# Raindog, why can't a loving God accept homosexual relationships? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305 "2004-05-09T17:13:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/121 "2004-05-17T21:24:14Z")
by **Tric** > [@](#): > > We are not put on the earth to avoid sin, but to give love. Do good. Not to gain reward; not even to please God. I believe this 100%. Nice and succinct. The problem that I have (and I consider myself a Christian even though by most criteria out there, I might as well be a heathen ☹ ) with by-the-book Christianity is that life is not like a gadget that comes with a handy dandy instruction manual. Since humans come into this world naked and illiterate, it seems mighty cruel to create a world in which one’s potential to live a God-pleasing life hinges completely on the oft chance that they come in contact with the Bible AND that they learn to read or are in close contact with a reliable source who can read. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that way, applying my own standards of fairness to God who is beyond my full comprehension, but I can’t deny what makes sense to me. To see the way a lot of Christians use the Bible, it would be easy to come away with the impression that the Bible–and not Jesus and his teachings–is the key to salvation. Afterall, if one does not have access to what’s in the bible, how can they know Jesus? And how can they know God? Good thing we have the Bible, because if we didn’t, how in God’s name would we know how to do right? But something tells me we would figure it out. How? By looking at the results of our actions. And looking beyond ourselves and our immediate self-interests. God gave us an intellect for a reason and it was not just so that we could “figure out” the mysteries of life by reading the same book over and over again. Why are we here? Is it not to learn and grow and develop? Is so, then that will not happen if we act as if the Bible has done all the thinking for us and now all we have to do is just obey the letter of the law. “Homosexual sex is immoral because the Bible says it is” flies in the face of the rationality that was bestowed upon all of us. In the long run, a thinking brain needs more than just “because the Bible says so” in order to do what it is right. Maybe this is an arrogant position to take, but it is no more arrogant than proclaiming that “truth” has come to us in a tidy book of verses and letters. And now I will stop ranting. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/122 "2004-05-17T23:17:08Z")
Re Who Gets Into Heaven Naturally, Jewish scholars are divided on this. Most agree that any gentile can get into heaven provided they follow the seven Laws Of Noah No murdering No stealing No eating a limb torn from a living animal No blaspheming G-d No denying G-d No forbidden sex Set up courts to enforce these laws Note that exactly how the laws are interpreted, and what other laws are derived from them (EG most scholars agree that winning money through cheating, and kidnapping are implicitly forbidden by the prohibition on theft) From the Encylopedia Britannica > [@](#): > > Beginning with Genesis 2:16, the Babylonian Talmud listed the first six commandments as prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, and robbery and the positive command to establish courts… [Aish.com](http://Aish.com), a site meant to answer your basic and intermediate level questions on Judaism, (and one I don’t particularly recommend as they endorse young earth creationism- defending it with demonstrably untrue facts about the bombadier beetle. An argument which is debunked on talk origins) gives the laws as > [@](#): > > Do not murder. > Do not steal. > Do not worship false gods. > Do not be sexually immoral. > Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed. > Do not curse God. > Set up courts and bring offenders to justice. As you can see translators often give their own interpretation of the laws. While the prohibition on idolatry is implied in ‘do not deny G-d’, the law itself doesn’t mention idols. The prohibition on cursing G-d is implied in ‘do not blaspheme G-d’, but the prohibition covers a lot of other things as well. Some translations say adultery, or incest, or forbidden relations. Does this law proscribe gay sex? I’d say no. The other sexual practices that are generally listed as forbidden involve harming another person (adultery IMHO is harmful to the the other spouse. The power structure of family relationships arguably makes true consent impossible. Thus, a ban on incest.) ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/123 "2004-05-18T03:04:46Z")
**Polycarp said:** [quote] **Raindog** , there’s a lot you say that I don’t agree with (though quite a bit that I do, including your point about humility in that last post). But can I say that the approach you have taken in this thread is head and shoulders above virtually every other debate on this subject in the history of this board. For that, many thanks! [quote] Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that a dissonant voice was allowed to be heard, and the tolerance that has been displayed in my behalf. Of course, when one summons the courage to share his faith, it is the message that matters. It is at one’s peril that the messenger begins to think that they are anything more than what they are: just the messenger. **(1 Cor 10:12)** I’m surmising that you would agree, based on the things I’ve read—both things said about you, and the things you’ve said. I appreciate the humility and thoughtfullness from which you approach your posts. If either of us brings anyone closer to God and an accurate knowledge of him and his purposes, we’ve all gained. > [@](#): > > Just out of curiosity, I’d be interested in your take on a series of points made on several boards by a large number of people, and founded in the sort of Bible scholarship that takes into account the customs of the people to whom the particular book of the Bible was addressed, and those of the peoples surrounding them. > > This would take the view that the Leviticus passages condemn Canaanite fertility rites, that Romans 1:22ff condemn either similar fertility rites or the First Century equivalent of “gay chic” as a part of a world-and-personal-pleasure-oriented lifestyle, not specifically a gay lifestyle, and that the I Corinthians passage condemns boy prostitution, which was a significant part of the burgeoning prostitution industry in the port city of Corinth. The Sodom story is already dealt with quite effectively by Ezekiel 16:49-50, which defines “the sin of Sodom” in terms that should make suburbanites rather than gays start to worry. > > In other words, God is thoroughly ticked off at man using other men for selfish gratification or idolatrous purposes, just as he is men using women for said purposes, not specifically because it’s gay sex, but because it’s sinful attitudes and behaviors expressed through gay sex acts. In other words, there are heinous sins of idolatry and sexual exploitation which God condemns, but two gay people in love and wanting to enter into a Christian marriage with each other are no more committing those sins than the young straight couple marrying are guilty of the assorted condemnations of adultery, fornication, and whoredoms with which the same collection of passages are replete. By way of an answer, let me share with you my instincts, without spending too much time filtering them for continuity. I’ll just throw them out. 1. I don’t think I can do justice to all of the “cites” in one post. If I could, I don’t think it would be accepted by those with opposing views. I can be naturally verbose (although not always) but it seems that in this thread, and the one that preceded it, every time I used some economy of words people said I hadn’t addressed the OP. (Even though I thought I clearly had) It wasn’t until I was more detailed and exhaustive in my responses that those complaints went away. (although certainly not the disagreements…) 2. I think that any one of them could be covered in it’s own thread. There’s just too much information, contextually in the bible itself, as well as historical/secular references that would be introduced. (and probed) I think\*\* SentientMeat\*\* has a pretty cool thing going on with his “Political Compass” series. It’s well thought out and well done. There are basically 4 “cites”: Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians, right? I would imagine that any one of them could be isolated in it’s own thread and discussed as part of a “Master Thread”. 3. Before anyone does that…I’m not sure that I can do justice to it. As long as each “sub thread” ran it’s course before the next cite/thread was started, maybe. But this thread alone has consumed alot of my energy and it doesn’t help that I peck, not type. I have a job, and life that needs me from time to time. (Although this stuff can be addictive!) 4. I’m not particularly interested in debating for the sake of debating. I am certainly up for discussions with fellow believers, who share a common goal, but find that they disagree on the direction. But I’m not too interested in debating with anyone if there is little, or no, common ground. For example,\*\* Diogenes\*\*, (who I think is kinda cool even though we disagree on almost everything) appears to be nonChristian, and agnostic. That’s cool with me. But it appears to me that he sees the bible in more historical/academic terms. (Hence his studies in “Religious Studies”) To a believer (rather, to this believer anyway…) that is akin to having a disussion about the Mona Lisa and whose counterparty is talking about the choice of backboard or the tensile strength of the canvas. We may be talking about the same thing (tangentially), but because we’re coming from such radically different perspectives it’s highly likely that we’ll end up in a rather unsatisfying standoff. Anyways, that’s kind of a long non-answer, huh? I’d like to answer **Siege** in this thread, and maybe we can take on each of these cites one at a time. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/124 "2004-05-18T03:09:34Z")
SORRY; I KEEP SCREWING UP THE QUOTE THING. I"LL DO BETTER, PROMISE. **Polycarp said:** > [@](#): > > **Raindog** , there’s a lot you say that I don’t agree with (though quite a bit that I do, including your point about humility in that last post). But can I say that the approach you have taken in this thread is head and shoulders above virtually every other debate on this subject in the history of this board. For that, many thanks! Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that a dissonant voice was allowed to be heard, and the tolerance that has been displayed in my behalf. Of course, when one summons the courage to share his faith, it is the message that matters. It is at one’s peril that the messenger begins to think that they are anything more than what they are: just the messenger. **(1 Cor 10:12)** I’m surmising that you would agree, based on the things I’ve read—both things said about you, and the things you’ve said. I appreciate the humility and thoughtfullness from which you approach your posts. If either of us brings anyone closer to God and an accurate knowledge of him and his purposes, we’ve all gained. > [@](#): > > Just out of curiosity, I’d be interested in your take on a series of points made on several boards by a large number of people, and founded in the sort of Bible scholarship that takes into account the customs of the people to whom the particular book of the Bible was addressed, and those of the peoples surrounding them. > > This would take the view that the Leviticus passages condemn Canaanite fertility rites, that Romans 1:22ff condemn either similar fertility rites or the First Century equivalent of “gay chic” as a part of a world-and-personal-pleasure-oriented lifestyle, not specifically a gay lifestyle, and that the I Corinthians passage condemns boy prostitution, which was a significant part of the burgeoning prostitution industry in the port city of Corinth. The Sodom story is already dealt with quite effectively by Ezekiel 16:49-50, which defines “the sin of Sodom” in terms that should make suburbanites rather than gays start to worry. > > In other words, God is thoroughly ticked off at man using other men for selfish gratification or idolatrous purposes, just as he is men using women for said purposes, not specifically because it’s gay sex, but because it’s sinful attitudes and behaviors expressed through gay sex acts. In other words, there are heinous sins of idolatry and sexual exploitation which God condemns, but two gay people in love and wanting to enter into a Christian marriage with each other are no more committing those sins than the young straight couple marrying are guilty of the assorted condemnations of adultery, fornication, and whoredoms with which the same collection of passages are replete. By way of an answer, let me share with you my instincts, without spending too much time filtering them for continuity. I’ll just throw them out. 1. I don’t think I can do justice to all of the “cites” in one post. If I could, I don’t think it would be accepted by those with opposing views. I can be naturally verbose (although not always) but it seems that in this thread, and the one that preceded it, every time I used some economy of words people said I hadn’t addressed the OP. (Even though I thought I clearly had) It wasn’t until I was more detailed and exhaustive in my responses that those complaints went away. (although certainly not the disagreements…) 2. I think that any one of them could be covered in it’s own thread. There’s just too much information, contextually in the bible itself, as well as historical/secular references that would be introduced. (and probed) I think\*\* SentientMeat\*\* has a pretty cool thing going on with his “Political Compass” series. It’s well thought out and well done. There are basically 4 “cites”: Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians, right? I would imagine that any one of them could be isolated in it’s own thread and discussed as part of a “Master Thread”. 3. Before anyone does that…I’m not sure that I can do justice to it. As long as each “sub thread” ran it’s course before the next cite/thread was started, maybe. But this thread alone has consumed alot of my energy and it doesn’t help that I peck, not type. I have a job, and life that needs me from time to time. (Although this stuff can be addictive!) 4. I’m not particularly interested in debating for the sake of debating. I am certainly up for discussions with fellow believers, who share a common goal, but find that they disagree on the direction. But I’m not too interested in debating with anyone if there is little, or no, common ground. For example,\*\* Diogenes\*\*, (who I think is kinda cool even though we disagree on almost everything) appears to be nonChristian, and agnostic. That’s cool with me. But it appears to me that he sees the bible in more historical/academic terms. (Hence his studies in “Religious Studies”) To a believer (rather, to this believer anyway…) that is akin to having a disussion about the Mona Lisa and whose counterparty is talking about the choice of backboard or the tensile strength of the canvas. We may be talking about the same thing (tangentially), but because we’re coming from such radically different perspectives it’s highly likely that we’ll end up in a rather unsatisfying standoff. Anyways, that’s kind of a long non-answer, huh? I’d like to answer **Siege** in this thread, and maybe we can take on each of these cites one at a time. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2004, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/125 "2004-05-18T03:16:40Z")
**Siege said:** > [@](#): > > So, **raindog** , you’ve cited several passages discussing heaven from both old and new testaments… Hello CJ. I am interested in your post, and have given it some thought. However it is 11:15 p.m. and fatigue is setting in. We can talk more tomorrow I hope. ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/126 "2004-05-20T00:08:02Z")
Arriving late as I typically seem to, I will add nothing to this discussion other than to simply say thank you, **raindog**. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/127 "2004-05-20T04:41:06Z")
**Siege said:** > [@](#): > > …You see, on page 2 of this thread I cited a passage in Matthew 15 where I not only cited a passage where Jesus discusses how the law applies to mankind under his new covenant, I put the passage itself into the text so you and others would be able to see exactly what words I was looking at. > > Do you have a response? Are you still working on your response to that passage? You’ve spoken a great deal of Christians’ obligation to follow the law yet, once again, I’ll cite Christ’s response to those who slavishly follow the letter of the law. I’m sorry for getting back to you so late. Life keeps getting in the way of my posting schedule. 😉 As to Jesus’s words in **Matthew 15** , it’s worth looking at the context of his words, and his objection to the hypocrites. The texts at **Matthew 15** were not as you mentioned\* “Christ’s response to those who slavishly follow the letter of the law.”\* Christ wasn’t pointing out that they were slavishly following the Law; on the contrary he was saying that they weren’t following the Law at all. (or nominally at best) They had added a series of rules, or traditions, to the Law, that perverted the practice and spirit of the Law. For example, the same account you mentioned as related by Mark **(Mark 7:1-8)** the Jews had a series of traditions that they had developed that were not found in the Mosaic Law, nor were they required by God. For example, the Jews washed their hands all the way up to their elbows, and when returning from the market sprinkled themselves as a symbolic way of cleansing themselves.\*\* (Mark 7:3-4)\*\* These things were not required of them. Jesus was quoting **Exodus 20:12, and Exodus 21:17** as rules that Law governed how one should treat their parents. **(Also see De 5:16, Lev 20:9,De 27:16)** The Jews would have been quite familiar with these commands. However as Jesus noted at\*\* Matt 15:5-7\*\* they used traditions of men to sidestep their obligations under the Law. They were ‘gaming’ the Law; by introducing their own (often self-righteous) traditions they found ways to not follow the Law, all the while making the appearence of being righteous or adherents to the Law. They were far from it. Look at what Jesus said about them: at **Matthew 15:9** , “It is vain that they keep keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.” (highlights mine) **(See Colossians 2:8 as a good cross reference)**\*\* (Also see Eph 6:2)\*\* **They were following neither the letter, or spirit, of the Law.** When Jesus quoted Isaiah, he was quoting\*\* Isa 29:13\*\*, which says in part, “…and their fear toward me become’s men’s commandment that is being taught.” There was nothing in the Law that required them to step outside the Law to meet some greater good, or to meet the spirit of the Law. The Law, as it was purposed (and if practiced correctly) was not flawed. It was the additional (man made) traditions that were imposed by the Pharisees that burdened the people. I don’t have the time this evening, but there is a series of interesting comparisions between the Law as written, and intended, and the tradtions that the Pharasees had developed from those laws. It was this perversion of the Law (both in practice and in spirit) that Jesus was attacking. IMHO, this account doesn’t speak directly to the issue of homosexuality, but to the extent one could make application it would be incumbent for a Christian to search out God’s requirements and to follow them in both spirit and truth, **(John 4:24)** taking great care to not getting tripped up by man made teachings and or philosophies. > [@](#): > > For me, to deny others a blessing and a sacrament I would like for myself because of ambiguously worded passages about homosexual act would make me a hypocrite. It seems to me Christ saved his worst criticism not for homosexuals, adulterers, or others who commited sexual immorality, but for those same hypocrites. If I must be a sinner, I would much rather be the sort of sinner Christ took compassion on than the sort of sinner he denounced. It is not our place to deny anyone. It would appear that God has indeed denied homosexual behavior. And, with all due respect, I don’t believe the language is ambiguous. Still, we are free moral agents and we have the power to _choose_ our life course. And in due course, we will have to account for those choices. **(Heb 4:13)** I agree that we should endeavor to not be hypocrites, but I don’t think the cites at **Matt 15** , (or the parrallel account at **Mark 7** ) can be applied in the way you wish to when the complete context is considered. Respectfully as well, Matthew ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/128 "2004-05-20T04:44:50Z")
> [@Edlyn](#): > > Arriving late as I typically seem to, I will add nothing to this discussion other than to simply say thank you, **raindog**. Thank you. I’m glad I could participate. ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/129 "2004-05-21T00:40:47Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > But, in the final analasys, a parent has no obligation to explain every decision. A parent has the right to say from time to time, “because I said so.” A loving parent will use this approach sparingly. And God has. Looking back my one experience where I felt I was in communion with the J/C/I God, I did ask the question about homosexuality and got the standard response, “because I said so.” I find this highly unsatisfactory. For a god that purports to be all-knowing, it seems illogical that some sort of explaination that would be satisfactory to my human mind and its level of comprehension would not have been possible. But none came, and that is why I left Christianity nearly a quarter century ago. I did bring this point up for debate because it seems to lead to a paradox, how can (the J/C/I) God be all-loving and all-knowing and yet condemn homosexuality without giving any explanation, even when directly asked. If the J/C/I God asks for blind obedience, so be it. However, I feel more even has been done in the world in the name of blind obedience than has even been puportedly done by homosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/130 "2004-05-21T04:17:20Z")
**Freyr** Frankly, I’ve never felt that G-d asked me for blind obedience on any important issues. His response to ‘Why exactly is pork forbidden?’ though was ‘Isn’t it enough that I ask?’ Considering wonderful things like Sizzlean and turkey ham, I figured that it was. ‘Why is homosexuality forbidden?’ got me ‘It isn’t. Not by Me anyway. Remember when your Uncle Max wrote out a shopping list and you bought Eggo when it actually said Equal? This is like that.’ ---
**Author:** ![Freyr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/freyr/32/5763_2.png) [@Freyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freyr)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/131 "2004-05-21T06:00:28Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > ‘Why is homosexuality forbidden?’ got me > > ‘It isn’t. Not by Me anyway. Remember when your Uncle Max wrote out a shopping list and you bought Eggo when it actually said Equal? This is like that.’ I agree, one hundred percent! Thankfully you’re also not going around insisting that your interpretation of the various sacred texts is the right one and insisting that it’s the **only** way to intepret them. My argument is against those people, not you! 😃 Next time you’re in the LA area, let me know! I’ll take you to Canters in Fairfax! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305/132 "2004-05-21T18:36:30Z")
Actually, though I’m open on a lot of theological issues, on homosexuality I am insistent that my view is the correct one. The actual text is open to interpretation. But, I insist that G-d neither prohibits nor condemns homosexuality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raindog-why-cant-a-loving-god-accept-homosexual-relationships/244305.md?page=6)