Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[Autodidact]

What about Revelation 22 where it says the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of heaven. How do you define sexually immoral.

People who lie and cheat to their spouses, how do you define it?

[Autodidact]

No - the Christian ethical attitude takes the example of Christ, as set forth in the Gospel, as its moral anchor.

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." -- Jesus

(italics added)

Why do people quote this passage, which clearly and unequivocally prohibits divorce, as if it were about homosexuality, all while not demanding that divorce be prohibited?

[Autodidact]

You are right, there is far too much acceptance of divorce in the church. The correction for this is not to abandon Biblical standards on homosexual activity also.

Or you could check out the log in your own eye before getting upset about the speck in your brother's.

[Autodidact]

I appreciate gentledove's thorough and thoughtful post, and will try to respond in detail in the near future. For now, let me address just one issue.

Everyone argues from a bias and a network of presuppositional beliefs, unproven by natural science (even naturalistic atheists), called a worldview, through which he interprets facts and evidence. Everyone has the “burden of proof� for his or her worldview. Each and every person—not just “some Christians"--is trying to “impose� his doctrines on everyone else. Are you not also here arguing that I should accept that homosexuality is the same as eating shrimp?

There is a difference between imposing a view on someone else, and attempting to persuade them to accept that view of their own free will.

I agree. That’s why I put quotes around the word “impose.� I am just posting on a debate site. That is not at all physically “imposing� or forcing my beliefs on anyone. I am arguing from my point of view, and you are arguing from your point of view. Neither one of us (at least on this debate site) is “imposing� anything on anyone.

There is also a difference between deciding what is moral and proper for oneself and deciding not only for oneself but for everyone else. I am advocating that, as Christians, we should acknowledge the right of gays to decide for themselves whether their relationships are sinful or not.

I’m not “deciding� for anyone else, either. If I were, you know I would sure decide differently than much of what I see around me. However, I agree that that is not my place to do so because God in His Bible has not given me that right.

I am not claiming a “right� to “decide� what the morality of everyone should be. Morality is by definition universal. For example, if it’s wrong for me to kill someone without proper justification, then it is wrong for you and everyone else to do so. I am not transcendent above creation, and my personal morality is not universal. It is not incumbent upon every living human to obey my word, because I am not God. God is the Personal One Who has the right, the only right, to declare what is right and wrong, to impose His morality on all human beings everywhere, universally. Yes, on some creaturely level every person does decide for themselves what sin is. The question is, does his (or her) opinion of what is right and wrong line up with what God says is right and wrong? When I say that homosexuality is morally wrong, I don’t mean that it’s morally wrong because I think so. I’m saying that homosexuality is wrong because that is what God says in the Bible.

Do you believe that God exists objectively and created and is transcendent over all mankind? Or do you believe that “god� is concept that each human brain spits out, and “morality� is therefore relative and applicable to the body that particular brain is in? Your answer to who “God� is will answer how you view “morality.� Do you believe human beings are their own gods, to decide for themselves what morality is? Or do you believe that God is a Being apart from human beings, Who decides for all human beings what right and wrong is? Do you believe such a Being would or would not reveal His morality to the humankind He created?

I am attempting to persuade you, based on the Bible, that this position is supportable from a Christian perspective. I am not trying to persuade you to personally accept that, with respect to your own actions, homosexuality be considered equivalent to eating shrimp.

I understand that, but I still don’t believe that the Bible says God approves of homosexuality. If you say, some people who profess Christianity believe homosexuality is all right, again, that “alternate,� relativistic morality is not incumbent upon me to accept. Christians and God are not equivalent and interchangeable beings. That is your opinion or some people’s opinion, and not a transcendent, universal morality.

If you think I’m making up my own personal, relativistic “morality,� and claiming the Bible backs me up, and therefore I am claiming that I’m speaking for God (rather than reporting faithfully what the Bible says), then I challenge you to show me from the Bible that the God of the Bible approves of homosexuality and approves of marriage between homosexuals. I would then be forced by my own professed worldview, to be consistent, to acquiesce to the morality that says practicing, unrepentant homosexuals are going to heaven, and being a homosexual is one option in God’s plan for human sexuality.

I am not trying to impose my view on other churches or other Christians. I would certainly accept that each church or denomination can decide for itself what its teaching will be. I will say I am disappointed that many churches and individual Christians continue to make homosexuality an issue, and insist it is sinful in all situations. However, I will do no more than attempt to persuade others, and I do this mostly because I feel much harm is being done to gays who are or would be believers by the current positions many churches and Christians take.

I appreciate that, and I also merely attempt to persuade. It is my duty and joy as a Christian to extol God’s word to “honor the marriage bed,� and to proclaim His plan for human sexuality is for one man and one woman to marry and live for God together.

Because we live in God’s world (whether we like it or approve of God’s morality or not), it does homosexuals no good to pretend to them that God accepts them without their sincere repentance; especially since when you go to Scripture to show me that God approves of homosexuality, you can’t find the verses that say that. In fact, we find only words, God’s words, that say just the opposite. It’s horribly cruel and soul-damning to give homosexuals or any sinner a false gospel, that they are saved without repenting of their sin. This life is their one chance to repent before being condemned eternally to hell. It is cruel to lie to them about the way of salvation. Do you think they will be grateful to you from hell that you approved their sin when they still had a chance to hear the truth, repent, and be saved? Sometimes the truth is hard to hear and sometimes painful. But much much better the truth than the lie.

In disagreements between believers in a society where everyone is free to pursue their faith according to their own consciences, "imposition of views" isn't or shouldnt be an issue.

WHere imposition IS an issue is in the legal realm, which is not really the topic of this thread. However, I will say that bans on gay marriage ARE an imposition of one view onto others, and an inappropriate one which I view as unconstitutional.

Imposition means that one person is limiting the freedom of another, or using coercive or forceful means to get them to change their behavior.

That is the role of the civil magistrate and the state, according to the Bible: To restrain evil and to be a magistrate of God’s justice. Of course, the state, especially in these times, is failing miserably in its duty. No matter which side “gets their way,� we cannot have two moralities at the same time. We cannot have homosexual “marriage� and no homosexual “marriage� at the same time. One morality will prevail, at least for the time being. Will it be morality according to the One Who has the right to define and hold us accountable to that morality? Or will it be a “man is the standard of ‘morality’� according to sinful people who have rejected God’s true morality and want to enforce the opposite on God’s people and other people?

Now, a person who claims that anyone must follow their particular views in order to be considered a Christian is, in some sense, trying to impose their view on the body of Christ as a whole. WHile I find this unfortunate, those attempting this through public discourse have no standing or capacity to force others to behave or believe as they would have them and so, I would not characterize this as an "imposition" per se, even though there attempts may make some people upset or angry.

However, when they attempt to have their religious views enacted as law, then, in my view, we definitely do have an imposition and a major problem. Even if one accepts that homosexuality is an abomination to God, this is a religious belief and so enacting it into law in a country where we have freedom of religion is entirely inappropriate.

Again, if you believe that calling homosexuality a sin is the relativistic, personal, view of a few people who call themselves Christians (but who are really misrepresenting God), then show me where God approves of homosexuality in the Bible in the same way He has shown us He approves of heterosexual marriage.

This is a rhetorical question, though you may answer it if you wish: Are you planning to stop voting, micatala? Or are you going to attempt to vote into law that which would impose via the state your relativistic, personal views, unsupported by Scripture, on Bible-believing Christians and everyone else?

Having a majority impose their religious view on gays is just as bad as if a majority of Catholics in a given location passed laws against eating fish on Fridays during lent, or Baptists requiring everyone to undergo water baptism, or evangelicals requiring everyone to pay a 10% tithe to a church.

None of the three examples you gave involve a Biblical moral law imposed by God universally on all of humanity, and specifically the outward behavior of which is to be condemned by the state (according to the Bible), as homosexual behavior is. None of the three examples you mentioned are “enforceable� by the civil magistrate or the state in the Bible. The analogy just doesn’t hold up.

However, the legal discussion is really for another thread. In this one, I'll continue to stick to making the case that it is not necessary for Christians to consider homosexuality an abomination, and will address the issues you raised in your last post.

All right; I appreciate your good sportsmanship and graciousness.

Do you really get your morality from God as set forth in the Bible? Do you believe that slavery, polygamy, genocide and infanticide are moral, while saying God's name wrong and working on Saturday are immoral? Really? Or do you maybe apply your own actual moral standards to what you read there?

[Autodidact]

Faith is what a person of God lives by. I dont think its a convienence, reality shows that Gods kingdom isnt fully ruling the earth at this point in time. until one can see those events occur, one cannot possibly prove it. But it will be too late then, so one must go by Faith, there is no other choice.

I beg to differ. The decision to believe things without evidence is a personal choice that you have made, one I believe to be immoral.

[Autodidact]

Well, homosexuality was prohibited (by God in the Bible) in the OT and the NT both, across thousands of years and different cultures. Homosexuality existed in both OT and NT times, and the Bible is consistent about calling it sin.

Lesbianism is not prohibited anywhere in either testament, and it is not at all clear whether male homosexuality is prohibited or not.

Child abuse—and homosexual behavior—was criminalized in those cultures that had a Biblical view of sexual crime, such as the United States and other post-Greco-Roman Western societies. However, with Biblical morality condemned as “oppressive� these last hundred years or so (and especially the last forty years) in the United States, we find child sexual abuse—and homosexual behavior—on the rise.

Baloney.

Homosexual organizations (and those who approve of them) try to have children at their “gay pride� events. Here is the chicagopride website, where you can check out the hundreds of photos of what some Chicago elementary schoolchildren saw at this event (14 slideshows of the parade, 6.28.09). Be sure to let the full slideshows run; they put the more innocuous photos in the beginning. Also, scroll down to see the Boys and the Bees book they have for sale on their home page). Home Depot has sponsored craft booths for children at multiple "gay pride" parade events.

Why would I not take my children to celebrate gay pride with me? My children have all enjoyed participating in gay pride parades, and found it very beneficial.

Homosexuals have “Gay Days� at Disney World (what’s that about? and there are other photo galleries of the Disney "Gay Days" to which I will not link because, in my view, they are pornographic.);

I'm guessing because they enjoy going to Disneyland? Just guessing here.
and famously tried to force the Boy Scouts to allow homosexuals to be troop leaders (for love of God and country--and other people’s boys).[/quote] Are suggesting that gay people would not make good scout masters for some reason?

There are homosexual organizations that promote child sexual abuse and the legalization of it. NAMBLA, and similar organizations, are quite active in publishing books, child pornography, fighting laws against child molestation, etc., to attempt to make the sexual abuse of boys mainstream, acceptable, and legal.

NAMBLA is not a homosexual organization; it is a pedophile organization.

Without God and His Word, and apart from the regeneration of the Spirit, any perversion can seem acceptable to the perverse human heart. Times change, but human nature remains the same, apart from the grace of God—sinful.

Actually, I think you'll find that Christians commit more child abuse, including sexual abuse, than atheists.

They are. They do not have the same legal and social rights as heterosexuals do - this is fact. See my post above.

Yes, homosexuals do not have the same legal and social “rights� as heterosexuals do—justly so. The Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin and that approving of homosexuality is a sin. The Bible tells us that open, unrepentant, homosexual behavior is a crime, to be capitally punished by the state. The idea that homosexuality is normal and the state should protect homosexual behavior as a “civil right� has only been promoted (at least openly) in the United States in the past forty years or so.[/quote] You do not have the right to impose your religious superstitions on the rest of is. It is immoral and unamerican. I understand that you think that your holy book justifies your prejudice against decent people who happen to be a little different from you. You have the right to live that way, if you don't mind your own life being smaller and less interesting. You do not have the right to impose such discrimination on others, any more than they do against you.

And don't try giving me the 'well they have every bit as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as heterosexuals have', because Anatole France knew better. As he sarcastically put it: 'The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread'.

I don’t understand why you believe homosexuality is equivalent in some way to being poor. Biblically, homosexuality is a sin, and being poor is not a sin. Does this have something to do with "existential facticity"? Would you also say the poor choose to be poor, and therefore it would be wrong to try to help them raise their standard of living?

If you believe that it's a sin, that means that you should not do it, and nothing more. You do not have the right to impose your morality on me, nor should you.

[East of Eden]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

Oh..yhou mean wanted me to follow a link, because what yhou had put there did not have anything to do with homosexuality.. it had to do with peter eating.


I didn't follow the link, since what you wrote before hand had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ok. I looked at that.. and the vast amount of those references say nothing about homosexuality what so ever. For example, the first one deals with marriage and divorce, and says nothing about homosexuality.

Titus says nothing about homosexuality.. and neither does Jude.

Nor do most of the letters from Paul say anything about it. It might use the phrase 'uncleaniess'.. but that says nothing about homosexuality.. You have to be one obsessed person, and read a lot INTO it, rather than reading what it says to assume it does.

That leaves us with Romans....



Now, the one that does.. well.. if you read it in CONTEXT.. the 'inflamed with unnatural lust' and all that sort of stuff was a punishment from God, not a prohibition from God.

Nonsense, they all are clearly prohibitions against homosexual behavior, consistent with the Old Testament.

[Goat]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

Oh..yhou mean wanted me to follow a link, because what yhou had put there did not have anything to do with homosexuality.. it had to do with peter eating.


I didn't follow the link, since what you wrote before hand had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ok. I looked at that.. and the vast amount of those references say nothing about homosexuality what so ever. For example, the first one deals with marriage and divorce, and says nothing about homosexuality.

Titus says nothing about homosexuality.. and neither does Jude.

Nor do most of the letters from Paul say anything about it. It might use the phrase 'uncleaniess'.. but that says nothing about homosexuality.. You have to be one obsessed person, and read a lot INTO it, rather than reading what it says to assume it does.

That leaves us with Romans....



Now, the one that does.. well.. if you read it in CONTEXT.. the 'inflamed with unnatural lust' and all that sort of stuff was a punishment from God, not a prohibition from God.

Nonsense, they all are clearly prohibitions against homosexual behavior, consistent with the Old Testament.

Out of all of them, only the ones from roman's comes even close.

I would LOVE to see you try to justify those passages in your own words, not cut/paste from a web site that makes claims that , when you look at the passages in question, show no such thing.

Of course, when you read with 'Everything is about Homosexualtiy' glasses, you see what you want to see.

One then must start wondering why the obsession.

I have yet to see you actually SUPPORT your claim. rather than just repeating it.

How about taking it one passage at a time, and SHOW ME that it is indeed about homosexuality. Start with matthew, and show that it's about homosexuality, not divorce.

[Autodidact]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

Oh..yhou mean wanted me to follow a link, because what yhou had put there did not have anything to do with homosexuality.. it had to do with peter eating.


I didn't follow the link, since what you wrote before hand had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ok. I looked at that.. and the vast amount of those references say nothing about homosexuality what so ever. For example, the first one deals with marriage and divorce, and says nothing about homosexuality.

Titus says nothing about homosexuality.. and neither does Jude.

Nor do most of the letters from Paul say anything about it. It might use the phrase 'uncleaniess'.. but that says nothing about homosexuality.. You have to be one obsessed person, and read a lot INTO it, rather than reading what it says to assume it does.

That leaves us with Romans....



Now, the one that does.. well.. if you read it in CONTEXT.. the 'inflamed with unnatural lust' and all that sort of stuff was a punishment from God, not a prohibition from God.

Nonsense, they all are clearly prohibitions against homosexual behavior, consistent with the Old Testament.

East: here at DC & R, the custom and expectation is that you support your claims with objective citations, rather than just issuing proclamations. Do you have any, or is that just your opinion?

[Goat]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

Oh..yhou mean wanted me to follow a link, because what yhou had put there did not have anything to do with homosexuality.. it had to do with peter eating.


I didn't follow the link, since what you wrote before hand had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ok. I looked at that.. and the vast amount of those references say nothing about homosexuality what so ever. For example, the first one deals with marriage and divorce, and says nothing about homosexuality.

Titus says nothing about homosexuality.. and neither does Jude.

Nor do most of the letters from Paul say anything about it. It might use the phrase 'uncleaniess'.. but that says nothing about homosexuality.. You have to be one obsessed person, and read a lot INTO it, rather than reading what it says to assume it does.

That leaves us with Romans....



Now, the one that does.. well.. if you read it in CONTEXT.. the 'inflamed with unnatural lust' and all that sort of stuff was a punishment from God, not a prohibition from God.

Nonsense, they all are clearly prohibitions against homosexual behavior, consistent with the Old Testament.

Out of all of them, only the ones from roman's comes even close.

I would LOVE to see you try to justify those passages in your own words, not cut/paste from a web site that makes claims that , when you look at the passages in question, show no such thing.

Of course, when you read with 'Everything is about Homosexualtiy' glasses, you see what you want to see.

One then must start wondering why the obsession.

I have yet to see you actually SUPPORT your claim. rather than just repeating it.

How about taking it one passage at a time, and SHOW ME that it is indeed about homosexuality. Start with matthew, and show that it's about homosexuality, not divorce.