Need some help on Christianity and homosexuality

[dsc]

One of my students, who is gay, was very shocked I went to church since she felt that all gays would go to Hell. Does anyone have a link to an easy to read resource about homosexuality and Christianity. Thanks in advance.

[Sanctified]

1. Here is some info from Wikipedia.

Remind your student that Jesus died on the cross for everyone and his death covers all sin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality

**On edit sorry forgot the link.

[Goblinmonger]

3. That statement would not be true

for a number of sects.

[Sanctified]

4. Well then those sects are basically saying God is not all powerful.

Everyone sins and one cannot say this sin is covered but that one is not, Jesus died for all sins.

[John Gauger]

7. Not necessarily.

Perhaps God just doesn't want to forgive those sins. Maybe they think that Jesus didn't die for all sins, only for some.

[Sanctified]

8. Well the Bible says for all Sins.

And I think the Bible wins when debating Christian Theology.

[John Gauger]

9. Not always.

The Bible says that bugs have four legs and that you should never wear poly-cotton blends, and that you should kill your children for being disrespectful. No one seems to take those parts very seriously.

[Sanctified]

10. The Bible does not say Bugs only have 4 legs.

It says you shall not eat bugs that only have 4 feet. But in the end it's because of the transgressions of those laws that a sacrifice had to be given and Jesus died on the cross to cover all of those sins.

[John Gauger]

11. Firstly, saying not to eat bugs with four legs

implies that bugs with four legs exist (they don't.) So that's a bullshit distinction.

Secondly, do those parts matter or not? I'm not aware of anyone who takes that kind of thing seriously (how many sabbath-breakers are executed each week in your neighborhood?) But if it's a sin that requires the spilling of human blood, that would mean that it does matter. So do you take those restrictions seriously? Do you really believe that god was so angry that mortals weren't killing their children for minor provocation that he had to torture and kill himself?

[Sanctified]

12. Jews viewed the front 4 legs on grasshopers and locusts as feet for walking

while the rear legs were used for jumping so were not considered feet, the Bible verse specifically says 4 feet not legs. It's absurd to think that Jews who ate the damn things raw did not realize they had 6 legs or where too stupid to count. And parents did not have their sons stoned for minor provocations, the parents had to bring their son before a council who would then judge on whether the son would be stoned or not. Since we still have Jews today it's safe to say that having a son stoned would have had to of been for a serious offense or otherwise they would have died out a long time ago.

[John Gauger]

13. Fine.

Maybe all that absurd bullshit really does make sense. Maybe up is down and black is white. What the fuck ever. But you're not answering my question. You said that since the Bible says it, it goes. What I am saying is that some people accept some parts of the bible and not others. I tried to illustrate that point by pointing out that a lot of the draconian stuff near the beginning isn't followed by modern Christian communities. I don't know anybody that's been killed for picking up sticks on Saturday. My initial point is that some people don't take every part of the bible completely seriously.

You said that God tortured and killed himself because Jews ate four-legged bugs, which is pretty absurd on its own. But my question is whether or not god still cares that we refrain from eating those bugs.

[Sanctified]

14. The stoning of your son law was extremely progressive for it's time and

may even be considered progressive by today's standards. Yes God still cares that we sin but most of the laws in the OT were written for the children of Israel and not for Gentiles furthermore in the New Testament it was quite clear that Gentiles were not expected to follow all of the OT laws of the children of Israel. So does God worry about me eating a gnat while riding on a motorcycle? probably not, but does he still expect me to follow the 10 commandments? absolutely.

[moggie]

19. How is killing people "progressive by today's standards"?

Stoning is a horrible way to die. I don't see how it could possibly be considered progressive today.

[Sanctified]

23. You have to understand the purpose of the law.

The method of the death is irrelevant, the fact that Jews were not allowed to kill their own children was a huge step for that time period. At that time period almost all cultures allowed parents to kill their children, even today some cultures allow for "Honor Killing" by parents and family members which is horrendous.

But if you read the Bible you would see that a Jewish family had to bring their son before a council and the council would decide not the parent if the son should die, furthermore the stoning was done by the entire city and not the parents. If the entire city was going to perform the execution the crime had to be pretty fucking bad, so bad that a council would all have to agree on the execution and the entire city would agree to show up for the stoning.

[uberllama42]

20. Stoning your son for defaming you is progressive?

What country do you live in? Are you aware that we have courts today? How could you consider that kind of punishment anything other than barbaric?

So does God worry about me eating a gnat while riding on a motorcycle? probably not, but does he still expect me to follow the 10 commandments? absolutely.

What in scripture tells you that most of the old Mosaic laws don't matter, but the 10 Commandments still count? Did you arrive at that conclusion with your own moral judgment? It seems to me like you're deciding what in the bible counts and what doesn't.

[Sanctified]

24. Read Galatians Chapter 4 & 5

those chapters cover why Mosaic laws are no longer followed by the Church.

And if you understood the law then you would know that a Parent cannot kill his or her own son, which was progressive for that time. Even today their are cultures where parents perform "Honor Killings", these honor killings also happen here in the US. But a tribe of people 4,000 ago had come to the conclusion that "Honor Killing" by parents was illegal.

[trotsky]

33. It's funny how the most bible-centric Christians never seem to have read the thing.

Exodus 21:15,17 'Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.'
'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

Leviticus 20:9 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.'

And the kicker - Jesus himself:
Matthew 15:3-4 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'


So where's the part again about the "progressive" view that Jews were prohibited from killing their children?

[Sanctified]

34. A Jewish parent could not kill his Son.

The son was brought before a council and the council ruled on the sons fate and if they determined it was death then the whole city was to perform the execution leaving the parents out of the execution. Since there is not one historical document ever showing that this was ever carried out nor is their an example in the Bible of this happening it would be safe to say that God foresaw a need for the community to execute a man or womans son but made it so fucking crazy no one would ever do it.

How many prisoners would we execute today in the US if the whole city was required to show up and throw stones at the guy? Yeah lets make that a law and it would be pretty fucking progressive since it would end capital punishment immediately.

[moggie]

37. Is this the passage you're referring to?

Deuteronomy:

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

That sounds more like a way to ensure that everyone witnesses the execution, pour encourager les autres. Many societies have had public executions, for this reason. But have you ever heard of a society which had the death penalty, but where those making the decisions were so wise and virtuous that they never used it, in stark contrast to our experience of human nature across the world?

Today, some of the world's most secular societies have abolished the death penalty, and even corporal punishment, which the bible enthusiastically advocates (without requiring the involvement of the town elders: if you want to beat your kids, go right ahead). Are they going against God to do so?

[Sanctified]

40. Not just witness but actually perform the execution.

If you can show me historically where this was actually performed by Jews I would believe you have a case but since their is no documentation on this action being enforced or taking place I would say it was a pretty virtuous law that prevented parents from taking the law into their hands and killing their children.

[moggie]

58. Again, I refer you to human nature

If it's true that we have no record of any offspring being killed, there are two obvious possibilities: either the biblical Jews were uniquely enlightened, and there were no brutal parents and town elders - this despite the biblical stories which show that they were as prone to flaws as any group of people; or the records, if any were made, have not survived. I know which seems more likely.

If the OT rules are so progressive, I'd like to hear your justification for a few of the others:

* If you give a wife to your slave, the wife and any resulting kids are your property. If the slave doesn't want to leave his family at the end of his servitude, you can keep him permanently, but you need to stick an awl through his ear.

* It's ok to beat a slave to death, provided they take a day or two to die.

* Any priest's daughter who sleeps around should be burned to death.

* Disabled people are not allowed to approach the altar.

* If a woman is raped in town, and doesn't call for help, she should be stoned to death.

There's plenty more such barbarity to be found, of course. As laws made by men, they should be judged in the context of their time. But you claim they are timeless. How is that? Would you be prepared to kill a rape victim today?

[Meshuga]

59. I wish I could say Jews were always so enlightened (even from ancient times)

But evidence shows that we weren't. And that's okay.

The Talmud and Tosefta have anecdotes with people being executed for transgressions to Jewish Law. Jewish Law is human made and progressed through time. The laws in torah shebektav (the written laws) reflect the values of the authors at the time it was written and torah she’bal peh (the oral law) shows the progression of the laws to what Jewish Law has become. Being Jewish I would love to say we were enlightened from day one but that would be very dishonest of me and pretty hard to defend given the examples you provided, moggie. The written law was an ancient attempt to set Jewish law in stone and Torah she’bal peh is what made Jewish Law and Judaism survive since there was a lot of weening off of the ugly stuff little by little.

I don't understand the attempt by MiltonF to find justification for these laws as if their original intentions of the writers reflected the present more enlightened values in today's society. This is an example of how silly one looks when he/she holds on to some first century BCE's beliefs thus having to blatantly sweep all the bad ugly stuff under a rug.

Sorry for intruding but that's one outsider's perception after reading the exchanges in this thread.

[trotsky]

47. Ooooh, that's so much more civilized and progressive!

Your kid dishonors you, and a COUNCIL can rule to have them killed.

Now that's truly a law from a just, wise, and compassionate god. :sarcasm:

It's always interesting hearing from a bible-worshiper.

[Sanctified]

49. Yawn...

[trotsky]

50. Out of ammo so soon?

Disappointing. :(

[Sanctified]

51. Theology debates with you are pointless

since you bring nothing to the table that anyone can benefit from.

[trotsky]

52. You are correct.

I bring facts, which are of no use in a theology debate. There's hope for you yet!

[Sanctified]

53. "facts"? So that is what they call opinions these days, intriguing...

Anyways since your "facts" are of little use undocumented maybe you can enlighten the rest of us with some of your documented brilliance.

[trotsky]

54. I'm sorry that you are no longer able to participate in the discussion

and instead have to resort to ad homs. Perhaps when you have studied your bible more, you can address the points that have been raised instead of attacking me. Unless Jesus wants you to insult, I suppose.

[Sanctified]

55. Yawn...

[John Gauger]

29. Hold on.

If the Jews wrote it, then it was progressive. If God wrote it, then it's barbaric and draconian. If God is eternal and all-knowing, we should not today, in Western society, be more progressive than he was 3000 years ago. While it's true that the Babylonians had much harsher laws, that only matters if contemporary men are writing the laws of the OT. If God was writing them, we should expect them to be timeless.

[Sanctified]

30. Those laws are timeless, it prohibited the people from killing their children.

Which we still practice today.

[ZombieHorde]

35. No, it did not prohibit, it placed a few, very loose rules on child killing.

If a man murders seven people one week, and then five people the next week, he is not becoming a nicer person.

The logic you seem to be using is slightly less psychotic = more progressive.
The logic others seem to be using is slightly less psychotic = still psychotic.

[Sanctified]

38. Can you show were this practice has been used in Judiasm?

I have never seen any documentation of Jews ever killing their children in this fashion, if the rules were so loose then I would assume it would be something we would have seen historically. These rules were put in place to prevent "Honor Killings" which were prevalent culturally 4,000 years ago and even seen today.

[ZombieHorde]

41. Bait and switch much? This debate is about the bible.

[Sanctified]

42. This is a debate about a law that was put in place to prevent something.

Since there is no historical record of Parents of the Jewish faith having a city stone their children it's safe to assume that this law prevented Parents from killing their children.

[ZombieHorde]

43. a debate about a law - No, the bible is not a law, it is a religious book.

Do you have evidence for, "no historical record of Parents of the Jewish faith having a city stone their children"?

[Sanctified]

44. It's a religious book with Gods law for his people.

I have never seen any evidence of Parents having their children stoned, I do have text from Scholars who say they have never been able to find evidence of this taking place, one would be the Pentateuch & Haftorahs in Hebrew text with Commentaries by Rabbi Dr. J H Hertz. But if you have something that shows otherwise I would love to read it.

[ZombieHorde]

45. if you have something that shows otherwise I would love to read it.

I could write something that says otherwise, but it would not be based on anything, so I am not so sure that you would love to read it.

It's a religious book with Gods law for his people.

Governments have laws, organizations have charters, religions have dogma.

None of this changes my original claim. The rules for stoning children are not more progressive, they are less psychotic.

[John Gauger]

36. Somehow I don't think that's the reason why parents don't routinely kill their children.

The law doesn't prohibit killing children. I've got to say, that's some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. You've just taken an order to kill your children (or have your children killed; either way, your kids end up dead) and turned it into an order not to kill your children. It would be more plausible if you had applied your argument to a statement like: "Don't kill your children."

[Sanctified]

39. It's impossible to have a law that states "Don't Kill your Children"

this law would prevent a parent from defending themselves from their children and prevent a parent from ever bringing their child to justice if they committed a crime. The law that was put in place states that a Parent was to bring the child to the Elders and the Elders would decide, similar to if you found out your son was a mass murdering rapist you would bring him to the authorities over killing him yourself.

[uberllama42]

46. Where does it say that the elders decide?

I admit that I didn't read very carefully when I read the bible, so I might have missed it. The relevant passage in Deuteronomy says that a disobedient child will be stoned to death in public. It doesn't explicitly say that the sentence is passed down by the elders. How do we know that, in a highly patriarchal society, they would not defer to the judgment of the father?

Do you have a good reason to think that it worked as you explain it, or are you just imposing your idea of what would be reasonable?

[Sanctified]

48. Here is the King Jimmy Text.

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

But you can't just rely on the text alone you should also reference it with the Talmud and many of the scholars agree this is how it worked. Here is an example of the Talmud Sanhedrin 68b interpretation of the Bible verse.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_68.html#chapter_viii

Below is Commentary on the Sanhedrin

http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/sanhedrin/san106.html

Here is some information in regards to the Sanhedrin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin

[John Gauger]

56. Alright, fuck this.

That's a fucking joke. I'm not going to argue with you if you pull absurd bullshit like that and try to pass it off as serious.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Where does it say that?

I guess you could gleen that from I Peter 3, but that's pretty liberal and makes it so that you need to adhere to all of the new testament which most people on this site doing all they can to run away from the messages of Paul.

Do you believe in what Paul had to say about the role of women? Are you seriously claiming that the New Testament is not open for interpretation?

[Sanctified]

27. 1 Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:8.

And it should be noted that Paul declared himself a chief sinner in 1 Timothy 1:15:

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

Do I believe the New Testament is open to interpretation? absolutely, the time and place should be taken into consideration when reading it. I also believe that people really should debate the interpretation of the New Testament along with reading outside sources and commentaries. One issue I see with some of the fringe religious groups is they read the Bible without understanding any of the historical context of the Bible or studying the Greek and Hebrew words that were originally used.

[Goblinmonger]

31. I understand there are translation differences,

but Corinthians says "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"

and Romans says "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Neither of those said that he died for all sins and that some sins aren't worse than others. Certainly, according to your contextual argument, one would safely argue that meant those that were followers of Christ and/or the Jews of the time. There is no context that would indicate that meant every single person or every single religion and for every single sin. The New Testament tells us that to blaspheme the name of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin which certainly puts some strain on the argument that the New Testament says all sins are forgiven through Christ.

As to Paul's statement, that doesn't say all sins either.

[Sanctified]

32. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the one sin that is unforgiven.

But that is because it indicates one personally or spiritually knows Christ, his sacrifice and his works but still rejects him.

We could also look at Romans 10: 9-13 for proof that all sins are forgiven to all men through Christ, but outside of the Bible you can look at the historical early Church and see that early Gentile and Jewish Christians did not worry about their decedents or new converts being saved by Grace. There are no early writings debating this so it would be assumed that the Bible is final in all people being saved by Grace through Christ.

[Goblinmonger]

2. That's a pretty big question, actually.

Do you have a specific sect you want to know about because otherwise you are looking at a hella long discussion?

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. There is nothing that is, ipso facto, easy to read about homosexuality and Christianity

Bible believing denominations, such as the Unitarians, Metropolitan Community Churches, The United Church of Christ, and a few others are fully accepting of homosexual people including official support for same sex marriage.

However, an awful lot of Christians feel that homosexuality is evil; most of these are heretical rightwing "Christians" like Assembly of God, any "independent bible" church, and the communities that offered us such Jesus-hating assholes as Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Ronald Reagan, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels, and Rick Warren, and all those others who so loudly proclaim how family Christian values they are while they're sucking dick at the airport (or junior high) or divorcing their wives to marry their secretaries.

And so, no, there isn't any easy answer to offer you - except to point your particular person in the direction of the few denominations that actually take Jesus very, very, very, very seriously, and don't base their theology on a few wrongly interpreted words from the Old Testament.

[John Gauger]

6. Are you saying she thought that's what you thought

or are you saying that that's what she personally believes? That is, is she asking you why you hang out with people who believe you deserve to be tortured for all eternity, or is she asking you why, since you're already fucked, you bother to go at all?

[dsc]

15. the second one

it is her personal belief not what she thought I think.

[moggie]

16. That is fucked up

She thinks that her whole life will be a sin, and she'll be punished for all eternity - all for just being who she is. For her sake, I hope she gets deprogrammed soon.

[dsc]

17. It is sad. I know where she is at which is all the more painful

My church is wonderful but the literature they have is very deep and above her attention span. I like to read and it tries my attention span. I did find something to give her that is a little more appropriate for a teen.

[moggie]

18. "The God Delusion" is very readable

I'm just sayin'.

[John Gauger]

28. Teen?

Wait, you're a high school teacher? I had assumed you were a professor. That's even sadder. This girl needs help. There's got to be someone at your church who knows how to talk to kids.

[dsc]

57. I gave her literature from PFLAG which was more readable than

what my church's website is. I love my church but they love them some scripture and some footnotes along with their Jesus. I wanted something a relatively average to low average teen could read easily.

[John Gauger]

26. Hmm.

That's pretty sad. You could go one of several routes, depending on what you're comfortable with. You could show her literature from churches that accept gays, explaining why they do so. I personally would go a little farther, and ask her why she thinks the Christian view of the universe is necessarily right. But even staying strictly within the theistic framework, an all-loving God who tortures you for all eternity for the way He made you just doesn't fly. You might want to start with that.

[HamdenRice]

21. I don't know of a source, but I can refer you to the doctrine

All of the sexual and dietary prohibitions in the Old Testament were part of the "Covenant" between God and his chosen people, the Jews, by which the Jews would follow "the Law" and God would favor his people.

According to orthodox Christian doctrine, Jesus was "the New Covenant" between God and all men. For that reason, the Old Covenant and all of its sexual and dietary in the Laws are irrelevant.

There is no prohibition on gay or lesbian relationships in the New Covenant in the same way that Christians can eat pork and shellfish, and have no need to be circumcised.

You might google those concepts and refer the student to what you find.

[Meshuga]

22. I thought it was addressed in the NT

I am no expert of Christian scripture (quite the contrary) but I thought that homosexuality was addressed in the New Testament and that the NT is at used to explain that homosexuality is a bad thing. According to the King James translation, the new testament goes further than the Hebrew Bible by including "effeminates" as being a bad thing:

I Corinthians 6 : 9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Lesbians also seem to be addressed besides male homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

As far as the Jewish scripture, the written Torah does not address lesbianism as a prohibition but it is pretty explicit about homosexual acts between males being against Jewish law. Orthodox Jews, for example, don't see a problem with the homosexual nature but with the law being broken by a homosexual act (like the law being broken when a Jew does not observe the Sabbath or mixes dairy with meat). To them, a homosexual who does not act on his tendencies is a more righteous person for being able to not break Jewish law, given his homosexual nature.

From my perception, the "New Convenant" frees people from Jewish Law (which was meant to be only followed by Jews anyway) but that does not mean that The New Convenant does not adhere to some values from the old convenant and to new interpretations of those old values. For example, at that point when Christianity broke from Judaism lesbian sex was not addressed in Jewish scripture but it is something frowned upon in Romans 1:26-27.