The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

[BrotherAlan]

Perry,
Earlier in this thread, you gave a very good critique of Vines' arguments (the post made on Wed May 09, 2012 9:31 am). I think the substance of your argument was right on.

I did want to just add one comment to the last line of your post— the line where you wrote, “I don't claim that homo-sexual sin is a worse sin that heterosexual sin.” I think that we can (and should) claim that homosexual sin is a worse sin than heterosexual sin. For, while both are sins, and thus both are actions contrary to reason and to God’s law (and, thus, both are bad), homosexual acts are more contrary to reason and the moral law. This is because man is a "rational animal" (an "animal" with reason); and, thus, man's end is to act in a way that is in accord with both his nature as a rational being, and also in a way that is in accord with his nature as a physical being (i.e., as an "animal"). Now, heterosexual sin is opposed to right reason, and, so it is contrary to man's nature as a rational being; however, it is not opposed to man’s physical nature (man’s nature as an “animal”, if you will). For, the physical component of human nature (i.e., the human body) is designed by God in such a way that sexual behavior is to be engaged in between one man and one woman (and this behavior is good if a.) the man and the woman are married, and b.) their intentions are good, i.e., they are open to pro-creating new life and they seek to express love for each other; it is not good if they are not married or, if married, they lack either of the aforementioned good intentions). However, homosexual sin is not only opposed to right reason (and, thus opposed to man's nature as a rational being), but it is also opposed to man’s nature as a physical being (his nature as an "animal"). That is, homosexual sin does not even make sense according to the physical/bodily component of man's nature (and, thus, homosexual actions can never be, under any circumstances, good); and, so, homosexual sins are more disordered and more unnatural than heterosexual sins. For this reason, homosexual acts have traditionally been included in the group of “sins against nature” (which means that they are opposed not only to man's rational nature, but even to man's nature as an animal, as a physical being).

So, anyway, I would just add that one point to your very sensible argument.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[jriccitelli]

I also agree that Perry did an excellent critique of Vines' arguments. I think Perry made the comment "I don't claim that homo-sexual sin is a worse sin that heterosexual sin", in the sense of 'generally speaking'. For indeed some heterosexual sins vary from 'looking at a girl on the street' to 'being' a pimp. As it is worse for a committed spouse to cheat, than it is for an unmarried person. As also adultery is more devastating for couples with children, than it is for childless couples. And then you have the horrible sexual crimes such as rape which would have to be worse than; willing gay adults engaging in sin. So, sexual sin is variable. And I would agree that Homosexuality goes contrary to reason 'and' nature.

The 'majority' of people engaging promiscuity will 'not' argue that God is wrong about it, or that the bible is wrong in condemning it, I hear most people engaging in sex outside of marriage generally just admit they cannot control themselves 'without' trying to justify it, or arguing against the Bible and Christians about it.
Adultery, sinners and Christians in general have historically and generally gotten along quite well, since many are in the Church. But this comes from the acceptance Christ had for sinners and the compassion shown by Christ towards those trapped in sins, generally leading to renewal and a changed life.

The 'majority' of people engaging in homosexuality 'will' argue that God is wrong about it. And, or, the Bible is wrong in condemning it. There is generally a large amount of 'hatred' towards Christianity among the homosexual movement, and a severe reluctance to 'want' to change behavior. I do not see the same hatred towards Christianity 'because' of the Biblical teaching of chastity.
So in that respect the endorsement and condoning of the homosexual lifestyle seems to be blatant disrespect in the direction of God.

The homosexual activists seem to have a 'very' anti-God feeling, and agenda about them.

[Paidion]

Some New Testament references to "dogs" where the meaning may be "male prostitutes":

Php 3:2 ... beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!
Re 22:15 outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators [consorters with prostitutes] and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

[kaufmannphillips]

Perry wrote:
If we were still under the old covenant (Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's your position) then breaking the ritualistic laws would be immoral. Or, said another way, there's no such thing as an amoral law from God. Breaking his law is always immoral.

Who is "we"?

I myself am disinclined to frame things in terms of "morality." The term is rather past its pull date in the marketplace of American social discourse.

[kaufmannphillips]

wwalkeriv wrote:
As it relates to what hermeneutic: The way I determine it is by asking "was this commandment / law given because the thing was an abomination / goes against God or was it given to set Israel apart from the surrounding pagan nations?"

Applying this hermeneutic I would conclude that homosexuality is an abomination. It was an abomination in the old covenant and it is still an abomination. The same would hold true for idolatry, murder, stealing, bearing false witness, etc. On the other hand keeping the sabbath, circumcision, wearing clothing weaved from two fabrics, eating of shellfish or pork, etc would be ritualistic or commandments given to set Israel apart. These commandments or laws don't have anything to do with the nature of God or go against Him in anyway that I can see.

The point I was trying to make is that when the book of Leviticus states homosexuality is an abomination, it wasn't just an abomination in Old Testament times as Matthew Vines stated, It is an abomination for all times.

Other abominations in the Pentateuch:

- approaching a woman intimately during her time of impurity (Leviticus 18:19, 24ff.)
- eating certain things (Deuteronomy 14:3ff.)

Are these also "abomination for all times"?

What is the hermeneutic for determining whather a particular precept "goes against God" or was merely "given to set Israel apart from the surrounding pagan nations"?

wwalkeriv wrote:
However, there were laws given in the old covenant that have to do with God's morality and those laws are for all times. We will naturally obey them if we love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind and love our neighbor as ourself.

Are you suggesting that love for G-d and neighbor - alone, and quite apart from particular revelation - will "naturally" yield abstinence from homosexual activity?

[kaufmannphillips]

mattrose wrote:
Despite the criticisms against it, I still say distinguishing the laws into categories of moral/ceremonial/civil makes a lot of sense. Of course, if you're looking for some crystal clear method to label all 613 laws, you'll be disappointed. But most of it is pretty much common sense.

Depending on where and when and amongst whom one happens to live, "common sense" may yield varying results.

Rather than trying to taxonomize laws into theoretical categories, it is preferable to:

(A) attempt to understand the value of each law - first, as practiced in its original context, and then, as practiced in subsequent historical contexts, up to and including the present;

(B) attempt to discern the implications of those values for how one should live in one's present context.

[steve7150]

Are you suggesting that love for G-d and neighbor - alone, and quite apart from particular revelation - will "naturally" yield abstinence from homosexual activity?











Interesting thought which is unprovable either way. I think that if you believe the bible and if you love God you would have strong motivation to abstain from homosexual activities.

[BrotherAlan]

jriccitelli wrote:

I think Perry made the comment "I don't claim that homo-sexual sin is a worse sin that heterosexual sin", in the sense of 'generally speaking'. For indeed some heterosexual sins vary from 'looking at a girl on the street' to 'being' a pimp. As it is worse for a committed spouse to cheat, than it is for an unmarried person. As also adultery is more devastating for couples with children, than it is for childless couples. And then you have the horrible sexual crimes such as rape which would have to be worse than; willing gay adults engaging in sin. So, sexual sin is variable. And I would agree that Homosexuality goes contrary to reason 'and' nature.

Good observations on the various kinds and degrees of heterosexual sins, and a pertinent consideration in comparing the grievousness of heterosexual crimes (eg., rape) and homosexual acts....With regard to this last point, perhaps we can make the following distinctions in comparing the gravity of the sins of rape and of homosexual acts.

In general, the malice of a rapist is much worse than the malice of those who freely engage in homosexual acts, because of the grievous violence that the rapist employs in carrying out his most heinous sin. Furthermore, the rapist not only commits a sin of a sexual nature (for, he engages in intercourse with one who is not his wife), but he also often adds the further grievous sins of violence to the victim of his rape. Nevertheless, if we consider only the nature of the sexual component of these acts (i.e., if we do not consider the component of violence, which is present in rape), then I think we can say that the nature of a homosexual act, as a sexual act, is more disordered than the nature of forced sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. For, a homosexual act is completely contrary to the nature and purpose of sex (for it cannot fulfill either of the ends of the sexual act; i.e., the ends of generating offspring and of communicating true love between a husband and wife); whereas, the latter sin is grievously contrary to the end of communicating love, but it is, nevertheless, still ordered to the generation of offspring.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
I think that if you believe the bible and if you love God you would have strong motivation to abstain from homosexual activities.

People who (ostensibly) believe the bible and love G-d have strong motivations to adhere to a wide variety of contradictory behaviors. Some abstain from this; some insist on that. So much depends upon people's assumptions, modes of interpretation, and psychological pressures.

[kaufmannphillips]

jriccitelli wrote:
And I would agree that Homosexuality goes contrary to reason 'and' nature.

Springboarding off Martin Luther: reason is a whore - it will turn tricks quite readily for various clients. It is no harder to cobble together a reasonable defense for homosexual activity than it is to construct a reasonable objection to such activity.

An argument from nature is less than compelling. Other species display homosexual behavior. And homosexual behavior in our species can derive (ostensibly) from natural drives.