Board index ‹ LGBT: Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homosexuality

[jimwalton]

I haven't ignored your points. I have addressed them over and over. I continue to address them. Look back and you'll see one-to-one comments about what you have said, claimed, and asked.

1. Love is not the primary standard of behavior, holiness is.
2. It is within the context of holiness that love is properly defined.
3. The Bible, both consistently and without exception, bars all homosexual acting out, no matter what the relationship or the circumstances.

> There's this weird assumption that we want to make everyone gay.

I never said this nor implied it. Only that if we pushed the argument to the edges, it fails.

> we can't be brushed away

Not trying to brush you away, but to respect you with reasoned dialogue.

> Leviticus was made irrelevant by Hebrews 8:13. You guys keep cherry-picking Levitican law to rationalize your discomfort of homosexuality.

Since we're in Hebrews 8, notice verse 10. Holiness—the very life of God in us—is associated with moral behavior. Biblical holiness describes our relationship to God that He has established. At bottom, God’s call to be holy is a radical, all-encompassing claim on our lives, our loves, and our very identities.

You're wrong about heb. 8.13 making the Levitical law obsolete. The old covenant with its law was like a map leading God’s people to know how to be like him. In the new covenant and the law of Christ, the map has been replaced by a guide. That does not make the map wrong; it just makes it easier to get to the destination. Christ fulfills the law by serving as the climax of God’s revelation of his character. Matthew 5.17 contains a uncompromising affirmation of the eternal validity of the law of Moses. The Law was given as a temporary tutor (1) to show people that none were righteous and (2) to lead people to Jesus. While it was a temporary tutor, it was still an eternal dictum. Jesus fulfilled the law, so it is still in effect, but in a different way. Paul also said he upholds the law (Rom. 3.31). But it has all changed because of Jesus. Paul doesn't expect Gentile Christians to be circumcised or live according to the Jewish festival calendar or give temple offerings. He also makes no distinction between the moral law and the extinct cultic law, even though such a division is actually valid. In fact, Paul means that all the rules in the entire law are included in the law of love (Rom. 13.9-10; Gal. 5.14). His thought pattern goes like this.

Christians fulfill the cultic law by offering their bodies (in love) as sacrifices that are pleasing to God (Rom. 12.1). It is their spiritual temple service. Since their entire lives are consecrated to God, they do not even need any dietary rules or commands about special festivals with ritual washing, but love covers all these.

Christians also fulfill the law of circumcision by letting their hearts be circumcised “in Spirit,” not in the flesh. It is through the Holy Spirit that God’s love is poured in the hearts of Christians (Rom. 5.5). The Holy Spirit wakens in them love directed back at God and the neighbor (Rom. 15.30). Christian, who serve through the Spirit of God, are counted as the circumcised (Phil. 3.3). Therefore Christians don't need to follow all the OT levitical rules literally “in flesh,” but “in Spirit.”

The Bible's teaching about homosexuality is part of the moral law that still stands, just as much as "Don't steal." I'm not uncomfortable with homosexuality—that's not at issue at all. Nor do I have an irrational psychopathology: Homophobia. I just read the Scriptures and live by them.

> there was no overt positive examples of homosexuality in his time so it's not surprisingly that he paints it with a broad brush.

You're right, and I've agreed to that before. But that doesn't mean I'm making a gross mistake. I'm studying the Scriptures deeply to mine their truths.

> Just because people perceived homosexuality as a form of prostitution doesn't mean that homosexuality doesn't have the potential to be something more. I mean that's like condemning straight relationships because of male-female prostitution. There was no overt examples positive homosexual relationships in biblical times for biblical authors to say "Oh! Except for these! These are good examples of wholesome same-sex relationships."

I agree with this. Don't accuse me of ignoring your points. I have been addressing your points all along.

> Just because people perceived homosexuality as a form of prostitution doesn't mean that homosexuality doesn't have the potential to be something more.

I agreed that same-sex life long homosexual relationships of love is not what the Bible talking about. I've already said this. But the NT, not just the OT, speaks of unnatural sexual relations, meaning man on man. Romans 1 is addressing the fallen condition of humanity. We are ALL sinners. Neither Paul nor anyone else in antiquity had a concept of “sexual orientation.” That doesn't change the fact that Paul treats all homosexual activity as prima facie evidence of humanity’s tragic confusion and alienation from God the Creator.

> No, it doesn't. You haven't made your case

OK, then lay out your rebuttal. Where does the Bible allow and approve of homosexual acting out?

[Majesty]

> The Bible's teaching about homosexuality is part of the moral law that still stands, just as much as "Don't steal." I'm not uncomfortable with homosexuality—that's not at issue at all. Nor do I have an irrational psychopathology: Homophobia. I just read the Scriptures and live by them.

"People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification. " - Jonathan Haidt

People frequently rationalize homophobia, which is a subconscious reaction against homosexuality, by mischaracterizing and miscontextualizing the bible.

> I agree with this.

Then you agree that the characterization of homosexuality described in the bible is a narrow subset of homosexual activity. Otherwise you are contradicting yourself.

> OK, then lay out your rebuttal. Where does the Bible allow and approve of homosexual acting out?

No, you want to restrict my rights. You want to deny my kind marriage equality. The onus is on you to make a case for it.

[jimwalton]

The quotes by Jonathan Haidt and the comment by yourself have nothing to do with me. I am not "people...generally." You've been talking to me, an individual. You can't generalize and lump me into a group in which I don't believe. It matters not, for our discussion, what "people frequently rationalize." You're talking to me.

> Then you agree that the characterization of homosexuality described in the bible is a narrow subset of homosexual activity.

I agree that it's a subset, sure. I made that clear. How narrow a subset is a difficult metric to settle. I have said several times, "The ancients knew nothing of long-term, committed, life-long same sex relationships."

> No, you want to restrict my rights. You want to deny my kind marriage equality.

You have asked what the Bible says, and I have been honest and forthcoming. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, and that love is not the highest value. In a pluralistic, tolerant society, we should all be encouraged to discussion our deepest convictions.

At root, marriage is a social institution. There is no legal contract we sign with conditions, no religious pledge on paper. While we may get married in a religious or civil ceremony, it's the same. We don't think of people as "religiously married" or "civilly married". They are just married. the debate about same-sex marriage is about using law to change the meaning of the social institution in a way that affects everyone.

You speak of "rights" and "denying marriage equality." In other words, you claim that I want to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, which you consider to be unjust. The problem here is that the argument assumes what needs to be proved. What you don't seem to realize is that any law that sets criteria for anything discriminates. Current laws of marriage discriminate against age: you have to be "x" old to get married. We don't consider this unjustified discrimination, but sensible discrimination. Current laws of marriage discriminate against "family": A father can't marry his daughter, or a brother his sister. Once again, we consider this to be justified. The argument of "restrict my rights" is an illegitimate argument. The case must be made elsewhere.

In addition, the idea of "equality" is too much. Human sexuality is complex and variable. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism—and some of these are matters of degree, not of distinct categories. And what about forays into bigamy, prostitution, hooking up, swinging, and one night stands? It follows that if "equal" on grounds of sexual orientation is the standard, then the law needs to allow for many forms and practices, including polygamy. And why can't, then, prostitution be a form of short-term marriage? If equality is the standard, then it must be the standard. Therefore the argument from equality is also inadequate for the issue at hand.

> The onus is on you to make a case for it.

I have presented my case several times. In a debate, there is a presentation, and then a rebuttal. I would like you to lay out your rebuttal. State your side of the case: Where does the Bible allow and approve of homosexual acting out?

[Majesty]

Look, I really want to cut through a lot of this pedantic theory to get to the heart of my point. When I am discussing "Love", I'm talking about the ideal emotional/spiritual/physical relationship as God intended for human beings. Not some conflation of the term to satisfy lumping homosexuality in with pedophilia and incest. You can make an argument that I'm denied that by my nature, but when I talk about Love, I'm talking about the Love that we can both identify as what is intended by God for man and woman.
My argument is only that two men or two women can also experience that same love and that the bible doesn't deny us that potential.

Let's use a personal example. My parents. Man and Wife. Married before God. Christian. They are good people (not perfect. No one is). They love each other with a sincerity and earnestness that I think comes very close to the Love that God intended for human beings. They are lucky in that regard. They've found each other and won the jackpot of life for being compatible mates on a spiritual, emotional and social level.

Growing up, it's not unreasonable for me to want what they have.... puberty rolls around and I discover that I'm gay. I HATED myself for a long time because of the type of arguments that you make now. I was distraught that somehow I was wrong in some way.
Then I fell in love. In sizing up and measuring that relationship, it is by every measure extremely similar to the relationship that my parents have.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 is a lovely bit of poetry that characterizes the nature of love and helps us identify it when we have it. The love I have for my partner is every quality that's described in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

My conviction informs my faith because it enforces it. My relationship with God is strengthened by having experienced love that is deep and selfless. If you really are a Christian, I hope you emotionally sympathize with my plight even if you genuinely don't agree with my perspective. It's not enough that you have some self-satisfied intellectual resolution to convince me of a reasoned argument. You're debating it's your abstract theory against my life and my faith.

In that, your words nor any others, don't affect me emotionally anymore. I don't hate myself. I love myself. I love that I'm homosexual for the depth and breadth of experience that it's given me both good and bad. It's strengthen and deepened my character. I think it's a gift that God gave me. I think it's a gentile reminder to society that life is more than just reproduction. A part of the human condition is contributing in other ways than producing a child. 7 Billion people on this planet. We've got the reproduction thing covered. There's still so many other ways we can contribute to humanity than just reproduction. I think that's genuinely why homosexuality exists from a life experience perspective.

The reason I argue with you now is because your argument will affect others who are less resolved. Teenagers who might read your argument and convince themselves that you are right. That they might hate themselves because they think you're right. Too many kids are dying because of the type of argument you make. It genuinely concerns me.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your honesty. I really am trying to have a meaningful and respectful conversation, just as you are. I understanding that you're talking about real love, not some sham or perversion. I get it. I agree with you that it's possible to feel and experience that love between a man and a man just as much as between a man and a woman. I know. 1 Corinthians 13.4-8, I get it. You feel that so deeply and so honestly, and I believe you. It's real.

I don't want anyone to hate themselves. But let me talk to you honestly this way. The Bible is unrelenting in its description of homosexuality as sin, but it’s also true that some (and only some) who seek same-sex marriage today are not at all like the situations of Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, and Romans 1. The ancient world knew nothing of what is being played out in our society. Theirs was a harsh and sinful world of pederasty, dominance, rape, and sexual abuse. I would say without hesitation that many homosexuals today are still motivated by passion and lust, by rebellion, and by "against nature" (Rom. 1.18-32), and this behavior is an abomination, and these people will receive God's judgment for their sin. By the same token, since we are using discerning love informed by deep insight, trying to apply the right tests and reach the right decisions in things which present moral differences, that those who are by nature homosexuals, and who even in their homosexuality are seeking God, that we must act in discerning love and principles of accommodation and merciful concession. In Paul's day, idolatry and the Sabbath (Rom. 14) were no small issues. Nor was homosexuality. But he accommodates the first two, and we recognize that the homosexuality of ancient Corinth was mostly pederasty. **I think God commands us to be people of discerning love, to take into account such things as motive and nature, behavior, spirit, and heart, and be mercifully accommodating in certain situations and circumstances.**

Some would say that in such a position I am compromising and promoting sin. Paul took the same accusation on the chin when he spoke of living by grace and the Spirit of Christ rather than by the list of rules. See Rom. 6.1 and Gal. 2.17. It’s just not so. Was divorce ever allowed even though God hates it? Absolutely. Was adultery ever OK? Well, if someone’s brother died and left a widow, a surviving brother was to go have sex with his widow to create progeny, even if the living brother was married. I’m not endorsing compromise, weakening of ethics, or playing loose with holiness. I’m just trying to exercise the Law of Love and freedom based on the character of God and the way he has revealed himself. Does this open "Pandora's Box"? It's not supposed to, because what we are truly expected to do is follow the leading of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15.28; Gal. 2.17), which is far more than a liver-shiver and involves history, experience, wisdom, debate, and judicious assessment of a variety of forms of evidence, stories, and experiences.

In Matthew 9.13; 12.7 (Hos. 6.6), Jesus teaches that mercy supplants or relativizes the Law's specific commandments (Ex. 34.21). Mercy is one of the most important character qualities that Jesus seeks to inculcate in his followers. Jesus was known to associate with sinners of all stripes. Mercy, not sacrifice (one of the chief acts of worship), is God’s will, and shows purity more than rules do. Showing God's mercy to people is precisely what the Law requires of us.

The point is to exemplify a rigorous standard of righteousness (holiness), but also a heart of mercy, for justice values both authority and the value of persons. Honest judgment allows for both punishment and commutation. We must never be soft, but we need not always be hard. While justice requires righteous action, in the Scripture it is often connected with mercy: caring for orphans, widows, foreigners, the oppressed, the poor, and the infirmed. It only makes sense to let our attitudes and behaviors with regard to homosexuality be nuanced. Sometimes it makes sense to subordinate the Law’s specific commandments to its deeper intent, and deal mercifully with human weakness, frailty, and even failure. In Matthew 18.22 and the following parable, Jesus proclaims the superabundance of divine mercy that the church is called to display to the world.

Will some abuse this position? Of course they will, and they fall under the teaching of Galatians 6.1. But for those not abusing this position, it’s not my place to judge (Rom. 14). I have to discern as best I can. I am accountable for the way I think and live, and they are accountable to the way they think and live. Don’t get me wrong—we live in a very God-defying culture, and I think so much of the homosexual activity around us is a vivid illustration of it, just as it was in Sodom and Romans 1. It’s outright rebellion against God, and the spiritual depravity is obvious. But not all of it is, and in those cases I think we need to show nuance in mercy, wisdom, assessment, spirit, motive, heart, and morality.

[Majesty]

> The Bible is unrelenting in its description of homosexuality as sin

Are you so genuinely certain in your interpretation? Here's the thing, biblical inerrancy made relevant because humans by their nature aren't. We are capable of making mistakes in understanding verbal and written communication.

> I would say without hesitation that many homosexuals today are still motivated by passion and lust, by rebellion, and by "against nature"

No more or less so than straight people. The only difference is that straight people have the additional risk of pregnancy and that gives them further pause. So making a clear distinction about homosexuals isn't necessary. It doesn't support specific condemnation.

> But he accommodates the first two, and we recognize that the homosexuality of ancient Corinth was mostly pederasty.

This issue has really come up with you in the conversation. Just to be clear, it's statistically demonstrable that pedophilla and sexual orientation are orthogonal to each other statistically. Meaning one has no bearing on the other. In fact, more straight people are pedophiles than gay people not because straight people are more prone to it but because there are simply more straight people. There's no causal nor correlative relationship between sexual orientation than pedophilla.

Adult men and girls were a problem in middle eastern culture in that same time period.

Homosexuality, as I talk about it, is the romantic/sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same-sex.

> Sometimes it makes sense to subordinate the Law’s specific commandments to its deeper intent, and deal mercifully with human weakness, frailty, and even failure.

I feel like this is as close as we will come to agreeing although I suspect I interpret your meaning to be different than you do.

I won't ask for forgiveness for being gay. My sexual orientation is a state of being that's expressed through behaviour. It's not just behaviour. To me, the idea of it is akin to asking for forgiveness for being left-handed or having brown eyes. (Actually, handedness is an interest simile because it is also a trait expressed through behaviour. I doubt there are many modern Christians who would condemn left-handed people now, but at one time people thought differently and now I think they've matured and grown in their understanding of biblical teaching. I think the same is true of Homosexuality).

There is plenty that I will ask for forgiveness because I acknowledge that I'm a flawed human being and I make mistakes. Some of which may come as a result of sexual expression. The same types of mistakes that straight people make with their partners. But sexual orientation unto itself is not a sin. That's off the table.

[jimwalton]

> Are you so genuinely certain in your interpretation?

Absolutely. I have studied the Bible on this subject deeply. I have read many books. I have conversed with my gay friends. I am genuinely certain in the interpretation.

> No more or less so than straight people. ... So making a clear distinction about homosexuals isn't necessary.

Oh, I agree very strongly. But there isn't specific condemnation. The Bible explicitly and resoundly condemns all sin. And even though we know some sins are worse than others, we don't have the list that ranks them. I have not condemned homosexuality any different than any other sin identified in the Bible.

> It's statistically demonstrable that pedophilia and sexual orientation are orthogonal to each other.

Not in the ancient world they weren't. I've read extensively about it. The Greco-Roman culture in which Paul wrote was particularly abhorrent in this regard.

> Adult men and girls were a problem in middle eastern culture in that same time period.

I can believe that. No one said that homosexuality was the worst problem, or a greater sin, or the only sin. At least I didn't. You didn't hear any of that from me.

> Homosexuality, as I talk about it, is the romantic/sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same-sex.

I know, but that's not what it was in the Bible.

> I won't ask for forgiveness for being gay.

You don't need to. It's not my place to judge. I am only talking to you about what the Bible says. You will stand before God and make account for yourself just as I will, just as we all will.

[I'm a Pepper]

I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful reasoning. At the risk of trivializing your understanding of the topic; could we simply say homosexuality isn't a sin because we don't know why it would be? You mention several reasons why Biblical authors would call 'homosexuality' a sin: pederasty being high on the list. If those issues are eliminated couldn't homosexuality be considered not immoral?

[jimwalton]

I don't think so. Just because we aren't told why doesn't mean we can toss it off. The Bible doesn't tell us why adultery is sin, or lying, or theft, or coveting. That doesn't mean we can simply say lying isn't a sin because we don't know why it would be. We can speculate pretty responsibly about why lying and theft are sin, and we can also speculate (as many do) about why homosexuality is considered a sin. But in a conversation about what the Bible actually says, in black and white, we have to admit that it never tells us. That doesn't mean, "Oh, then it must be OK to consider it OK."

> If those issues are eliminated couldn't homosexuality be considered not immoral?

No, because the "abomination" of homosexuality is not based on the social consequences or alleged scientific theory. Homosexuality isn't just "issue"-based, but character- and morality-based. As I said, "The conclusion is necessary: the Bible regards homosexuality as a sin." Because we don't know the "why" doesn't undermine what we are told.

[Slipped Tongue]

“For the wages of sin is death …” (Romans 6:23), applies to all sin, whether in thought, word, or deed. If all sins have the same punishment, they are all equal in degrees of "sin-ness" (for lack of better words)