re faq essay on homosexuality in article may geneva rutgers edu hedrick geneva rutgers edu writes this came from here s his response kinsey see below is the source of the figure percent there was an article in usa today a few months ago showing the results of a study that actually only about were homosexual i saw another figure that listed as the figure of course even if it were that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior how many people have commited other acts of fornication how many people have lied or sinned in other ways but in all fairness the shameless nature of their acts is a reflection of the general spiritual state of the people and not a specific feature of homosexuality why isn t it a specific feature of homosexuality paul describes men with men working that which is unseemly to describe the acts sure there spirtual nature was depraved also and like the other sins the idolatry the other sexual immoraity and the other sins sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of man s not glorifying god as god and being thankful still their acts were shameless homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases on the other hand none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the subject rom is really about idolatry it refers to homosexuality in passing is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the new testament scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer being ruled by the spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism it also protects us from sins that are against the spirit the word is a two edged sword that cuts both ways i think we must be careful before we totally throw out leviticus if the law is reflection of god s character and true holy nature then those who say that god endorses homosexuality run into a problem if homosexuality were natural whatever that means wholesome endorsed by god and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow minded biggots as some would have us believe why is there a condemnation of it in leviticus this condemnation is in the midst of all the other sex sin condemnations and there is nothing in the text to say that this law was limited to temple prostitution and no good reason to believe that this was the case furthermore male homosexual sex was a death penalty crime is every sin elaborated on in the new testament take a look at i corinthians paul said that one of the corinthians had broken a law not even heard of among the gentiles that one should have his father s wife there is a prohibition against having your father s wife in leviticus no other new testament verse clearly condemns it besides this one notice that paul did not say that the sin was in commiting adultery etc he spoke against having one s father s wife notice also that this sexual condemnation in leviticus is not mentioned in the specific context of paganism either and there was no pagan coustom mentioned in i corinthians either as a matter of fact taking one s father s wife wasn t even done among the gentiles it was just a plain blantant sin whether worshipping idols was involved or not one commonly made claim is that paul had simply never faced the kinds of questions we are trying to deal with he encountered homosexuality only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was wrong he had never faced the experience of christians who try to act straight and fail and he had never faced christians who are trying to define a christian homosexuality which fits with general christian ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the relationship between god and man it is unfair to take paul s judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make judgements on these questions one of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument is because paul probably did face this and other problems sin can be tough to over come especially without supernatural power is homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin like lusting after a married woman or sleeping around with people of the opposite sex i doubt it and even if it is that is no excuse god is greater than all of it another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural power of god to intervene in this kind of situation how many people have been set free from sin by the power of god sure there may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed that is a reflection on the people involved in the program and not god s willingness and ability to change a sinner any program that uses formulas may fail what people need is the power of god to change them whether they are involved in homosexual sin or any other sin i claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual christians is not entirely a theological issue but also a pastoral one paul s tendency as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating holidays is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues to look very carefully at the good of the people involved and to avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging for example while paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat meat he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about which they had personal qualms i don t see how you come to that conclusion paul s dealings with pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order to spare others not to allow people to continue in sin because it was just too difficult take the example of eating meat offered to idols paul felt that there was nothing wrong in an abstract sense with eating the meat yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty to eat meat in order to spare others but paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to tough paul wrote to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof romans then he goes in to a discourse on how we should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts since others consider it to be a sin then using paul s approach on pastorial issues those who would otherwise be homosexuals should sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a member of the opposite sex paul never offers a lesser sin homosexual marriage to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered a more damaging sin for another example paul obviously would have preferred to see people at least in some circumstances remain unmarried yet if they were unable to do so he certainly would rather see them married than in a state where they might be tempted to fornication yet marriage itself is not a sin marriage is holy in all and something that god ordains and paul recognizes this note that in the creation story work enters human life as a result of sin this doesn t mean that christians can stop working when we are saved actually adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell after he fell he would have to toil over the ground the dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often fails and when it does you end up with damage ranging from psychological damage to suicide as well as broken marriages when attempts at living as a heterosexual fail that is why we are dependent totally on god what a vunerable and glorious position to be it we all must be transformed by the renewing of our minds and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom just like anyone else but i can well imagine paul preferring to see people in long term committed christian relationships than promiscuity as with work which genesis suggests wasn t part of god s original ideal either i think such relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing god s love with each other i m sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this conclusion it s like saying how should i kill myself with gun or aresenic what about the person who just is overcome with a desire to sleep with goats would it be better for him to sleep with one goat or all of them what about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them in all these cases the more people or animals one sleeps with the higher the chance that they will get a disease but this only deals with physical aspects of the question whichever sin is commited it all leads to spiritual death cent actions are the same when christian homosexuals say that their relationships are different than the greek homosexuality that paul would have been familiar with this is exactly the same kind of argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors the issue that is most often addressed in scripture seems to be the actual act second isn t it historical snobbery to say that only homosexuals of this century are capable of having loving relationships there are ancient writings glorifying homosexual love btw i am one who believes in refraining from making oathes also where do you get that tax collectors are sinners that s certainly not explicit jesus didn t tell zachias to quit his job link hudson i m reluctant to comment in this in detail our basic concepts of the intention of jesus and paul are greatly different as i indicated in the article whatever the ambiguities of various words and i still think they are significant it does seem clear that paul considered the homosexuality he saw around him wrong what you do with this fact depends upon your basic approach to the bible i m afraid that communication between legalist and anti legalist christians is even harder than between protestants and catholics in the th cent since you disagree with my starting point obviously you re going to disagree with all of the intermediate discussion and conclusions sometimes discussion is still useful i ve seen some very interesting work on paul done by jews obviously they don t agree with him but they sometimes have helpful insight into what he meant but i don t see much sign for hope here in talk religion misc there s an axiom that by the time hitler s name is invoked all hope for sensible discussion is gone on this subject when sleeping with goats is invoked i don t think there s enough basis for understanding to be worth pursuing clh
