How can homosexuality be a sin?

Great Debates
21

**Pyrrhonist wrote:

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.**

Unfortunately, this arguement falls apart when you apply it to heterosexuality. Apparently, you’re heterosexual and you have no choice in the way you’re attracted to women (or men if you’re a woman). Just as you say that homosexuals have no free will by way of their sexual orientation, neither do heterosexauls with THEIR orientation. Many heterosexual claim their sexual orientation is instinctual, based on the pro-creation instinct, but isn’t that the same thing as saying it’s genetically based and therefore, not subject to free will? If homosexuals are slaves to their genes, then so are heterosexuals.

Right now, most experts in psychology agree that there are many factors that shape the sexual orientation of a person, some of it is genetics, some enviroment and some hormonal; possibly while still in the womb. We simply don’t know enough to draw any conclusions.

Conversely, simply looking at the history of a large cross-section of the GLBT community such ideas as the “weak father/dominant mother” hypothesis or the “recruitment” hypthosis (little boys/girls being lured into becoming homosexual by an adult) have no supporting evidence.

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?

You’re mixing apples and oranges here. Homosexuality is simply sex between two individuals of the same sex. Murder, rape, pedophelia, etc are crimes, with a definite perpetrator and a victim. There is no comparision between the two. One is a crime with demostratable damage or hurt, the other is simply sex.

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.

Tho the OP asked about homosexuality and the Bible, that has no bearing on me. I’m not a Christian and not bound by the rules of the Bible or to the J/X/I God. That’s between Him and his followers. What I do object to is when Christians attempt to enact secular legislation based upon the morality of their Holy Book, for example sodomy laws. That’s clearly a violation of the separation of church and state and needs to be fought.

22

This thread looks like fun. I don’t think I can add much more to it.

For all of you arguing what the Bible says and doesn’t say, have you even read it? All of it? More than once? It’s amazing how many Bible experts I’ve met who have never even read an entire chapter of it, let alone the whole thing.

They publish a version called The One Year Bible that divides it into 365 fifteen-minute readings. In one year, you can read the Bible all the way through. Then you can argue for or against it knowledgeably. If you are going to slam it or praise it, at least have the intellectual honesty to read the whole thing.

I’ve read through it 8.5 times using this method, and it only took 15 minutes a day! Go to my site, and as long as I don’t run out, you can get a free copy.

23

Helloooo…? Did you miss Matthew 5, verse 28? “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”

It ain’t just the action, folks - you can sin all afternoon by just looking at the new receptionist and thinking…

Anyway, most of the Old Test is a set of rules to keep the Levites on top and the property values straight. And nothing keeps the people in line like the concept of “sin.”

24

I’ve never read the Bible, so yeah, that was one of several hundred verses I’ve missed. However, even there, the sin is an act that has to be committed. It does not say that it is a sin if one happens to think impure thoughts about a woman, only if one looks at her to lust after her. That is still action, however hard it may be to discipline oneself against just looking and thinking.

25

First, to get a hijack out of the way:

Slythe commented:

Sir, kindly start a new thread with your proof of these assertions. I could accept the validity of the inverse of the first one: there is inadequate objective evidence to prove to the “reasonable man” whom Jodi or Sua will refer to in a legal context that God does exist, in the absence of faith or subjective evidence. But you are saying something quite contrary. The second may or may not be true, according to how you mean it.

In any case, I would imagine that the question of the OP presumes the existence of a God, and presumably the Judaeo-Christian one, for the sake of the argument, since “sin” becomes a very slippery concept in a non-theist context. Would you, David, or Gaudere ever refer to anything as a sin outside a religious debate?

Flowbark commented:

Uh, chalk that up to poor word use. First, I have been given to understand that the “Holiness Code” in middle Leviticus, including the two chapters from which the relevant verses are quoted, was set forth as guidance for the Israelites to distinguish them from the Canaanites (and related tribes) inhabiting the Holy Land at the time they invaded, and identifies behaviors (including sodomy practiced as religious ritual) which were to be abstained from – not for reasons of mundane morality per se, but as activities in aid of the worship of false gods. That was the reference to Canaanites. Note: I do not have any proof of the above assertion regarding the code, save that it was given me by competent Biblical scholars and can be found in Daniel Helminiak’s book.

Second, a careful reading of the passage would seem to condemn, not homosexuality, but bisexuality. Esprix, for example, does not “lie with man as with woman” – if he lay with a woman, it would be for sleeping purposes, not sex. Third, the Scriptures appear to have no conception of a homosexual orientation, simply a sexual behavior that any man might indulge in. (Interesting question: in the absence of sociocultural pressure, what proportion of men might have sex with other men, not necessarily exclusively? This appears to be what Leviticus and Paul contemplate.)

But fourth and most important, this law was given to the Israelites. There is no prohibition against a Gentile having gay sex in the Old Testament. And the Law is not binding on Christians.

Finally, to get out my song and dance again, the idea of a Christian trying to legislate away gay behavior is to my mind obnoxious, not merely on secular grounds, but because the specific marching orders of Jesus that the Christian is supposed to follow, never mind what Paul told the Romans or Moses the Children of Israel, are quite specifically not to judge, and to love God with all that is in you, and your neighbor as yourself. And to call for another to fail to indulge in a behavior to which I have not been tempted is not my right. To love him, at minimum, is to understand him and what he says about himself. It may be to head him off from self-destructive behavior, once I have gotten to know him and become his friend. But it will never be to speak as though I have authority over him.

This is not to say that gay sex is never sinful. Like all sex, it is supposed to be a joyful reinforcement for a committed relationship. If, to make up a scenario, SqrlCub sits by the fire on Christmas Eve, armed with a carafe of high-potency hot toddies, gets Santa drunk and has his way with him, he’s sinning against Santa, using him for his own sexual pleasure. On the other hand, two men in love and committed to each other are, so far as I can tell, not in violation of any binding law if they express that love sexually.

And “homosexuality” – to deal with another of my pet peeves – is an abstract noun descriptive of a congeries of things, including an orientation as to what sort of person the individual finds sexually attractive, how he lives his life in response to that orientation, and several acts usually undertaken for sexual gratification. Homosexuality is no more a sin than is antidisestablishmentarianism or the Internet. Identify specific items from that congeries and you may be able to argue the point.

The aforegoing is merely my opinion, but I think it’s reasonably well backed by facts.

26

You’ve obviously never seen my reaction when someone drinks their single-malt on the rocks, or makes a martini with vodka. :wink:

27

I am proud to say that I have never permitted a vodka martini in my presence. Haven’t been able to stomp out the practice of putting ice in good scotch, though. Does kind of make me cry inside, though.

Nice to see you finally make it in here Polycarp.

28

(sigh) I see I was excessively subtle. When I said looking at the new receptionist and thinking, I assumed you’d understand that I was talking about THINKING LUSTFUL THOUGHTS! I’m not talking about looking at her and thinking about doing your taxes. I’m pointing out that in the Gospel of Matthew, it pretty specifically states that looking at her and thinking about how much fun her slippery bits might be is, as far as assigning sin, the same as actually having at it.

29

The line you quoted says that it is a sin to look at her for the purpose of having lustful thoughts about her.

Morally acceptable (according to the passage in question):
See receptionist, “I’d like to bone her” pops into head, no effort is spent or action taken in regard to the thought, and no attempt is made to induce similar thoughts.

Morally wrong (according to same passage):
See receptionist, same thought occurs, you now purposely look at the receptionist to encourage similar thoughts to occur.

In order for it to be a sin, a conscious decision must be made to encourage the lustful thoughts.

30

This agnostic is still confused; please correct the following if you think it’s off base: Most or all of the OT, including the 10 Commandments, definitively applies to Jews. Since Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples are Jewish (as well as Christian, presumably) these laws would apply to them as well, but not necessarily to those who profess to be Christians only.

OK. How do we tell which OT rules should be observed by Christians? Presumably the 10 Commandments fall in that category. Is that because of Christian tradition, or is it because the 10 Cs were specifically alluded to in the New Testament? Or is the Christian expected to be able to intuitively distinguish between rules-intended-to-enforce-group-solidarity-among-the-chosen (eg dietary laws) and rules that are more universal (Thou shall not steal, kill etc.)? If this is the case, it would seem that homosexuality falls in the former category. Maybe.

This issue appears to turn on the extent and nature of “New Testament License”, which I still find confusing.

31

NONE, repeat NONE of the OT Laws apply, as written, as Laws to Christians- that includes the 10 Commandments. That does not mean that Christians get to rehect the moral teachings & guidance of the OT- but that thye are no longer LAWS that we must follow. Christians have one “must follow”- beleive & accept Him. When JC died for our sins- we were released from the OT laws. JC gave us Christians a “New Covenant”. yes, JC & his Apostles were originally Jews, and JC made it clear that as long as he was alive, until he died for us- the Law would still apply to them (altho He enforced a liberal interpretation of them, true).

So, flowbark- trust your Christians here. (Polycarp & I)

32

Polycarp

Everything I’ve read on the Noahide Covenant (7 laws of Noah), the covenant that covers Gentiles in Judaism, states that homesexuality is prohibited for men, but not for women (there is some debate about that). I’m at work right now, but I’ll try seeing what exactly they quote as sources for that one.

flowbank:
There are laws that apply both to Jews and non-Jews in the OT. The 10 commandments were for the Jews, but there was an older covenant with Noah that applies to those who are not descendants of Abraham. The Jews covenant incluedes the 7 laws of Noah, so it is not a new covenant per se, but an expansion of the old one. There are two divisions to the world in Judaism, Jews and Noahites. Jews have it a lot tougher when it comes to laws to follow.

Daniel:
Jesus himself did not come to the Gentiles, nor did he come to change the law. He just put things in a different light, to respect the intent of the law instead of focus on the letter of the law. When one follows the law because it is the law instead of out of respect for God, it is wrong. There was no need for the non-Jewish converts to follow the dietary laws of the Jews because they were never held to the laws in the first place. The debate was whether or not they should convert and then follow the laws. It is the men who followed Jesus that twisted his words and created a new religion. There was no need for a “new covenant”.

Screwtape:
The verse you are quoting applies to married Jews, and was Jesus’ response to a “trick” question. You are taking the verse out of context.

33

I seem to have been taken the wrong way. I didn’t mean to imply that child molestation (paedophilia or ‘child loving’ isn’t really the right term here,) drug addiction or serial killing is neccessarily genetically predetermined. I was simply trying to say that there are things in an individual’s past, whether genetic, physical damage or emotional trauma that makes an individual susceptible to these urges. Obviously people can and do control these urges for at least short time periods. An alcoholic doesn’t need to drink every time she sees a bottle any more than a person of any sexual orientation has to have sex immediately upon offer (although I know a few people who come close). I think the Christian theory is that if you can control something short term then with prayer and help from God you can overcome it. After all although it may be a sin Jesus also made it clear that anyone would be forgiven anything provided they were genuinely sorry for their actions. This I think is where the misplaced belief in God being all-loving came from. He is ‘omni-maganimous’ (if that isn’t a word it is now) rather than omni-benevolent, but a Christian has to be truly repentant. So I think a Christian homosexual may be tempted and may occasionally stray, but provided she is genuinely sorry then no problem with the afterlife.

Oh yeah, and Spooje, sorry I can’t find a quote offhand, I’m simply quoting from memory from a BBC doco on serial killers wher a leading Forensic Psychologist said that at least some serial killers seem ‘predestined’ to kill, and that once they start they can’t stop, even if they know they will be caught. In the example he quoted a killer actually went back to a body even though he knew the police were staking it out.

To shed some light on the debate about whether homosexuality is wrong for Christians, I guess it depends on whether you believe the Apocryphal books. By those I mean everything written after Jesus’ death aside from the Gospels. I personally don’t feel the need to follow them as Gospel truth (ha ha), but if you do try these:

1 Timothy 1:9-11 “for persons lawless… ungodly and sinners… fornicators, men who lie with males… and whatever other things are in opposition to the … teaching according to the … good news of God.”

Jude 7 “Sodom and Gommorah and the cities about them, after they… had gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a wrning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire” Considering what was going on in Sodom and Gommaroah back in Genesis I think the meaning here is pretty to clear. Also suggests something about Gods loving nature.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Neither fornicators…nor men kept for unnatural purposes nor men who lie with men… will inherit the kingdom of God.

So if you wnat to keep to the whole NT then homosexuality is sin for Christians. If you want to just keep to Jesus’ rules of Do unto others, Love thy neighbour and Love god
then make up your own minds

34

Yes, but that begs the question of whether homosexuality IS genetic in nature. A lot of laymen like to say that homosexuality is 100% genetic, thanks in part to some sensationalistic press reports. Within the scientific community though, that idea is far from widely supported.

In fact, there are homosexuals who actively OPPOSE that idea, partly because a genetic connection could lead to anti-homosexual eugenics.

I’m not inclined to take sides in this issue, but as a scientist, I cringe whenever people insist that homosexuality “is genetic” or “has been proven to be genetic.” It just isn’t the case, folks. At best, we have vauge hints that there might be some genetic correlation. That’s it.

35

think. it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, we all agree with that here, but as the person who first wrote this post said “they must have been mistaken, or put in their own opinions” (paraphrased) but, think of it this way. It says clearly in the bible that it is wrong, and those who are gay will have eternity in Hell (Hades as the bible sometimes puts it. lake of fire, etc…) all written in the bible. now think. there are those out there who might be gay, and want to follow God and they read this. If they arnt like the emptyheaded people who dont follow the comandments in the New Testament (most of the people out there. “eternal damnation…wide is the path to it”)so if these smart homosexuals read this, and decide to stop their permiscunus, they are correct. thing is, why would God allow something that is hard for people to do slip by by “opinions” when he would see a strugle? oh he would not allow that to happen. he would have corrected that by a nobler hand back in that day when it was written, back when God interacted with people. Fact is, whats written in the bible was written to be followed (in the new testament that is. The sermon on the mount states that “I came not to destroy (the old testament) but to fuful. and not one jot nor tittle (of the word of the OT) shall pass away, nor heaven and earth be destroyed untill all of it is fufiled (his death and resurection)” so thing is, you can be like them and try to change God’s comandments, but you would be wrong.

36

Simple, like “permiscunus”? Or “fuful”? No? Must be simple like “comandments”. That must be it.

37

waterj2 wrote:

It’s not constrained to the book of Job, either – the New Testament (Jude 1:5) pretty much says that some people were pre-ordained to go to Hell even before they were born, Jesus notwithstanding!

38

I guess I was just using option #4 in the OP to suggest that there might be a small flaw in the structure of his original statement.
When people are arguing over whether Venusians are green with tails or red with fins, I just feel this need to ask,“What Venusians?” Just one of my many faults, I guess.

39

But the OP seemed to be asking for the Biblical and dogmatic interpretation, not for ultimate truth. You can consider Dune a work of fiction but still participate in a discussion of the importance of the spice trade to the Guild or speculate on the roots of the hatred between the Harkonnen and the Atriedes.

40

so I got a grammar problem. sue me. I’m sleepy. what I said is very true though