Homosexuality in the Bible

[afleitch]

No. Because that would be out of context. Jesus is talking about sex at this point, and he's talking about sex within marriage exclusively. People who have been castrated are not by that definition incapable of having sex (they still have a penis) and we know from history they were sexually promiscuous.

ah, how quaint of you!  So, your theory turns on whether Jesus was referring to those who get erections even though they’ve had their balls cut off.

Why don’t we wait for Dibble, since he seems to believe the context doesn’t allow for the delinking of sex from marriage?

---

[to Dibble]

Well, how about it, Dibble?  Are you “up” for listening to afleitch describe the sex lives of nutless men?

All I was suggesting was that eunuchs are not always incapable of having sex simply because they were castrated. If you had any knowledge and understanding of the world in which Jesus lived (not to mention human biology) that wouldn't even shock you as a statement. What I was offering to you was the argument that we could not assume eunchous meant 'sexless' therefore excluding sexually active homosexuals as by your definition of eunuch - the castrated - we can see that they could have sex. However they could not procreate and therefore would not be suitable marriage partners. If eunochos meant homosexual, irregardless of their sexual prowess they are being excluded from the man-woman marriage because they wouldn't be particularly good husbands.

Why don't we wait for Dibble, since he seems to believe the context doesn't allow for the delinking of sex from marriage?

For about the sixth time (as both me and him have put to you) so do I! And I've taken great care to explain this. The whole context of this is procreative sex within marriage and he's just excluded a whole host of people who shouldn't marry because they cannot have procreative sex with women, bear children as Eve did for Adam and therefore would not be suitable husbands! (and of course he has excluded those who are celibate for the sake of the Kingdom)

And I repeat to you again - he's not saying what gay people or sexually active eunuchs can do, only what they should not

I am putting on the table my belief that Jesus was neutral on the position of homosexual relationships in a structured context. That taken with the doctrine of the Primacy of Conscience (which I might, eventually, be allowed to get to) may endeavor to explain what choice someone like Josh can make with regards to his relationship with God and with any partner.

The personal circumstances of both you and I cannot be divorced from what we are seeking to explain in this conversation. Coming from a gay man, I'm not actually asking or expecting that much from Scripture.

But coming from a homophobe, evident even in brief discussions of your family life on this forum, it is your expectation that you will seek to find every possible combination of anything that will allow you to levy a flat charge against any gay man and in your mind justify your homophobia and that which it appears you are attempting to instill within your children.

And lastly, because I am beginning to loose patience, If you continue to misread, or not read or make things up as you go along or whatever your doing with what I'm saying, then I can only assume that is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my argument. Which leads me to wonder why? Based on previous experience, that is usually born of frustration. For a man of your age and ability you can have a strangely childish temperament when you are defensive.

[CubOB]

jmfcst, I came here for help and you are looking for a debate. I don't want to read a debate, I wanted to know both sides of the issues and where in the bible I can look about this issues.

Duke, I don't know tons about the Bible but I have been in a similar position to you (in regards to coming to terms with being gay, in general) - if you ever want to discuss that side of things with someone at any point, feel free to drop me a PM

[John Dibble]

Ok, since afleitch has made roughly the same arguments I would in regards to this interpretation, I'm not going to bother writing a whole long rant. I'm just going to summarize this as simply as I can, and if you continue to lack understanding of what I'm saying I'm just not going to bother anymore.

1. IF afleitch's interpretation is correct, it exempts homosexuals from marrying. I say "if" because I do not necessarily believe it correct, but he has valid reasons to argue for his interpretation just as you do. Neither of your interpretations are unreasonable.

2. Whether the person's referenced in any of the three categories were sexually active outside of marriage is not relevant to this exemption. This interpretation does not exempt them from the notion that sex outside of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is sinful.

3. It's my understanding that in those days men were expected to marry and have children - this was a cultural and sometimes a religious expectation. ("Go forth and multiply" is sometimes interpreted that way) Hence there was a need to exempt some people from that expectation. Given that homosexuals would tend to have a dysfunctional relationship in heterosexual marriage, it's not entirely ludicrous to include them in such an exemption.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, I came here for help and you are looking for a debate. I don't want to read a debate, I wanted to know both sides of the issues and where in the bible I can look about this issues.

As for the debate, that's kinda what goes on in a political forum.  But, go back to the first page of this thread and you'll see that he attempted to rebut my post first, so please tolerate my retorts.

---

As to a particular side of the issue and where to look in the bible - I've already given specific references to you.

As to my overall view of what the bible says about the proper context of sex...

1) I see the bible first defining sex in the context of marriage in Gen 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."  This is the first direct reference to human sex in the bible, and it is a graphical reference of the penetration involved in sex. 

Why do I interpret Gen 2:24 as a graphical reference to sex?  Because Gen 2:24 is already graphically interpreted for us in the New Testament:

1Cor 6:16 24 "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh. '"

Then, the first historical account of sex in the bible occurs in Gen 4:1 “ Adam lay with his wife Eve. , and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. "

So, the very first chapters of the book of Genesis give the proper context of sex and if you read the rest of the bible you’ll that sex outside of that context is condemned.  Basically the sexual rules of the bible can be summed up simply by: “No sex outside of marriage.”

Anyone who reads the bible and comes to any other conclusion than “No sex outside of marriage” is blind.  And I say that in all seriousness – they’re blind.


2) Also, we are told HOW TO AVOID sexual immorality:

1Cor 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband…8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. "

Here’s my interpretation of that passage and you can see if you agree: Marriage has a lot of pitfalls and troubles, so it is better not to marry.  But, since sexual immorality is so widespread, get married.   For, although it is better not to marry, it is better to marry than to attempt to attempt to live life sexually frustrated which will eventually lead you into sin.


So, Duke, I’ve given you a sincere and simple interpretation that can be universally understood, but you’re going to have to read and make up your mind yourself.

And I wouldn’t read the bible using someone else’s study guide, regardless of who wrote it or what opinion they hold.  God wrote the bible to you and for you.  If you can’t interpret without using someone else’s opinion as a guide, then you might as well put down your bible and simply follow the guide.

The bible was also meant to be read throughout the world, so God used common universal objects to illustrate his requirements.  So, if you believe you have to run off and study Greek and Hebrew and learn every detail about the culture of those times in order to interpret scripture, then you’ve missed the point, IMO, for God didn’t intend scriptural interpretation to be confined to the hands of intellectuals, rather he wanted it to be interpretable by common people:

1Cor 1:27-29 "26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. "

And whatever you do, stay away from Christian television, the vast majority of televangelist are only in it for the money!!!

[afleitch]

Without covering the same ground again Duke, I have taken for myself comfort in the knowledge that Jesus did not condemn a stable and loving relationship, only relationships based on slavery, prostitution and idolatry. The notion of sexuality as Jesus and those in Judea and Rome understood was probably more complex than the compartmentalised sexuality of today (the Greek notion of the third sex for example, which extended to eunuchs, gays and in the Byzantine era to the understanding of the nature of angels)

Therefore, while excempting gay men from marriage to women, from the instability of that relationship, from the untruthfulness of that relationship, has affirmed what we should not do. We have not been offered an alternative on the table.

The processes and theories of the physical and other sciences help unveil the majesty of creation. You accept that you were born gay; most of the sciences are in agreement with that testimony, but even if they were not, it is a truth that you hold 'self-evident' if you will. It is often argued that homosexuality is part of the broad spectrum of our sinful nature.

Yet if so, it would be a very selective sin. Because while all of us can cheat, or steal or lie or covet (and act upon that in different measures) not all of us are capable at responding to the sexual touch, smells and words of another man; to be aroused by him, to wish to share your life - sex or no sex - with him. Likewise we are not capable of respond to the sexual allure of women. However those who do are offered a way 'out' of that temptation - through marriage. We, apparently are not.

For God to create a creature so capable of love and attraction to someone of the same sex yet offer no grace would mean that every gay man was condemned from the get go. Which means that God is very wicked or very foolish. But he is of course none of these things.

The Catholic Catechism on conscience says :

"Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking. "

A conscience is not a spur of the moment decision, it is a process by which the personal mind reaches a decision based on the objective good.

When faced with the self evident truth that you were born gay, that you can do nothing to alter that and that Jesus calls you (and me) to lead a life that is not sexually frivolous, not to whore yourself or sell yourself, not to marry but gives little advice as to what you should do then you have to appeal to your conscience where the 'prudent man can hear God speaking.'

I appeal to my conscience and to scripture as well as to reason and science and compassion and I can see no wrong in sharing my life with one man, with all the love, commitment and passion that I was born capable of giving to him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Without covering the same ground again Duke, I have taken for myself comfort in the knowledge that Jesus did not condemn a stable and loving relationship, only relationships based on slavery, prostitution and idolatry.

Obviously, the bible does NOT say, "To avoid sexual immority, find a stable loving relationship."  Unless, of course, it's marriage:

1Cor 5 1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband....8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Attempting to justify sex outside of marriage by using the bible is a losing battle.  No one is buying it, for you're unable to use the bible to argue for homosexual marriage because the bible defines marriage as a heterosexual union, so you're left arguing that the bible winks at sex outside of marriage as long as it is "a stable loving relationship", when no such exemption is even hinted at in the bible, in order to relieve your conscience.  But, your "relief" is nothing but a transparent deception.

[afleitch]

Consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience. But anybody who eats in a state of doubt is condemned, because he is not in good faith

But that is for another day

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience. But anybody who eats in a state of doubt is condemned, because he is not in good faith

But that is for another day

I don't think a discussion of clean and unclean food is going to add to your attempt to validate homosexual practices.   

I can see it now:

afleitch: Christians are allowed to eat unclean meat, though Israel was forbidden to do so in Leviticus.  Therefore, why shouldn't I be allowed to have homosexual sex when it was also forbidden in Leviticus?

[afleitch]

Consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience. But anybody who eats in a state of doubt is condemned, because he is not in good faith

But that is for another day

I don't think a discussion of clean and unclean food is going to add to your attempt to validate homosexual practices.   

I can see it now:

afleitch: Christians are allowed to eat unclean meat, though Israel was forbidden to do so in Leviticus.  Therefore, why shouldn't I be allowed to have homosexual sex when it was also forbidden in Leviticus?

Well I think you've 'seen it' incorrectly - as I'm putting my Catholic hat on for this one. I'm not even going to refer to homosexual sex, but the idea of the Primacy of Conscience.

But before all that, what do you know of homosexuality and homosexuals? Perhaps that would be a good place to start, or a good learning curve.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well I think you've 'seen it' incorrectly - as I'm putting my Catholic hat on for this one. I'm not even going to refer to homosexual sex, but the idea of the Primacy of Conscience.

the Primacy of Conscience is not a licence for sexual imorality.

---

But before all that, what do you know of homosexuality and homosexuals? Perhaps that would be a good place to start, or a good learning curve.

homosexuality:  sexual attraction to the same sex
homosexuals: those who have  tendencies of homosexuality

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, since afleitch has made roughly the same arguments I would in regards to this interpretation, I'm not going to bother writing a whole long rant. I'm just going to summarize this as simply as I can, and if you continue to lack understanding of what I'm saying I'm just not going to bother anymore.

1. IF afleitch's interpretation is correct, it exempts homosexuals from marrying. I say "if" because I do not necessarily believe it correct, but he has valid reasons to argue for his interpretation just as you do. Neither of your interpretations are unreasonable.

2. Whether the person's referenced in any of the three categories were sexually active outside of marriage is not relevant to this exemption. This interpretation does not exempt them from the notion that sex outside of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is sinful.

3. It's my understanding that in those days men were expected to marry and have children - this was a cultural and sometimes a religious expectation. ("Go forth and multiply" is sometimes interpreted that way) Hence there was a need to exempt some people from that expectation. Given that homosexuals would tend to have a dysfunctional relationship in heterosexual marriage, it's not entirely ludicrous to include them in such an exemption.

Dibble,

I can’t believe you continue to waver between the two opinions.

Rebuttal I:

First, afleitch stated that “procreation” was a requirement of marriage, and, therefore, if you  are unable to procreate because a) you’re sterile, or b) you’re homosexual, then you are exempted form marriage.

That’s ludicrous!   For it would allow sterile heterosexuals to engage in sex outside of marriage, and nowhere does scripture allow for heterosexuals to do that.

Nor did Jesus even bring up “procreation” in Mat 19, rather Jesus brought up that Genesis defined marriage as the context for satisfying human sex drive:

Mat 2:24 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

Rebuttal II:

Jesus isn’t even addressing or instructing the eunuchs that are the focus of afleitch’s theory!

There are THREE sets of eunuchs listed by Jesus, but he is only giving instruction to the last set of eunuchs, the first two sets of eunuchs are only mentioned for juxtaposition:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SO, the juxtaposition is that on one hand, we have physical eunuchs that are physically incapable of sex (by birth or by injury) being compared to those who are capable of having sex but choose not to because they have been given the gift of celibacy.  And it is this latter group Jesus is addressing.

Jesus is NOT giving physical eunuchs instruction; rather he is instructing “spiritual eunuchs”  who have a religious choice ("for the kingdom of heaven") because they have been given the gift of celibacy; and Jesus simply mentions physical eunuchs  who had no choice, for the purpose of juxtaposition.

So, afleitch’s position does many blatantly deceitful things:
1)   it attempts to exempt non-procreation sex from marriage.
2)   It attempt to delink sex from marriage, despite the fact Jesus spent the whole first half of the chapter linking the two.
3)   It attempts to define the first two sets of physical eunuchs In Mat 19:12 as sexually active
4)   It attempts to have Jesus instructing the first two sets of  physical eunuchs when Jesus is only instructing the last set of spiritual eunuchs
5)   It totally reverses the fact that Mat 19:11-12 is talking about the sexual non-activity of celibacy and not sexual activity.

And the reason Jesus brings up celibacy in the first place is that it brings under control the desire for sex and thus provides a way to avoid the need for marriage – which correlates with his previous statement regarding divorce which bound sex to marriage.

And Jesus’ teaching about celibacy in this passage dovetails exact the teachings about celibacy in the rest of the bible (see below link to 1Cor ch 7 discussion of celebacy):

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207;&version=31;

---

So, Dibble, it is not "reasonable” to hold both my position and the other as “reasonable”, for one is in complete agreement with the immediate context (the chapter) and the overall context (the entire bible) while the other turns the immediate and overall context on its head.

Lastly, it is not “arrogant” of me to have the willingness to take a stand and point out a half-baked interpretation, for this isn’t even about me, in fact, my interpretation of this passage is held by the majority, though that doesn’t make it automatically true.  You yourself will have to determine what is true.  So, in the end, it is about you.

[John Dibble]

Dibble,

I can’t believe you continue to waver between the two opinions.

Why shouldn't I "waver"? If neither of you can conclusively prove your opinion as fact in my eyes should I just choose blindly? Only an idiot would do that.

As I stated, I'm not even going to bother anymore - it's quite clear you either are incapable of understanding what is being argued to you in plain English or you just don't want to understand because it might threaten your fragile little ego to even consider you might be wrong. Given your attitude I'm going to suppose the latter.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

it's quite clear you either are incapable of understanding what is being argued to you in plain English or you just don't want to understand because it might threaten your fragile little ego to even consider you might be wrong

seems to me that afleitch is attempting to separate procreative sex from non-procreative sex in order to provide an excuse for non-procreative sex outside of the context of a marriage:

No. Because that would be out of context. Jesus is talking about sex at this point, and he's talking about sex within marriage exclusively. People who have been castrated are not by that definition incapable of having sex (they still have a penis) and we know from history they were sexually promiscuous. What they are incapable of is having procreative sex within marriage (notice how I'm coupling sex with marriage here) so the advice is to not marry them. Gay men are impotent to women. We cannot be sexually aroused by women. How on earth are we suitable marriage partners for the purpose of having children? Homosexuals are exempt from the man-woman marriage (as the marriage of Adam and Eve was a procreative marriage)

he's taken Jesus' linkage of sex and marriage and twisted to pertain only to procreative sex and marriage.  how is this a misinterpretation what he is saying?