ben-
Christians fight sexual immorality in their own ranks as much as in the general population. Even though we’re Christian, we’re still very obviously human. We can be tempted just like everyone else, and some give in to that temptation. If we fight sexual immorality in general, then we not only improve the standard for the general population, but for ourselves as well. And as to the idea of ‘why do anything at all’, would you rather live in a world where people are working to make it better, or where people sit idly by while the world goes to hell in a handbasket? (No pun intended)

BTW, trying to get people to renounce their sinful ways (i.e. sexual immorality) is a step in the right direction towards evangelizing them, wouldn’t you say?

Esprix-
I believe I was in error when I said ‘Homosexuality is a sin, no matter how you look at it.’ What I probably should have said was ‘The homosexual act is a sin no matter how you look at it.’ Again, I’ll go back to my staple quote ‘Man shall not lay down with another man.’

I can’t provide solid proof that some people have chosen to be homosexual, but odds are that people who have no genetic disposition have experimented with it. They may not have stayed with it, but they most likely performed the homosexual act as part of that experimentation, which is a sin.

The Bible, while not written DIRECTLY by God, was the inspired Word of God. Humans may have written it, but God was behind it. And while it may not speak (at least, I’ve never seen Scripture pertaining to it) about homosexual feelings and emotions, it does speak to the sexual act, which is deemed sinful, as you said.

And finally, ‘A good a decent fashion’ would be to live a life honoring and praising God, and following His Ten Commandments. I’m not sure how else you can interpret ‘THOU SHALT NOT KILL’. And there is no rock solid definition of a good and decent fashion, just what you interpret it to mean. If someone believes ‘a good and decent fashion’ is having sex with no regard for the consequences, then it’s not MY place to say that’s wrong, but I can point out Scripture which does.

49

**

And a lot of good it does, considering some of the studies I’ve seen. Atheists have one of the lowest divorce rates. Meanwhile, the divorce rates for Christians seem to get higher as you move to more and more conservative denominations. Thanks for the offer of help, Chocobo, but…

**

You’ve completely ignored the thrust of my argument. It’s like I said, “Why aren’t you trying to help people escape from Auschwitz, instead of just decorating the camp with flowers?” And you replied, “Well, Ben, do you have something against pretty flowers?”

The fact is that fundies keep harping on about how this world is nothing compared to eternity- and yet they waste so much of their time in concern over nothing.

**

Not really. How perfect were you when you converted? How many sins do people have to swear off before they convert? It seems to me that once someone is saved, then the Holy Spirit will move them to renounce their sinful ways.

-Ben

50

Does that mean lesbians get a free ride? For that matter, what are hermaphrodites supposed to do? Do they get to be bisexual?

You know, the ridiculous thing about all this is that we are being lectured in sexual morality by a follower of a supernatural entity (I won’t commit blasphemy by calling it “God”) which ordered its followers to rape people…

Let’s take a poll: if you were an Amalekite, how worried would you be about consensual homosexual sex?
-Ben

51

Well, since they don’t even know for a fact that there a gay gene even exists, I find it hard that you’re arguing on its merits. And if you don’t have a source for anyone who has ever chosen to be homosexual (and, being gay myself, and have met hundreds of gay people in my day, and familiarized myself with news concerning the gay community, I’ve never met anyone who has either), then don’t say “odds are,” because according to your research, the odds are zero.

I’ll leave this particular argument about the Bible vs. the Gospel to Polycarp, as he is much more learned in this area than I.

Oh, goody - we agree. Keep that in mind when some of your own fellow Christians disagree with you on whether or not homosexuality and/or homosexual activity are or are not really sins.

Esprix

52

Could we be back to the OP? Heavens!

Chocobo, I think the verse you’re thinking of is Leviticus 18:22.

Sorry, cap’n. This verse has been debated for centuries by better Christians and Jews than you or I. One popular interpretation is “don’t have sex with men.” But another is “don’t pretend another man is a woman.” And another, don’t use another man only for sex, as you would use a woman." The ancient Jews had very different views on sex and women’s roles than we do today. The SBC command that women “submit themselves graciously” is nothing compared to women being owned as property.

Now I’m sure you might feel you have a monopoly on the correct interpretation. I believe you do not. And that’s not even allowing for Polycarp’s previous points about the other Levitical laws, now left by the wayside by Christians.

While we’re at it, let’s look at some of the other verses used by those who believe homosexuality is a sin.

Leviticus (ah, Leviticus, how I love thee . . . platonically, of course) also has a verse (20:13) very similar to the above, in conjunction with the classic OT injunction about unclean fowl and beasts. Hmmm. Well, I suppose if it’s not an abomination to eat pork, it’s not an abomination to lie with a man as with a woman. Of course, the same interpretation issues as above still hold.

Genesis 19 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The verse usually pointed to is verse 5,

The NIV explicitly says

JHWH destroys the city. But there was no homosexual act involved, and if the Sodomites were really sodomites, the Lord would have destroyed the place earlier, wouldn’t he? No, reading the entire chapter, it’s clear that the Lord crushes the town for its inhospitality and threatening angels with bodily harm.

Hey, if intent to commit homosexuality were a crime, why would the Lord allow Lot to offer his two virgin daughters to be gang-raped?

and another interesting point about Lot’s story–the chapter ends with his daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him. Ya know, that’s explicitly called an abomination later on in Leviticus as well. But no brimstone. Go fig.

Moving on to Paul, we have the 1 Corinthians verse we’ve already discussed. We also have this from his letter to the Romans (1:18-22):

I only include this because the lovely folks at Westboro Baptist Church (www.godhatesfags.com) seem to think it speaks to homosexuality. It, obviously, does not.

In his first letter to Timothy, 1:9-10, Paul writes about the Law of God:

(Paul, oddly enough, often refers to the “righteous man,” but of course, modern Christian thought believes no perfect man exists. Go fig.)

“Them that defile themselves with mankind.” Ok, I can see one interpretation being “Them that have sexual intercourse of any type with another man.” I think that’s a very tortured interpretation, however, ignoring the more common usages of the words “defile” and “mankind,” as well as ignoring the fact that it shows up right after “whoremongers.” A much more common interpretation of this passage (pertaining mostly to the KJV 1611 as we’ll see in a moment) is that this is a condemnation by Paul of male prostitution.

But, other alternatives present themselves. Thh NIV replaces “them that defile themselves with mankind” with the much shorter “perverts.” The RSV and others use “sodomites,” while the ASV uses the very compelling “abusers of themselves with men.” Interesting, IMO and again not at all clear-cut. Anyone who wants to interpret it as a prohibition of homosexuality must perforce acknowledge it as an interpretation.

Finally, the letter of Jude references Sodom and Gomorrah, but tellingly does not mention homosexuality or romantic love between two men:

I’ll certainly grant that the folks in S&G were unusual fellows. They were, it seems, into weird and plentiful sex. According to Jude, at least, the sodomites were punished for being far too interested in screwing anything that moved–NOT for being gay.
In summary, it is clear that among the many unclear and difficult-to-interpret topics in the Bible, homosexuality ranks near the top. Beyond the Old Testament, prohibitions of homosexuality are tenuously Scriptural at best. Most telling, however, is that Christ never said a word about it.
Chocobo, please let me know if you need me to clarify anything. I’m happy to do so.

53

Finally, someone posts the actual relevant cites instead of just repeating “man shall not lay down with another man.” Thanks, andros. :slight_smile: Interesting; if the rules God was setting out in Leviticus only applied to men, God is apparently ignoring lesbians completely. (He is concerned about “any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto”, though.)

54

Yup, He didn’t say a thing about lesbians. But then, on the OT world, women were generally property anyway (thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ox).

Me, I see the Levitical laws against “lying with a man as with a woman” to refer to the sort of stereotyped prison relationships found in so much of the popular culture. The often Greeks and Romans lambasted catamites and male prostitues as signs of debauchery and corruption rather than the gay sex itself. I tend to go with the interpretation that the nomadic Hebrews were trying to ensure that men weren’t shacking up with other men simply for the sex, which would be degrading to both participants in a very macho society (especially the one getting used as a woman would be used).

55

andros-

As for the Greco-Roman cultural attitude of the time, there was an anti-homosexual bias, but that bias was more based upon the general belief that most practitioners of homosexual sex were the upper-class nobles who took part in all debaucheries rather than actually work to help keep up/build up the state; more of a “the people who do that sort of thing tend to be immoral wastrels” than a “the act itself is immoral”. Julius Caesar, after all, was called by his detractors “Man to every woman and woman to every man” on rumors that he had fooled around with one of the Kings in Asia Minor as a youth (can’t remember which King off hand).

56

The King of Bithynia, which is part of present day Turkey, on the Black Sea. GJC was supposedly known as “The Queen of Bithynia” for some time after his time there.

57

A few more detailed responses now …

Trisk, you said:
"Friend, You assume that I do not believe that I sin. You assume that the “humorous” list of sins I mention is in some way trivial. Shopping is covetousness. Gluttony, and greed are sins. I am a sinner, in these, and other ways. "

The original list of sins was: “I think that shopping is a sin. I thing that eating food that you do not need for life and health is sin. I think that wearing expensive clothes in a world where someone wears rags is a sin.”

Now that I read your explanation, I understand better where you were coming from. When did I say that I didn’t think that you believe that you sin? I never accused you of that.

Here’s the thing … there are plenty of things that the Bible doesn’t address that God might have specifically told you not to do. There are things He might have told me not to do that He might have no problem with you doing.

There are plenty of areas the Bible doesn’t spell out, and in those cases it’s up to each believer individually to hear from God on the subject and obey him. If God told me to go to Atlanta this weekend to witness to some unsaved friends, and I didn’t go, it would be a sin for me not to be in Atlanta this weekend. However, it wouldn’t be a sin for you not to be in Atlanta because He didn’t tell you to go.

So my point is, if God has told you or convicted you that you need to follow the standards you listed, more power to you.
You later said: "If so, your pride is no sin, and your expression of how others might become as sinless as yourself might be other than naked hubris. "

Well I think I’ve said regularly that the Bible makes it clear that you can never say you’re “without sin”. It’s patently ridiculous. I think you’re obviously being sarcastic. I’ve battled sin every day of my walk with Christ, like everyone else who serves Him. I’ve had some tremendous victories where God helped me overcome and defeat rather vexing sins, and I’ve had overwhelming defeats in which I gave in to sin.

As far as pride, well, I can say that I’ve sinned in the area of pride many times before. I think you were seeing me as prideful because of my comment about your “humerous” list, which, in retrospect, was incorrect. I retract the statement.

You later said:
"God loves you, Friend, but it is not because you have learned the secret of right living, or righteous being. He loves you because He is the Lord of Salvation. And he loves every soul he has made. If you cannot love them, it is not because they are unworthy of your love, it is because your love is less than perfect love of God. "

I agree fully. And no one has learned “the secret of right living, or righteous being” that I know of. Anyone that has, please give me a call!
You also said:
"But I think that perhaps you are more concerned with sin than with love, and more concerned with judgment than with mercy. In this, you are somewhat at odds with Our Lord, who chose not to condemn sinners, but to redeem them. I think you cling tightly to judgment. I don’t earn salvation, and being saved does not make me sinless. "

No, although I can see how you’d think that. I never wanted to delve into this topic but kept getting asked, and I finally gave in. Maybe I shouldn’t have. And you’re exactly right – God doesn’t condemn sinners, He REDEEMS them. He rescues them from their life of sin and heals them from the wounds it created.

Never did I say salvation can be earned. If you read through C&L Parts I and II, you’ll see that I said over and over that salvation cannot be earned, that, in fact, you can never be “good enough” to get to heaven. That was one of my main points.

slythe you said:
"As has been pointed out to(and totally ignored by) you, you have chosen to pick those “sins” and practices out of the Bible that you feel comfortable in following, just as other Christians have done throughout the centuries. "

Slythe, if I had chosen to pick sins and practices in the Bible that I felt COMFORTABLE in following, believe me I would never have put certain passages in the Bible. There are many passages that make me uncomfortable. I don’t particularly like that one about “doing good to those who hate you”. But it’s there, as squeamish as it may make me feel. I have many times asked God to give me grace to live that verse out.

Libertarian said:
“Friend of God - Do not use the reasoning the Pharisees used when they condemned Jesus for cavorting with sinners. Open your heart to let God fill it with warmth. Remember that upon his son’s return, the King did not run out to greet him with a battery of tests, but with a robe.”
I knew that what I said would be misunderstood in this way, so allow me to try to clarify.

I agree with the essence of what you’re saying. In fact, if Jesus were on the earth today, I believe He would be hanging out with homosexuals, prostitutes, and adulterers. And any one of these people who are willing to receive His love, He will receive. As you said, not with a “battery of tests but with a robe”. I agree. As I’ve said before, it’s not about actions, it’s about heart. Christ changes you from the inside out when you come to Him and slowly begin to strip away the sins that have weighted you down.

Polycarp, let me give you an overall response to your post. As I said in my response to Libertarian, I realized that what I said at the top of Page 1 would be misread and misinterpreted by many, which is one of the reasons I refrained from addressing it for so long.

I understand exactly what you mean by “sin” vs “sins”. There is the “general state of sin”, and then there are specific “sins”.

I am glad you mentioned Galatians. It is literally one of the most freeing and beautiful passages of the Bible. But don’t miss the point. “Not being under the law” doesn’t mean not doing what’s right. It means you do right because God has changed you on the inside and you want to do the right thing!

Being under the law is the miserable experience of knowing what is right, but not having the power to carry it out. It’s saying “I have to do this” and then not being able to. The Romans 7 experience. Galatians is about the beautiful Romans 8 experience. Let me quote verses 1 - 4 of Romans 8, as they are among the most powerful promises in all the Bible:
“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was POWERLESS to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do NOT live according to the sinful nature but according to the SPIRIT.”
If I’m under law, I am powerless to stop my life of sin! It’s miserable, because I know it’s wrong but can’t stop! If I’m under the Spirit, God changes me internally and gives me to grace to walk away from sin! The whole point is to be set free from the misery of sin!

Verses 12 through 14 are equally powerful:

“Therefore brothers, we have an obligation – but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.”
So “not being under the law” doesn’t mean “I can do whatever I want” (I’m not saying you believe that Poly). It means being free from the misery of the “I have to but I can’t” mentality.
This is getting long, I’m going to post and continue on the next one.

58

Thanks, John, that’s what I was trying to say.

59

I dont have a whole lot of time, so I’m just gonna make a point or two. And this time I’ll actually USE Scripture. =) (I’m not going to go into the differences between the NIV and KJV, since I dont own and have rarely read a KJV)

To the idea of God giving lesbians a ‘free ride’, I direct you to Rom. 1:25-28 (NIV) “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”

This passage talks clearly about both men and women engaging in sexual relations with their own genders. And very clearly, it states this to be perversion, and ‘ought not to be done.’

Oh, and Ben, I’d like the verse of where God ordered to people to rape one another.

60

More responses …

Ptahlis said:
"So basically the Bible is literal when you want it to be, and metaphorical when you want it to be. When it supports your belief, well, all you have to do is read the darn thing! If 2 passages conflict, why the one you like best is literal, and the one you like least is metaphorical of course. "
Exactly the opposite. If the Bible’s teaching on a subject is clear-cut, it’s true even if it doesn’t “support my belief”. If two passages conflict, actually, the trick to really getting at what it means is doing the opposite of what you said.

Everyone goes into the Bible with glasses on. You and I both have pre-set beliefs based on what we’ve heard. The difficult but necessary task we have when studying the Bible is to take our glasses off. We must be willing to look carefully at passages that don’t support our point of view, and not overplay passages that do seem to support our point of view.

Case in point: when I was young, I believed certain things in the Charismatic revival just because I was told they were true. During my senior year in High School, I began to question what I’d been taught and asked myself, “Now, how much of what they’ve been saying is true is really in the Bible?”

I spent a good solid year studying, questioning nearly everything I’d been taught. I laid aside my “glasses” and went into the Bible cold – just asking, “What do you say about this subject?”

What I discovered was pretty fascinating. One thing in particular that has always amused me is that I discovered that one particular belief Charismatics have is clearly scriptural – even though I have not to this day ever heard a Bible teaching on it!

There’s others … the famous “when will the rapture occur” question. I’ve heard very good scriptural cases made for three different answers to this question and have no idea which one is right. The “should women be in spiritual leadership” question. I’ve heard good scriptural arguments that come down on various sides on this one. I personally believe they can and should be, but I “take those glasses off” when someone argues from the other perspective, to see if I’ve missed something scripturally.
I will add one comment I’ve not made before. The Bible makes it clear that it is half of the proof that something is true. The other half is … does it work? In other words, if I’m teaching something from the Bible, it should work! If it doesn’t, then I’ve missed something in my study of the Bible.

Don’t get too excited though … it goes both ways. If I teach something that looks good and sounds good and seems to work but is clearly contradicted in the Bible … then I’m out to lunch in that case also.

Esprix said:
"Then why do you assume to know where every gay Christian’s heart is by saying that no gay person can be Christian? "

Again, it’s not about actions, it’s about heart. I can look at two people who are tempted by people of the same sex, both claiming to be Christians, and I would have no idea if either or both were right.

Let’s say each person goes to a gay bar and tries to pick someone up, finds someone, and walks out of the bar. Both claim to be Christian. I still don’t know if they are or aren’t. My point is … the outside action doesn’t show what is happening in their heart.

One of those people might actually go through with sleeping with the guy, then go home crying out to God and repenting to Him, asking for grace to change. He may go through months of counseling to deal with the guilt he feels for slipping so seriously.

The other guy might go have what he thinks is a “good time” with his pick-up guy. He justifies to himself that he can do this and be a Christian at the same time, feels no remorse, and has no intention of changing.

My point is … there’s no way to know which of the above is in a person’s heart just by “watching their actions”. You can’t judge and assume just by watching someone’s actions necessarily.

Falcon, you said:
“God does not tell us to change ourselves to become miserable”

I agree … if we submit to Him, He will change us and make our lives more fulfilling than we could have ever dreamed possible.

"My God does not act as yours. Mine does not hate someone for something they CAN NOT CHANGE. "

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again … God doesn’t hate anyone. He loves the homosexual, just like He loves anyone engaging in any form of immorality. If He didn’t love them, He wouldn’t make any effort to rescue them from their life of sin.
As for what Jesus did or didn’t say … there are dozens of topics Jesus didn’t address in the Gospels. How does that discount any of those topics? If God allowed it into His Holy Word, it was for a reason. And last time I checked, Jesus IS God!
Chocobo:
Just a more detailed comment … I am really enjoying reading your posts. You have a very gracious way of making your points and you are very solid in what you are saying. I’m glad you’re here on the boards!

Okay, I think that’s everyone. Hope you guys have a great weekend.