What does the New Testament say about homosexuality? Short answer: "Nothing"

[gfm7175]

No

Yes

 

[gfm7175]

Leviticus, is,was,always will be Jewish Law!
I'm not Jewish! Regardless that I'm High Priest in Judaism!

You need to actually read The Bible because it directly contradicts your position on the issue of homosexuality.
Your "Jewish Law!" retort is irrelevant because, as I explained to you before, God's nature NEVER changes.

 

[gmark77]

You need to actually read The Bible because it directly contradicts your position on the issue of homosexuality.
Your "Jewish Law!" retort is irrelevant because, as I explained to you before, God's nature NEVER changes.

@Margot is not alone, though. There is a swath of Christianity that attempts to get away from the OT by means of "Dispensations" or ages. The claim is that now we are no longer under the era of "Law" but rather are redeemed by Jesus.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You need to actually read The Bible because it directly contradicts your position on the issue of homosexuality.
Your "Jewish Law!" retort is irrelevant because, as I explained to you before, God's nature NEVER changes.

Is there no cure for being afflicted with religious superstition?

The government and the law are SECULAR,
and morality is determined by the consensus of humans, not deities.

Genetic anomalies like homosexuality cannot be the fault of those afflicted
even if social consensus does believe it deviant.

Never in my lifetime have homosexuals had a negative impact on my life
other than mild discomfort with public displays of same sex affection that suggest a sexual / romantic component.

Even so, we have no entitlement to be comfortable all of the time.

 

[gmark77]

Is there no cure for being afflicted with religious superstition?

The government and the law are SECULAR,
and morality is determined by the consensus of humans, not deities.

Genetic anomalies like homosexuality cannot be the fault of those afflicted
even if social consensus does believe it deviant.

Never in my lifetime have homosexuals had a negative impact on my life
other than mild discomfort with public displays of same sex affection that suggest a sexual / romantic component.

Even so, we have no entitlement to be comfortable all of the time.

All religions evolve to suit the morality of the times. Christianity is evolving as we learn that gay people and trans people are FULLY HUMAN and well worth treating as such. Which is a change for a society and a religion.

it then becomes necessary for the believers to somehow justify a God who is NOT eternal and unchanging but rather changeable for our needs.

And I'm actually kind of happy about that. It has certainly had its benefits over the centuries. Christians don't murder with quite the aplomb they may have in previous centuries and that's a good thing!

Other younger religions still have to go through their growth pains but ultimately the only way forward is for religion to abandon any pretext to "eternal truth". Which they do by means of arabesques of exegesis.

 

[EdwinA]

I've never seen a homophobic that didn't have self loathing because of their suppressed homosexual desires.

You've never seen a 'homophobic' at all, so that is half true.

 

[gfm7175]

@Margot is not alone, though. There is a swath of Christianity that attempts to get away from the OT by means of "Dispensations" or ages. The claim is that now we are no longer under the era of "Law" but rather are redeemed by Jesus.

What do you mean "attempts to get away from the OT"? Do you mean that present-day Christians should still be adhering to Mosaic Law as described in the Torah?

 

[gmark77]

What do you mean "attempts to get away from the OT"?

The OT represents a version of God that most modern Christians are uncomfortable with: one that hates homosexuals and calls them an abomination, one that is a fierce advocate for one tiny group of people and who encouraged them in the past to commit all manner of atrocities, one that has all manner of hyper-limited laws.

This is why the Marcionites were decreed a heresy in the Second Century.

Do you mean that present-day Christians should still be adhering to Mosaic Law as described in the Torah?

That's not a good question to ask me. I'm an atheist. All I know is what the books say. And then there's Jesus famous quote in Matthew 5:18.

Personally if I were to believe in a God I would want one that was logically consistent. If God is real then he is unchanging and his rules are eternal. None of this "special cases" sort of stuff that just reeks of human machinations.

It's part of why I don't find any evidence for God to be compelling.

 

[gfm7175]

All religions evolve to suit the morality of the times. Christianity is evolving

Mankind is changing (or at least attempting to change) Christianity to suit the morality of the times. However, God's nature NEVER changes. Homosexuality is just as much of a sin today as it was under Mosaic Law. It remains the very same deviation from God's design of procreation as it was back then.

as we learn that gay people and trans people are FULLY HUMAN and well worth treating as such. Which is a change for a society and a religion.

Of course all humans are humans.

With that being said, SOME humans, during their lifetimes, will experience homosexual temptations. Those temptations in and of themselves are NOT sinful. However, those temptations can easily give birth to sin. Acting upon homosexual temptations IS sinful as such actions are a deviation from God's design for procreation.

With regard to "trans people", there is no such thing as "trans" gender. There are only two genders; male and female.

 

[gmark77]

Mankind is changing (or at least attempting to change) Christianity to suit the morality of the times.

Agreed. As humans do with all religions. It is a necessary thing for the religion to survive any real time.

However, God's nature NEVER changes.

That's the only rational version of God that I can think of.

Homosexuality is just as much of a sin today as it was under Mosaic Law.

And this is why I think this version of "God" is flawed. Homosexuality is not chosen but inborn (if you doubt me, just tell me when you chose to be straight). So creating someone who is an abomination and then punishing them for being an abomination makes for a very bad version of God.

Doesn't make logical sense.

With that being said, SOME humans, during their lifetimes, will experience homosexual temptations.

I never have. But I understand if you have. I just don't find guys particularly attractive.

Those temptations in and of themselves are NOT sinful. However, those temptations can easily give birth to sin. Acting upon homosexual temptations IS sinful as such actions are a deviation from God's design for procreation.

I'm married and my wife and chose specifically to NOT have kids, even went so far as to get a vasectomy decades ago. So does that mean our marriage is not valid?

 

[gfm7175]

The OT represents a version of God that most modern Christians are uncomfortable with: one that hates homosexuals

God does not hate mankind; he created mankind in his image.

and calls them an abomination,

Incorrect. He calls homosexuality an abomination, not mankind.

one that is a fierce advocate for one tiny group of people

God loves ALL people. He chose one particular group of people (Israel) to be set apart from (and be an example for) all other nations. You can read all about the ups and downs of that nation throughout many of the Old Testament books.

and who encouraged them in the past to commit all manner of atrocities, one that has all manner of hyper-limited laws.

One would have to analyze each specific instance of said "atrocities"; those could be separate threads in and of themselves.

That's not a good question to ask me. I'm an atheist.

Fair enough. I didn't know that you were an atheist.

All I know is what the books say. And then there's Jesus famous quote in Matthew 5:18.

Right.

Personally if I were to believe in a God I would want one that was logically consistent.

Sounds reasonable.

If God is real then he is unchanging and his rules are eternal. None of this "special cases" sort of stuff that just reeks of human machinations.

Sounds reasonable.

It's part of why I don't find any evidence for God to be compelling.

Maybe one day you'll be compelled.

 

[gmark77]

God does not hate mankind; he created mankind in his image.

Clearly not the "abominations".

Incorrect. He calls homosexuality an abomination, not mankind.

That's parsing words. If gay people are born gay (which they are, just ask literally any gay person) then God made them gay. If being gay is an abomination then there is no difference between what you do and what you are if you are born that way.

God loves ALL people.

Are you familiar with 1 Samuel 15:3?

Yeah, might wanna re-read that one.

Maybe one day you'll be compelled.

 

[gfm7175]

And this is why I think this version of "God" is flawed. Homosexuality is not chosen but inborn (if you doubt me, just tell me when you chose to be straight).

One could debate "nature vs nurture", or debate exactly how homosexual desires come about within a person (I personally don't believe that anyone is "helplessly 'born' gay"), but I don't think that it really matters in terms of what The Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God. God clearly does NOT condone people succumbing to homosexual desires (or to any other sin, for that matter).

So creating someone who is an abomination and then punishing them for being an abomination makes for a very bad version of God.

Doesn't make logical sense.

You misunderstand. God did not create an abomination; he created mankind. Mankind is not an abomination. God did NOT create homosexuality; homosexuality is a deviation from his design and purpose for mankind (and sexual intercourse). Whether or not one is "helplessly 'born' gay", succumbing to homosexual desires IS a sin, a sin that God considers to be an abomination. Homosexual desires should NOT be acted upon (same as any other sinful desires).

I never have. But I understand if you have. I just don't find guys particularly attractive.

I never have either. I've had, and succumbed to, numerous other temptations, however.

I'm married and my wife and chose specifically to NOT have kids, even went so far as to get a vasectomy decades ago. So does that mean our marriage is not valid?

No.

 

[gmark77]

One could debate "nature vs nurture",

One can, or one can listen directly to gay people.

Further more: if there is a significant role of CHOICE in the matter then you can point to the date when you chose to be straight.

or debate exactly how homosexual desires come about within a person (I personally don't believe that anyone is "helplessly 'born' gay"),

Have you ever asked a gay person? Those gay people I've spoken to say it was never a choice.

but I don't think that it really matters in terms of what The Bible says about homosexuality.

It has all the importance. If it isn't a choice then God is calling an abomination that which He created. Does God create abominations in order to kill them? Because that is what the Lev 20:13 suggests.

You misunderstand. God did not create an abomination;

If being gay is not a choice then God did create an abomination.

If being gay is a choice when did you choose to be straight?

No.

Why not? We EXPRESSLY went out of our way to ensure that our carnal relations did NOT result in children.

 

[gfm7175]

One can, or one can listen directly to gay people.

Further more: if there is a significant role of CHOICE in the matter then you can point to the date when you chose to be straight.

Have you ever asked a gay person? Those gay people I've spoken to say it was never a choice.

The answer to the question wholly depends upon the specific so-called "gay person" that you ask. Some will say that it is NOT a choice, while others will say that they have successfully suppressed their homosexual desires (even to the point of "no longer being gay"). Others will go even further and claim that "Jesus Christ healed them, removing their homosexual desires from them".

It has all the importance. If it isn't a choice then God is calling an abomination that which He created.

God is not calling mankind an abomination. God did not create "homosexuals". God created 'man and woman', and (in a general sense) man "leaves father and mother" to "join woman, becoming one body", and God likewise commanded mankind to "populate the Earth" (which requires procreation, which requires men to have intercourse with women).

Does God create abominations in order to kill them? Because that is what the Lev 20:13 suggests.

No it isn't.

If being gay is not a choice then God did create an abomination.

That's your misunderstanding, as already explained.

If being gay is a choice when did you choose to be straight?

This subject matter was already addressed earlier.

Why not? We EXPRESSLY went out of our way to ensure that our carnal relations did NOT result in children.

So? That doesn't invalidate a marriage. That doesn't invalidate the fact that, in principle, a man and a woman can procreate via "carnal relations".

 

[gmark77]

The answer to the question wholly depends upon the specific so-called "gay person" that you ask. Some will say that it is NOT a choice,

I've never heard that.

But it does mean you will be able to tell me when you chose to be straight. Go ahead.

God is not calling mankind an abomination. God did not create "homosexuals". God created 'man and woman', and (in a general sense) man "leaves father and mother" to "join woman, becoming one body", and God likewise commanded mankind to "populate the Earth" (which requires procreation, which requires men to have intercourse with women).

Again, predicated on if being gay is a choice.

And again, you STILL haven't told me when you chose to be straight.

 

[Margot]

Ahhh, now the games begin! Time to polish up the ol' dictionary as I fear we are heading into a "no true scotsman" storm.

From Wiki:

Dispensationalism:
a Christian theological framework for interpreting the Christian Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages called "dispensations" in which God interacts with his chosen people in different ways.[1]: 19  It is often distinguished from covenant theology, the traditional Reformed view of reading the Bible.[2][3] These are two competing frameworks of biblical theology that attempt to explain overall continuity in the Bible. The coining of the term "dispensationalism" has been attributed to Philip Mauro, a critic of the system's teachings, in his 1928 book The Gospel of the Kingdom.[4][5]

No I'm not !

 

[Margot]

You need to actually read The Bible because it directly contradicts your position on the issue of homosexuality.
Your "Jewish Law!" retort is irrelevant because, as I explained to you before, God's nature NEVER changes.

Your spin!

 

[Margot]

@Margot is not alone, though. There is a swath of Christianity that attempts to get away from the OT by means of "Dispensations" or ages. The claim is that now we are no longer under the era of "Law" but rather are redeemed by Jesus.

Exactly

 

[gmark77]

No I'm not !

So you're not a dispesnationalist but you believe that the OT mosaic laws no longer apply.

May I ask WHY you believe that?

And how do you parse the words of Jesus who said that the heaven and earth shall pass before one jot or tittle of the law?