According to the same bible, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving)
People have no real control over their sexual orientation.
AFAIK, these are the possible explanations (the ones that I can think of)
God is knowingly punishing homosexuals for something that is entirely beyond their control (which would contradict the notion that God is omnibenevolent)
God is punishing homosexuals under the impression that people do choose to be homosexual (which would contradict the notion that God is omniscient)
Homosexuality really isn’t a sin - the authors of the Bible either made an error or were foisting their bersonal beliefs on whoever they could reach (remember, the Bible also says that the Earth is flat, doesn’t it?)
Something else that I haven’t yet thought of.
So… which is it?
Most Christians who disapprove of homosexuality for religious reasons do not agree with premise #3 above. They believe that homosexuals can overcome their desire for members of the same sex. They grant that it may be difficult, but that it is possible. Many would suggest that prayer and strong faith can help in this.
Personally I think that’s all a bunch of rubbish, but people do genuinely believe these things. If they do then they are unlikely to be swayed by any argument which relies upon the acceptance of sexual orientation as something that people have no control over.
I just got a call from some guy named Job who wanted to disagree with the notion that God is omni-benevolent. I said I’d pass it on. As for me, I’ve only seen atheists make the claim that God is inherently constrained to only do good.
For eloquent and enlightening arguments against the notion of homosexuality being a sin, see The Ethics of Homosexuality, especially Polycarp’s posts. Mostly, he attacks the idea that the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong.
Also, consider that regardless of personal preference, it is willful action that can be sinful, and while the objects of the impure thoughts that occur to a person are beyond their control, where they stick their dick certainly isn’t. It is the action, not the orientation, that is considered sinful.
I, too, think the crux is in point #3 that Lamia quoted. Many Christians focus on the behavior, not the orientation. People are assumed to be able to control their sexual behavior.
This idea is not limited to homosexual behavior. Many Christians have a whole list of sexual behaviors believed to be sinful. Basically, it comes down to sex outside of a marriage to a member of the opposite sex.
So, the homosexual engaging in homosexual sex is considered to be “in sin,” as is the heterosexual having an affair with his neighbor’s wife.
Then, the question of God’s fairness comes in, in that according to this line of thinking, the homosexual can never be able to express his sexuality and still be right with God, while the heterosexual has a “legitimate” outlet. Christians do belive that human sexuality is a gift from God; a special joy to strengthen the bond between husband and wife. Thus, you can see why homosexuality proves to be a difficult subject for many Christians to accept.
So, I take it that a person born with homosexual orientation, who finds the female body repellent, probably cannot become sexually aroused with a female, must then, according to the last sentence of yours, never, ever do anything further than masturbate for his entire life?
Genetic orientation is not exactly easily changeable, if at all.
I figure most of those ancient, bearded fellows, who walked around in robes, and had enough of an education to either write or have someone write for them, did a whole lot of transferring their own opinions into what they considered Holy Scriptures. It seems a lot of these folks were real opinionated, super strict and used to rapping out orders and having them followed.
If we could somehow separate out the personal beliefs from the scriptures, the Bible would probably be reduced in volume by at least half and be less confusing.
Most ‘primitive’ tribes, including Native Americans, tolerated homosexual members with little fuss. Some ancient civilizations readily accepted them and Sparta even forged an entire fighting force out of them, who became the most feared in the land.
Christians, however, who don’t seem to like fun, or anyone else having fun, disagree.
RoboDude, it’s option #4.
There ain’t no “God” according to the preponderance of evidence. The Bible is merely a verbose collection of stories and proverbs that people use to justify what they already believe in.
I’d say that Leviticus, at least, pretty clearly denounces homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” Leviticus 20:13 adds, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Polycarp seemed to think that Leviticus was suppose to apply to Caananites only, but I see no evidence for this.
At the same time, Leviticus also hands down a set of dietary restrictions that many Jews observe, although most Christians don’t. Furthermore, the chapter also forbids multicolored clothing: this latter rule is especially convenient since it makes it allows us tell at a glance whether any Fundamentalist denouncer of homosexuality is also a hypocrite. Oh yes, trimming your beard is also a no-no (21:5). I actually see nothing wrong with the prohibitions listed in this paragraph; what I object to is selective Biblical enforcement.
Leviticus is a pretty odd chapter; IMHO modern readers who don’t find it at least a little perplexing probably aren’t paying sufficient attention. The book gives quite a bit advice on the nuances of ritual slaughter and various bodily functions. The explicit listing of certain taboos, ones many of us have never thought of, contrasts with an odd silence regarding others. (I’m thinking of some of the more specific incest prohibitions.)
As this agnostic sees it, a Fundamentalist reading of Leviticus requires the faithful to abstain from certain acts, of which homosexuality is only one. At the same time, the very strangeness of the chapter suggests the appropriateness of a looser interpretation.
My apologies to any devout Christians or Christian homosexuals if they have taken offense. I should add that
I don’t necessarily consider Leviticus to be wholly impenetrable; I am merely suggesting that a fair reading of it requires some historical perspective. Everett Fox, in The Five Books of Moses gives one interesting attempt.
I believe that pretty much sums up the “homosexuality is a sin” argument, except that Catholics (and probably others) consider masturbation a sin as well. Don’t ascribe these beliefs to me, I’m an atheist and don’t consider homosexual sex anything worse than “not an idea that appeals to me”.
As for the Biblical argument, certainly the relevance of Leviticus to Christians is debatable, as it obviously doesn’t hold in the case of dietary restrictions and other things. I thought Polycarp did a good job of explaining the New Testament stance on the issue.
<1. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin>
True
<2. According to the same bible, God is omnipotent (all-powerful)>
Probably
<Omniscient (all-knowing)>
Not that I can remember. There are numerous examples I can think of where He seems not to have seen the future or even what was happening around Him.
<and omnibenevolent (all-loving)>
Definitely not.
<3. People have no real control over their sexual orientation.>
Quite possibly. According to the experts some people also have no control over things like drug and alcohol addiction, child molestation or serial killing. Do you agree that at least some of these people should be placed where they can pose no further threat to society, if not actually punished?
Most religions, and certainly Christianity, are based on power and control. Power and control can be had by assuming an authority position concerning both that which is highly desired and that which is marginalized. Thus strictures come into place concerning sexuality, ranging from control (virginity until marriage) to prohibition (homosexuality).
What it comes down to is that if you assume the bible to be authoritative, then you are restricting yourself to working within the power structure developed by religions based on the bible. Don’t expect to find many answers that fall outside of these structures. Yes, the structures may change somewhat over time, but the rate of change is very slow, for rapid change risks dissolution of the power base.
To put it bluntly, it is a closed loop. Thus many people from marginalized groups have limited use for Christianity.
I’m not sure Christian theologians would use the precise language “God is inherently constrained to only do good”; Christian theologians are sufficiently aware of the Problem of Evil that they tend to be at least a bit dodgy about the whole omnibenevolence thing. I have also cut up that passage considerably; if you follow the link, you’ll see those words come from a considerably longer and somewhat abstruse paragraph. I just want to make the point that “God’s omnibenevolence” isn’t just some atheist strawman we heathens made up out of whole cloth. You could argue that the Bible doesn’t teach God’s omnibenevolence, but the vast majority of Christians–including “sola scriptura” Biblical inerrantists–would have and will argue that God is all-good.
Speaking of the Problem of Evil, I think the chain of logic of the O.P. is pretty much the same logic which is broadened into a general attack on the existence of the God of Christian theologians; i.e., there is sin; God is both all-powerful and all-good; therefore, God could and would desire to prevent sin; therefore, there is no God. This usually veers off into the whole “free will” discussion. This chain of logic doesn’t so much prove that homosexuality isn’t a sin–although us secular humanists see nothing wrong per se in either homosexual desires or practices–so much as it argues against the existence of God, or at least God defined in a particular way. After all, you could replace “people have no real control over their sexual orientation” with “child molesters have no real control over their sexual desires”–I really doubt people “choose” to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Practically all of us, atheists and believers alike, disapprove of child molestation, and we would no doubt argue that child molesters had damn well better at least control the acting out on their desires, and seek whatever help they need to do so; but atheists might find the existence of people who are plagued by such desires–along with the existence of a whole lot of other things–to be one reason to doubt the existence of (a benevolent and competant) God.
<sigh> And again. 1st- Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin. NEVER. JC had 2 basic rules “Do unto others…” and “Don’t be intolerant” (which a lot of my Fundie “brethren” seem to forget a lot- but this order came straight from the masters mouth). The OT Laws do not apply to Christians- they have a “New Covenant”.
Next- the OT Laws, such as Leviticus, thus apply only to the Jews. And, yes, Homosexuality is condemned. But so is having sex with your wife during her period, and eating pork. Thus, it is hardly singled out. “Y”, the G-d of the OT, is NOT, in any way “omni-benevolent”. He sets rules- you follow them, you are blessed. You don’t- not so good. It is a CONTRACT, and you have no choice over the terms. he is a very protective G-d, true, but not “Omni-benevolent”. Also, AFAIK, it is still possible to break some of the rules & still go to Heaven- but opinions differ here.
So, your points 1 & 2 are wrong. In any case- never is simply BEING gay condemned- only the act- thus point 3 is moot. If you are a Klepto, is it not still a sin to steal? But, the reason for the 'sinning" is taken ito account, and thus can be esier to be forgiven.
I believe the OP asked “how can homosexuality be a sin” not whether or not there’s a God. I notice that yours is the only post that has nothing to add to this discussion. Sheesh… and you’re a moderator?
Lets see how long this post of mine lasts…
ObTopic:
Well, If you’re a Christian, then the teachings of Jesus supersedes any of the other parts of the bible (at least that’s how I’ve been taught). So I have to agree here with Daniel… Wait, I’m just repeating what he said, only not as well.
The possibility of a genetic predisposition towards sexual orientation does not excuse or legitimize the behavior. If homosexuals claim there orientations originates from their genetic code, that they don’t have a choice what gender they’re attracted to, I would think this is tantamount to denying free will. The ability to accept God through free will is an important belief for many Christians which is why they don’t buy the homosexual mantra of “I’m not this way by choice.” Christian theology aside, I would want to lay claim to free will if I were a homosexual.
I also think the genetic predisposition theory opens the door to tolerating truly ghastly crimes, kind of what ** Gaspode ** indicated. Suppose for the moment that pedophilia had a proven genetic code and that pedophiles could not help but behave the way they do. Should pedophilia then become a legitimate sexual orientation? What about a proven predisposition towards rape or murder?
I think the Christians are justified in claiming homosexuals have control over their orientation—otherwise they become behavioral automatons accountability. It is also clear that some parts of the Bible condemn homosexuality, but that does not mean that all Christians follow all parts of the Bible to the letter, or that society at large has to gleam its treatment towards non-typical sexual orientation from the Bible.
I think this is probably the original biblical text. Of course you shouldn’t lie to yer friends, that’s an abomination! The wives needs to be kept in the dark about a few things though; lest we tell them something incriminating.
BTW, someone was talking about making pedophilia a legal sexual orientation. It is, so are all sexual orientations for that matter.
Actually molesting children is not the same as being a pedophile, nor is raping someone the same as fantasizing about it.
Not that I’m sticking up for these people, but as a believer in genetics I felt I had to point out the difference between predisposition to having certain urges and the actual realisation of those urges. The latter are the illegal ACTS, the former merely meaning that you might enjoy commiting such an act.
Back to being gay, I think it’s definately something you’re born predisposed to, one way or the other. Not everyone that has a tendance to fancy the same sex will take up a gay lifestyle, nor will they necissarily take part in gay sex.
So as for letting genetics into the argument without excusing illegal actions, I think it can be easily done. Just seperate predisposition and the actual ACT.
I personally think that there is a distinction between the issue of whether or not there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual desires and the issue of whether or not homosexual acts are inherently wrong. I don’t think coming to a conclusion about the first necessarily leads one to a conclusion about the second. I find it hard to believe that people just choose to be gay in order to yank Jerry Falwell’s chain or to rebel against God. I think sexual orientation is clearly “involuntary”, whether it’s from something genetic, something prenatal, some very early environmental factor, or some combination of the above. Speaking from personal experience, I started liking girls a long time ago–at least as early as kindergarten–and it certainly wasn’t a conscious choice on my part. I have no reason to think gays and lesbians are any different as far as that goes. Then again, I doubt anyone makes a conscious choice to be a pedophile either. The reason I think that pedophile behaviors should be suppressed (or the behavior of someone with a hypothetical involuntary predisposition to violent sexual acts, or kleptomania, and so on) is that those acts are harmful to other human beings. I don’t see any reason to believe that homosexual acts are inherently more harmful to consenting adults than heterosexual acts. This is a moral judgement, and even if someone proved that gays and lesbians engage in homosexual acts just because they feel like it, and could just as easily engage in heterosexual acts, with no basic damage to their psychological well-being–well, it still doesn’t harm anyone. (The laws of my state ban all sorts of things, although fortunately our courts have finally struck down those laws as they relate to consenting adults. I don’t suppose there’s a “straight oral sex gene” but whose business is it?) If there’s something about some specific behavior pattern that some homosexuals engage in that needs to be addressed–rampant promiscuity, let’s say–then that specific issue should be addressed without dragging in unrelated issues. (I believe there have been few heterosexuals here and there who have been promiscuous, for example, and some of them have spread AIDS as a result.) Of course, one way to address that specific problem might be to, say, legalize gay marriage.
Now, if someone wants to condemn homosexuality on the basis of Biblical prohibitions–especially if they want to impose that moral judgement on society at large–then I think they need to explain to us precisely why those laws should be imposed on society at large, while laws against eating pork or wearing cotton-wool blends should not be. For that matter, they need to explain why they don’t want to abolish the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. The prevention of idolatry is a central concern of Old Testament law and morality, including its suppression by the lawful authorities. And there are surely no Muslim genes or Buddhist genes or Hindu genes.
It depends. I am aware of many an alcoholic who has given up drinking booze in order to live a life out of jail and a longer one but that does not mean they have been able to shake the ‘taste.’ They must abstain.
Serial killers are not necessarily a complete genetic deviation, though there is little doubt that they are predestined to kill. Several major psychiatric factors come into play here, affecting the ego system along with the stimulus response feedback reinforcement. There are, I would think, several types of serial killer, working on different types of ego reinforcement. Some get a power high, some do it for sexual thrills, some do it out of total regard for human life and some, like Dalmer, do it out of a twisted psychotic series of reasons. The common denominator is the disregard for human life. They equal a danger to society and therefore should be restricted from mingling with it.
I don’t think anyone has a good theory for child molesters and I’m not real sure if they are all that genetically predestined to this. A common denominator for them is that, up to a certain age, boys and girls look physically similar - feminine. Also, dig into porn a bit and you’ll find a large amount of sites dealing with ‘little girls,’ ‘school girls’ and such. On the homosexual side, you find sites dealing with ‘school boys’ and ‘twinks’ (young boys), so this leads one to suspect that there is a ‘normal’ draw there to some degree. (NOTE: These sits are using 18 or older modles/actors/actresses but the visual illusion of under aged sex is what is desired.)
Now, the molestation which goes beyond a mental/visual/physical attraction to say children from infancy up to about 8 is still not really understood. These molesters currently risk so much to molest that the sexual urge has to be something so intense that we probably cannot imagine it. So intense that often, afterwards, they are willing to kill their victim, which compounds the crime, in an effort to hide their actions.
I would be willing to consider them affected by a mental disease. I don’t know how to contain such people, though I would think that some form of treatment will eventually be found. (I find it interesting that there has been such a massive appearance of this within the last 20 years.)
Danielinthewolvesden
There you go. If you cannot control the deviational behavior, how can you be actually held responsible for it? Do we condemn the genuine psychotics who respond to ‘voices’ or massive urges and act in a harmless or irrational way in society? No. We treat them.
Is there something out there any of you really, really like that you would find almost impossible to give up? Like smokes, pot, chocolate, pizza, salty or fatty foods, coffee, sex or your most favorite brand of beer? Normal people find it hard to give up favorite things. Abnormal people find it impossible mostly to stop doing ‘bad’ acts.
Pick the most sizzling act of sex that you really get steamed up over. Now, give it up forever. It would be difficult. Now multiply that desire by about 100 times, and there you have someone genetically predestined to committing an unacceptable act.
BTW, I will agree that there are people out there who could control their unacceptable desires but deliberately choose not to. These people are the ones who choose to act in a certain way for whatever pleasure they gain from such acts.
