Evidence for God from Science

Can you show me where in the New Testament does God or Jesus condone homosexuality?

A simple google search of "homosexuality in new testament", will show you all the verses you want.

but the Bible also condones farmers selling their daughters as slaves.

Where does the bible "condone" this?

And why is homosexuality an abomination above all other sins?

Who said this?

What is so inherently evil about it that makes it worse than murder, rape, genocide, and so many other things that are so much more obviously harmful to society?

You are making an argument that the bible says homosexual sex is worse than these other sins? Where in the bible do you make that case from?

Seems like you're ignorance of the bible, is leading you to argue against things that the bible doesn't even say.

Causal Laws such as " IF a Man is to sell his daughter..." are NOT representations of the ideal LAW of God, but are accomodational Laws given to a people that God KNEW were going to do it anyways ( cultural custom) and so He made causal Laws to give the "victim" more rights that they would have had without them.
God in dealing with people has always accomodated His message to WHO was the recipient of the message AND even then we still see that things were a mess.

Paul, do you actually mean to tell me that Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

wasn't written to us, here in 2012? The God of the bible surely must condone slavery, if Exodus shows laws about daughters being sold, correct? Since the bible has a law about the treatment of slaves, that certainly must mean that:
1) God must condone all slavery, including chattel slavery that was legal in the U.S. until after the Civil War
And
2) all laws in the bible must be for every person to follow, including us.
3) there's no chance that certain laws were written only to the Theocracy of Israel.

RickD wrote:Paul, do you actually mean to tell me that Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

wasn't written to us, here in 2012? The God of the bible surely must condone slavery, if Exodus shows laws about daughters being sold, correct? Since the bible has a law about the treatment of slaves, that certainly must mean that:
1) God must condone all slavery, including chattel slavery that was legal in the U.S. until after the Civil War
And
2) all laws in the bible must be for every person to follow, including us.
3) there's no chance that certain laws were written only to the Theocracy of Israel.

Your sarcasm-fu is strong my friend.
These are things that, unfortunately, do come up and must be answered and the issue for some is that IF we are to interpret these Laws then why not others?
Of course it is a bit of s "slippery slope" but not one that isn't insurmountable with some understanding of OT history AND the history of the Church that has gotten us HERE.
None of these discussion are new.

On a side note, we too have Laws that make restitution for property damage ( for example) but NO ONE views them as CONDONING property damage.
That God was against slavery is clear in that we are ALL made in God's Image and ALL made stewards of creation ( not lords or owners of one another), that God had to make Laws BECAUSE humans were making slaves of one another shows that God was working with "what he had".

Here's a thought. People won't go to hell any more for being homosexual anymore than people will go to heaven for being heterosexual.

What exactly is it you are looking for? It seems to me non-heterosexuals aren't really looking for equal rights. They'll say "stay out of my bedroom" in one breath, and "we should have equal protection of the law", bringing everyone back into their bedroom in the next breath. Legal contracts allow for any property rights or medical rights a person could want. By all definitions, you can have every marital benefit granted by law, in black and white already.

No, it seems to me this is not a rights issue as that is little more than a straw man. This is an issue of the homosexual people in the country, desperately seeking approval and acceptance of those not like them, so they can live in peace. In that light, I think you're going about this the wrong way. You're asking the wrong question, and the article you linked should give you some hints as to what the right question is. The question you should be asking is "Why should you love me any less if my sin is exposed, while yours are not?" I think that's a fair question.

The Bible more than once, in the old and new testaments, puts homosexual acts in a list with other similar sins. It is at least once called an abomination, and shows it being acted upon shortly before God calls down his judgement on cities more than once as well. It is clearly a serious sin, as all sins that are sexual in nature have received the sternest condemnation in the Biblical texts. My personal feelings on it is, that the Bible makes it clear such people are committing sin, and as a result they have damaged their relationship with God, as is the nature of what makes sin, sin. I don't think God would be giving you the green light, while condemning the acts in his texts so harshly.

All that said, I have friends that are homosexual. I will not ever condone their actions. However, I refuse to turn my back on them either. I will not shove what they already know so well in their faces, but live my life as an example (by the grace of God), and be a willing servant if they ever wish to talk to me about it. They may struggle all their lives with it, as I may my own secret sins, in addition to my own doubts that drive me to tears. But, if we refuse to give in to our sins, and seek the Lord for deliverance, we cannot lose. That does not however, dilute the scriptures in any way, but simply shows us where our hope lies in Christ.

I can't give you comfort or clarity on this issue, and I highly doubt anyone else can either. If it is acceptance as the same person you were before people knew of your sexual orientation that you want, you will be opposed on the merits of human and cultural aversion, not Biblical. I hope your friends will have enough humility to overcome that impulse. I think that is what it means to not cast the first stone, which leaves the door open for us to be disciples. It's not fair for homosexuals to become outcasts. However, Biblically speaking, I don't not see how we can interpret the scriptures to do anything but condemn acts of homosexuality. We simply must not outright condemn homosexuals at the same time *sound of stone dropping to the dirt*, a power I neither have nor want.

Hey everyone, I'm back for more I've been really busy at work and haven't had much time for the internet at all so I'm glad to be able to rejoin this conversation, even if i may not be able to come back for a while again xP

So ANYWAY! I did want to discuss the word choice "abomination". It was something that I had wanted to address earlier but I neglected to. I do find abomination to be a very interesting word choice. It has a very distinct harshly negative connotation that goes along with it. This connotation, I believe, is the stem for all the hatred and intense dislike of homosexual individual by certain groups. I don't think that "deviant" is any better of a word because that implies that homosexuality is going against what is good, acceptable, or "the norm" and I feel like (and correct me if I am wrong) that we have all agreed that homosexuality itself is not unacceptable or bad, but the acts are what the ambiguous "you" find to be unacceptable. So I don't really know what word I would want to use for homosexuality. But this is all very nitpicky, I just wanted to discuss diction because I find the English language and all of its intricacies extremely fascinating!

Now to address a more specific point,

What exactly is it you are looking for? It seems to me non-heterosexuals aren't really looking for equal rights. They'll say "stay out of my bedroom" in one breath, and "we should have equal protection of the law", bringing everyone back into their bedroom in the next breath. Legal contracts allow for any property rights or medical rights a person could want. By all definitions, you can have every marital benefit granted by law, in black and white already.

I do agree with you, it sometimes does seem rather hypocritical in the gay community to ask everyone to "stay out of our business" and then say that "our business" should be presented more and that the ambiguous "we" are not heard enough. I think that most people in the GLBT community are really just looking for some sort of acknowledgement and acceptance. "We" want to feel like we are just as liked as heterosexual people.

This being said, that is not the ONLY thing that people in the GLBT community are after. I personally am a very Christian person, as I have stated some time ago, and should I end up wanting to be married to a man I would very much want to have a Christian wedding. I don't know how possible this is, or if I'm just totally dreaming but whether I marry a man or a woman I want to be wedded under the name of God.

If it is acceptance as the same person you were before people knew of your sexual orientation that you want, you will be opposed on the merits of human and cultural aversion, not Biblical. I hope your friends will have enough humility to overcome that impulse.

I thank you for this, I have been VERY fortunate to have a group of wonderful and accepting friends. They have been nothing but supportive of me during this time of change for me and, if anything, they have grown even closer to me because they want me to know that they love me for who I am as a person and not for who I want to be with romantically.

And I found a beautiful quote from the Bible that I just want to end my message with here. I hope you are all having a good summer so far!
"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each of you." (1 peter 4:8-10)

I wasn't a part of the original discussion, but I figured I'd jump in.

mlynchrules wrote:Hey everyone, I'm back for more I've been really busy at work and haven't had much time for the internet at all so I'm glad to be able to rejoin this conversation, even if i may not be able to come back for a while again xP

So ANYWAY! I did want to discuss the word choice "abomination". It was something that I had wanted to address earlier but I neglected to. I do find abomination to be a very interesting word choice. It has a very distinct harshly negative connotation that goes along with it. This connotation, I believe, is the stem for all the hatred and intense dislike of homosexual individual by certain groups. I don't think that "deviant" is any better of a word because that implies that homosexuality is going against what is good, acceptable, or "the norm" and I feel like (and correct me if I am wrong) that we have all agreed that homosexuality itself is not unacceptable or bad, but the acts are what the ambiguous "you" find to be unacceptable. So I don't really know what word I would want to use for homosexuality. But this is all very nitpicky, I just wanted to discuss diction because I find the English language and all of its intricacies extremely fascinating!

Well, let's remember that the word choice wasn't made by any of us, it was made by G-d. Of course, the Bible wasn't written in English. Most people are quoting Leviticus 18:22 when they use this word to describe homosexual activity. The original Hebrew is "tow'ebah." It means, "a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable." It both has a meaning in the ritual sense, such as relating to unclean foods, idols, and mixed marriages, and in the ethical sense, such as relating to wickedness (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08441). And I think that it'd be more accurate to say that we all agree that homosexuals are not unacceptable or bad, as compared to anyone else, but homosexual acts are what is bad, as that's the sin.

"We" want to feel like we are just as liked as heterosexual people.

If anyone, especially one who calls themselves a Christian, doesn't show homosexual people as much kindness, love, compassion, and friendliness as anyone else, than I'd say that person doesn't know Christ very well at all. That's certainly unacceptable for anyone who claims to be His disciple.

This being said, that is not the ONLY thing that people in the GLBT community are after. I personally am a very Christian person, as I have stated some time ago, and should I end up wanting to be married to a man I would very much want to have a Christian wedding. I don't know how possible this is, or if I'm just totally dreaming but whether I marry a man or a woman I want to be wedded under the name of God.

Well, that may be possible in some churches, but, I'm afraid I can't say that would be the most Christian wedding. I'd point out Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

cheezerrox wrote:Well, that may be possible in some churches, but, I'm afraid I can't say that would be the most Christian wedding. I'd point out Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Honestly, both those books were written by Paul. If you'll recall in another book, Paul lays out the details of how one should treat their slaves with detail. I think it's entirely possible (and the case) that Paul was speaking to people of his time, and his word in this case should not be eternally binding. Jesus did not have much to say on this issue of homosexuality, which leaves one available to infer that Jesus did not see much issue with homosexual relationships. To me, they're just as beautiful and meaningful as heterosexual relationships and I see no reason to be opposed to them, whether legally, personally, or theologically.

Further, the world will come to accept homosexuality and homosexual relationships, whether Christianity opposes it or not (and indeed, some sects are beginning to support it). There is no harm inherent in the relationships and no real, compelling reasons to oppose it. Better to adapt your views here, or be left behind as Christians leave discriminating sects/churches in favor of accepting ones.

Jesus constantly appealed to the OT, said the Scriptures cannot be broken, and held the Law in the highest regard. The OT, as you well know, has some very harsh language concerning homosexual relationships. It's far safer to infer that Jesus had an orthodox view on homosexuality than a liberal one, given what we know about Him.

Beanybag wrote:Honestly, both those books were written by Paul. If you'll recall in another book, Paul lays out the details of how one should treat their slaves with detail. I think it's entirely possible (and the case) that Paul was speaking to people of his time, and his word in this case should not be eternally binding. Jesus did not have much to say on this issue of homosexuality, which leaves one available to infer that Jesus did not see much issue with homosexual relationships. To me, they're just as beautiful and meaningful as heterosexual relationships and I see no reason to be opposed to them, whether legally, personally, or theologically.

Good observation, Paul did write both. And Peter considered them just as much Scripture as the original books of the Bible (the Old Testament), as shown in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Also, there's the fact that G-d Himself personally chose Paul to teach and speak in His Name, as written in Galatians 1:15-16 and Acts 9:15, 17 (Acts was written by Luke, if that makes it more convincing to you). Why choose Paul and then use him to say things that don't accurately represent G-d's Will?
Also, Jesus might not have had much to say about the subject, specifically, but let's see what He had to say about relationships/marriages in general. Matthew 19:4-5, "And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning "made them male and female" (quoting Genesis 1:27), and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (quoting Genesis 2:24)?'" It sounds like Jesus ASSUMED that people knew that in G-d's Eyes, a relationship/marriage was intended for a man and woman, as taught in the Scriptures that were around at that time (Leviticus 18:22).

Further, the world will come to accept homosexuality and homosexual relationships, whether Christianity opposes it or not (and indeed, some sects are beginning to support it). There is no harm inherent in the relationships and no real, compelling reasons to oppose it. Better to adapt your views here, or be left behind as Christians leave discriminating sects/churches in favor of accepting ones.

The world has accepted many things the church, the Bible, and G-d don't support or condone, such as pornography, drinking, drugs, and promiscuity. Christians who accept the Scriptures believe that G-d's Scriptures are "G-d-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," and that G-d knows what's best and right for us (2 Timothy 3:16). Also, Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures warned us multiple times that as time goes on and we get closer to the Day of Judgement, the world will fall more and more into faithlessness and sin (Matthew 24:10-12). The effects of homosexuality on people are debatable, but at the end of the day, spiritual health is what G-d and the church are concerned with most. I'm sorry to let you know that we don't sell the Word of G-d for a small price, for the sake of conformity, or for the sake of comfort. Even if the world leaves us behind, the truth and G-d do not change. We'll all find out what that is one day, but I feel pretty confident with trusting in what G-d has said.

Jac3510 wrote:Jesus constantly appealed to the OT, said the Scriptures cannot be broken, and held the Law in the highest regard. The OT, as you well know, has some very harsh language concerning homosexual relationships. It's far safer to infer that Jesus had an orthodox view on homosexuality than a liberal one, given what we know about Him.

I agree, however we need a few "quantifiers".
Jesus did indeed quote the OT laws AND changed them or offered a different view of them ( food, laws, divorce, sabbath rules, etc)
The OT makes no mention of any prohibition of women laying with men ( the wording use to prohibit homosexuality is "a man lays with another man like he does with a woman...) BUT the NT (Paul) does.
What would Jesus have said about homosexuality?
IMHO: to the repentant sinner he would have said, "your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more".

I feel like this is exactly why I am so partial to the Catholic Chruch (which I was raised in). They have the ability to build upon, and in some respects even revise, the scriptures of old through the papacy. Some parts of catholicism have even jumped the gun, so to speak, and already fully accept homosexuality as being acceptable within a loving marriage (this is the position held by many nuns and has gotten them into a bit of trouble with the vatican). Basically.. why would we stop two people from loving each other intimately when there are suffering and hungry people out there in need of our care? I give lots of respect to the nuns for that.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the Old Testament is in contradiction on this issue. Both homosexual relationships and lying are explicitly sinful, yet according to Chrisianity a gay man or woman is expected to pretend to not be gay by denying a part of themselves that they cannot choose to change. Either you live a life of sin by having a homosexual relationship, or you actively choose to lie about who/what you are. Strictly speaking, both living a homosexual life and living a lie of a life are sinful, and therefore equally evil. Worse yet, there is really no winning scenario...You can be repentant, but if you can't actually stop sinning one way or the other, they appear to be part of a vicious circle.