Homosexuality - a moral issue?

[Tom Wetmore]

[CoAspen]

Quote:

(The church) People admit defeat when they start relying on the government to enforce their particular moral code on the general public; thereby admitting that God is not strong enough to work through the (church) individual to promote "healthy" morality.

[Bravus]

Incidentally, reading the whole of Leviticus 18 shows the bred-in-the-bone sexism of that culture, that is a whole other moral issue. The entire chapter is 'woman as man's chattel': 'don't sleep with your father's wife because she belongs to him (as property)' is what most of it boils down to.

This is what happens when you snap-freeze the morality of the Bronze Age and try to apply it today.

[BobRyan]

Incidentally, reading the whole of Leviticus 18 shows the bred-in-the-bone sexism of that culture,

In 2Peter 1:20-21 Peter argues that NO scripture "is a matter of one's own interpretation - but holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God".

Are you thinking that the laws against incest, beastiality and homosexuality found in Lev 18, or the condemnation of it found in Romans 1 and in 1Cor 6 - is somehow "sexist"??

If so - are you thinking that this is a problem that the Author of scripture has?

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

No. Either:

(a) some of the human got through

or

( God is an unregenerate old sexist who considers women far inferior to men

In either case, you're welcome to it. I reject it wholeheartedly.

[BobRyan]

And did the courts get it right with Dred vs. Scott or Roe vs. Wade? Did "protecting the rights" of slave owners have a beneficial effect on the country or was it innocuous? After all no one was forced to own a slave. Did our SDA founders including EGW argue in favor of slavery based on your above principle? When every state in the Union passed laws prohibiting abortion during Ellen White's prophetic tenure did she protest the government's violation of someone's civil rights?

Indeed - both the issue of slavery and abortion deal with the basic moral subject of "the value of human life". It can indeed be legislated without offending God.

in Christ,

Bob

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

You are right Doug. I thought that by now I would not have to add the disclaimer. I worry about people that worry about where consenting adults put their private bits. As far as polygamy.......... anyone that thinks marriage is easy enough that they want to have multiple spouses has much greater problems than where they are putting their bits

Incest can easily involve consenting adults, as can beastiality, and polygamy. If you're suggesting, as is commonly propoosed by those who advocate same sex marriage, that what consenting adults consent to consent to is harmless to the society in which they live, then you have just argued the opposite with your portrayal of polygamy as a negative. While many forms of heterosexual marriages have been deemed as beneficial to society throughout history homosexuality, beastiality, and incest have never risen above the category of pure personal sexual pleasure.Laws forbidding it's practices in areligious societies have hardly been proven to be destructive.

Did you seriously say that beastiality is consentual sex? Really? As far as incest - please explain to me how - biblically speaking the world was populated after the Garden and after the flood?

I never spoke out against polygamy, I just think that one relationship takes more than enough work in my experience. If people can make it work in an honest and open way that all parties benefit from, who am I to judge.

[doug yowell]

The church's rights END where my potential civil rights begin.

[CoAspen]

You certainly know how twist peoples words and avoid the obvious!

[John317]

Coveting - a moral issue?

Yes, of course, Bravus. Now what if you found people in the SDA church, etc., who didn't think the Bible condemns coveting as a sin? And then what if when you wanted to talk about it, people claimed you were "obsessed"?

Coveting leads to stealing, and homosexual desires lead to homosexual acts, both of which are sins. The Bible says that sin separates people from God.

[John317]

Incidentally, reading the whole of Leviticus 18 shows the bred-in-the-bone sexism of that culture, that is a whole other moral issue. The entire chapter is 'woman as man's chattel': 'don't sleep with your father's wife because she belongs to him (as property)' is what most of it boils down to.

This is what happens when you snap-freeze the morality of the Bronze Age and try to apply it today.

What sins does Lev. 18 mention that you don't think should be listed as a sin? How about having sex with an animal? Or looking upon the naked body of your father's wife? Is molesting one's own daughter or son OK with you?

Lev. 18 does certainly reflect the society of that day, yet it also expresses the truth about sin. Those were sins of the people whom God "spued out" of the land of Palestine before Israel took it over. God commanded the Israelites not to participate in those same sins, in order to protect them.

Lev. 18 is Scripture. All Scripture is God-breathed.

2 Tim. 3:15-17--

And how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righ teousness, [17] that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

[John317]

No. Either:

(a) some of the human got through

or

( God is an unregenerate old sexist who considers women far inferior to men

In either case, you're welcome to it. I reject it wholeheartedly.

God is definitely not (.

Do you reject Lev. 18: 21-23 and 20: 13? Or Romans 1: 25-32? Or 1 Cor 6: 9-11 and 1 Tim 1: 9-10?

I find that all of Lev. 18 and the rest of those verses I mentioned reveal what is human.

[Twilight II]

Incidentally, reading the whole of Leviticus 18 shows the bred-in-the-bone sexism of that culture, that is a whole other moral issue. The entire chapter is 'woman as man's chattel': 'don't sleep with your father's wife because she belongs to him (as property)' is what most of it boils down to.

This is what happens when you snap-freeze the morality of the Bronze Age and try to apply it today.

So what is the basis of your morality Bravus?

Upon what basis do you make moral judgments?

[JoeMo]

Quote:

And who determines exactly where your potential civil rights begin or which ones have potential?

I should be the one who decides what my civil rights are. Even if you disgree, it sure as heck should not be the government. They are already in the process of taking away my rights in the name of "secutity".

Quote:

And if the government run by an anti-religious minority is the one who legitimizes an immoral practice that the majority of it's religious citizens find repulsive is the church off the defeat hook?

I can't really think of many hot-button examples of what you are describing. To my knowledge, the government is not "forcing" immorality against any reasonable Christian churches. The government doesn't force anyone to be gay, or anyone to abort a pregnancy. If the church is too weak to enforce its own standards upon its own members, what makes you think it is strong enough to enforce its standards on the general public?

Quote:

As if the government has no God given responsibility to promote "healthy" morality?? So it becomes a conduit for protecting every practice deemed moral by the non-religious?

Who defines what a healthy morality is? You? The SDA Church? Don't say Christianity as a whole, cuz Christians can't even agree among themselves on what is moral or immoral. The government can protect anything it wants, as long as it doesn't force it on me. If they want to take the 10 commandments out of schools, so what? It shouldn't be the school's responsibility to teach morality - that is the family's responsibility. If they want to allow gay marriage, so what? It doesn't force me (or even tempt me) to become gay.

If they want to force Sunday worship on me and prohibit me from worshipping on Saturday, that's another story. But I rerally don't see that happening in this country any time soon.

You can pick all the red herring exceptions out of my statements you want to. I'm talking practical and reasonable things here, not the exteme outliers that hypothetically might occur maybe.

[doug yowell]

Quote:

And who determines exactly where your potential civil rights begin or which ones have potential?

I should be the one who decides what my civil rights are. Even if you disgree, it sure as heck should not be the government. They are already in the process of taking away my rights in the name of "secutity".

[JoeMo]

I'm not gonna engage you in this topic any more, Doug - that is one of my rights. You sound angry and upset; and I deal with enough of that without choosing to take on your aggression, as well. Happy New Year to you.

[Bravus]

What sins does Lev. 18 mention that you don't think should be listed as a sin? How about having sex with an animal? Or looking upon the naked body of your father's wife? Is molesting one's own daughter or son OK with you?

I think you'll find that 'uncover the nakedness of' means 'have sex with' in the context of this passage, not simply 'look at'.

And the problem is not with the prohibitions themselves - I have no great desire to go around having sex with all my relatives - but with the reasons given. The issue is one of moral reasoning - the basis for making moral decisions.

8 Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

16 Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

It is clear that the women's honor is not even on the map: the issue is that you have taken and used something that belongs to the man.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Incidentally, reading the whole of Leviticus 18 shows the bred-in-the-bone sexism of that culture, that is a whole other moral issue. The entire chapter is 'woman as man's chattel': 'don't sleep with your father's wife because she belongs to him (as property)' is what most of it boils down to.

This is what happens when you snap-freeze the morality of the Bronze Age and try to apply it today.

So what is the basis of your morality Bravus?

Upon what basis do you make moral judgments?

Answered in considerable detail: http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1562

[doug yowell]

[it is clear that the women's honor is not even on the map: the issue is that you have taken and used something that belongs to the man.

What's clear is that you have overlooked the explicit texts that dispute your claims. Lev.20;12,17 19:29 20:17 Deut.5:16 22:25-29 ect...ect... and the issues above do not involve forceable rape but rather the consentual aspect of the woman's involvement which carries no honor. The Scriptures are full of examples of the dishonor of women being on the map.Gen.34:31 is just one example among many. Perhaps your continuing spiritual journey has caused you to forget these things?

[joeb]

I'd just like to point out that the Bible says both lying (Proverbs 12:22) and homosexuality are abominations before God, and that probably the only reason homosexuality is a frequent topic here is because it is constantly in the news, thus it is constantly being brought to our awareness.

As to our society not teaching all kinds of immorality on a daily basis, well, we see lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder, etc... put in front of us in just about any media you can think of: music, TV, news, printed matter, etc....

I don't really see any difference between sins. One is as bad as another. The penalty for indulging in any of the behaviors proscribed in 10 commandments is the same. Thus, I can't see condemning someone for being a homosexual any more than for lying.

[phkrause]

I'd just like to point out that the Bible says both lying (Proverbs 12:22) and homosexuality are abominations before God, and that probably the only reason homosexuality is a frequent topic here is because it is constantly in the news, thus it is constantly being brought to our awareness.

As to our society not teaching all kinds of immorality on a daily basis, well, we see lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder, etc... put in front of us in just about any media you can think of: music, TV, news, printed matter, etc....

I don't really see any difference between sins. One is as bad as another. The penalty for indulging in any of the behaviors proscribed in 10 commandments is the same. Thus, I can't see condemning someone for being a homosexual any more than for lying.

I think that's a given joeb, and I agree. But its what the OP and title say they want to discuss.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I'd just like to point out that the Bible says both lying (Proverbs 12:22) and homosexuality are abominations before God, and that probably the only reason homosexuality is a frequent topic here is because it is constantly in the news, thus it is constantly being brought to our awareness.

As to our society not teaching all kinds of immorality on a daily basis, well, we see lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder, etc... put in front of us in just about any media you can think of: music, TV, news, printed matter, etc....

I don't really see any difference between sins. One is as bad as another. The penalty for indulging in any of the behaviors proscribed in 10 commandments is the same. Thus, I can't see condemning someone for being a homosexual any more than for lying.

I think that's a given joeb, and I agree. But its what the OP and title say they want to discuss.

I know. I was just responding to what I saw being said in some of the replies on this thread.

BTW, hi, PK

[doug yowell]

I don't really see any difference between sins. One is as bad as another. The penalty for indulging in any of the behaviors proscribed in 10 commandments is the same. Thus, I can't see condemning someone for being a homosexual any more than for lying.

So you'd be for, or against, having a Prevericator Pride Parade??

[Twilight II]

Answered in considerable detail: http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1562

Hi Bravus :-)

I did not really see an answer to my question, so I will rephrase it:

In brief, upon what basis do YOU make moral judgements?

Do you have an absolute standard of morality you adhere to, or do you adhere to a subjective standard of morality?

And where do you derive the authority for your moral standards from?

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

[it is clear that the women's honor is not even on the map: the issue is that you have taken and used something that belongs to the man.

What's clear is that you have overlooked the explicit texts that dispute your claims. Lev.20;12,17 19:29 20:17 Deut.5:16 22:25-29 ect...ect... and the issues above do not involve forceable rape but rather the consentual aspect of the woman's involvement which carries no honor. The Scriptures are full of examples of the dishonor of women being on the map.Gen.34:31 is just one example among many. Perhaps your continuing spiritual journey has caused you to forget these things?

Let's take a look at those texts:

Leviticus 19:29 - Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

Leviticus 20: 12,17 - And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. ... And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

Deuteronomy 5:16 - Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 22:25-29 - But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Emphasis is mine, but I'm not sure they 'dispute my claims': 'if you rape a daughter you have to give money to her father' fits very much with the notion of a woman as the property of her father until marriage and of her husband after marriage. Leave aside the horrible notion that the woman must remain married to her violator for life. (And no, don't bring the 'A single woman had no money to live' argument - if the 50 shekels went to the woman instead of her father, she would have.