Welcome back to the Christian Teen Forums. We have been upgrading our forum software and it took a lot longer than originally anticipated. Thank you for your patience.

We are still working to bring some add-on features back, so it will be a continued work-in-progress. If you have any questions, feel free to post and ask away. 

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
pbros_theredletter.org

People Who say the bible preaches hate against homosexuals

I have had the opportunity many times to share the gospel with non believers, one thing that keeps getting thrown in my face is the verse Leviticus 20:13New International Version (NIV)

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

What is said is that if God is love and he is all knowing, then why would he command something so brutal? And how can we still call him a loving God?

I am curious to see what some people might say to this?

And to be clear I have already heard "Well its old testament" they come back with well isn't he the same yesterday today and forever? Then how can he be loving if he demanded murder?

I want to create a bunch of topics on this type of thing on difficult scriptures from the old testament and see what people say because I am trying to get ideas on how to reply!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God designed the OT law for a specific redemptive-historical purpose. A large part of that was graphically impressing upon Israel the deep severity of sin by these harsh punishments (which are still only shadows of what sin actually deserves). This consciousness of sin was essential to the accomplishment of redemption.

 

Also "murder" would be the wrong word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the Israelites didn't have the best record, no matter how many times God helped them out and saved them from their enemies, they would still return to their idols and false gods. In creating these laws, and like Caleb said, God was being intentionally severe, not necessarily because he was upset with His people, but probably to prove a point of how unacceptable sin is. You've got to remember that God is perfect in every way, and the most commonly displayed attribute of that perfectness is His perfect love, but He is also perfectly just. Us humans are obviously far from perfect- just look at the news- thus we have a hard time understanding many of God's decisions. I've struggled with it a bit personally, we just have to acknowledge that God is perfect, that we are flawed, and that God is always right, while we often are not. Also bare in mind that there are things which God hates, but God is not a God of hate, and He doesn't actively teach hatred.

Edited by FOX545

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God designed the OT law for a specific redemptive-historical purpose. A large part of that was graphically impressing upon Israel the deep severity of sin by these harsh punishments (which are still only shadows of what sin actually deserves). This consciousness of sin was essential to the accomplishment of redemption.

 

Also "murder" would be the wrong word.

 

I agree, I feel like some would say if God's love is unconditional then how can we as Christians rationalize the thought of him commanding death for anything at all (Kind of playing devil's advocate here, I have had many conversations with these people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the Israelites didn't have the best record, no matter how many times God helped them out and saved them from their enemies, they would still return to their idols and false gods. In creating these laws, and like Caleb said, God was being intentionally severe, not necessarily because he was upset with His people, but probably to prove a point of how unacceptable sin is. You've got to remember that God is perfect in every way, and the most commonly displayed attribute of that perfectness is His perfect love, but He is also perfectly just. Us humans are obviously far from perfect- just look at the news- thus we have a hard time understanding many of God's decisions. I've struggled with it a bit personally, we just have to acknowledge that God is perfect, that we are flawed, and that God is always right, while we often are not. Also bare in mind that there are things which God hates, but God is not a God of hate, and He doesn't actively teach hatred.

 

Very good point,

I feel like there is just a major disconnect with the whole subject, no matter what someone tries to present they go back to the subject of God's love and the justification for commands of death, it might just be the day and age we are in now, but more and more friends are making a big deal about this and other subjects like slavery, subjection of women (particularly being sold as property etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I feel like some would say if God's love is unconditional then how can we as Christians rationalize the thought of him commanding death for anything at all (Kind of playing devil's advocate here, I have had many conversations with these people!

 

My initial answer for that is that God commanding death for sin is no more than an honest expression of the fact that God is life, sin is anti-God, and thus the natural outworking of sin is death in the deepest and most ontological form already. So for God to command physical death for these sins serves to warn and help others after that point in being saved from sin and entering eternal life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
That verse, even interpreted the broadest way, is only about male same-sex acts, and prior to the Middle Ages has never been seen as having anything to do with female same-sex acts by anyone. Certainly it wasn't seen that way in ancient times. So that verse could only be said to preach hate against gay or bisexual men. But honestly by that reasoning could be said that the Bible preaches hate against most heterosexuals. Or at least against the sex that most heterosexuals engage in probably a 1/4 of the time. 

 

"If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them must be cut off from the community, for together they have exposed the source of her blood flow." Leviticus 20:18

 

"He does not feast in the mountains before Israel's idols or worship them. He does not commit adultery or have intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period." Ezekiel 18:6 

 

Those verses are in the Bible, and should be relevant to anyone who claims to take the Bible literally. And the first verse is in Holiness Code along with verses condemning child sacrifice, bestiality, adultery, incest, and male same-sex acts. And up until the 1700 and 1800's all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) universally believed that that prohibition still applied to Christians. Clement of Alexandria, St Augustine, St. Jerome, John Chrysostom (who was about the only Early Church Father to view any sex positively), Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and John Wesley all wrote that sex during mensuration was a sin (though they varied with how seriously they viewed it). As did Matthew Poole's Commentary (nonconformist Protestant), Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (Baptist), Benson Commentary (Methodist), Pulpit Commentary (Anglican), and Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (Anglican). I can't find any surviving writing prior to 1774 of any Christian leader/writer/denomination even considering the idea that it might not be a sin. Also prior either 1857 or 1858 the universal Christian believed that using primitive NFP/rhyme/charting was sinful, but then the Roman Catholic Church started to allow it in cases of grave maternal health. Though St. Augustine, one of the most significant figures of Sacred Tradition, had very clearly condemned primitive NFP. And of course of every church and all Christian leaders prior to 1930 condemned any usage of contraception and non-procreative heterosexual acts as grave sins.

 

Those are the historical facts. I'm not interested in getting in a debate on sexuality, consistency on sexuality, how to interpret the Bible, or anything else. But modern conservative Christians would do well to seriously acknowledge that sex with a menstruating woman is talked about alongside what are considered serious sins, like adultery and idolatry.

Edited by ComedyMusicHistory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the passages from Leviticus and Ezekiel are arguably part of the "Law" so do not apply to Christians living today.

Whereas Christians quote from the New Testament regarding homosexuality (whether rightly or wrongly). As far as I'm aware the NT doesn't talk about menstruating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 6:05 AM, Yoda said:

But the passages from Leviticus and Ezekiel are arguably part of the "Law" so do not apply to Christians living today.

Whereas Christians quote from the New Testament regarding homosexuality (whether rightly or wrongly). As far as I'm aware the NT doesn't talk about menstruating. 

 
 

My main concern about this approach is that it seems to leave incest up for grabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, interesting question, I suppose the best way to define god's love is through his creation, everything as we know it is can become corrupt, evil and un-aware of it's own obsessions and desires that affect people in a very bad way. What I am really saying is that where there is good there is also evil I'm afraid, that's just the world we live in, I don't really care what plan he has for me currently or for anyone else because we all know what will happen in the end, oh wait, we don't. Anyway, if a god is all knowing why would he do something so brutal to people with an attraction towards the same sex?, I suppose in a way it's to tell us, or at least warn us of the effects from the homosexual sex;

www.battlefortruth.org/articlesdetail.asp?id=235  (this is some info on why)

But you also have to remember that he is more knowledgeable than us with a superior intellect who supposedly knows how to make the universe work, even if a god is not required in a clockwork universe, he is somehow still there. But in the end you can't change the attraction someone has for another, I am a pan-sexual myself, I found this out when I was 13 years of age, also when I started to come away from my christian faith and into my freedom, anyhow, with everything the bible says not to do there will be consequences, god get's what he want's remember and he disposes of what he doesn't need, maybe you should watch death note, it might give you a few ideas on the world and how sinful or corrupt a human can become, how humans are the real monsters and how god had good intentions and still does, even if we do see it as something ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nicene Nerd said:

What is pansexual as opposed to bisexual?

I am far from an expert on this, but my 10 minutes of research may answer your question. Bi-sexual people are romantically interested in biological males/females. Pansexuals are romantically interested in all genders and transgenders. They basically mean the same thing, but while bisexuality expand boundaries, pansexuality has no boundaries. I don't understand it, if anyone else wants to correct me feel free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. It's a hotly debated topic even in the LGBT community. Some say their different, some say mostly the same. The term bisexuality is older and came about before people were talking much about concepts such as intersex, non-binary gender expressions, and the like. Some pansexuals will tell you that bisexuals are more restrictive (won't date trans people, or won't date non-binary folks, or intersex folks) but then there folks who identify as bisexual who are attracted to non-M/F genders and feel like pansexuality is simply a new "edgier" name for bisexuals or an attempt to doge prejudice against bisexuals both in and outside the LGBT community.  After all, their is a (diminishing) sector of the LGBT community who are somewhat hostile to the concept of trans and non-binary folks. When the term "bisexual" came about, it was very much about sex (what's in your pants) where as pansexual really takes on more of a gender (what's in your head) and identify focus. 

Or at least that's what I've gathered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2016 at 10:29 PM, PlasmaHam said:

I am far from an expert on this, but my 10 minutes of research may answer your question. Bi-sexual people are romantically interested in biological males/females. Pansexuals are romantically interested in all genders and transgenders. They basically mean the same thing, but while bisexuality expand boundaries, pansexuality has no boundaries. I don't understand it, if anyone else wants to correct me feel free. 

Yes, but if you exclude transgender from the notion of bisexuality, then you muddy the waters a little too much. So, for example, there are plenty of heterosexual men who are attracted to transgender girls. I am firmly in the belief that bisexuality is the most abstract category for sexual orientation, and that all of the other categories are mere determinants of this category. You can derive everything from the binary play of gender that bisexuality encompasses. Pansexuality, as I understand it, is not properly a sexual orientation (which is based on gendered relations), so much as a sexual disposition which favors personality over body, an attraction to the personality over the sex of the body. That is, pansexuality is an identity which seeks to step outside of sexual orientation altogether; or at least, that is the only way the identity carries significant meaning.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2016 at 9:14 AM, Nicene Nerd said:

My main concern about this approach is that it seems to leave incest up for grabs.

I'm pretty sure that's explicitly stated as wrong in other parts of the Bible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2016 at 6:59 PM, God's Faithful Girl said:

I'm pretty sure that's explicitly stated as wrong in other parts of the Bible. 

To the best of my knowledge, that is only condemned in the Torah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Nicene Nerd said:

To the best of my knowledge, that is only condemned in the Torah.

It is in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 5:1 "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife."

Even if incest wasn't addressed in the New Testament I still think it would be very easy to make a case for sinfulness regardless of Levitical laws. Some degrees of incest seemed to be allowed when there were less people, but parent-child incest has always been wrong on account of role confusion. 

Polygamy isn't directly condemned in the New Testament, though it is certainly viewed as less than ideal, but we can still conclude it's sinful based on the bad fruit (higher levels of violence, crime, poverty, child abuse, neglect, and homicide (much of it probably perpetrated by women), intra-sexual competition and violence, increased heart attack rates for men with plural wives) it bears in societies, families, and individuals, both from an empirical and anecdotal point of view. 

http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11570638/Polygamy-increases-the-risk-of-heart-disease-study-finds.html

The most important question that Christians should ask for any behavior, not just sexual behavior, that involves other people is whether that behavior fulfills the law of loving, with God's agape love, your neighbor as yourself.This is something that God has really shown me. For so much of my life I've fallen very, very short of this, but God has and is transforming me to be more and more like Jesus.

Sometimes what is the truly loving (aka right) action is not clear at first, but intentionally looking at the fruit that something bears should give an idea of its morality. Since God's laws are laws that will always promote human flourishing, and lead to life. And prohibitions are there to protect people from behavior that flows out of a lack of love. If something, spiritually or both spiritually and physically, leads to stealing, killing, and destroying than it's not of God. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad fruit tree cannot bear good fruit.

Does something promote love, joy, peace, patience/forbearance/perseverance, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentlessness, and self-control? Or does it promote hate/animosity/contempt/malice/resentment/bitterness, despair/misery, aggression/antagonism/hostility/turmoil/belligerence, anger/impatience/agitation/irresolution/giving up, evilness/immorality/unwholesomeness/corruption, unkindness/cruelness/unsympathetic behavior, faithlessness/unfaithfulness/disloyalty/wavering-ness/fickleness, harshness/hardhearted-ness/heartlessness, rashness/instability/indiscretion/giving excessive vent to emotions/lack of willpower? 

I've started to try to ask myself before I say thing and do things, and with what theological beliefs I believe are true and what Christians I look up if its/their fruit looks more like the Fruit of the Spirit or the antonyms of the Fruit of the Spirit, but I certainly still fall short a lot. It's something that's been on my heart to share with others. But I'm not interested in getting on a debate in this if people don't find it whatever enough.

I hope this can be encouragement to someone to build up their faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0