Ok, I'll concede that the language of the bible is explicit in condemning Homosexual behaviour. If you accept the Bible as the divinely inspired word of the Christian God, does that mean that you also consider all the other condemned behaviours to be sinful and abide by those standards yourself?

Do you think that any of the proscribed behaviours, or attitudes described in the bible simply aren't contextually relevant or meaningful in contemporary society, and does that matter?

I'm a little confused by this:

If it's condemned as a sin in the bible, why wouldn't you be clear on whether or not it's a sin?

It's fine that Christians change, unfortunately...

... God, it would seem, is going to stick to the recipe.

And before anybody whines that it is taken out of context; this is supposedly God speaking about the day of reckoning, how people have always turned away from his decrees and how he will punish those who have done so. The context is most certainly spot on.

Yeah, that had crossed my mind too and I was meandering in that direction with my question about 'contemporary society'.

Meh -- it's not quite that simple. It can be argued that while God himself does not change, his edicts in Leviticus are culturally contextualized. That is, the same behavior can be judged differently based on the immediate culture. As a non-Biblical example, consider Nixon's OK sign in Brazil.

It should be noted that the first rules regarding homosexuality in the Bible came from Moses and not from God, so that it is possible to contextualize such edicts as being culturally relative and not absolute (such as with the 10 commandments, which came from God directly).

I think the above argument has its own problems, but I'm not presenting it because I think it's the strongest argument. It's just to point out that there are more and less nuanced ways to understand the Bible, and that the approach you've given (which is basically a form of proof-texting) is a less nuanced approach.

It becomes fairly hard to argue this when you consider that this chapter in Malachi speaks directly of decrees from the Mosaic laws.

So I think I will just have to counter-retort: Meh -- yes it is in fact that simple. The only "theological" alternative is basically to discount the prophets and admit that the bible is not the word of God.

Nah. You're not very good at this game. There were plenty of good responses, but that's not one of them.

Were those decrees given to all peoples to be intended for applications at all times?

Here is the passage in Genesis where this destruction is described. I would be curious how anyone could think that this justifies the claim that homosexuality is immoral. I would be willing to admit that if you start with this as a presumption then you might include homosexuality as part of the wickedness of Sodom. But look, the wickedness here is the violence of the Sodomites--that they wanted to rape the visitors. When Lot says, "do not act so wickedly," it is hard to believe that he is just exhorting them to stop being homosexuals, rather than telling them to stop threatening his guests.

Really? You don't think it is possible to do this? I think you must be speaking hyperbolically.

I don't think thinking of this as "capital punishment" for a crime is the right perspective. Rather, this is more akin to the periodic destruction of cities, or even the entire world, done because of "wickedness" and disobedience towards God described in Genesis and Exodus. These were not the result of breaking some law, but of a more general immorality.

So basically, what you're saying is that the moral perspective is implied rather than explicitly stated, and so you're reading into the passage the assumptions you think they held. A few points: first, I tried to find some evidence for your claim about the views of sexuality within the ancient Hebrew/Jewish worldview, but was unable to find much. Perhaps you have some support in mind?

Second, I would seriously question whether modern-day Christians should take the implied moral perspective of Old Testament passages such as this as authoritative on issues like this.

Third, like in my response to uke_master, I just don't see it in the passage. I mean, it is not inconsistent with viewing homosexuality as immoral, but it also doesn't seem inconsistent with viewing homosexuality as permissible. I would certainly not be willing, even as a Christian, to take something this unclear as the reason for something as drastic as condemning homosexuality as wicked.

Yeah, the bolded is false (here is an overview of some of these views). In fact, most liberal Christians argue that the passages in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexuality are actually condemning some more specific activity: e.g temple prostitution, child abuse, kidnapping slaves, etc.

Naked_Rectitude, I want to point this out to you in particular because it seems to me this is what I've been arguing for this entire time: not that the liberal Christians are right, but that their method of interpreting the Bible is just as viable as your own. It has seemed to me that you are blind to the existence of these alternative ways of understanding and interpreting the Bible (hence your various attempts to frame this debate as one between those who believe the Bible is inspired by God and those who don't, rather than between different ways of understanding what it means for the Bible to be inspired by God).

In short, yes, I consider behaviours the bible condemns, as sinful, and try to live a Godly life. This doesn't mean I am perfect, it means that I am trying to become more Godly, even though I struggle with certain things from time to time.

I have seen this line of questioning in the past to attempt to call into question the OT laws which are no longer followed, as an attempt to discover some sort of hypocritical behaviour, all of which has been discussed by scholars at great lengths. I'm not sure if that is where you are going with this or not.


It depends what you mean by this, the OT requirements which Jesus did away with are definitely no longer relevant. Anything regarding sacrifice, purification, cleanliness, atonement, etc.

(A more interesting debate is whether or not Jews who rejected Jesus as the messiah follow the law to the letter, given that the Jesus never met the requirement of atonement. Although, if you read the text clearly some of these laws, especially sacrificial ones, must only be done inside the temple on the temple mount, which is no longer present as there is a mosque in it's place, which as you know is the context of great hostility between Jews and Muslims.)

I said this objectively, my point here is that simply because the bible considers it sinful, doesn't imply that the bible is the word of God. I was suggesting that a better argument to deciphering biblical text, would be to just discard the entire thing altogether. (Obviously I believe in the bible, I'm simply speaking objectively)

I don't think it's possible to completely remove the matter of homosexuality from passage. It seems to be front and center in the passage. Denying that it plays any role in the interpretation is disingenuous.

That's fine. But then when you read the passage, you have to consider the question of "What is the general immorality?" If the men had consented to raping the girls instead, would that have mitigated the judgment? If not, then what is the theological value of that offering? What is the reader meant to understand by the fact that the men would not accept this exchange?

I would point to the book of Deuteronomy and the fact that there are no Jewish writings affirming homosexuality. This is sufficient to draw a reasonable conclusion that this was not debated particularly strongly and that the Jewish/Hebrew worldview most likely held a negative view of homosexuality. This is supported by the high reverence given to the laws of Moses and the many strict ways that it was interpreted leading up to the time of Jesus.

This does not speak to the point I was raising. The point I'm raising is that the issue of homosexuality cannot be completely removed from the passage. You may make arguments about why you don't think an OT passage such as this is authoritative when speaking to how contemporary Christians should understand morality, but that doesn't remove the issue from the passage. Rather, it addresses the issue and declares it to be moot. (See below about church leadership and women.)

You have to be careful here. Saying that you don't see it [homosexualty] in the passage is clearly false. It's right in front of you. The men of the city desire to sleep with the male angels.

What you're saying is that you don't see it as an affirmation of the moral viewpoint which holds that such activities are immoral. You are welcome to make this claim. As I initially stated, such narratives are given in the context of an implied morality.

I wouldn't do it on the basis of this passage alone, either. But that's why you don't build a theology based on a single passage in isolation. And you should already know that the theology of the morality of homosexual activities is not built on this passage alone.

In broad terms, what we have is that the Bible speaks negatively of homosexual activities, and never speaks positively of it. Some statements that color those activities are more clear than others. So if you're going to build a theology of homosexual activities, there's only one reasonable direction for you to go.

One way to work around this is to try to not build a theology of it at all. To do this, you have two options:

1) Say that the Bible (as a whole) does not address the issue at all. For example, there's no theology of cars in the Bible because the Bible never talks about cars. I think this is impossible. Some passages are very explicit. (You have to get into some very unothodox and quite likely willful misinterpretations of certain Hebrew words to get there.)
2) Say that the Bible addresses the issue, but in an indirect manner that does not allow for a clear application of the issues in the contemporary context. This is what is done in some areas, like the structure of church leadership (apostles existed then, but not today, so we're not bound by a leadership structure that includes apostles -- this would stand contrary to Mormon theology, for example) and the role of women in the church (the various letters that restrict the role of women were episodic, meaning that they were written to a specific church that had a specific context that does not apply to all women in all places at all times). This is the strongest way to argue your side, but it's not an easy road. I've not seen it done successfully.

Edit: I've worded this last part slightly clumsily. When I say "not build a theology at all" I mean to not build a theology that either affirms or denies a morality of homosexuality.

Me: This passage states that god does not change in regards to his decrees.
You: Mosaic laws are not necessarily Godly laws, so this passage does not really apply.
Me: In this this prophetic passage God is quoted on mentioning Mosaic laws directly.
You: That is not a good response.

You didn't finish reading or you didn't understand the question.

God does not change his views of Mosaic laws (they are what they are), but does he hold that Mosaic laws are intended to be applied to all peoples and all times and all places?

Edit:

FYP -- This goes back to my comment about proof-texting. I can actually push a little further and say "The book of Malachi and Mosaic law."

My point is that the "clobber passages" as your link describes, are in fact present in the bible. That is what I mean by "the bible says it." If one wishes to interpret it differently, then that is there prerogative. My point is that these passages exist. Liberal Christians don't deny these passages exist, they simply interpret them as they see fit.

God's character doesn't change, but that doesn't imply he is stuck in a mindless loop of repetition despite changing circumstances.

Jesus' sacrifice was atonement for sins, so God does not require any of the sacrifices He once did, for example. That is why we don't sacrifice animals as they did in the OT.

Edit: this line or reasoning applies more the Jews who rejected Jesus, not to Christians who are not under law, but under grace.

You basically claimed that it was a good chance that God in Malachi was not speaking about Mosaic law, but the commandments. But in the book of Malachi God directly states that he is talking about the laws of Moses.

But yes, I'm sure the real issue in this debate is how bad I am at reading the Bible and your posts. Your own direct contradiction of the text in question is irrelevant, and I must understand this and move on to your questions - if not I am "not very very good at this game".

You're right, I'm not very good at this game. In fact, I don't even understand the rules.

Huh?

This is an odd passage. Here is my view: The biblical principles are not confirmed through meditation and prayer. By this I don't mean to deny that you are having the subjective experiences you think you are having, but rather that the inference from those experiences to the truth of the Bible is a poor inference. So I'm not going to say that you aren't being honest, but rather that there are other ways of interpreting your experiences. So I would hope that you can explain what you are experiencing and do more than just say that the biblical principles are confirmed through prayer and meditation.

Using your analogy, I won't deny that you have a headache, but I might deny that your headache means that you have diabetes.

I don't disagree--I'm just noting that the bolded is exactly the same thing said by Christians who don't think homosexuality is immoral.

I didn't say this. I said, "There is no indication that any of the apostles other than Paul said anything about homosexuality." This was in response to your false claim that "many of the apostles" said that homosexuality is a sin. Also, the author of Luke-Acts actually wrote the largest amount of the NT, not Paul.

There's nothing subjective about it: we have no record of Jesus condemning homosexuality.

Sure, and rules about cleanliness, such as about women's menstruation, etc. are no longer followed by most Christians.

Wow, we definitely have different moral views on this topic. So, you are not opposed to slavery as long as the master treats his slaves humanely? You do realize that slavery involves one person owning another person?

Also, here's the best guideline on how to properly treat people who are your slaves: free them. And no, the employer/employee relationship, which is entered into by choice and which can be terminated by choice, and doesn't involve control by the employer over the employee's personal life, is most definitely not the same thing as slavery.

It wasn't an objection. I was noting that your proposed definition of "Christian" as one who follows Jesus actually meant following Paul and the other writers of the New Testament and later theologians and what they wrote about Jesus, not just following Jesus.

Nah, I favor capitalism over socialism, although I don't think of this in moral terms exactly.

I'm not really sure what you are asking here, but yes, different rules could apply to different societies. For instance, rules about decency are usually very culturally based and so differ widely. On the other hand, some rules, such as about stealing and murder seem to apply widely.

My view is not that we decide what is moral by just taking a poll about what people think. For instance, nearly everyone in society could think that we should make marijuana illegal, but still be wrong about this. This is because this condemnation of marijuana could be based on false beliefs about homosexuality, or ungrounded prejudices, etc. such that if society made marijuana legal more people would be better off than if it were illegal.

Not sure what you mean by "distinguishes two separate ideas of right and wrong"?

Here's your claim, "Even Christian liberals don't really argue that the bible doesn't say it, but rather that it's not significant."

In fact, Christian liberals do really argue that the Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is a sin.

kind of grunching... I do plan to go back and read the thread but the long posts are a bit daunting...

Anyhow I didn't see this scripture actually mentioned which I think is critical

ESV

I think we are arguing semantics here. I would say they claim that the bible doesn't MEAN that homosexuality is a sin, despite the language that is used.

Thought I would answer this, as it seems important. For starters, because the bible mentions slavery doesn't necessarily mean that God approves of the inhumane treatment that many have demonstrated. For instance, the jews were subjugated by the Egyptians and later the Babylonians, but the actions of the captors does not reflect God's character.

As for freedom, one of the stipulations recorded in the bible was that after a period of time, the slave would be given the choice to either leave with his family, or to remain under his master's control if he was happy with the relationship. That is why this relationship is misunderstood given the context of modern day slavery, where white people could not be the slave of a black person, and hatred was nearly always involved. The relationship is closer related to an employer/employee than a modern day slave with no rights.

Again, Christians are slaves of Christ. This isn't a demeaning position in the view of Christianity.

Have you read any of the liberal Christians who have written on this issue? Because you just seem to be making up stuff in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong. So again, liberal Christians do indeed argue that the Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is a sin. The distinction you are trying to use between saying and meaning something is not correct here.

This is in regards to Hebrew slaves, for non-Hebrew slaves the ownership was indefinite.

It is apt that you bring up the slave period in the US because you see an identical pattern there. Blacks could be owned as slaves, while non-blacks could be owned only for a limited period of time as indentured servants. Like in in ancient Israel this was a custom codified and protected by law.

Obv. I am no expert here but I doubt this is the case.