Homosexuality and evolution

[ParanoidAndroid]

PA -

I am wondering how you understand the Lord's commands against homosexual behavior in light of your belief about it?

Hi nebula,

Could you first clarify two points before I answer: 1- what is it you understand to be the "Lord's commands against homosexual behaviour", and 2- what do you think my beliefs are about it?

I hesitate to make a response until I understand the answer to these two questions. Otherwise, I would simply state my entire beliefs on the issue which would just take up much time. Thanks a heap, Neb

~ Regards, PA

[ParanoidAndroid]

You know that one of the key points of this article you quoted simply reinforces exactly what I was saying, right! To restate - Though of course, being in nature does not be default mean it is acceptable. Many things in nature (cannibalism being the best one I can think of) are also found naturally within the animal kingdom, this does not make it any more or less acceptable for me to murder and eat my work colleagues.

Actually, I did notice that point of agreement and I meant to point that out in my post...but I forgot. (My bad.) I totally agreed with your point that just because "Animals do it" doesn't mean anything in regard to human behavior.

Awesome At least we're on the same page on this particular point. All the best, Axxman

[Gauntlet]

Animals may lack what we deem "intellect" but even the earthworm has "will" in that it can move around in response to stimuli. Ever had an earthworm who didn't cooperate when you wanted to stick it on the barb of your fish-hook?

Again, i must disagree with the use of a HUMAN trait ("will") in a non-human species. Earthworms do respond to stimuli, but it is not a matter of "will" ...it is a matter of a natural reaction from outside influences on the nerve fibers in the worm. Saying the worm has a "will" implies that it can "decide" how to react to different stimuli.

The reason the earthworm doesn't cooperate while going onto a hook is NOT because it knows/decides/recognizes the fish-hook...but rather because of the natural reaction of the worms giant fiber reflex when those fibers are touched/poked/prodded by outside stimuli.

You're right.

Earthworms have no eyes or central nervous system, so how coud they "recognize" they fish-hook? But they do respond to light, temperature, and vibration.

[nebula]

I am wondering how you understand the Lord's commands against homosexual behavior in light of your belief about it?

Could you first clarify two points before I answer: 1- what is it you understand to be the "Lord's commands against homosexual behaviour", and 2- what do you think my beliefs are about it?

1) Lev. 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1

26 For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

2) Well, you don't seem to believe that demonic influence is involved. Nor do you seem to indicate that it is a sin the Lord can cleanse one from.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I am wondering how you understand the Lord's commands against homosexual behavior in light of your belief about it?

Could you first clarify two points before I answer: 1- what is it you understand to be the "Lord's commands against homosexual behaviour", and 2- what do you think my beliefs are about it?

1) Lev. 20:13 - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1

26 For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

2) Well, you don't seem to believe that demonic influence is involved. Nor do you seem to indicate that it is a sin the Lord can cleanse one from.

Hi nebula, thanks for the response.

First, the passage you cited in Leviticus is contextually incorrect. The author was speaking out primarily against the acts of homosexuality within the context of idol worship (a popular act amongst many of the other nations around which Israel lived). However, I do agree with Romans 1 (and the other two New Testament passages on this issue). I'll quote here a very good article on the issue that I have found most helpful:

The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition, but its condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much.

The exegesis of the Sodom and Gibeah stories (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:13-20, 48) is a good case in point. We must resist D.S Bailey's widely-quoted claim that the sin God punished on these occasions was a breach of hospitality etiquette without sexual overtones (it fails to explain adequately both the double usage of the word "know" ( Hebrew yada) and the reason behind the substitutionary offer of Lot's daughters and the Levite's concubine); but neither account amounts to a wholesale condemnation of all homosexual acts. On both occasions the sin condemned was attempted homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners.

The force of the other Old Testament references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behaviour was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warnings of the levitical law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word "abomination" (Hebrew tô‛êbah) for example, which feature in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these Old Testament condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.

In Romans 1, Paul condemned homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry (v23-27), but his theological canvas is broader than that of Leviticus. Instead of treating homosexual behaviour as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad 'exchange' fallen man has made in departing from his Creator's intentions (verse 25). Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural, not because it cuts across the individuals natural sexual orientation (which, of course, it may not) or infringes Old Testament Law, but because it flies in the face of God's creation scheme for human sexual expression.

Paul makes two more references to homosexual practice in other Epistles. Both occur in lists of banned activities and strike the same condemnatory note. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, practicing homosexuals are included among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (but with the redemptive note added, "such were some of you"); and in 1 Timothy 1:9, they feature in a list of "the lawless and disobedient". The latter is especially important because the whole list represents an updated version of the Ten Commandments. Paul parallels the 7th commandment (on adultery) with a reference to "immoral persons" and "sodomites", words which cover all sexual intercourse outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual. If the Decalogue is permanently valid, the significance of this application is heightened still further.

It has been suggested that the meaning of "sodomites" (Greek arsenikoites) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 may be restricted to that of "male prostitute". Linguistic evidence to support this view is lacking, however, though the word itself is certainly rare in literature of the New Testament period. it seems beyond reasonable doubt that Paul intended to condemn homosexual conduct (but not homosexual people) in the most general and theologically broad terms he knew. His three scattered references fit together in an impressive way as an expression of God's will as he saw it. As Creator, Law-Giver and King, the Lord's condemnation of such behaviour was absolutely plain.

(Quoted from the New Bible Dictionary, 21st Century edition, pp. 478-479; Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England)

Just a thought

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As to the second question I asked - to the first part, you are absolutely right! I reject the notion that homosexuality is the result of demonic possession/influence. Homosexuality is a sin just as any other sin is also a sin. There is nothing worse or more horrible about it - and putting it down to demonic influence simply fuels the preconception that homosexuality is somehow worse than other forms of sin (particularly sexual sin). Adultery is a sin, premarital sex is a sin. Heck, according to Jesus, pornography is a sin - and all those sins fall under the umbrella of sexual immorality.

I am not arguing that homosexuality is right and proper. But neither am I demonising it into something that we can justify hate or bigotry towards.

The second part of what you say though, I do question - there is no such thing as a sin that God cannot cleanse us from. However, the feelings behind those sins are not something that can necessarily be cleansed. As a heterosexual male, I have certain sexual urges as well. But because of my relationship with God, since I am unmarried I choose not to act on those urges. Does that mean that God can "cleanse" me of my heterosexual feelings? No, I will have them always. But I can control them, choose not to act on them. And I do that, in part, due to my reliance on God.

To see it any other way is to demonise homosexuality as to something worse than the Bible makes it out as. If the Bible does not single it out as worse than other sins, then why should I? Homosexuality is, and will remain, just one more way that humans can go against God. I am not in any different boat to homosexuals, I have committed the same sins as they have, and even the same type of sins (lust in my heart, if not in my flesh).

Homosexuals should not be vilified. We should understand that they are humans as we are. Not bogged down by demonic influences, but simply struggling with sins, just as we all struggle with our own sins. I have my own sins to worry about - not the same sins as you, or the homosexual Christian, but not easier because of it.

I honestly hope that you can see my point here. All the best, neb

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

The force of the other Old Testament references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behaviour was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warnings of the levitical law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word "abomination" (Hebrew tô‛êbah) for example, which feature in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these Old Testament condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.

This author makes a lot of heavy overstatements that are not born out of Scripture. First of all, the Bible does not primarily associate homosexuallity with idol worship. The references to 1 Kings only tell us that that male prostitution was a part of idol worship. It does not place any limits on homosexual expression as being condemned solely in that context.

Author seems to suggest homosexuality was prohibited only in terms of idol worship, but outside of that, it is not prohibited behavior, and that could not be further from the truth.

The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition, but its condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit.

This is also false. The Bible teaches that not only are we not to sin, but there should not be anything in our heart to desire that sin in the first place. Jesus said that it was just as much a sin to lust after a married woman as it is to commit the adulterous act with her. Sin, according to Scripture is committed in the heart long before it is carried out in the flesh.

As a heterosexual male, I have certain sexual urges as well. But because of my relationship with God, since I am unmarried I choose not to act on those urges. Does that mean that God can "cleanse" me of my heterosexual feelings? No, I will have them always. But I can control them, choose not to act on them. And I do that, in part, due to my reliance on God.

This is an invalid example. God created hetrosexual urges. So it is not a sin to have such urges. It is when you entertain those urges and begin lusting or fantascizing in any way acting on them outsdie of marriage, that sin comes into play.

In the Bible, the commandments God gives are like paradigms. They are behavioral frames of reference. In other words, since the law doesn't cover every possible sin that could exist, we must extrapolate from the commandments that exist in order to address the issues that arise which are not directly mentioned. For example, the law might tell you what to do if your ox gores your neighbor's sheep, but it doesn't say what to do if your goat gores your neighbor's sheep. You simply extrapolate from the laws that exist in order to address what to do about your goat.

The Ten Commandments are this way as well and cannot be limited to mere idol worship prohibitions. The law against graven (stone) images is also a comandment against images made on any thing, be it wood, metal, stone, papyrus, clay, etc. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a commandment agaisnt ALL sexual impurity including homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc. That is how they looked at the law in those days. The Ten Commandments are a synopsis of the whole law.

[ParanoidAndroid]

This author makes a lot of heavy overstatements that are not born out of Scripture. First of all, the Bible does not primarily associate homosexuallity with idol worship. The references to 1 Kings only tell us that that male prostitution was a part of idol worship. It does not place any limits on homosexual expression as being condemned solely in that context.

Author seems to suggest homosexuality was prohibited only in terms of idol worship, but outside of that, it is not prohibited behavior, and that could not be further from the truth.

That is not the implication at all! The author even specifically starts his article by stating that "condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit"! There is absolutely zero chance it can be suggested that the author was suggesting that homosexuality is not prohibited behaviour.

This is also false. The Bible teaches that not only are we not to sin, but there should not be anything in our heart to desire that sin in the first place. Jesus said that it was just as much a sin to lust after a married woman as it is to commit the adulterous act with her. Sin, according to Scripture is committed in the heart long before it is carried out in the flesh.

I agree. But sexual immorality is also a sin, and that means that if I engage thoughts of heterosexual sex, then I am also guilty of that.

This is an invalid example. God created hetrosexual urges. So it is not a sin to have such urges. It is when you entertain those urges and begin lusting or fantascizing in any way acting on them outsdie of marriage, that sin comes into play.

But you would argue that it is a sin for homosexuals to have those urges (regardless of whether they act on them or not)? Is it not also true that *to quote what you wrote* "it is when you entertain those urges and begin lusting or fantasising in any way acting on them" that sin comes into play?

In the Bible, the commandments God gives are like paradigms. They are behavioral frames of reference. In other words, since the law doesn't cover every possible sin that could exist, we must extrapolate from the commandments that exist in order to address the issues that arise which are not directly mentioned. For example, the law might tell you what to do if your ox gores your neighbor's sheep, but it doesn't say what to do if your goat gores your neighbor's sheep. You simply extrapolate from the laws that exist in order to address what to do about your goat.

The Ten Commandments are this way as well and cannot be limited to mere idol worship prohibitions. The law against graven (stone) images is also a comandment against images made on any thing, be it wood, metal, stone, papyrus, clay, etc. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is a commandment agaisnt ALL sexual impurity including homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc. That is how they looked at the law in those days. The Ten Commandments are a synopsis of the whole law.

No disagreements I couldn't have said it better myself

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Apr 27 2009, 02:49 AM)

This author makes a lot of heavy overstatements that are not born out of Scripture. First of all, the Bible does not primarily associate homosexuallity with idol worship. The references to 1 Kings only tell us that that male prostitution was a part of idol worship. It does not place any limits on homosexual expression as being condemned solely in that context.

Author seems to suggest homosexuality was prohibited only in terms of idol worship, but outside of that, it is not prohibited behavior, and that could not be further from the truth.

That is not the implication at all! The author even specifically starts his article by stating that "condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit"! There is absolutely zero chance it can be suggested that the author was suggesting that homosexuality is not prohibited behaviour.

The author was limiting it to a discussion of idolatry.

But you would argue that it is a sin for homosexuals to have those urges (regardless of whether they act on them or not)? Is it not also true that *to quote what you wrote* "it is when you entertain those urges and begin lusting or fantasising in any way acting on them" that sin comes into play?

I would argue that homosexuality is not an "urge." Calling it an "urge" makes gives it the appearance of being natural and amoral. Sexuality is an urge. Homosexuality is a sin, and is that makes it a spiritual issue like all other forms sinful desires.

Homosexuality is an outgrowth of man's fallen spiritual nature, whereas sexual desire in and of itself is not an expression of a fallen nature.

[ParanoidAndroid]

The author was limiting it to a discussion of idolatry.

The author was discussing the scope of the passages used against homosexuality - that included commentaries on idolatry, but was not solely focused on that view. There is more in the Bible about homosexuality than simply Leviticus 18 and 20. The article was an entire discourse on the passages we have available, not a one-line approach to only that of Leviticus.

I would argue that homosexuality is not an "urge." Calling it an "urge" makes gives it the appearance of being natural and amoral. Sexuality is an urge. Homosexuality is a sin, and is that makes it a spiritual issue like all other forms sinful desires.

Homosexuality is an outgrowth of man's fallen spiritual nature, whereas sexual desire in and of itself is not an expression of a fallen nature.

I disagree with that. Many urges people have are not moral by nature. I have an urge to want my neighbour's plasma tv (covet), that does not make it natural and amoral. Like any other sin, it is something that needs to be dealt with. Some people do not have the ability to choose some of their desires. Like the desire to own neighbour's belongings, or the desire to procreate if one is not married, those desires are issues that need to be taken into account for Christians, regardless of what they feel in regards to their sexuality.

Remember, the author I quoted did not argue that homosexuality was acceptable behaviour, and neither am I. I was just providing a full theological breakdown of the passages used to discuss issues of homosexuality.

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

I disagree with that. Many urges people have are not moral by nature. I have an urge to want my neighbour's plasma tv (covet), that does not make it natural and amoral.

that is not an "urge." Urges are baser such as sex, hunger, thirst, etc.

Like any other sin, it is something that needs to be dealt with.

Yeah, and homosexuality is the same way. It is a perversion whether it is acted on or not.

Some people do not have the ability to choose some of their desires.

Yes, they do, particularly if those desires are sinful. I cannot choose not to be thirsty or hungry. A human being cannot shut off sexual urges either.

Like the desire to own neighbour's belongings, or the desire to procreate if one is not married, those desires are issues that need to be taken into account for Christians, regardless of what they feel in regards to their sexuality.

the desire to procreate is not a sin even if you are not married. What is sinful is the desire to act on your sexual urges outside of marriage. God designed you to want to procreate. All people dream of having children one day, even little girls from a very young age express maternal desires. That is there by God's will.

You cannot intelligently compare that to coveting. It is not a sin to want a plasma TV like your neighbor has. It is when you want HIS plasma TV that it is a problem.