Christianity and Gay Marriage

[ed-swckf]

Yes gay marriage and homosexuality are a sin. But like all sins, it can be forgiven. There exists no sin in the bible that can't be forgiven by God. Everybody from the moment they were born instantly became sinners. Christians know that that they too are sinners, and that God died for their sins. If homosexuality is considered a sin, then God died for that too. Christianity is founded on the idea of loving one another, and following God. Jesus himself did not alienate anyone. He welcomed EVERYONE, regardless of race, gender, background, social class, job, etc, with open arms.

As for myself, I really don't care. Let people do whatever they want. A guy doing another guy isn't going to effect me directly, and it probably won't bother me anyway. I really could care less on the matter.

but if its a sin don't you need to stop doing it in order to be forgiven? I mean if you are sinning and asking for forgiveness because you realise its a sin then you would want to stop being gay, i mean its going to cause quite a lot of personal turmoil for a person to repress their feelings in order to find forgivness. Or am i way off on this and can you just acknowledge stuff as a sin and then carry on with it and pay no mind to it?

Oh and i'm sure your last sentence was meant to be that you couldn't care less or is there a way that you could care less than what you do already? It confuses me when people say they could care less.

 

[donald]

So by that reasoning, would homosexual relations be a sin?

The short answer is yes. For further insight please read the 1st chapter of the book of Romans in the New Testament.

1stJohn1:9

 

[tellner]

Like I already asked, who died and made Saul of Tarsus, professional murderer and cousin of Herod, a prophet? He was an great recruiter and organizer, but I don't see any reason why he should be given more authority than the Word of G-d or the opinion of Yeshu bin Maryam's own brother James. Romans, Colossians, Timothy and all the rest are nothing more than his own thoughts without any justification except "I say so".

We already know what the Book has to say about it. The tradesman's entrance is off-limits between guys. Other than that, it's silent. What two or more girls do with one another is never addressed and wouldn't have been terribly important to my sheep herding ancestors. After all, it doesn't involve a man taking a woman's role or the possibility of conception.

 

[heretic888]

Like I already asked, who died and made Saul of Tarsus, professional murderer and cousin of Herod, a prophet? He was an great recruiter and organizer, but I don't see any reason why he should be given more authority than the Word of G-d or the opinion of Yeshu bin Maryam's own brother James. Romans, Colossians, Timothy and all the rest are nothing more than his own thoughts without any justification except "I say so".

Well, unlike James, Paul has actually left us with a body of writings. Any proclamations as to what James did or did not teach is pure speculation and guesswork. Based on the content of Paul's own letters, James does not appear to depart from Paul except on the topic of circumcision and dining with Gentiles.

Another thing that many modern day Christians seem to have trouble with is that Paul's seven or so authentic epistles are the closest thing we have to a "primary source" concerning early Christianity. The Gospels were all written decades later (after the fall of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE) and appear to be dependent on earlier sources (one of which was most likely Paul's own letters). The apostolic letters are no help, either, as these are all pseudipigraphica authored during the second century.

As G. Ludemann eloquently put it: "It really hasn't caught on yet that Paul's letters came first."

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

I believe that these interpretations of Biblical verses are mistaken on many levels. For the record my dad was an Episcopal priest, among other things, as was my grandfather, and long before I became an engineer I earned a degree in religious studies myself.

We'll start with the New Testament, and I'll save Leviticus for last.

Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

We’ll leave aside the source of Corinthians-Paul, God or other, and simply assume that it was Paul. Remember that it was written in koine or Greek of the time. The original verse would look something like this:

Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.

"Unholy" is adikos and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication, as we . Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: malakoi and arsenokoitai. You won't find them in whatever translation you are using–you'll find various English words and phrases instead. What I have shown are the words in the original language. The truth is, no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was homophilia. That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, but this word is never used in scripture. McNeill, in his work, The Church and the Homosexual, writes that a second century use of the word in "Apology of Aristides" seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both words–malekos and arsenokoites-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfied–that was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the malekos, and the adult the arsenkoites referred to in this passage of scripture.

While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutuality–there was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though the author of the works attributed to Paul seems rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship to me.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some for of anal sex with other men, but they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
All sexual behavior between two men, or
Only anal sex between two men, or
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior, but this probably isn't so at all.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus 20:3 is part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also: permits polygamy ,prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period ,bans tattoos ,prohibits eating rare meat ,bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles ,prohibits cross-breeding livestock ,bans sowing a field with mixed seed ,prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood , and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath.

Churches have essentially abandoned the Holiness Code. It is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp and wear polyester-cotton blends without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still abuse the Bible by taking these verses out of context and using them to bash homosexuals.

It is likely that the prohibition "thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:

Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive. Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Leviticus 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices. See 19:26-29.

Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament.

In closing, I-who am neither a "Christian" or homosexual-usually say that I follow everything Jesus said about homosexuality, which, as all you Christians know, is nothing.

 

[heretic888]

Excellent post, elder999. :asian:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I follow everything Jesus said about homosexuality, which, as all you Christians know, is nothing.

Perhaps the most profound observation in the discussion.

Dave

 

[Makalakumu]

I had a college professor who made many of the same points as Elder999. The research regarding homosexuality, the Bible, and Christianity is there...and it contradicts most of the silliness that some Christians believe regarding homosexuals.

Yet, for some reason, some people still cling to hate.

"If Satan exists, he exists in the abandonment of reason."