On the Sinfulness of Homosexuality

Deutsche Version: Von der Sündigkeit der Homosexualität.

Image

I have a very simple reasoning on that topic.

  1. God did not make man for the law but the law for man
  2. hence there is no arbitrary command
  1. a committed lifelong homosexual relationship is neither harmful for the individual nor for society
  2. homosexuals who have to constantly repress their basic sexual feelings and regard them as sinful are suffering a horrific ordeal
  3. thus, lifelong gay marriage should be recognized by the Church as something not evil but normal


Of course, one of the implication might be to give up Biblical inerrancy.

But if someone disagrees with the conclusion, I’d be happy to know where he or she thinks I’m wrong.

 

 

I’m delighted if you have discovered my blog for the very first time.

Please take a look at the mainpage (link here) to find out if there might be other things worthy of your interest.

 

Ich bin entzückt, wenn Sie für das erste Mal meinen Blog entdeckt haben.

Werfen Sie bitte auch einen Blick auf die Hauptseite (Link hier), um herauszufinden, ob es nicht andere Dinge geben könnte, die ihrem Interesse würdig sind.

 

28 responses to “On the Sinfulness of Homosexuality”

  1. irrationalitydestroyer says :

    Let me be clear that these issues are irrelevant to me and I don’t mind them at all, but it seems that your criteria is that as long as it doesn’t cause harm then it is allowed. A simple example would suffice. This principle would make cheating okay because in the end it doesn’t cause harm, specially if the cheated party never knows.

    • irrationalitydestroyer says :

      Also, your principle is untenable from a Christian point of view. Remember that Jesus said it was sinful for married men to even look at women in lustful ways.

      • lotharson says :

        Hello ID, thanks for all your comments!

        I’ll answer you as soon as I find time.

        I think Jesus was also a Jewish man of his time. His ideal about a loving family with one man or one woman is certainly right.

        But had he know homosexuals and that they are born like that, he would probably have extended this concept.

        To say the contrary would be asserting that God created people with a strong sinful tendency he hates.

    • Robert says :

      Can you make this more clear whether you are talking about cheating in exams or cheating on a partner in a relationship or cheating in a different sense.
      I would say that both of the above causes harm: in the exam example then artificially increases your grade reduces the value of the qualification that you have cheated to obtain and could potentially lower other peoples grades as many university grades are awarded by comparing against the grades of the other candidates. Even if you are not caught then this still could have caused harm by them not recieving the grades they deserve or by recieving a qualification of lesser value.

      In a relationship situation then it can do tremendous harm to a person to both the person who is cheating and their partner.

      Also please could you explain your point on Jesus saying that it is sinful for married men to look at women in lustful ways as I do not understand it’s context to this post.

      Thank you :)

  2. Damien says :

    Hallo Lothar,
    Du hast in unserem Blog nach meiner Meinung zu diesem Post gefragt, hier ist sie: Ich stimme Dir zu, würde aber viel weiter gehen. Ich wüsste nicht, was Gott gegen Polyamorie haben sollte und auch nicht, was er gegen One-Night-Stands haben sollte. In Deinem 3. Punkt gibst Du ein gutes Kriterium an: wenn etwas “weder für das Individuum noch für die Gesellschaft schädlich” ist, was sollte Gott dann dagegen haben?
    Schöne Grüße
    Damien

    • lotharson says :

      Hey Damien, vielen Dank hier kommentiert zu haben!

      Wenn all diese Sachen tatsächlich gar nicht schädlich sind, dann hat Gott nichts dagegen, sonst wäre er willkürlich, was (leider) allzu viele religiöse Menschen denken.

      Aber viellecht haben wir nicht unbedingt den selben Begriff von “Schade”.

      Für mich geht über Schmerz und Spaß hinaus und beinhaltet auch die menschliche Würde, und die Tatsache, dass Sex bei unserer Art nicht nur körperlich sondern zugleich zutiefst seelisch ist, es gibt eine wunderbare Überlappung zwischen diesen Aspekten.

      Es ist selbstverständlich, dass ein homosexuelles Paar das erleben kann. Ein Polyamorisches Paar (ups, das falsche Wort :-) ) kann das schon auch erleben, aber in vielen Fällen führt es zu Neid und Konflikten.

      Ich glaube gar nicht, dass ONS diese Schönheit des Sexs erfassen kann, und in vielen Fällen führt es zur Frustration.

      Natürlich kann es (hauptsächlich für Männer) Spaß machen, aber gar nicht wie in einer festen Beziehung, wo man sich gut versteht.

      Also, ich versuche, niemanden zu meinen Ansichten zu bekehrten, sondern einfach eine progressiv christliche Perspektive über viele Themen anzubieten.

      Wenn du nun denkst, dass nicht alle Christen engstirnige Fanatiker sind, habe ich schon mein Ziel erreicht :=)

      Ist übrigens dein Blog vor allem für gleichgesinnten?
      Ich könnte das sehr gut verstehen, aber wenn es nicht der Fall ist, darf ich in der Zukunft als einen Kommentar meine Gedanken äußern?

      Liebe Grüsse aus Lothringen.

      • Damien says :

        Hallo Marc (sorry für die falsche Anrede vorher),
        können wir definieren, dass die Würde eines anderen geschädigt ist, obwohl er selbst das nicht so empfindet?
        Neid und Konflikte gibt es wahrlich nicht nur unter polyamor lebenden Menschen.
        Woher weißt Du, dass Sex außerhalb einer festen Beziehung weniger Spaß macht als innerhalb? Vor allem: Woher weißt Du das für andere?
        Da ich selbst Christ bin, weiß ich, dass nicht alle Christen engstirnige Fanatiker sind. :-)
        Unser Blog ist für alle, die Lust haben, das zu lesen und gerne auch zu kommentieren, wenn sie dabei auf Beleidigungen verzichten und beim Thema bleiben.
        Also bist Du herzlich eingeladen, mitzulesen und mitzudiskutieren bei uns.
        Besten Gruß
        Damien

  3. lotharson says :

    Hallo Damien, du hast so interessante Fragen aufgeworfen, dass ich bald einen Blogpost darauf schreiben werde!

    Das Wort “Christ” hat mehrere Bedeutungen in der westlichen Welt, wie würdest du das persönlich definieren?

    Für mich ist ein Christ jemand, der denkt, dass Gott sich letzgültig durch das Leben, Tod und Auferstehung von Jesus von Nazareth den Menschen offenbart hat.

    Aus welcher Region kommst du?

    Ich bin auf meinem Lothringen nach wie vor sehr stolz ;-)

  4. Kit Walker says :

    How do you argue premise #3, “a committed lifelong homosexual relationship is neither harmful for the individual nor for society”?

    Even if the homosexual lifestyle was not harmful to a society (I believe it is), it is still very harmful to the individual. If the lifestyle is harmful to the individual, a homosexual relationship only perpetuates this harm.

    http://kitwalker05.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-homosexual-lifestyle-confined-only.html

    I am curious and look forward to your response.

    • lotharson says :

      Hello Kit, thanks for your comment!

      I’m glad to see that you seem to agree with premise #2.

      It is true that many forms of homosexuality (above else One Night Stands) is quite detrimental for both the individual and societey.

      But commited lifelong relationships are clearly not, this wasn’t found in any of the numerous studies conducted. In such a situation, it is clear that the burden of proof lies on those asserting that it is harmful.

      What is your evidence that a MARRIED gay person is worse off than a gay person repressing her basic feeling and trying to live like a heterosexual does?

      I’ve read many heart-breaking testimonies of Christian homosexuals having tried out the last option, like the founder of a German ministry aiming at healing gay people.

      Lovely greetings.

      • Kit Walker says :

        Lotharson,

        I didn’t say whether I agreed or not with #2 :). I have just chosen to argue #3.

        In your argument for #3, you leave out the critical word, homosexual. You stated that “a committed lifelong homosexual relationship is neither harmful for the individual nor for society.” Your argument for a committed lifelong relationship is a non-issue here. You are saying a committed lifelong HOMOSEXUAL relationship is neither harmful for the individual nor for the society. That premise is wrong.

        The committed lifelong relationship you speak of is perpetuating homosexuality, which you said yourself is harmful.

      • lotharson says :

        No, I’m absolutely not saying that homosexuality (in and of itself) is harmful, just that many forms of it are harmful.
        And this is equally the case for heterosexuality.

        I’m still waiting on evidence from you that people who are BOTH homosexual and engaged in a lifelong relationship are ruining their life, health or whatever.

        Premise 2 is so obvious that even quite a few Muslim fundamentalists accept it.

        Lovely greetings.

      • Kit Walker says :

        It seems I cannot reply directly to your last comment.

        If you read the link to my blog and do any research on anal intercourse, you will see that physically effects of practicing homosexuality in the ‘most natural’ way will literally take you to an early grave. That is not even touching on the psychological consequences of the lifestyle. Heterosexuality practiced as naturally has no problem when carried out within a committed relationship. Homosexuality is not natural by any stretch of the imagination if you study anatomy.

        The point is not the committed relationship. Would you agree that a committed relationship between a father and daughter, between a man and his loyal dog or between 10 souses would fit premise #3? The problem is the dynamic of the relationship.

  5. Josef Sefton says :

    Eine engagierte lebenslange homosexuelle Beziehung ist für das Individuum und auch für die Gesellschaft schädlich. Die lebenslange homosexuelle Ehe sollte nicht als etwas normales anerkannt werden.

  6. Crude says :

    Two problems.

    a committed lifelong homosexual relationship is neither harmful for the individual nor for society

    I think this is a common estimation – but I don’t think it works.

    Part of the problem here is that what is ‘harmful’ is not universally agreed upon. To the Natural law proponent, ‘Harm’ is going to at least in part have to do with essential natures. On that understanding, same-sex sexual activity is ‘harm’ straightaway.

    If you insist that what only qualifies as ‘harm’ is physical pain or the like, you’re going to be question begging.

    homosexuals who have to constantly repress their basic sexual feelings and regard them as sinful are suffering a horrific ordeal

    And this one, I think is wildly unjustified. First because it unintentionally casts homosexuals as these people who are just constantly drawn to sexual lust and if they don’t give in then life is hardly worth living anymore. I have no doubt some people have experiences like this. On the other hand, I also have no doubt that some people are powerfully drawn to pornography, or adultery, or various other things. I think they are exceptions – it’s not ‘heterosexuals’ it’s ‘some subset of heterosexuals’. Likewise with homosexuals.

    • lotharson says :

      Hello Crude, thanks for your response!

      You’ve brought up interesting points.

      Frankly speaking I don’t know if it is question-begging to reduce harm to matters of pleasure and pain. Moral epistemology is a very hard topic and there are many things I am uncertain about.

      The main problem of Western liberals is that they ignore many types of LONG-TERM pain and damages related, for example, to adultery and pornography.

      But I know Christian gay people who are in a life-long commited relationship and who experience all aspects of AGAPE. I don’t see any reason why God would be unhappy with that.
      If someone asserts they are sinning, he or she has the burden of proof to explain why.

      Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

      http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

      • Crude says :

        Lothar,

        The main problem of Western liberals is that they ignore many types of LONG-TERM pain and damages related, for example, to adultery and pornography.

        What long-term pain and damages? I can point to some with same-sex sexual unions and celebration thereof.

        But I know Christian gay people who are in a life-long commited relationship and who experience all aspects of AGAPE.

        The problem isn’t agape. It’s the sex. Always has been, always will be.

        If someone asserts they are sinning, he or she has the burden of proof to explain why.

        I agree. But I think that burden has been reasonably met.

  7. malcolmthecynic says :

    Hey Lothar, bere’s my issue:

    God did not make man for the law but the law for man
    hence there is no arbitrary command

    Yeah, but that just might mean we don’t know WHY such a command exists, not necessarily why its arbitrary.

    a committed lifelong homosexual relationship is neither harmful for the individual nor for society

    That’s an awfully huge claim. How are you defining harm here?

    homosexuals who have to constantly repress their basic sexual feelings and regard them as sinful are suffering a horrific ordeal

    But their feelings aren’t sinful, their actions would be. Their feelings are disordered. Just like a schizophrenics getting hallucinations telling him to kill people is not sinful. ACTING on those hallucinations? Well, there you go.

    thus, lifelong gay marriage should be recognized by the Church as something not evil but normal

    Why? I don’t see the connection between your previous point and this one.

  8. jasonjshaw says :

    From my understanding, Biblical homosexuality stems from rituals connected with idolators. It is only a lustful homosexual sex that seems to be described in the Bible. There is no clear precedent Biblically for homosexuality borne from love. For a Biblical interpretation one has to look deeper, and in doing so I am under the impression that the case is more about lust vs love than it is about your partner’s gender.

    • lotharson says :

      Good point!

      And it might also be the case that Paul was (first and foremost) protesting against homosexual depravity in ancient Greece.

    • Crude says :

      There is no clear precedent Biblically for homosexuality borne from love.

      There is no clear precedent Biblically against homosexuality, period. Because ‘homosexuality’ isn’t targeted. It’s same-sex sexual acts. But those were clearly condemned.

      Love isn’t the problem. Sex is.

      • jasonjshaw says :

        Contextually between Biblical historical context and our understandings of the spectrum of human gender we are becoming more aware of today, I don’t see ample evidence to confirm without a doubt that this is the case.

        To clarify my point of view, you need to look to the nature of sin. Not the list of sins, but the connecting factors of all that is deemed to be sinful. From my understanding, it seems to come down to selfish acts that bring some degree of harm to others – either directly or indirectly.

        Lustful sexual acts of any sort I think we can agree fit the bill. Sexual acts within a committed homosexual relationship? I’m not so sure that it fits quite the same as any other sin.

  9. imadotmhg says :

    Interesting that in Gen 14 Melchisedek blesses the king of Sodom and brings him bread and wine. <3
    Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
    Judgement keeps you earthbound.
    Love keeps no record of "wrongs"
    He is not imputing anyone's sins to them. <3

    • Ronald MURPHY says :

      These comments and conclusions of yours are totally out of biblical context and are incorrect biblical interpretations. God has and always will judge those who practice evils–all throughout the Scriptures, God makes it clear that homosexuality is a perversion and evil to be repented of and overcome, rather than some kind of sexual orientation someone is born with.

  10. Ronald MURPHY says :

    Homosexuality has always been a terrible perversion and sin and always will be because God never changes His moral laws! Both the O.T. and N.T. describe it as a perversion and “unseemly”! The N.T. makes it clear that those who practice homosexuality, along with other evil acts “will not be (among the saints) who will inherit the Kingdom of God! “(1 Cor. 6:9-10) All unrepentant, unrightous people will face judgement from Christ and be punished for their evils when He returns to bring His Kingdom in the Age (and World) to come. The unrightous will be separated from the glory of the Lord and His saints as “the sheep are separated from the goats”. Matt. 25:41-46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Von der Sündigkeit der Homosexualität | lotharlorraine - February 17, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 275 other followers

%d bloggers like this: