Homosexuality and Religion

The common illustration of Jesus on the cross has him looking quite androgenous. Why not a burly Jesus?

 

I would really like for someone to explain to me the "sin" of homosexuality. Why would someone be condemend to eternal torment in the fiery pitts of hell by a all-loving God just because he loved a someone else of the same sex? (and don't give me that bull about it not being natural. If you're amish living in a shack with no electricity, I'll accept that argument. Otherwise, I won't).

 

Face paintings sometimes look as if the models had been female, but looks at late-mediaeval paintings of men in general. You will notice delicate, even female features. As for the cross, they make Jesus without much muscle, but that's not really androgynous. According to some verses in the NT (letters by apostles), Jesus might have been more of what you think. As He was a carpenter, I really doubt He wouldn't have had any muscle. Just think about someone who's been a carpenter all his life.

However, that's nothing to do with any perceived androgynous qualities or meaning or whatever. More like sculptors trying to give a perfect, noble look.

Because he felt something? No. Because he made the choice to have sex with that person? Possibly yes.

Eh, you couldn't come up with some gay dolphins or whatever stuff people come up with, anyway. But there's always some difference between making your life easier by building up on what you've got, and going against the law of nature. I'll accept your argument if you have no problem with incest. BTW, incest should be natural because animals do that all the time.

 

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This debate starts and ends there, and anyone with sense and not living in the stone age will agree, so it's a non-starter this one .

 

What sections of the bible claim that homosexuality is bad? (An honest inquirey by a curious mind - no evil intent)

 

Well, sexuality is the extension and expression of love (or can be anyways). As long as they're consenting adults (so they have a rational choice to accept or refuse), why would God give a damn who you're sleeping with? And why would he punish you for loving another consenting same-sex adult?

Well, first of all, there is some unintentionnal homsexuality is animals. Who haven't seen two (male) dogs humping each other (now, is there penetration? I have no idea, but you get my point). But I agree they don't make the choice to have sex with the same gender. But that's just my point. They don't make choices. They act on instinct. We, as human beings, have an intellectual capacity greater than any animals. We have gained a self awareness. As such, we have used constructs to over come natural barriers (ex : Planes, guns (for protecion), pacemakers, etc.). Why would a construct to evade nature's barriers would be any different then having other uses for our bodies then nature intended. Some people can be attracted to others while excluding the gender. We can make that choice.

And for those who claim there will be world catastrophe because nobody will make babies, let me remind you of two things : Artificial insemination, or where a woman carries a gay couple's child. We would juste have to adapt society's concept to what it would then be.

Well, I actually have no problem with incest. If they love each other (again, consenting adults), go ahead. The only thing is they can't have a child, because the purpose of banishing incest is for the sake of the babies. With each set of DNA, every child has , for example, the disease immunity of one family and the other. It makes strong children (health wise). With incest, it can result on hazardous health for the child...

 

Counterintuitive as it may be, there is some evidence that supports a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. It's a complex idea, one that goes beyond "survival of the fittest", but you can read Genome by Matt Ridley, or some other pop-science literature book, since Genome is rather old. Whatever the case, explaining it in my own words would be too length and unsatisfactory in content.


Also, regarding incest -- well, I can understand it, since we are instinctively repelled by it, it's not good for the general gene pool, and in a lot of cases incest is rape. Nonetheless, if you are going to put "natural-ness" into the argument, can we extend to non-sexual things? How about eating your feces? It's disgusting and unhealthy and no one is willing to do it -- but is the act, done willingly -- immoral? I am going to quote Betrand Russell here, and feel free to extend it to homosexuality or the like:

 

Rotku: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

I'd advise you to read the story of Sodom and Gommorah just to get some perspective on how much God hates homosexuality...

 

The passages (as requested by Rotku):

Leviticus 18:22 forbids same sex relations.

Deuteronomy 23:17 excludes those who commit such acts from the house of Israel and thus the promises of such covenents.

Isaiah 3:9 inferes that this was among the grave sins of Sodom and Gamorah.

Romans 1:27 condemned acting on the lust between two men.

In the Book of Corinthians, our bodies are likened unto the temple of God. 1 Cotinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 use words like abuse and defiling to describe the practice.

Jude 1:7 also condemns the practice.

I hope this helps.

A quote from the current pope that may help frame my current arguement:

When the Creator's divine plan is ignored, the truth of human nature is lost".

My religion teaches that we ought to seek to be like God, sharing in the joy of creation. We may have an eternity with one that we truly love and an endless posterity. To have that endless posterity, our chosen eternal companion must be of the opposite gender. We also need to be, to the best of our ability, obedient to the word of God.

Homosexual acts do not further this plan of hapiness, and can create misery...

 

Is that misery being created before or after death?

 

@ Gnarff,

As I've contested in the past - some of the passages you mention aren't all that specific and thus are open to interpretation. Please post them verbatim - and not what you think they mean - or not at all.

 

Some of them are very clear and specific - denying that the Bible isn't against homosexuality isn't going to get you very far.

Let's take this from Leviticus 20:13:

Not much room for interpretation there...

[edit: Hmm - that isn't actually one that Gnarff posted ... oh well, serves the same purpose...]

 

Ok - Leviticus 11:9-12 states:

So if you or Gnarff have ever eaten a shrimp cocktail, you're going to hell. Catholics all over the world condemn their souls to hell on the fridays of every lent.

Not much room for interpretation there...right?

Either follow all of it, or none of it means anything. Part of the hypocracy of the faithful is that they pick and choose which condemnations to follow, and which to ignore. If you're going to selectively follow certain passages to justify your prejudice, then you better damn well camp outside of Red Lobster and try to convert all the sinners going in for the Sunday crab special.

 

Both actually. Wickedness is not the path to happiness. A moment's pleasure can lead to a lifetime of pain. If the sins are not washed away by repentance, then the misery carries forth until you do.

This was done merely to summarize the point. The actual references were provided for those that care to look them up. In past I've been criticized for making my posts too long. Now you want me to make one even longer?

In parts of the Old Testament, the Scribes and Pharisees went overboard in their interpretation of the law. When Jesus Christ came, he set these laws straight. You don't hear forbiddance of shellfish in the New testament, but laws regarding sexual purity still stand.

 

haha i was going to quote roughly the same part as death rabbit except i was looking for the part where the Pig especially is mentioned, mainly because christians throughout europe and usa have eaten pigs all the time.

And honestly anyone who qoutes just part of the old testemony and say he believe anything written there is the truth got some sick ideas about women.

Laviticus chapter 15:

20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

LAviticus 11: And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.

So anyone having eaten a pig is Unclean and will thereby go to hell.

 

If this is the case, then...

A) Why did you even mention them above if the New Testament invalidates them?

B) Jesus himself never specifically condemns homosexuality, even though Paul attributes some remarks to him. How can you say this is "the word of God" when last time I checked, Paul isn't God?

 

Those ones weren't invalidated. Laws regarding sexual purity still stand today.

Paul was a prophet of God. His words carry the same weight as if from God himself.

 

I'm sorry, but no. He may be a prophet, but he's not God. He was a human being and as such, is capable of mistakes - including his own interpretation of God's wishes.

One thing all Christians can agree on is that there are two - and ONLY two - perfect beings: God and his son Jesus Christ. If it doesn't come from either of them, it's not the end-all be-all. Paul is condemning impure acts as he sees it. As he is a fallable human being, this part is open to interpretation. His personal prejudices and the standards of the time (healthy homosexual relationships were an utterly foreign concept to early Jews and Christians, as were inter-racial marriage, antiseptics, and a bunch of other things we take for granted today) should be taken into account in interpreting Paul's account.

 

I think I understand what Gnaff is trying to say. It works like passing new laws. If something is said in the old testament and Jesus has said the opposite then the most recent account is divine law...

However I wonder if Jesus invalidated the whole pig and non-finned aquatic food taboos...