5 ms·

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Chri

Right, people are talking about what's spiritually natural. Talking about what's biologically natural is just missing the point. Also, why do you feel the Christian sacred texts doesn't really condemn homosexuality? I feel you have to do a lot of extra-textual analysis and theory-crafting to reach that perspective, so it's no surprise that Christians in general don't buy that idea.

krapp 8y ago
It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. Someone living in Biblical times probably wouldn't have any concept of someone being "straight" or "gay," just of someone following cultural norms or violating cultural taboos. So to say the Bible condemns homosexuality is a misappropriation of the intent of the text outside of the cultural and temporal context to which it was intended to apply.
- fenwick67 8y ago
  > it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).
  - bencollier49 8y ago
    The Old Testament is there for context. It's not a matter of guessing or choosing, and the decision was made early on not to force non-hebrews to follow Old Testament law (meant specifically for Israelites) if they joined up.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  I don't normally do this, but I believe it's very relevant: This comment you're reading has a dead sibling that pointed out the commonly-held Christian doctrine that some of the Bible's laws don't apply to modern Christians. The commenter is absolutely correct, and here is a link from a famous and well-regarded theologian on the subject (R.C Sproul). https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/ https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/ In summary, there are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the Old Testament. For example, "no murder" is a moral law, while dietary restrictions are a ceremonial law. I'm not commenting on the validity or "correctness" of this doctrine, as I am not a theologian. I just think it's worth confirming that this is something a lot of Christians believe.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    There's a NT-only argument against homosexuality that derives the prohibition from the general ban on adultery, combined with the definition of marriage as man + woman. In general, NT has plenty of stuff that can be appropriated for fire-and-brimstone preaching. Most of it is Paul's, which is why some consider Pauline Christianity to be a mutilation of what was preached before.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Paul was a moralizing moron, and he only gets such top billing in NT (and TBH, even considered some sort of apostle at all [0]) because NT was compiled by fellow moralizing morons. Anyone who has done any critical reading in any other context has seen Paul in the proper light and already tuned him right out. Readings from any of Paul's 47 letters are naptime for me. [0] never met Christ, so he had to pretend he had some sort of vision to get in the club... Jesus treated the money changers better than He would have treated Paul.
- baddox 8y ago
  It’s perhaps a digression, but where does the Bible condemn masturbation? The verses that are commonly-cited (at least in my experience, which is mostly among Protestants) are pretty clearly grasping at straws.
- tsegratis 8y ago
  “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” So ironically if homosexuality IS a sin; then these are the people Jesus came for, spent time with, and calls Tax collectors in this context refers to Jews who consorted with Romans to effectively extort from their own countrymen > When you say "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual proclivities, or homosexual acts? It's an important nuance. For example, Judiasm/Christianity/Islam teaches... Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” He says it is bad to desire something bad. This isn't playng with nuance. Slightly later he says: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” A tough call, but then the writer of half the NT was a hater and murderer of Chrstians -- Acts 9 describes how he met Jesus and was accepted/forgiven > And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. * Masturbation: I'm not sure where this could be from * Fish: "Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat." (Leviticus 11) Etc. But actually we are both being anti-biblical here. Sure, there are detailed and unusual laws, but God frequently and directly asks people to focus on other things: “But give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.” Or Jesus: “Woe to you [religious teachers]. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law--justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” And many more... To be wrapped up in the law of what is right or wrong --even homosexuality-- is to 100% miss what the Bible teaches “If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” (Galatians 2)
pesmhey 8y ago
Could the argument be made that in the New Testament, it's not necessarily homosexual activity that is condemned, but rather it's the act of emasculating a man. The criticism against the Romans was that they were laying with men as they would woman, which at the time would mean to rob a man of something absolutely sacrosanct. 2000 years of history, and a lot of progress on the front of women's equality (probably not enough still), and it seems less of an issue for two consenting adults to engage in homosexual activity, whereas in Roman society, could a slave, or a man of lesser status truly consent to a homosexual relationship? It always read to me that it was more about turning men into women than it was about actually performing homosexual acts.

krapp 8y ago

It's been a while, but IIRC, the Bible only condemns homosexual sex specifically. The concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern inventions. Many ancient cultures (such as the Greeks) saw no conflict between their ideals of what we would consider "straight" sexuality and homosexual relationships. And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. Someone living in Biblical times probably wouldn't have any concept of someone being "straight" or "gay," just of someone following cultural norms or violating cultural taboos. So to say the Bible condemns homosexuality is a misappropriation of the intent of the text outside of the cultural and temporal context to which it was intended to apply.

fenwick67 8y ago
> it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. There is a very convenient Christian doctrine where there are "three types of law in the Bible", which explains that some rules are meant for Israelites and some are meant for everyone (and you [or the church] basically get to guess which apply to you).
- bencollier49 8y ago
  The Old Testament is there for context. It's not a matter of guessing or choosing, and the decision was made early on not to force non-hebrews to follow Old Testament law (meant specifically for Israelites) if they joined up.
CptFribble 8y ago
I don't normally do this, but I believe it's very relevant: This comment you're reading has a dead sibling that pointed out the commonly-held Christian doctrine that some of the Bible's laws don't apply to modern Christians. The commenter is absolutely correct, and here is a link from a famous and well-regarded theologian on the subject (R.C Sproul). https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/ https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/which-laws-apply/ In summary, there are civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the Old Testament. For example, "no murder" is a moral law, while dietary restrictions are a ceremonial law. I'm not commenting on the validity or "correctness" of this doctrine, as I am not a theologian. I just think it's worth confirming that this is something a lot of Christians believe.
- int_19h 8y ago
  There's a NT-only argument against homosexuality that derives the prohibition from the general ban on adultery, combined with the definition of marriage as man + woman. In general, NT has plenty of stuff that can be appropriated for fire-and-brimstone preaching. Most of it is Paul's, which is why some consider Pauline Christianity to be a mutilation of what was preached before.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Paul was a moralizing moron, and he only gets such top billing in NT (and TBH, even considered some sort of apostle at all [0]) because NT was compiled by fellow moralizing morons. Anyone who has done any critical reading in any other context has seen Paul in the proper light and already tuned him right out. Readings from any of Paul's 47 letters are naptime for me. [0] never met Christ, so he had to pretend he had some sort of vision to get in the club... Jesus treated the money changers better than He would have treated Paul.
baddox 8y ago
It’s perhaps a digression, but where does the Bible condemn masturbation? The verses that are commonly-cited (at least in my experience, which is mostly among Protestants) are pretty clearly grasping at straws.
tsegratis 8y ago
“Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” So ironically if homosexuality IS a sin; then these are the people Jesus came for, spent time with, and calls Tax collectors in this context refers to Jews who consorted with Romans to effectively extort from their own countrymen > When you say "homosexuality" do you mean homosexual proclivities, or homosexual acts? It's an important nuance. For example, Judiasm/Christianity/Islam teaches... Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” He says it is bad to desire something bad. This isn't playng with nuance. Slightly later he says: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” A tough call, but then the writer of half the NT was a hater and murderer of Chrstians -- Acts 9 describes how he met Jesus and was accepted/forgiven > And... it also condemns masturbation, marrying foreigners, eating fish, letting menstruating women inside the city limits and mixing fabrics. * Masturbation: I'm not sure where this could be from * Fish: "Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat." (Leviticus 11) Etc. But actually we are both being anti-biblical here. Sure, there are detailed and unusual laws, but God frequently and directly asks people to focus on other things: “But give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.” Or Jesus: “Woe to you [religious teachers]. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law--justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” And many more... To be wrapped up in the law of what is right or wrong --even homosexuality-- is to 100% miss what the Bible teaches “If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” (Galatians 2)

pesmhey 8y ago

Could the argument be made that in the New Testament, it's not necessarily homosexual activity that is condemned, but rather it's the act of emasculating a man. The criticism against the Romans was that they were laying with men as they would woman, which at the time would mean to rob a man of something absolutely sacrosanct. 2000 years of history, and a lot of progress on the front of women's equality (probably not enough still), and it seems less of an issue for two consenting adults to engage in homosexual activity, whereas in Roman society, could a slave, or a man of lesser status truly consent to a homosexual relationship? It always read to me that it was more about turning men into women than it was about actually performing homosexual acts.