Homosexuality and evolution

[nebula]

While the Bible does not support homosexuality, Leviticus 18 and 20 cannot be used as blanket statements against that, there is too much context to consider in the sense of the laws being discussed therein.

You haven't adequately explained how the context places it with idolatry.

Those verses I posted showed that the word used for "abomination" is not restricted to idol worship.

Likewise, the surrounding text is speaking against a variety of sexually immoral deeds - none of them are associated with idolatry.

So how does the context fit it into idolatry by these standards?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Apr 27 2009, 04:55 AM)

No, what I said is that normal hetrosexuality is the "urge" that God put in us. We cannot cannot shut that off. God created us to be sexual beings.

Homosexuality is a sin, even a spiritual perversion and it can be chosen for or against.

Isn't that a little contradictory considering the second part of your post which specifically states:

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Apr 27 2009, 04:55 AM)

I have never had a homosexual desire in my life. I cannot imagine it either.

No, because I did not say that I was in capable of choosing. If some guy offered me a homosexual encounter I would staunchly refuse it without a second thought. That would be an act of my will in making the choice to turn down that offer. In theory, I could choose to do it. But it is so morally repugnant and digusting beyond words, there is no way I would even entertain such an act for a nanosecond.

If it were something that could be chosen for or against, why would you not be able to imagine it? There are many things we sin about. We cheat, lie, covet, boast, gossip - we can easily imagine doing these things, but we choose not to (or try not to). Why is this different?

As I said, I am not arguing that it is right, biblically it is not. I'm just trying to put some perspective on this. I cannot see how you can say that we can choose it but then turn around and say you cannot imagine it.

I cannot imagine killing someone, but that does not mean I am incapable of choosing to do so. All sin is a matter of choice.

There are some things so ingrained into my way of thinking that I cannot imagine doing them due to the moral abyss I would have to descend to in order to participate in them. I don't fill my life with sinful influences. I don't feed my mind and sould garbage. Sin is a lot easier to keep out of your life if you don't let it in in the first place.

[ParanoidAndroid]

While the Bible does not support homosexuality, Leviticus 18 and 20 cannot be used as blanket statements against that, there is too much context to consider in the sense of the laws being discussed therein.

You haven't adequately explained how the context places it with idolatry.

Those verses I posted showed that the word used for "abomination" is not restricted to idol worship.

Likewise, the surrounding text is speaking against a variety of sexually immoral deeds - none of them are associated with idolatry.

So how does the context fit it into idolatry by these standards?

Ok, let's start with Leviticus 18 then (it will help to follow this along in your own Bible). The first verses of that chapter begin with a call to be Holy (set apart for Yahweh) -

18:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

18:2 "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God.

18:3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.

Already we are putting some form of context into the discussion - be not like the Egyptians or the Canaanites (the pagan lands which Israel had lived and encompassed). The following commands would then be extensions of this statement. Verses 4-5 continue with claims of God's headship (repeated phrase, "I am the Lord" vv2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30). Verses 6-18 then deal with unconvering nakedness in relatives. The boundaries of these forbidden relations go beyond the strict biological incestuous views, with in-laws and step-relatives included - by family, if not by blood.

The size of Israelite families living under one roof is considerable, and these laws appear to be aimed at ensuring two things - the Rights of the women to not be exploited (eg, sexual abuse), and secondly (and probably more contextually accurate in light of verses 1-3) the outlawing of the kind of incestuous sexual relationships that were conducted in Egyptian and Mesopotamian royal houses. Since this is done under the context of not being like Egypt or Canaan, this makes sense.

Moving on to the verses we are talking about on homosexuality, we have a few sets of laws that are grouped together here. Verse 21 is of particular note:

18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

Molech was pagan God found worshipped through Canaan - so we now have a new thread emerging about idolatrous practices. Verses 22-23 then outline the evils of male-to-male sexual acts, and male and female sex-acts with animals. Both these practices were common in idolatrous acts of worship to gods in Egypt, Canaan, and elsewhere around the ancient world. In context then of both verses 1-3 (making themselves different to Egypt and Canaan), verse 21 (idolatrous worship), and the religious practices of other nations (which included all these forms of sex-acts) the most logical conclusion is that homosexual behaviour here is being addressed in terms of idolatry.

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

As for Leviticus 20, there is not a great deal to say that has not been said already. The list here in many ways mirrors that of chapter 18, but adds an extra element of punishments to fit those crimes. It first repeats the statement about giving children over to Molech (verses 1-5), then moves into the consulting of spirits, mediums, necromancers, etc in verse 6 (another common practice of other nations). It even uses the phrase "whoring after them" to compare Israel's action towards these things.

Verses 7-8 is yet another call to be holy and set apart for God. The next few verses (9-21) cover the major sexual themes of chapter 18 (including homosexual activity), outlining punishments for each of these crimes. And after that list, is the concluding remarks:

20:22 "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.

20:23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.".

These claims extol again the concept of living differently to the Canaanites or the Egyptians, or anyone else - for fear that the land will "vomit you out". Do not live by the customs or religious practices of these nations, but instead follow God in purity. Verses 24-27 conclude by again reiterating the importance of keeping holy and different to that of the lands of Canaan

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

And hence, this is the reasoning used in applying homosexual practices discussed in Leviticus 18 and 20 as prohibitions against sexual acts within the confines of idol worship.

Are there any thoughts you would like to add to this?

[ParanoidAndroid]

No, because I did not say that I was in capable of choosing. If some guy offered me a homosexual encounter I would staunchly refuse it without a second thought. That would be an act of my will in making the choice to turn down that offer. In theory, I could choose to do it. But it is so morally repugnant and digusting beyond words, there is no way I would even entertain such an act for a nanosecond.

There is also the element of simply not being attracted to the same sex. If a male came up to me and offered me homosexual sex, I would say no - the thought is by no means appealing. If an attractive woman came up to me and offered me heterosexual sex, I would also say no, but there would be an element of regret behind the rejection, simply because I am attracted to women.

I cannot imagine killing someone, but that does not mean I am incapable of choosing to do so. All sin is a matter of choice.

Yes, it is a matter of choice. And I can understand not choosing to kill someone. As you say, all sin is a matter of choice. A person who has homosexual feelings has the CHOICE to act on those feelings, or not to act on those feelings. They do not necessarily have the choice to remove those feelings altogether. It may be that a homosexual who chooses to live a celibate lifestyle may find one day that they begin to have changes in their feelings, but this is not something that can be consciously chosen - it takes time, lots of time.

There are some things so ingrained into my way of thinking that I cannot imagine doing them due to the moral abyss I would have to descend to in order to participate in them. I don't fill my life with sinful influences. I don't feed my mind and sould garbage. Sin is a lot easier to keep out of your life if you don't let it in in the first place.

I agree with that - but like my example above, I can conceive of premarital heterosexual sex, even though I would never do it. I cannot conceive of homosexual sex. If both forms of sexual immorality are sins in the eyes of God (neither better nor worse) then why can we conceive of doing one (even if we reject it) and not conceive of the other?

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, it is a matter of choice. And I can understand not choosing to kill someone. As you say, all sin is a matter of choice. A person who has homosexual feelings has the CHOICE to act on those feelings, or not to act on those feelings. They do not necessarily have the choice to remove those feelings altogether.

That is where you are wrong. In God's eyes the desire to sin is as sinful as actually performing the act. It does not matter if you are talking about murder, adultery, homosexuality or any other form sexual impurity.

Homsexuality is not an innate urge over which a person has no control. It is a sin and the fact that God calls it sin right down to the very desire itself, means that it is possible for a person reject it and to be cleansed from it, since Jesus' death both cleanses and delivers from sin. One does not have to have those desires.

I agree with that - but like my example above, I can conceive of premarital heterosexual sex, even though I would never do it. I cannot conceive of homosexual sex. If both forms of sexual immorality are sins in the eyes of God (neither better nor worse) then why can we conceive of doing one (even if we reject it) and not conceive of the other?

The problem here is that you are not making room in the temptation factor. It works in any context. By way of analogy, I do not care for seafood or fish. I cannot stand the smell of fish cooking. For that reason, you can set a piece of broiled lemon pepper halibut in front of me and it will do nothing but turn my stomach. I will most likely lose any appetite I had. However, if you were put a rack of hickory smoked beef ribs in front of me, it would harder for me to resist. One is tempting the other is not.

There is no context, in which you could make murder, theft, homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, the occult, etc. appealing to me. I cannot be tempted by those things because they are so completely and utterly morally reprehenisble, that I can think of NO context where they could be presented to me in a way that would be tempting.

Even though there are sins of a hetrosexual nature that I can be tempted with, I don't walk around desiring them either. The sexual urge is natural. God created it. It is not a sin to want to act on it. The sin comes in wanting to act on it outside God's prescription. The sin also comes into play when you sit around fantasizing and playing it out in your mind, because it has crossed over into lust.

[ParanoidAndroid]

That is where you are wrong. In God's eyes the desire to sin is as sinful as actually performing the act. It does not matter if you are talking about murder, adultery, homosexuality or any other form sexual impurity.

If a person continues to live in celibacy rejecting a homosexual lifestyle and not thinking or dwelling on it, then that solves the problem of sin - they may still possess latent homosexual urges - a homosexual has more in their heads than just sex sex sex. There are ways to live that remove the likelihood of experiencing those emotions and feelings.

Homsexuality is not an innate urge over which a person has no control.

Do you have any empirical facts to back that up?

It is a sin and the fact that God calls it sin right down to the very desire itself, means that it is possible for a person reject it and to be cleansed from it, since Jesus' death both cleanses and delivers from sin. One does not have to have those desires.

And again, they can choose to walk away from those desires, dwell on God and keep their thoughts away from sexuality - I don't think about sex every moment of every day, neither would homosexuals.

The problem here is that you are not making room in the temptation factor. It works in any context. By way of analogy, I do not care for seafood or fish. I cannot stand the smell of fish cooking. For that reason, you can set a piece of broiled lemon pepper halibut in front of me and it will do nothing but turn my stomach. I will most likely lose any appetite I had. However, if you were put a rack of hickory smoked beef ribs in front of me, it would harder for me to resist. One is tempting the other is not.

There is no context, in which you could make murder, theft, homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, the occult, etc. appealing to me. I cannot be tempted by those things because they are so completely and utterly morally reprehenisble, that I can think of NO context where they could be presented to me in a way that would be tempting.

Even though there are sins of a hetrosexual nature that I can be tempted with, I don't walk around desiring them either. The sexual urge is natural. God created it. It is not a sin to want to act on it. The sin comes in wanting to act on it outside God's prescription. The sin also comes into play when you sit around fantasizing and playing it out in your mind, because it has crossed over into lust.

But the "temptation factor" exists because you have a disposition to like or not like something. Using your fish analogy, I see your point - but did you choose to dislike fish, or is it just something about it that you find repugnant? Likewise was your desire for beef something you chose to do, or is it something you were just attracted to?

More to the point, if the Bible declared that eating beef was a sin (it does not say that, but let's pretend) could you stop yourself eating beef? Could you remove from yourself all temptation that might make you think of eating beef? Could you dwell on God and find a way to live life without beef? I say the answer would be a resounding "Yes". You might still enjoy the taste of beef, but by removing the temptation, you can largely remove the desire.

As I said, this is only an analogy - nothing in the Bible forbids the eating of beef. But for a homosexual, God has pronounced that this form of activity goes against his prescribed wishes for humanity. So for a homosexual wishing to live a celibate life, they can remove from them the temptation of homosexual sex, put themselves in a position where they can devote their lives to God instead, control their temptations and live for God.

I don't see a problem with this.

[Guest shiloh357]

If a person continues to live in celibacy rejecting a homosexual lifestyle and not thinking or dwelling on it, then that solves the problem of sin

No it doesn't. Not by a long shot.

they may still possess latent homosexual urges

No, you mean homosexual "desires." There are no homosexual "urges." Sexuality is an "urge." Homosexuality is a perverted desire actomg on the "urge."

As I said, this is only an analogy - nothing in the Bible forbids the eating of beef. But for a homosexual, God has pronounced that this form of activity goes against his prescribed wishes for humanity. So for a homosexual wishing to live a celibate life, they can remove from them the temptation of homosexual sex, put themselves in a position where they can devote their lives to God instead, control their temptations and live for God.

I don't see a problem with this.

The problem is that it is putting the emphasis on human effort, rather than the blood of Jesus. Their is no amount of human-based behavorial modification, no amount of celibacy that will solve the problem. Devoting one's self to God is not the answer either. You cannot live for God good enough to deal with the problem. What the homosexual needs is deliverance from that sin. They need to accept Christ and become new creations in Him. Jesus can deliver and cleanse from all sin, including the sin of homosexuality. Jesus is the answer for homosexual. Until he/she has been cleansed and delivered, they realliy cannot live for God.

You cannot be "religious" enough to deal with the sin homosexuality or any other sin for that matter. I would say the same thing to a person caught in lust, porn, etc. None of these are natural. They are sin and need to be dealt with by the blood of Jesus.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Apr 28 2009, 04:07 PM)

Homsexuality is not an innate urge over which a person has no control.

Do you have any empirical facts to back that up?

God never refers to anything innate in creation as sinful. The sexul urge is never referred to by God as sinful. When God calls something sin, it falls to reason that it is something about which we have a choice and not an innate, uncontrollable urge.

Secondly, there are testimonies of former homosexuals who have become Christians and have been completely delivered.

[Guest Exhau]

No, you mean homosexual "desires." There are no homosexual "urges." Sexuality is an "urge." Homosexuality is a perverted desire actomg on the "urge."

You have rational basis for believing this. Studies have shown homosexuality to be rooted to hormonal balance during fetal development. Nothing to do with perversion.

The problem is that it is putting the emphasis on human effort, rather than the blood of Jesus. Their is no amount of human-based behavorial modification, no amount of celibacy that will solve the problem. Devoting one's self to God is not the answer either. You cannot live for God good enough to deal with the problem. What the homosexual needs is deliverance from that sin. They need to accept Christ and become new creations in Him. Jesus can deliver and cleanse from all sin, including the sin of homosexuality. Jesus is the answer for homosexual. Until he/she has been cleansed and delivered, they realliy cannot live for God.

Actually, it's been shown that not only will just tring really hard not cure homosexuality, but asking Jesus really hard won't do any better. Indeed the two are practically indistinguishable in practice.

You cannot be "religious" enough to deal with the sin homosexuality or any other sin for that matter. I would say the same thing to a person caught in lust, porn, etc. None of these are natural. They are sin and need to be dealt with by the blood of Jesus.

Sexuality is natural. Lust is natural. Porn is a means of satisfying lust, although, it's not really natural seeing as it's just media.

God never refers to anything innate in creation as sinful. The sexual urge is never referred to by God as sinful. When God calls something sin, it falls to reason that it is something about which we have a choice and not an innate, uncontrollable urge.

It does not fall to reason at all. What makes sense is that human fallible writers, translators, and editors of the Bible had reason for decreeing something sinful.

Secondly, there are testimonies of former homosexuals who have become Christians and have been completely delivered.

They have no reason to lie at all, right? Totally. And subjective claims made by biased individuals are very poor evidence.

[Guest shiloh357]

You have rational basis for believing this. Studies have shown homosexuality to be rooted to hormonal balance during fetal development. Nothing to do with perversion.

If that were true, God would not have called it a sin. There are plenty of former homosexuals who have come to Christ who testify that it was spiritual bondage.

Actually, it's been shown that not only will just tring really hard not cure homosexuality, but asking Jesus really hard won't do any better. Indeed the two are practically indistinguishable in practice.

Its not a case of "asking" Jesus to cure you. It's a matter of allowing him to. The blood of Jesus is amazing in what it can do and its power to cleanse from every sin.

Sexuality is natural. Lust is natural. Porn is a means of satisfying lust, although, it's not really natural seeing as it's just media.

Sexualty it natural. Lust is a sin and being a sin, we have a choice not to participate in it. Again, it is a matter of allowing Christ to in us and through us. The closer we are to him, the less prone we are to sinning. When you fill your life with Jesus, there isn't much room for other harmful distractions that lead you down the road to immorality.

It does not fall to reason at all. What makes sense is that human fallible writers, translators, and editors of the Bible had reason for decreeing something sinful.

Actually, the Bible is not written by men. God wrote it. Men were simply His instruments for putting into writing. God wrote it through His apostles and prophets. It a true and infallible word, whether you make room for that or not.

[Guest Exhau]

If that were true, God would not have called it a sin. There are plenty of former homosexuals who have come to Christ who testify that it was spiritual bondage.

The great thing is you don't have to believe me! Research the facts.

Its not a case of "asking" Jesus to cure you. It's a matter of allowing him to. The blood of Jesus is amazing in what it can do and its power to cleanse from every sin.

And you have studies? Serious, objective evidence? Sited sources?

Sexualty it natural. Lust is a sin and being a sin, we have a choice not to participate in it. Again, it is a matter of allowing Christ to in us and through us. The closer we are to him, the less prone we are to sinning. When you fill your life with Jesus, there isn't much room for other harmful distractions that lead you down the road to immorality.

How do you define lust? I define it as "the application of sexuality."

Actually, the Bible is not written by men. God wrote it. Men were simply His instruments for putting into writing. God wrote it through His apostles and prophets. It a true and infallible word, whether you make room for that or not.

Again, source for this claim? Historical research? Archeological investigation? You know what would be great evidence that God wrote a holy book? There only being one religion in the world. Edited April 29, 2009 by Exhau