Here is what I think about homosexuality and Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Usbek_de_Perse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Usbek_de_Perse

Guest
I am an Episcopalian who has been wrestling with this issue for a long time. I am not gay, but the issue has vexed me for a long time.

I recognize that there are many gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships, and that many of these relationships are markedly superior to some married heterosexual relationships. And I recognize that it is not likely possible to switch from being gay to being straight.

So, I have wrestled with this a great deal. Frankly, the prohibitions in Leviticus are not that pursuasive, as the law of the ancient Hebrews reflected a need to procreate in family units in order to preserve the race.

But the world of Jesus and of St. Paul was a very different time. It was as cosmopolitan as our world of today. Survival of any race was not a issue then or now. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He said nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

St. Paul did, especially in Romans. He saw homosexuality in a modern context, and he reacted to what he saw. There is no reason to imagine that St. Paul did not understand that there were committed relationships among the homosexuals and lesbians he saw in his time.

Now, back to Jesus. Again he said nothing. And since nothing else in his Gospels suggests that he would license novel sexual practices, it is hard to imagine that he would license homosexuality as an alternative to committed life-long heterosexual marriage.

I have wrestled with this for some time. I want to liberal and “fair”. I want to see gay relationships as close to equal to straight relationships, but I can’t. Study of scripture and a reasoned understanding of history shows me this is not possible.

And so, with some reluctance (really), I conclude that the case for homosexual marriage, or any openly accepted homosexuality in Christianity is at best not proven.

I am not about to abandon my church, either for another Anglican group or for Rome. I will stay as a reasoning witness.
 
I think one must understand the three vocations
  1. The Vocation of marriage life
  2. The Vocation of the single life
  3. The Vocation of the religious life
How does gay marriage fit in with God’s plan?

It simply does not
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He said nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty common argument for Christians who accept homosexuality (I understand that you do not take this position, I am just pointing it out.) Keep in mind that all of Jesus’ ministry (that we have in the Gospels) take place within Israel. Homosexuality was simply not an issue to be addressed, as divorce obviously was. The Jews of that time and place were sexually very modest. They dressed in a very covered way, and most were married within the Mosaic law at a young age. IMO, Jesus did not address homosexuality for the same reason he didn’t address drug use. He was preaching to God’s people Israel, and correcting the errors that existed within His people. Paul, on the other hand, went right into the heart of Gentile sinfulness (take Corinth, for example) where sexual sins, including homosexuality, were prevalent.

It’s funny that this should come up in the forums, we were just discussing this at Bible study this morning 🙂

Peace and blessings,
Frank
 
Cominghome89 said:
This is a pretty common argument for Christians who accept homosexuality (I understand that you do not take this position, I am just pointing it out.) Keep in mind that all of Jesus’ ministry (that we have in the Gospels) take place within Israel. Homosexuality was simply not an issue to be addressed, as divorce obviously was. The Jews of that time and place were sexually very modest. They dressed in a very covered way, and most were married within the Mosaic law at a young age. IMO, Jesus did not address homosexuality for the same reason he didn’t address drug use. He was preaching to God’s people Israel, and correcting the errors that existed within His people. Paul, on the other hand, went right into the heart of Gentile sinfulness (take Corinth, for example) where sexual sins, including homosexuality, were prevalent.

It’s funny that this should come up in the forums, we were just discussing this at Bible study this morning 🙂

Peace and blessings,
Frank
Click to expand...
You and I seem to be reasoning along the same lines. When I say Jesus said nothing, that means just that. That “nothing” means there is no permission given. It is completely out of character for Jesus to have licensed something sexually novel. Indeed, had he said nothing about divorce, Christians would be free to divorce along the lines of Jewish law.

I also don’t buy the argument that Paul was just reflecting the prejudices of his time. However, as I say, the case for homosexual marriage is at best, not proven, or not made. Nonetheless, tremendous compassion, patience, and kindness must be shown all people, especially to those who are trying to lead a good life, longing for God, and living in all other respects exemplary lives.
 
Amen. I stand by the Church 100% on its teaching on homosexuality, but I couldn’t agree more that all who profess to be homosexuals must be treated with the utmost compassion. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is an important distinction that, unfortunately, many Christians forget to make.

Peace and blessings,
Frank
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
**I recognize that there are many gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships, and that many of these relationships are markedly superior to some married heterosexual relationships. And I recognize that it is not likely possible to switch from being gay to being straight. **
Click to expand...
eh…I dont know if I would go so far as to say that more homosexual married committed relationships are superior to heterosexual ones…I mean, dont gay people only make up 4% of the population? if that…and if you count how many out of that 4% are actually IN committed long term relationships…thats not very many couples to compare…

and it IS possible to go from being gay to being straight…happens all the time…and without those camps or what have you…(personally I dont believe in those). But yes, gay people, or bi sexual people, end up being straight all the time…they just need to find themselves, or that other person that makes em’ realize…
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He said nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
Click to expand...
He may not have SAID anything, but he sure did DO somethings about it? right??? I mean didnt he LEVEL some place called ‘sodom’…with the sodomites?? who were gay??? they obviously were doin’ something he didnt approve of??

If I’m wrong I apologize, but, I thought he wiped those folks out??
 
Jesus Christ did repeat the proper form for Marriage. His approved marriage is between a man and a woman. I know, I could go chase scripture down, but we all have read it and know it. Jesus Christ said that marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Charlotte408 said:
eh…I dont know if I would go so far as to say that more homosexual married committed relationships are superior to heterosexual ones…I mean, dont gay people only make up 4% of the population? if that…and if you count how many out of that 4% are actually IN committed long term relationships…thats not very many couples to compare…

and it IS possible to go from being gay to being straight…happens all the time…and without those camps or what have you…(personally I dont believe in those). But yes, gay people, or bi sexual people, end up being straight all the time…they just need to find themselves, or that other person that makes em’ realize…

He may not have SAID anything, but he sure did DO somethings about it? right??? I mean didnt he LEVEL some place called ‘sodom’…with the sodomites?? who were gay??? they obviously were doin’ something he didnt approve of??

If I’m wrong I apologize, but, I thought he wiped those folks out??
Click to expand...
I said many gay relationships are superior to straight ones. I did not say most. I am expressing the thought processes that brought me to understand that there is no Christian acceptance of homosexuality. Sodom was a long time ago, and Lot offering his daughters to would-be sodomite rapists is especially problematic for me. I am more convinced by the NT evidence. But our conclusions are the same.
 
In one corner we have a clear teaching of the church (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) for 2000 years. In another corner we have a new invention of the last 20 years.

Guess which one I am going with?

In fact IMHO the case for gay marriage is a prime illustration of what Keith Matthison calls “Solo Scriptura” since it completely disregards the clear teaching of the church for 2000 years in favour of a new invention.
 
AmateurPianist said:
In one corner we have a clear teaching of the church (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) for 2000 years. In another corner we have a new invention of the last 20 years.

Guess which one I am going with?

In fact IMHO the case for gay marriage is a prime illustration of what Keith Matthison calls “Solo Scriptura” since it completely disregards the clear teaching of the church for 2000 years in favour of a new invention.
Click to expand...
Aha! I get it! “Solo Scriptura”, meaning one individual’s own batty take on what the Word of God means! Great!
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
I am an Episcopalian who has been wrestling with this issue for a long time. I am not gay, but the issue has vexed me for a long time.

I recognize that there are many gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships, and that many of these relationships are markedly superior to some married heterosexual relationships. And I recognize that it is not likely possible to switch from being gay to being straight.

So, I have wrestled with this a great deal. Frankly, the prohibitions in Leviticus are not that pursuasive, as the law of the ancient Hebrews reflected a need to procreate in family units in order to preserve the race.

But the world of Jesus and of St. Paul was a very different time. It was as cosmopolitan as our world of today. Survival of any race was not a issue then or now. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He said nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

St. Paul did, especially in Romans. He saw homosexuality in a modern context, and he reacted to what he saw. There is no reason to imagine that St. Paul did not understand that there were committed relationships among the homosexuals and lesbians he saw in his time.

Now, back to Jesus. Again he said nothing. And since nothing else in his Gospels suggests that he would license novel sexual practices, it is hard to imagine that he would license homosexuality as an alternative to committed life-long heterosexual marriage.

I have wrestled with this for some time. I want to liberal and “fair”. I want to see gay relationships as close to equal to straight relationships, but I can’t. Study of scripture and a reasoned understanding of history shows me this is not possible.

And so, with some reluctance (really), I conclude that the case for homosexual marriage, or any openly accepted homosexuality in Christianity is at best not proven.

I am not about to abandon my church, either for another Anglican group or for Rome. I will stay as a reasoning witness.
Click to expand...
That’s fine and good.

But we don’t live in a theocracy.🤷
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Indeed, had he said nothing about divorce, Christians would be free to divorce along the lines of Jewish law.
Click to expand...
Remember that Jesus mentioned that there was to be no more divorce because that is how God created things from the beginning? In the beginning there was man and woman, not man and man for example. So I think Jesus said more than just what is plainly seen with those words. He wanted to make sure the original order was restored, I don’t see how one could argue homosexuality was part of this original order. I’m glad your conclusions brought you to this.
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Nonetheless, tremendous compassion, patience, and kindness must be shown all people, especially to those who are trying to lead a good life, longing for God, and living in all other respects exemplary lives.
Click to expand...
Right you are. Some people can’t understand the difference in “loving the sinner, not the sin”. It is indeed quite simple, we are to love all people because they all have equal dignity. That’s why race is irrelevant, size or age is irrelevant, all human life whether they are good or bad has dignity. Thus the case for being against abortion (but that’s another subject).

I really recommend this interesting talk, to help you sort your thoughts out:
peterkreeft.com/audio/11_moral-theology.htm

I hope it helps, and God bless you.
 
cheese_sdc said:
That’s fine and good.

But we don’t live in a theocracy.🤷
Click to expand...
This is true, but we do live in a country that is not only predominantly Christian (in name anyway), but also one that makes marriage a matter of public law, as well as a financial issue. Now, if a majority of this country does not believe gay marriage is indeed marriage, then I think the claim that this relationship should not be supported by law (as well as tax money, in the form of tax breaks meant to raise a family, etc.) is valid.

Peace and blessings,
Frank
 
You said survival of the race was not an issue.

I beg to differ. If it were not constantly in the face of peril, then why would God command them to be fruitful and multiply?

Why is the passing on of genes instinctive to us and what keeps us going?
 
StrawberryJam said:
You said survival of the race was not an issue.

I beg to differ. If it were not constantly in the face of peril, then why would God command them to be fruitful and multiply?

Why is the passing on of genes instinctive to us and what keeps us going?
Click to expand...
What I meant was that in pre-urban times, especially in the earliest days for the Hebrews, prohibitions on homosexuality could be seen as formulated for the survival of the race. In the time of Jesus, there were enough people on earth of nearly every race for that not to be a serious issue. My point is really that survival of the race is not a good rationale for prohibitions of homosexuality. My point is that the reason should be moral.
 
In the time of Christ, gay marriage was definitely not allowed within the Jewish community. Jesus said and did a lot of things that disrupted the status quo, I think if the dis-allowance of gay relationships was a violation of God-given human rights, our Lord would not have let it slip. He would have tackled it head-on. But He didn’t. That says a lot, in my opinion.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
What I meant was that in pre-urban times, especially in the earliest days for the Hebrews, prohibitions on homosexuality could be seen as formulated for the survival of the race. In the time of Jesus, there were enough people on earth of nearly every race for that not to be a serious issue. My point is really that survival of the race is not a good rationale for prohibitions of homosexuality. My point is that the reason should be moral.
Click to expand...
I think I follow you better now, still don’t agree though. The fact that God had a chosen people who were also a nation and so their faith was intwined with politics as muslims are in many cases where they integrate their faith with politics in shira law. Whereas christians live amoung all peoples in all countries and balance their faith in any country no matter where they are.
The thing is, you still can not say that the commandment to go forth and multiply ended at any certain point. Think about the black death. Wasn’t it nearly 2/3 of the population in Europe that died with that one?
You are right that survival of the human race was not an issue at the time of Jesus, because just think of all the humans in areas that Jesus never went to that were fully populated and already believers in other faiths prior to his coming.
However, you still can’t say that prohibitions on homosexuality are unfair in christian theology since you have no biblical precedent for it’s approval from your God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top