frogza

Posting this has been on my mind off and on for some time, the latest clash between Christians and homosexual rights advocates served as a catalyst to get me to actually write this. I think too often people use political catch phrases that to them and their ilk make sense because they are on the same page to start with. We hear things like “Gay marriage is an attack on the family” or “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” or on the other side we hear “Gay pride” or “Organized religion = organized bigotry” My intention with this post is NOT to offend, convert or to condescend, but to simply explain the Christian side of the argument without the emotionally charged catch phrases. I certainly welcome an explanation from the gay rights side. Again, I don’t foresee a mass conversion from one side to the other, but a greater degree of understanding and respect.

(Disclaimer: I don’t pretend to be able to present the opinions of what is considered the fringe elements of Christianity, I won’t even attempt to explain gay hating or bashing from Christians or the movement to remove homosexuality rules from Christendom. Neither are in accordance with mainstream Christian teaching. I only have time, and the understanding to present the main stream Christian view.)

Christian belief, boiled down to its simplest form, is as follows:
1. God has given us laws and guidelines designed to bring us happiness. The end reward of perfect obedience is Heaven.
2. Due to human weakness, both native and acquired, we can’t be 100% obedient 100% of the time.
3. God, knowing of our weakness, sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay the price for our disobedience. That payment, called the Atonement, allows us to essentially start over with a clean slate through repentance.

#2 is where temptation comes into play. Temptation has basically two definitions to Christians. One, the whisperings of the Devil, and two, the desire to do something wrong. For the sake of clarity, when I use the word I mean the desire, and I will use “whisperings” for the other definition.

If you were to ask any parent how often they have to tell their toddlers and small children “You can’t have that, it’s not yours” You would likely either get the answer “A TON!” or an exasperated groan. Most everyone has a tendency to do what is wrong, like taking something that is not yours. For some, that desire to take that to which you have no right goes away as they mature, for others it is a constant battle. Temptation is universal, but we aren’t all tempted in the same areas.

If we were to list of the Ten Commandments, then had people rate each one according to how difficult it is for them to obey, we would find an amazing diversity of graphs. For example, for me the hardest one is “Thou Shalt not commit adultery” I’ve never broken this one, but I have to fight pretty hard. “Thou shalt not kill” is a breeze, when the whispering has come to break this one, there was no degree of temptation involved.

Whether we are born with a tendency to be tempted by something or whether we acquire that trait is strictly an academic question. So if scientist someday find a gene that is responsible for homosexual tendencies or one that makes a person want to steal, the Christian world’s response will be “So what? We could have told you that there is such a thing as being inclined to a certain temptation.” That is one of the premises of Christianity, and indeed most organized religions.

The reason why Christians are so vehemently opposed to the homosexual movement is because we see it as identifying oneself by ones temptations. Or in other words, I would be a cheating husband, even though I have never cheated. Gay rights are viewed as a slippery slope. Christians find themselves asking “Where will it stop? Which vice will become the next movement?”

Christians also view procreation as a divine gift, to be respected and held sacred. Homosexual acts are seen as a desecration of something divine. Marriage between a man and a woman is seen as ordained of God, to allow men and women to contribute their strengths and become stronger than their sum and to provide a place for children to be conceived and reared. Gay marriage is seen as an attack on what we hold sacred, the reaction we see to destroying a mosque, temple, or synagogue would be almost identical.

I hope that I have explained things clearly and without offending anyone. I realize this is a hot topic and as such can illicit a knee jerk to many, if I have offended anyone with this please forgive me.

Willravel

The Bible is a tricky thing. I personally have read it cover to cover more time than I can count (thanks to my father, the Pastor), and I still don't know everything. One of the things I do know is that for the sake of sanity one has to accept some things in the Bible and dismiss others, as some things are either contradictory or possibly outdated. The ban on eating anything other than fish from the sea. I love calamari, and love muscles, and I eat them. Do I think I am sinning? I doubt it. It's been suggested that rules like that come from the dangers of eating uncooked or ill prepared meat and the resulting illnesses. It was not only reasonable at the time, but helped to keep people healthy and alive. Now, however, we understand the science behind cooking and removing bacteria, viruses, and such from meat so that we can enjoy our food without disease. I dare not answer the question of homosexuality or even intercourse between anyone of any gender outside of wedlock, but with sexually transmitted diseases, these two seemingly different topics could be fundamentally linked. There are plenty of real world arguments against intercourse outside of wedlock, including STDs, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and social issues. It is now very common practice to have multiple partners, outside of wedlock, without and social or medical consequences. As such, one could not be blamed for reexamining God's words. Did God decree that man shall not lie with another man because of supreme moral law or out of safety, whether social or physical? I can't answer that for anyone but myself.

At the end of the day, God has given every man, woman and child the ability of free will so that we can make a conscious decision as to how we interpret God's words. I am not qualified to tell anyone else what God means. Pastors and religous or political fitgures are not qualified to tell anyone else what God means. You are responsible for your own faith. IMO.

Moyaboy

What I can't understand about the bible is that....

There are many different versions of the bible.

Which one do you have to follow to be a true christian?

If the meaning is the same, then why are there so many versions?
Why are there passages missing between the different versions?

Also, there are different languages in the world, even the same ones changing over a few centuries, so how do can you say which translation is the correct one?

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the bible against women working out of the home?

But to finish, I have yet one more question...

If god has given mankind free will, then why are his devout followers claiming that we have to change to be in god's good grace, why not let a person choose their own destiny, specifically if those persons are not breaking the ten commandments?

__________________
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

SecretMethod70

First, frogza, thank you for expressing your thoughts on a charged issue in a respectful manner.

The biggest problem with the bible isn't the bible itself, it's how most people read it - i.e. without making any attempt to put it in context.

That said, as I fall into the "movement to remove homosexuality rules from Christendom," I would like to point out that I, and the majority of respected religious scholars, believe the "mainstream Christian view" to be lacking in historical context and, by extension, wrong.

willravel: The idea that rules on homosexuality are included in the bible due to health concerns is also not quite correct. It's a popularly held thought - and one that makes sense from our modern perspective - but in my studies (both personal and academic) on the issue, it has become clear that, when looked at in historical context, the reasoning for the decree in Leviticus was actually quite different.

At the time it was written, the idea of marriage as something done out of love was not exactly the norm. Women were literally considered to be property. So, the statement in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is in reference to this. For a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman is to place the other man, sexually, in the same position as the woman, thus treating him as property is treated, which is not how men should be treated.

Now, there are a few other areas of the bible where homosexuality is criticized, and again they are almost always read out of context. For example, the statements against homosexuality in Romans have little to do with homosexuality itself and everything to do with differentiating the fledgling religion that would become "Christianity" from the dominant "pagan" religions in the area in which same sex relations were relatively common.

And, remember, we're talking about the time of the Roman Empire here. Homosexual relationships were incredibly well established, even among those who were not biologically homosexual. The same can be said for the Egyptians and the Greeks. Anyone who has studied a little history knows of the Spartan penchant for homosexual relationships among their men.

So, even if we set aside the terrible need to at least attempt to put the bible in historical context, which I believe is ignored by 90% of those who purport to follow the bible, a logical argument can also be made against the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Jesus preached about many things, but one thing suspiciously missing from his teachings is any mention of homosexuality! Now let's be fair here: homosexuality would have been very common in the time Jesus was teaching. Does it make any sense whatsoever that not once did he mention that this very common practice of the time should be considered wrong?

None of this needs to challenge the idea of the bible as a holy book, the word of god, or whatever you want to believe it is. All it means is that we must recognize that, regardless of what the words of the bible represent, we are interpreting those words ourselves. If one wants to have any hope of a relatively accurate interpretation, that requires applying a great deal of historical context to everything that is written. The methods of thought prevalent across the times when the various books of the bible were written are so drastically different from our own, attempting to directly apply any sort of modern reading to the texts is a sure method of achieving failure in interpreting them.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Moyaboy

Thank you SecretMethod70 for clearing that up, I was well informed by your post.

__________________
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

Bill O'Rights

Hmmm...very interesting take on that passage. I'm not sure that I've ever seen this presented. Definately a theory worth examining and considering. Good job Smeth...good job. You may have a cookie.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

KnifeMissile

While I appreciate your attempt to create understanding, there are still many points in your post I don't understand and I'm afraid they're the major ones...

While I am able to parse the sentence fragments "identifying oneself by one's temptations" and "I would be a cheating husband even though I have never cheated," I don't understand how they apply to homosexual marriage. Could you clarify this point? How does gay marriage mean either of these two things?

If I were to read the rest of the paragarph into context, it sounds like you're trying to say that homosexual marriage justifies a sin and, thus, justifies all sins. Is this right?

This simply sounds like you view homosexual marriage as insulting. It's not a physical attack, like a temple literally being destroyed, because homosexual people getting married doesn't prevent heterosexual people from getting married, so nothing's destroyed... So, I can only assume you mean a verbal attack, like an insult. Is this what you mean?

Well, you can't talk about insulting topics without insulting people. The best you can hope for is to talk with the goal of understanding, rather than for pejorative purposes...

maximusveritas

The problem I see with this theory is the use of the word "abomination". It is a strong word, suggesting that the act of lying with another man is disgusting, not that it would be a violation of the other's rights as an equal man.
Of course, perhaps the intention of the statement was quite different originally and has been lost in translation.

SecretMethod70

The interpretation of the use of the word abomination as meaning "disgusting" is accurate. To treat a man as property the way a woman should be treated would be seen as a disgusting subversion of the proper social order, making both men involved in the act ritually impure.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

asaris

SM -- I'm not sure you can draw the conclusions from Christ's silence that you do. While it is true that Jesus never says anything about homosexuality, it seems at least likely that the pagan practices prevalent in Greece and Rome were less prevelent in Palestine, so might well not have been the most pressing thing on his mind.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Poppinjay

I'd like to offer a couple of points. Christians by and large do not have a problem with homosexuality. Evangelicals do.

There is no part of the bible that directs us to condemn homosexual union. The main reason for the Leviticus verse was to foster procreation. The reason procreation was such a big deal in biblical times was because the human race was by no means healthy and thriving. Jesus was an elder at 33. All the dietary and social directions from the bible are solely for the survival of the species.

The real argument in religious circles is about whether the church should be accepting of new ideas, or if they should remain true to a book that was collected, voted on, and canonized in a highly political process in 387 AD. It's a different world and overpopulation actually threatens survival of the human race.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Moyaboy

Are you saying that Jesus is into discrimination?

The person who was about peace and unity?

__________________
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

onodrim

I don't see asaris as saying that at all. He was simply pointing out that the possibility that Jesus didn't address homosexuality as far as we know because it just wasn't on his radar. It wasn't an issue in the area in which he lived and taught.

However, I agree with SM that homosexuality not being an issue Jesus taught on is because it wasn't one he felt was necessary; not because of lack of homosexuality in his geographical area, but because of it not being necessarily "sinful."

The overarching theme of Jesus' message when you break it down is simply love one another. Of course this doesn't have to include erotic love, but that can be a part of it as well. I just can't believe that he would teach unconditional love with the condition of it not extending to two people of the same gender. Especially considering that there is strong evidence for homosexuality being genetic in most cases.

__________________
"The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides"
-Carl Sagan

abaya

to Poppinjay. What you say is succinct and accurate, at least from my extensive experience with both Christians and evangelicals (not to mention *being* an evangelical "Christian" for a significant time).

Another cookie for Poppinjay. I never pinned you as a cultural materialist (that's the theoretical basis of my social-science training), but I like it, I like it a lot. Very refreshing.

A relevant question: You say the real challenge for the church is to see how flexible they really can be, given how much the world has changed since the biblical canon became established. But many Christians (especially evangies) would say that to be flexible is to be a relativist, which is to side with the devil. So I'm afraid that as long as evangies/fundies have as much control over the church as they do today, the church ain't gonna flex on much of anything (hail the Episcopalians, though, for embracing homosexuals... at least, in Seattle!).

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

SecretMethod70

Well, I will say the historical Jesus may not have been a fan of homosexuality, but it does seem it wasn't a particularly important issue to him. Regardless of how common it was in the area, he certainly would have known of its existence. The real concern though has less to do with what the historical Jesus thought than it has to do with what makes sense with the Jesus of faith. And that's where the point comes in that, ultimately, the message of Jesus is simply that of love, and there's no reason a responsible homosexual relationship shouldn't fit into that paradigm.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Gilda

I would qualify much of frogza's OP by adding a "some" in front of his statements regarding what Christians do and/or don't believe regarding homosexuality.

There are Christian churches that have no problem with homosexuality, homosexual acts, or homosexuals, the Episcopaleans, UU, MCC, and Unity churches, for example. Others look at homosexual acts as a sin, but see them as one among many. In a Christian sense, we're all sinners, and all have to look to Jesus for guidance and God for forgiveness of those sins. Everyone commits a myriad of sins on a regular basis. Homosexuality, assuming that it is a sin in the first place, which I and a great many other Christians don't believe, isn't one of the big ones, and doesn't deserve any special recognition or penalties as a result.

Personally, I think the stigmatization of homosexuality by some evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians is really an after effect of a disapproval of homosexuality with a few biblical passages taken out of context used as justification.

Reproduction is again, one of those back end justifications. There is no requirement that heterosexual couples reproduce or even be capable of such, so to use this as an objection to homosexuality and homosexual relationships is to apply a condition solely to homosexuals for the purpose of condemning homosexuality, a circular argument at best.

Regarding the "gay gene": There is no such thing. The best evidence available indicates that male homosexuality is determined by gestational hormones and is fixed at birth. Female homosexuality is less certain, and seems to be more highly influenced by environmental factors, and does seem to be to some extent chosen by some lesbians, though the evidence varies so widely across the spectrum that the best we can say at this point is that theer is no one cause of female homosexuality; instead, there are multiple factors that all have an influence which varies from individual to individual, so the cause is for the most part unknown.

Gilda

frogza

Up to this point I haven't been addressing gay marriage, simply the justification of homosexual acts by saying that a person is tempted.

Again, marriage hasn't entered into it yet. I am simply saying that the pattern of justification can be a slippery slope. Christians are saying that there needs to be a line drawn and claim that the line was drawn many years ago.

That is probably a fair assessment.

That is precisely why I put off writing this for so long.

If you read what Jesus taught you will find that it is fraught with teachings of love and acceptance of people, but absolute hatred of sin. He talked to and taught women, roman leaders, samaritans and even those who belonged to the parties that would eventually have him crucified. In each recorded meeting with the social outcasts he was talking about repentance and greater faith.

Remember we are talking about the man who said
This is the same man who on various occasions launched into tyrades against the Jewish leaders and against Herod. The man who also made a whip and thrashed and kicked out the money changers who were in the temple.

Sultana

Note: Bold emphasis Sultana's.
Which vice will become the next movement? Perhaps women's rights. Or minority rights. Both groups of which in the past have been considered divinely ordained as "below" the rank of the male majority. I'd like to imagine that in today's world, only the most rabidly fundamental "christians" would have a problem with women's or minority rights. Heck, in the not too distant past interacial marriage was prohibited (legally? not sure. Socially, certainly). I doubt that any reasonable person would make an issue of that today. Why is gay marriage any different?

You know, only the most fundamental of "christians" have a problem with birth control, which accomplishes the same thing in today's society.
Could you please cite the scriptures used to support the idea that procreation is respected and held sacred? It was certainly important, especially to the Old Testament family--hence the multiple wives, concubines, maidservants for that purpose and the like for the man able to afford them--but respected and sacred? The only thing I can think of to support this is where the scriptures talk about g*d "quickening the womb" of some lucky contestant, but that's more props to g*d rather than the woman. The woman was (as Smeth pointed out), little more than property for the most part. A vessel for the all-important "Man-seed". Women, especially in the Old Testament, are rarely referred to outside of the state of their vagina--Virgin, Wife, or Whore, if you please. A woman's worth was based solely on their untouched state, their families wealth, and perhaps how many sons they had pushed out. Not a pressing arguement for respect for their role in childbearing, in my opinion.

I think you did a grand job, really! Thanks for being brave and able. It's much easier to preach to the choir, I know.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

Poppinjay

Regarding the slippery slope, it's something we've always been on and always will. That's because the world is always changing.

Without resorting to trite messages, maybe I can narrow down my feeling on the subject with an examination of these two sentences.

We will become a Godless nation if we allow homosexuals into the church.

We will become a Godless nation if we allow sinners into the church.

I go to church nearly every Sunday. And I eat too much, curse in heavy traffic, sloth, a little greed here and there... How would I be able to stand up and denounce homosexuality? I'm not entirely certain that it's still a sin because we've reached a point where procreation is not really neccessary. On the other hand, my sins are still to the detriment of society.

Also, Frogza, your Luke 12:51 quote is also apt for my beliefs. the multitudes had their way of doing every thing. They argued about the way inheritance should be divided, about who gets what, about disobeying from the way things have always been done. 12:51 basically says, I'm not here to remind you of the way it's been, I'm here to say things have changed.

From about 25 verses earlier: Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest?

Sorry for breaking the unwritten no verses rule. I just think it lends merit.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

KnifeMissile

Okay, now that we have this understanding, I think I can say that there is no insight in this post. As far as I can tell, and please correct me if you disagree, the three main points of your original post are:

Gay marriage will justify homosexuality.
Allowing gays to marry is a slippery slope to other unsavory unions.
Gay marriage is insulting.

Is this a fair assessment? Would you agree with this summary?
Or, perhaps the point of your post was to explain why christians believe that these three points are true?

Rodney

Every times I hear somebody say "Christians believe...," or ask "What do Christians believe," I ask, "Which Christians?" Because there is plenty of disagreement.

In the public eye, evangelicals currently hold center stage, because they are active and growing in numbers and increasingly involved directly in politics. For many people not familiar with Christianity, "Christian" means evangelical.

But that's not the only kind of Christian there is, and the only kind of Christian belief there is. The standard packet of conservative/evangelical beliefs aren't necessarily held by the majority of Christians.

And _this_ Christian says: the Bible is not the holy and inviolate word of God; it is, instead, the spiritual history and collected spiritual wisdom of a people. And there is much in it to live by, adhere to, and adopt the spirit of.

We take these old lessons and try to apply their spirit to the modern day; but to many of us that does _not_ mean following unthinking allegiance to 3000-year-old rules that were developed in a particular time by a particular culture.

That's the other type of Christian. The only "slippery slope" to this type of Christian is to fail to see Christ in new situations, and to insist that God's approval can only be won by blind adherence to strict rules set for old situations.

Mojo_PeiPei

I'm not going to say the OP or any other post is wrong, I think some of them might misrepresent beliefs, Christian is very broad. Having said that, I think this could be helpful:

The Catholic Catechism:
I think the bottom line is at least for catholics, procreation is key. Marriage is the confines for reproduction as it is a holy union between Man, Woman, and God. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, marry, they would be fornicating which is a sin. At least thats how I understand it.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Ample

You know I thought the same thing. The protestant bible has 66 books I think, and the catholic has something like ten more books, and the Jewish bible has half of that. So three believe in the same God. The way I see it someone is getting misinformed and someone is getting a bunch of bull crap.

Back to the question, I’m not a Christian anymore, but Ill play along from what I know of God and the bible. I know the bible states some stuff against homosexuality. The bible also speaks against a lot of other different stuff. Is homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, No? Aren’t these the important rules in the bible? I believe not using the word of God in a bad manner, and loving your parents are in those list of rules, but loving someone of the same sex isn’t. So my question what would God frown upon more? Breaking his one or two of his ten important rules, or not following a couple lines out of the bible?

I know not all but some of Christians use the occasional "God Damns" and how many don’t have a good relationship with their parents? I just see it as probably being gay is just a misdemeanor in the eyes of God.

Lady Sage

The only thing im gonna say on this one is simply this

Christians say love one another and judge not!

So why do they not love homosexuals and why do they judge them?

I feel it is for the diety to decide such things and for us to let them do their job while we spend more time working on our own problems.
(Please ignore the ramblings of this sleep deprived lunatic.)

water_bug

See this is what gets me. People who are against homosexuality that always preach the Bible as to why gays are evil or whatever never read the whole thing. The read what they want to read. They have made up in their minds that "Jesus hates fags" and other inteligent remarks, but apparently were absent from Sunday school the day "love thy neighboor" and "Jesus hates the sin and loves the sinner" were taught. What Jesus taught us and what Christianity teaches us are, in my opinion, two different things entirely.

dd3953

not only did you not offend but you eplained your views & thoughts clearly. Thanks for sharing.

__________________
[Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

Gilda

Point of advice: You really need to qualify your statments when you speak about what Christians say or believe. I am a Christian and I do not believe the things that you are saying Christians believe in your posts. Nor are such beliefs widespread in the church I attend. Some Christians or many Christians or evangelical Christians might serve your cause better than painting us all with the same broad brush.

Don't lump me in with those who believe the things in your posts by making statements about what "Christians" believe. I really don't want to be there.

Gilda

asaris

Yes, Christians say love each other, and don't judge. But many Christians also think that God doesn't like it when we do bad things, and some of those believe that homosexual activity is one of those bad things. We would want a thief, a liar, or a hypocrite to repent of their sins; if we believe that homosexual activity is also a sin, shouldn't we want them to repent of that?

And, just as Gilda points out (correctly) that reasonable Christians can disagree on the appropriateness of homosexual activity, it's probably worth pointing out that not all of those who believe that homosexual activity is sinful fall into the "God hates fags" camp.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Gilda

“A truly religious person worries about his own spiritual well-being and the physical well-being of every other human being on this planet; a hypocrite worries about his own physical well-being and the spiritual well-being of every other human being on this planet.”

Rav Yisroel Slanter

FoolThemAll

Does this mean that a truly religious person shouldn't also worry about the spiritual well-being of every human being?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Frosstbyte

This was quoted once, so it's responding to both the original and the quotiation. If homosexuality is a sin like stealing or murder, then the point kind of falls apart. Unless you love murderers and thieves and don't judge them. In which case, you're a better person than I.

Don't nitpick this point with "well murder and stealing hurt someone else and being gay doesn't" since that's not the point. The point is, given this premise, they're all sins and, generally when people do things that we think are wrong-regardless of our creed-we dislike them and judge them.

Gilda

No.

Homosexuality, assuming it is a sin, which I do not believe, isn't a sin like stealing and murder. Those are sins that directly harm others, while homosexuality is not.

Nonsense. Not all sins are equal to one another merely because they are sins. If someone consistently eats more than they need to (gluttony), I'm going to neither dislike nor judge them for that. Why? Because it doesn't harm me or any other person, and the degree to which that behavior is a sin or not and how that sin is to be resolved is a matter strictly between that person and God. God judges and forgives sins. It isn't my place to do the first, and I have no power to do the second.

We dislike and judge murders and thieves because they inflict harm on others, that is, we react to them because of the effect of their actions on others, not because those actions are sins. We all sin a dozen, two dozen times a day. I sin every time I open up Tilted Exhibition, especially threads with colors in the title. I sin every time I go to the KFC buffet. I don't believe what I do with my wife sexually is a sin, but if it is, the degree to which that harms my soul and whether or not I need to be punished for that sin is strictly God's place to decide, not anybody else's.

Gilda

Nimetic

I guess the key thing is that religious restrictions should not apply to those who don't have the same faith. For example - if muslims cannot eat pork, the law should not prevent others from doing so. Ditto, if another religion requires (male) circumcision - it should not mean that all parents are required by law to have this done on their children.

But this (my point above) is a sideshow. You are talking about the teachings assuming a Christian context ok, so I should not diverge from that. Sorry.

My feeling then on this teaching, as somebody who is not Christian but who grew up on a 'western' or Christian influenced society, is that I don't understand the reason behind it.

The OP talks about it being wrong to give into temptation to do something wrong. Sure, I agree - this is self evident.

But what I want to know is the reasoning behind homosexual contact being "wrong" in the first place.

I can understand that murder is wrong, on the basis that I don't want to be murdered.

I can understand prohibitions against adultery, stealing etc in a the same manner.

But clearly, the same "treat your neighbor the same" concept does not serve to explain why sex between consenting homosexuals (with no cheating etc) is wrong.

filtherton

Okay, but if judgement is wrong in a christian sense, doesn't that make it a sin? In which case, aren't you sinning by judging people? Logically you'd have to judge yourself for sinning, but you'd only be sinning more and eventually the universe would collapse in on itself in some sort of closed feedback sin-loop.

asaris

I've always been somewhat suspicious of the blanket claim "Christians are taught not to judge," mostly because it seems obviously false. It seems perfectly clear that some people in certain positions of the church are not only allowed to judge the activities of others, but are required to (elders/overseers, for example). But I've never really bothered to look into it in any detail. So I just did a search on bible.com (God, I love the internet). One caveat; it's in the KJV, so it's not the most accurate version, but this is what I've found. Note: I searched the word 'judge'. I've ignored passages indicating Christ judging (since it seems reasonable to believe that he might judge in situations where we shouldn't) and those where 'judge' refers merely to a human judge (as in "The kingdom of heaven is like an unjust judge"), as these are of limited relevance to the present topic.

A few times, Jesus says something like "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Looking at the similar passages where this occurs, and doing my be to ignore the archaicness of the language, what he seems to be saying is that the same standard you judge others by is the standard by which you will be judged. But this seems to refer to a judgement of someone's eternal salvation (or lack thereof); to the extent that we say to others "You're a sinner, therefore you're going to hell," we are condemning ourselves to hell. But this doesn't preclude condemning individual actions. (Matt. 7:1-2, Luke 6:37,

As I've indicated earlier, sometimes scripture encourages certain forms of judgement. John writes, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement." (7:24, NRSV) But the announcement of how we should judge indicates some role for judging in our lives.

Romans 2 talks a lot about not judging, but in that passage, it is explicitly regarding judging someone for doing the same sort of thing you're doing. "In passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

I'm guessing Romans 14 is going to be the strongest support for a strict 'do not judge' position. It certainly contains the broadest language. But looking at the examples (drinking wine, eating meat, observing holy days), it seems to be talking about things which aren't really moral commands. We shouldn't judge those who sing only Psalms in their services; we shouldn't judge those who sing only praise songs in their services (except at worse, perhaps, bad taste). But it doesn't seem to directly address the question of what we say to someone who is clearly sinning.

I Corinthians 5 is interesting, since it pretty clearly states that we should only judge the activity (here, even more interestingly, it's sexual activity) of those inside the church.

On the other hand, there's I Corinthians 6:2 "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" However, given the context, this probably is referring to the last days.

Again, James 4:11-12 seems to speak generally against judging, but given the context, it seems more likely to speak of judging publically, and so should probably be considered with that other passage that indicates if you have a problem with a fellow believer, you should first approach them in private, then with two or three, and only after that publically.

So from all this I gather that the ultimate judgment belongs to God, but also that to some extent we are called to, as it were, encourage our brothers and sisters in righteousness. What does this mean specifically for homosexuality?

At this point, I should note a few things explicitly, in the interest of full disclosure. I tend towards the opinion that homosexuality is wrongful, but I am quite far from holding it firmly. I think that scripture in general is against it, but it's not the clearest case to make. I don't think there's any reason other than scripture to think that such activity is wrongful. But for the sake of the rest of this post, to indicate how I think a Christian more convinced than I of the wrongfulness of homosexuality should respond, I'll give responses as if I were convinced of its wrongfulness.

It should be clear from the scripture above that I should not engage in a general campaign to make homosexual activity illegal, or to restrict their civil rights, or anything like that. Rather, if someone were to ask me what I think, or for my advice, I would give it kindly and honestly (the proportions of each would depend on the person). I would not consider it my duty to point out to someone engaging in homosexual activity that that activity was wrong without them approaching me first, unless for some other reason I had an obligation to that person; for example, if they were a close friend, or if I was an elder in the church, and even then it would depend on the situation.

The key to me, for how Christians should deal with 'sinners', is found in the story of the young woman caught in adultery. If you recall the story, Christ says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So no one casts the first stone. But after that, after everyone has left, Christ asks "Is no one left to condemn you?" She replies "No sir." Then Christ says "Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." That, to me, is what we should be saying to someone who we believe is sinning, when we are in the proper position to do so. We should say "You are not condemned, but you need to go and sin no more." And we should say that as many times as we have to.

One more thing (and I'm sorry that I'm adding this after an entirely too long post). This may be true. But a saint worries about his own spiritual and physical well-being and the spiritual and physical well-being of every other human being on the planet. Else, what does it mean to love your neighbor like you love yourself?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Gilda

I think you miss the point there. Jesus was the one telling her to sin no more, not the other people. It's a parable about God being the only one qualified to judge and forgive sins.

Gilda

asaris

I think, given everything else I've cited, that while Jesus is the only one qualified to judge the state of someone's soul, the rest of us can and should judge the appropriateness of other people's actions. The conclusion is not merely a result of that one passage. And it's not even clear that only God can forgive sins ("For whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.")

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Gilda

I agree, which exactly where the judgment that there is something wrong with homosexuality falls apart.

Gilda

Frosstbyte

The trend to not judge things that people do in their private life is exceedingly recent. Particularly for religious purposes, the private life has been judged just as harshly as the public life. Masturbation, homosexuality, dietary requirements, impure thoughts, disbelief in god or belief in the wrong god, lust and envy, to name a few. Fair or universal enforcement aside, it is neither uncommon nor unprecedented for people to be judged on the basis of things that would seem to have no direct effect on others, often fairly harshly, largely because of the belief that such conduct would would corrupt the society because of its impurity.

That's not to say it's right or it's in line with modern theological ideas or modern societal norms, but it certainly is not a bizarre outlandish concept of sins and how religions/societies have treated/judged sin. It is a product of liberal democratic thought that people are individuals and as long as what they do doesn't directly harm another, they should be allowed to do it. Most of human history and most of human society does not follow that pattern, nor necessarily value it.

Again, I'm not saying it is right, but to simply dismiss that explanation of why homosexuality has gained the status it has in some schools of religious thought, Christian and otherwise, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The private is something that a minority of people in a minority of countries value as being supremely important. The United States is having a severe clash between those who think the private needs to be protected and those who believe that the private needs to be controlled.

I agree with you; I think the private life is exactly that, private, and that our society has evolved to a point where we don't need to worry about corruptions of society through individual actions or impure thoughts. It is apparent that others do not feel that way and responding to that belief simply by saying "what I do is my business and doesn't hurt you" has failed for as long as they've been slinging it.

Right or wrong, some people believe that homosexuality does harm others. Some others believe it doesn't. There is not common ground because, by definition , the paradigms are on opposite sides of the spectrum. If it does harm others, it shouldn't be allowed. If it doesn't, it should. I know how I believe, but I don't have an argument that could convince someone who believes otherwise that they're wrong.

Gilda

They are wrong.

There's no need. The person making the positive claim, in this case that homosexuality harms others, is responsible for proving that claim.

It is not necessary to prove that homosexuality does not harm others, and indeed such a claim cannot be proven in a practical sense. I can't prove to you that my making love with my wife this morning didn't hurt anyone, just as the heterosexual couple next door cannot prove that their making love didn't hurt anyone else. We can only point to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

I was, by the way, making love with the person to whom I am married, and there is, I guarantee you, no prohibition against this in the bible.

Gilda