The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gay Rights (Theologically Speaking)

Pretty great that he actually used Scripture though! :smiley:

When I was younger, I was against homosexuality. My reasons came from the ‘constant’ religious propaganda that said it was wrong. Today, far from being gay myself, the sins of sexual immorality do not describe a married, monogamous, homosexual relationship. In fact neither is having ‘sexual relationships’ in itself immoral. The Law is the Law and it uniquely and unambiguously gives us the circumstances and the exact actions which are considered sexual immorality. As, it is, the Law only holds authority only over those who are into submission to it, specifically the Hebrew people and not any gentile or gentile nation who is not under the Mosaic Law, nor have they ever been.

:astonished: gasp you’re right! how naughty of me!

Yes, I have seen people get overexcited about homosexuality in religious circles and even be mean and hateful to people in their excitement. I don’t agree with that kind of behavior. I’m not a genius and I’m not confident enough with my own goodness to make up my own standard. This is why I use Yehovah’s perfect standard. I am not perfect but, that is what I aim for.
The Bible is clear that purity is one sexual relationship, that between a husband and his own wife. God’s law as well as the laws of nations require one thing for marriage that two people of the same sex can not achieve, consummation. “Consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman, following their marriage to each other.” This is only achievable between a man and a woman. That is, if common sense about the way our bodies were created is not enough to tell us what is right to do. We were created and told to multiply. To bear fruit. This is unachievable naturally between two male or two females.
I am covered by Messiah’s blood, by grace. I can not gain salvation through my observance of the law of God. I am no longer condemned by my sin, as when I walked contrary to Torah. However, the law is holy and perfect. I can not name a higher standard to live by and since this is God’s word and what He wants us to live out (love toward Himself and our neighbor) then this is the standard I endeavor to follow. I stand by it because it is a better standard than I have seen anywhere. If we keep it in Spirit and truth, there is no fear of condemnation. If we keep it to earn salvation by our own righteousness, we should be shaking in our boots. The reality is, not keeping it is sin and I wanted to be set free from my sin. I didn’t want my lawless acts to be counted against me. For this Jesus died and was raised again. But, it was my sin that was bad, not God’s perfect Torah. The handwriting (judgment because of my sin) was taken away in Christ but, that does not mean He wants me to go on in sin. He sent the Holy Spirit to help me be sanctified and made right with Him, to help me to follow Him and be blessed. How do we follow in His steps? Well, He kept Torah, by the Spirit. He is Torah. Love is not about feelings, especially feelings of our own goodness. Love is how we worship God and take care of our neighbor. This Torah is written on our hearts and reflects the spiritual reality in our everyday lives. A man can not say he follows God, kill his neighbor and then say, “it’s OK because I’m not under the law.”. That is illogical. So, instead of having a divided heart and mind, I walk as close to God as I can. I do not serve under the laws of other gods or men. I hope you can see by what I have said that I am not “under the law” for judgment but, I keep the law of Yehovah in liberty and with a joyful heart knowing it shows in my actions that I love Him and others because my heart is right and out of overflowing thankfulness for His redeeming grace. I know everyone is where they are with God. This is my stand in my life. May you be blessed!

Is Deuteronomy 23:17-18 reflecting these passages? Nothing against any person, just wondering if God is the same every day, if the NT confers with the OT and if it’s important for us to know truth and acknowledge it. I’m not talking about being mean in any way, just wondering if the way we handle truth is important or if we should neglect it for the sake of “love”. What say ye?
1Ki 14:24 and also a **whoremonger **hath been in the land; they have done according to all the abominations of the nations that Jehovah dispossessed from the presence of the sons of Israel.

1Co 5:11 and now, I did write to you not to keep company with him , if any one, being named a brother, may be a whoremonger, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner–with such a one not even to eat together;

**Eph 5:5 ** for this ye know, that every whoremonger, or unclean, or covetous person, who is an idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign of the Christ and God.

Rev 22:15 and without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one who is loving and is doing a lie.

In Deuteronomy 23, the Hebrew speaks of the male ritual prostitutes as practicing sodomy and it is translated in English as “perverted” in the NKJV.

`There is not a whore among the daughters of Israel, nor is there a **whoremonger **among the sons of Israel; thou dost not bring a gift of a whore, or a price of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God, for any vow; for the abomination of Jehovah thy God are even both of them.
(Deu 23:17-18)

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a **sodomite **of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
(Deu 23:17-18)

Please note: Obviously, sodomy isn’t the only big issue in life but, that is what we are talking about on this thread (theologically speaking). I would submit to you that truth and purity are important and that with the indwelling Holy Spirit working in us, we should want to be free from our sins and walk in truth.

Romans 1
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their** women exchanged natural relations** for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Homosexuality seems to be related to idolatry
Worshipping God vs. worshipping the creation.
God is opposite us, just as we are given to have relations with opposite sex
Creation is same as us, and worshipping creation like worshipping self, having relations with same sex
Idolatry is worshipping god in your image(creation), homosexuality is like worshipping a partner in your own image

I don’t believe it is any more wrong than any other sin, and all sexual sin is an abomination to God, whether it be homo,hetero,beastio, lust, etc, etc. Because the two becoming one is a great mystery relating to Christ and the assembly, it was given for a sign to us to understand that mystery.

Hi Kelly and RHM,
Lots of scripture quoting going on in this thread, none of which seems to me to have much relevance to committed, monogomous gay/lesbian relationships. I challenge you and other readers to read some James Alison - this article on Romans 1 is a good starting place. He gives a fresh and challenging interpretation of scripture which you may find interesting, if disturbing!
I’d be interested in what others think of Alison’s perspective.

Thank you for the link. I will read it. I don’t spend much time around churches but, I don’t recall ever hearing a pastor talk about quoting Scripture like it’s a bad thing. I don’t see anything wrong with Scripture quoting though. I believe in God because I read the Bible not because I want to follow some man’s idea of what they want to be right or wrong. My standard is the Scripture. I know there are a lot of other perspectives in the world but, I want to follow God. I’m not into religion void of loving truth. I appreciate your desire to treat all people with respect, I agree with that. I just think truth is an important aspect of love. Peace!

This whole debate is a little surreal to me. I wasn’t raised in a christian family but, I recall my Dad saying things like, “God gave you a brain and two thumbs, use 'em!” I know it’s not politically correct to use our brains any more but, I can’t help my upbringing. Please be tolerant of me! :confused:

Kelly said : “I don’t spend much time around churches but, I don’t recall ever hearing a pastor talk about quoting Scripture like it’s a bad thing.” Good point. I always thought that scripture was how we learned and knew about Jesus Christ and His teachings. Seems like nowadays only the scholars can hear Jesus. (sarcasm font)

Hi Kelly,

I am certainly not saying that quoting scripture is a bad thing! If you look through my posts on this forum or on my blog you will see that I take scripture very seriously and have a very high view of scripture. But scriptures have to be interpreted correctly, taking account of the context they were written in, as well as our own cultural bias.

I too read and study the bible because I believe in God and that he speaks through the scriptures and that I want to discover truth, rather than the teachings which people want to be right. For instance, like many people on this forum, I have come to realise that the Bible does not, when properly understood, teach ECT.

Many of the posts on this thread frustrate me because people are just trotting out proof texts which supposedly rule out all homosexual relationships, as though that settled the matter. I’d have hoped that people on this forum would at least be open to the possibility that just as the church was wrong about hell, maybe we’ve been wrong about homosexuality. Do you see what I mean? Why can we be gracious and open and listen to other perspectives on our pet issue, but not on an issue which is important to others and on which there is a range of ways of understanding the Bible’s teaching on the subject.

Please continue using your brain - and your Bible - Kelly. That’s exactly what I’m asking you to do! :unamused:

Come off it Roofus - nobody is saying that, as you well know.

Do you think Paul accidentally left out a man having his own husband and a woman her own wife in the 1 Cor 7 passage? Or, do you think since our culture has changed, that God has changed the meaning of His word? Do you know history? Cultures haven’t changed at all. Sodomy is not a new thing. Should our interpretations come from what we think is right or what He says is right? I think sometimes we confuse truth and what is right according to God and think we can decide for ourselves. That is idolatry. I am very sympathetic to those struggling in sin because it is a human condition we all share. I do believe God will ultimately heal us all so, it matters little to me if we are discussing sodomy, murder, adultery, idolatry, stealing or whatever. I am no respecter of persons. Let me also make this clear, sodomy is not a pet doctrine for me. I an a follower of Yehovah, all His truth is of equal importance in bringing freedom and joy to all people, even if they would rather remain in Egypt and eat of the delicacies there. This thread was started by someone else about this specific subject but, if it was any other subject, I would equally use God’s word in my post.

Judging . . .

Dare any one of you, having a matter with the other, go to be judged before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? have ye not known that the saints shall judge the world? and if by you the world is judged, are ye unworthy of the smaller judgments? have ye not known that we shall judge messengers? why not then the things of life? of the things of life, indeed, then, if ye may have judgment, those despised in the assembly–these cause ye to sit; unto your shame I speak: so there is not among you one wise man, not even one, who shall be able to discern in the midst of his brethren! but brother with brother doth go to be judged, and this before unbelievers! Already, indeed, then, there is altogether a fault among you, that ye have judgments with one another; wherefore do ye not rather suffer injustice? wherefore be ye not rather defrauded? but ye–ye do injustice, and ye defraud, and these–brethren!
have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit. And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

(1Co 6:1-11)

I agree.
It’s interesting that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. I’ve heard one christian suggest that when Jesus met the centurion and commended his faith, it was common practice for the Roman centurions to have boys and ‘love’ their boys. It would certainly explain why the centurion took so much concern over the sickness of a menial. The greek in that passage does not use the word for slave/servant (doulos) but uses the word ‘boy’ (is it paidos?).
I’ve no idea whether this is true but it adds a shocking thought to the passage

Well, I read it and you’re right, it is disturbing! You link me to a gay priest for a “fresh perspective” on Scripture that, in your opinion, is wrongly quoted against sodomy, then have the nerve to imply that I am “just trotting out proof texts which supposedly rule out all homosexual relationships”? Mr. Alison’s rantings are not even cohesive. Alison claims that his interpretation of Roman 1 is a “catholic reading” of the passage. Doesn’t make the church look too good.

It is the God of the Bible that I want to follow, not some biased, self glorifying organization. Throughout history religion has brought more people into bondage than she has released. Alison actually equates believing Romans 1 differently than he does as terrorizing to him, then goes on to compare a reading as it is implied, as a “koranic” reading! He may as well come out and call those who disagree with his interpretation of the text terrorists. Pretty bold coming from a religion that murdered so many through crusades and condemned those who disagreed with them to death as heretics! And, that even now, is under scrutiny for this very issue, the molestation of children by sodomite priests. Wow! If this is what is truly going on in religious institutions, no wonder they are screaming for tolerance! Mistakes and ignorance are one thing but, outright living in sin and then using bully tactics to force people to accept your sin? . . . in the church! I guess I’ve been a little sheltered. I can not believe what I just read! :open_mouth:

Please! Do you think Jesus would sit there and commend this centurion for his “great faith” all the while knowing he keeps and molests his “boy” (someone’s son) as a common practice? Not a slave, indeed! Is this the God of love you serve? Seems we have lots of “love” to go around for those who defile and victimize others, what about the sad life of the “boy”, or those who loved him? Oh that’s right, their opinion doesn’t count because they were intolerant.

I read through James Alison’s “attempt at a Catholic reading” of Romans 1 and was very disappointed in the way he handled the scripture, minimized sin and proposes that nobody can judge another.

James Alison is a homosexual who wears the robes of a priest. This to me is disturbing.

I don’t think it’s right for a pastor or priest to be active in any major sin. If I knew of a priest that was openly in an adulterous relationship, I wouldn’t want him in the pulpit. Nor would I want a pastor that was openly murderous, openly stealing, openly idolatrous, openly doing what the wrath of God has revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Here are some problems I found with his reasoning:

First, he sets those who view the text as having to do with homosexuality as having a Koranic reading of the scriptures and that those who disagree with him, as painting him as one who would be “a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.” Neither position I hold or condone.

His main emphasis is on Rom.1:26 which says,”For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,” and his focus is that this verse was not interpreted by some in the Catholic church as lesbianism. He makes a point that in order to view this verse in its proper context, one must read the larger context of the chapter, however he misapplies second half of the sentence that contains v.26 – namely v.27 and leaves out that the men “left the natural use of the woman” and “burned in their desire toward one another, men with men, the unseemly committing” I fail to see how men “leaving women” to “commit unseemly acts” with other men because of their “burning desire” for other men, is anything other than homosexuality.

In an effort to make the discussion more about the behavior of the women he misses the mark, or rather chooses to distort what the scriptures really say.

He contradicts what he says…

Here James Alison is trying to make sin to be not sin by calling it silly.

Then he quotes Paul in the next paragraph…

Another attempt at making sin not sin.

Rappelling and Paragliding are not sins, which makes for an extremely bad analogy and is something that one who knows that what they are doing is wrong would do in order to make their sin more palatable.

Here he tries to say that no one can make any judgement about what right and wrong is.

Not true – if it were true then Paul’s judgement of this situation couldn’t be trusted, or the rest of the scripture for that matter.
The often misunderstood passage in Mat. 7 on judgement says to make a right judgement not a hypocritical judgement. This is just James’ attempt to get people from making a right judgement by saying that no one can judge.

An attempt at blurring the lines between then and now.
The reasoning: The modern view of homosexuality is extraneous and is what Paul would condemn
The reasoning: modern-homosexuality was unknown in the ancient times.

The problem with this statement is that he does not know scriptures. He says that this is a modern issue and he hopes to hold to the ancient biblical meaning.
This however is the ancient biblical meaning – Leviticus 20:13 And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

James Alison’s “attempt at a Catholic reading” of Romans 1 is not biblical.

This judgement should be by the church and will be by Yehovah.

I think that this verse applies here but needs to be followed up by the verses just after it.

James Alison has ended up in a position in the body which makes him more accountable and responsible to the entire body and although he makes the case that he should not be judged, however the scriptures condemn homosexuality and say that a priest such as James should be judged by the body.

Love defined in Romans . . .

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
(Rom 13:8-14)

Thy righteousness is righteousness to the age, And Thy law is truth.

(Psa 119:142)

I read through all this, and still no proof or evidence in reason or in law, that condemns homosexuality especially in a non-Hebrew who is never and was never under the Law of Moses (even to those under the Law, homosexuality is never condemned; it is only implied by the religious.)

Let us look at the words of Jesus.\

He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been givenfor there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

It is a simple process of elimination that although not all eunuchs are gay, all gay men are called eunuchs. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it. Jesus did not condemn them, nor did he instruct them to be different.

all gay men are called eunuchs? SOW could you provide a little more info here, I’ve never heard that before.