Welcome Reilly, I'm glad you've found our site so helpful!

The only way I can see the coveting argument working is by assuming that all homosexual relationships are just about objectification and gratification. Since this is obviously a bogus assumption, there's not really much that is actually worth engaging here. I guess you'll need to wait and see what his response is, though given what you've said about his other responses, I wouldn't count on it being anything very enlightening.

My understanding of the Bible is that the advice it gives tends to be logical. If it says something is wrong, then it always follows that there are solid reasons (that most any person could clearly see) for it to be wrong, if understood in context. When typical anti-gay Christians moralise on sexuality, there is a disconnect between their interpretation of scripture and those obvious identifiable traits or "fruits" as Paul liked to put it.

Whoever runs that blog seems to be incapable of forming logical foundations for their arguments. As the old saying goes:

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into

The things people can come up with for arguments against homosexuality/faith all tend to require the prefix of "I believe…" though many of them don't add it in where they should, and frustratingly, often don't feel like there is a difference. Don't waste too much time on people who have made up their mind and are unwilling to think critically.

Hi Reilly – thats an interesting post and I have to admit – the claim that Homosexuality falls under the sin of Coveting is a new one for me….

I cant answer your question directly however I tend to look at these things differently now. I look at the bigger picture first to see if these types of claims are worth anything first. This may not be helpful – and if its not – I apologise – but I hope it maybe suggest a different line of thought.

I wouldnt give it much credence though a number of reasons.

The first thing to note though that a study of church history shows that it has often used scripture to support views at odds with clearly known facts. Flat earth (has to be flat because the bible talks about the 4 corners of the earth)

The earth revolving around the sun

Women are inferior and should not vote.

The church (and I used that in an all encompassing way) is still divided over the Ordination of women and there are great theologians on both sides of the debate.

Once apon a time the whole notion of someone having their own bible was not encouraged now it is.

I personally have sat through sermons that taught that TV was evil (and I was exorcised from the Demons of TV a few times), that Nuclear Power and Bombs were impossible (and I´ve worked in countries since there where Nuclear Power is commonplace), that the rapture was imminent and so you should spend all your superannuation (and I know people who did) and there was even one Ive heard about that kermit the frog was a tool of the Devil ( the rainbow connection – apologies to someone who now is a great supporter of freedom2b).

In the 1770´s there was strong religious opposition to the use of Lighting rods on Buildings (Lighting being the instrument of God so to protect against it was a sin). Now we accept it as common sense. Just because someone says the Bible Says or God says doesn´t make it true. (Another humorous example of this is that nearly all the USA election candidates – all republicans – that claimed Gods backing in there candidacy are now out of the race. God obviously told them to run so they could lose – or perhaps the lesson here is that to claim to know God´s will is a dangerous thing to do)

Actually history shows clearly that the church has been wrong many times in the past and has used scripture to defend those wrong ideas.

People are very good at finding arguments to support their views. (I used to adjudicate interschool debating – and I have seen people defend clearly wrong cases with clear cogent logical arguments. They would often win – but it didn´t make what they were arguing correct – merely meant they were good at presenting a case.

Any proposition that doesn´t fit known facts should be considered suspect – NO MATTER what claim to divine authority the proposer makes.

Now we KNOW far more about gender and sexuality and that knowledge is growing.

We know that male and female are complex and that there exist people who cant be easily defined as either (Intersex)

We know that Gender identity is Not learned but innate (e.g. the tragic case of David Reimer shows this but there are MANY studies on this)

and we know that gender Identity is separate from genitalia.

We now know that the male brain is quite different to the female brain – and that sometimes you can get a male brain in a body that looks on the surface to be female (and vice versa).

So my point here is – Even if homosexuality is a sin – (and I dont believe it is) – its a fact that you cant look at someones genitalia and be sure you know their gender. Jesus said – DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS…. and here people who say homosexuality is a sin are exposed – because only God can really – in EVERY CASE know someones Gender. (And whilst some maintain there is always a physical difference in these cases that is simply not true. Some people are not diagnosed until later in life BECAUSE there can be no physical sign of these cases.

Parts of the church resists these facts (as they resisted other facts) but they are facts and we learn more and more.

(Even the catholic church now accepts that homosexuality is not a choice but innate)

So the first warning sign is that if someone is arguing thats clearly at odds with the facts – then there is clearly a problem with their case – even if its not clear where..

One of the interesting things about english is that there is nothing inherent in it to tell you when there is an impossible case being made.

For example – an irresistible force hits an immovable object. This is a valid sentence BUT it describes an impossibility.

So in the case of the blogger – he is wrong. He disobeys the command of Jesus – do not judge others – and a command we now know to be well made in the case of sexuality and he ignores the current state of knowledge. As the church often does when new knowledge threatens a teaching – they ignore it. In the long run though – facts win out.

He also has very simplistic and inaccurate view of marriage.

If he wants to go back to early marriage – is he promoting polygamy ? Abraham had multiple wives and that was fine with God (presumably)

but the religious reactionaries like to ignore that – as they do about other biblical marriage practices.

Historically also – marriage has often been about property and protection rather than children and his argument basically condemns relationships for childless couples (and Ironically – the fundamentalist resisted IVF in its infancy – probably some still do – which shows the inconsistancy in this thinking).

In addition, Marriage was very frequently arranged – and cemented alliances between families. When people talk about traditional marriage – what they are probably talking about is a idealised myth that is actually just existing within our time and they would be horrified if we went back to true historical marriage.

As for the celibacy issue – Jesus never promoted it and even Paul said it wasnt right for everyone.

This again I think comes back to the Judgement issue.

Lets think about two people A and B – A has No sex drive (it happens) and B has a huge Sex drive (not talking about sex addiction here – just a good old fashioned libido). For A to be celibate means not a great deal – there is no temptation. For B to do it – he has to deny a huge driving need within him. So in fact – the two people being celibate are – as far as God is concerned – very different cases. One is actually doing what he wants and the other is making an enormous superhuman effort (Why do you think there are all these issues with celibate priests – again the facts show that celibacy is often just not workable and to try to enforce it just causes other problems)

So the point I´m making is the celibacy is a decision that only a person can make for themselves and NO ONE ELSE can judge that – because no one else knows the desires and drives that they experience – and we know that medication and hormonal differences can affect your behaviour substantially in this area. I dont think either decision is wrong – if it is made for the right reason and doesn't cause problems or issues.

However – the Sin´s that Jesus hated were lying and hypocrisy. So People who say one thing and do another – according to Jesus´s teachings, far worse than someone who has a one night stand (not that Im promoting that or saying its a Sin. I leave that to the individual)

Biblically Integrity and being honest are fair more important than sex – in Jesus´s teachings anyway – and to claim you know better than Jesus is an astounding claim – and look how many of the fundamentalist ministers and Prominent Ex-Gays end up in a scandal. And because they have focused more on Sex (and how OTHERS should behave) they have lost touch with honesty. Yet that's the ultimate sin according to Jesus.

I also tend to think that God´s judgement will take into account the knowledge people have available to them. We know now women are intelligent, self aware and self sufficient people. If you deny this now – I believe (and this is JUST my opinion) that you will be judged by God more harshly now than you would have been 200 years ago. Equally to maltreat an intersex or homosexual person now – you have NO defense nowadays. What that means – I dont know – but I know God looks into the heart and we can´t. People who claim the ability to judge others for Sin (as opposed to judging under our current legal and moral codes which we need to do of course) are actually demeaning God (they basically saying they are as good as God is and knows as much as he does. This is unbelievable pride – another Sin)

So – apologies for Rambling on – and I realise I haven´t tackled your question directly but the point I´m making is – I now feel (and It took me years to get here) some questions aren't worth worrying about too much – as they are just patently wrong …. and this is just my opinion – I don't claim Divine knowledge – but it fits all the facts I know (and I am moderately well read on these areas)… and is as logically consistent and I can make it.

If it is helpful I´m happy to discuss any point in more detail – and I will keep my eyes open for anything more on Homosexuality is the sin of covetous and If I do Ill post it.

Phill

Phill,

Wow! Thank you so much for reasoning all that out for me! I didn't think you were rambling at all; everything you said was helpful and reassuring to me. I like how you emphasized examining a claim to see if it's even worth considering, and how the english language allows for some impossible cases–just stating the words doesn't equal a case well-made, you need facts/reality to back it up! Such a good point.

I also liked how you outlined many of the instances when church teaching went against facts–I had not heard of some of those instances, such as the lightning rod thing from the 1770's. Sometimes, being in the middle of this controversy, it can feel like if you go against what you've always been taught and/or fall on the wrong side of the debate that the world is going to end or you will never live in a way that's pleasing to God. Then those internal fears or doubts make you wonder if your heart is telling you that despite logic, being gay is actually wrong. I know some of my closest friends and family members have trouble with that–their internal discomfort thinking about the issue makes them wonder if they're just convincing themselves that it's ok, that they "feel in their heart" that it's wrong. I know I struggle with these thoughts from time to time as well–less and less as time goes on. Thinking about all of these big controversies within the church throughout history really pulls me out of the middle of the current controversy and gives me some perspective. I feel like this part of church history isn't talked about enough. Remembering the church's mistakes of the past really makes me feel better about the gay debate because it shows me that this, too, will look just as outrageous in the future as the resistance to the use of lightning rods! 🙂

I agree with you that this blogger's views on marriage are simplistic and inaccurate. I tried to get them to explain what they thought an acceptable marriage would look like–they didn't really ever say, just saying that love and sex were different things and referring me to a future post where they would address all of my questions. And they repeatedly implied that celibacy should be an option that more people should consider; that most people marry for the wrong reasons and that celibacy would be a much better option for many people. Which I disagree with–for the reasons you have stated.

I also really liked your comment about God's judgment taking into consideration the knowledge people have available to them. I think that sounds exactly like something God would do–something both fair/just and merciful.

It is definitely helpful to me to discuss this issue with other people who have had more time to think about it and acquire more knowledge. If you don't mind, I actually would like to bring up an argument that this blogger hasn't yet used, but that a friend of mine has, to see what your thoughts are (or anyone's here, really). This friend of mine said in a discussion on homosexuality that marriage is supposed to reflect the relationship between Jesus and The Church. Just as Jesus, "the groom," is the head of the church, "the bride," so man is the head of the woman in marriage, implying that there must be a dominant and submissive partner in a marriage and that a marriage of two "dominant" or two "submissive" people does not reflect God's intention for marriage/the relationship The Church has with Jesus. She's very adamant that that is what is Scripturally the most accurate. However, when asked what exactly the dominant/submissive roles thing would look like in modern marriages, she said it was something that would have to be defined within each couple. She's definitely not the sort that believes women should stay at home while men work or that they can't lead in the church, or anything like that, so I don't really know what to say. She's pretty much saying "there has to be a dominant person and a submissive person, but I don't know how to define dominant and submissive." Last I've heard, she's learning towards changing her views on homosexuality, but this was one of the last points brought up in our discussion that I don't think I ever gave her a really satisfying answer to.

Ann Maree,

Thanks for welcoming me to the forum! 🙂

I, too, wondered what coveting means to the blogger. I explained to them what I thought coveting meant and they, as stated above, just said all the answers would be in a forthcoming blog post.

What you said about even Biblical scholars not being sure about some things is something that I've been learning this past year. It's kind of scary at first to realize that the people telling you "this is what the Bible says and means" aren't really 100% sure themselves! 😀 I always assumed that there was a general consensus about what the Bible was trying to say, but the more I've learned, the more I've realized that that really isn't the case at all. It definitely has taken some getting used to, though.

I definitely agree with you about the silliness and cruelty of the argument that sex is only for procreation as well the one that says heterosexual sex creates babies therefore it's the only way–both don't make sense to me and I said as much to the blogger. I brought up the infertile couples, those using birth control, old people past child-bearing age, those that had had vasectomies and tubal ligation and all that, as well as the emotional aspect of sex, the bonding it creates. The blogger gave no response. It's a bit frustrating for me when I put forth solid arguments and they don't even acknowledge the points, they just ignore them and keep saying "sex and love are two different things" and "the first marriage was heterosexual and monogamous." I suppose, as Chris said above, that since they didn't reason their way into this, there's no way to reason them out of it. It's just so hard for me to accept! 😀 But I'm trying…

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 🙂 It really is encouraging to me to talk with like-minded people about this issue. The great majority of my friends and family don't agree with me that there's nothing wrong with being gay, which is a large part of why I haven't shared with all of them that I am one of those "scary LGBT" people they don't agree with. lol. Your thoughts, and the thoughts of others here, help remind me that I'm not alone, that others out there believe, as I do, that someone can be both Christian and gay. 🙂

Hi there Reilly

Great – I´m pleased my post was helpful – I tend to be more analytically – less emotional in my responses (Hey I'm in touch with my inner geek) and that doesn´t work for everyone.

I must point out in fairness that my comment about ¨God's judgment taking into consideration the knowledge people have available to them¨ is a controversial one – but as I say – I have put a lot of effort in thinking through Logical inconsistencies. (I for example don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old because I don't believe in a God that would create ¨fake¨ evidence).

Now I'm going to make another controversial point… about the dominance and submissive point and that is – it is (in my humble opinion) cheap pop (and wrong) psychology.

One of the attractions of the fundamentalist churches is they do the thinking for you. they tell you how to do things and how things should be. They make life simple. Many people want that (especially in our modern complex world). I am of course renowned for over complicating everything I build but thats another story.

So the Man is the head of the church doctrine I think is purely a power play and i think that what we tend to call churches these days are often power structures. A church really is a not a building of course. Its a community of believers.

In the early church – women were important in the church – and again Jesus never taught this submission doctrine.

Some people also believe that Galations 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” suggests equality in the church.

Paul cites the significant work (in spreading the gospel) of a number of women – a fact often ignored – such as Phoebe – a Deacon of the church in Romans, Priscillia – his fellow worker in Christ, Junias – who was outstanding among the apostles, Persis, Tryphena and Tryphosa who were ẅomen who worked hard in Lord.

Also 1 Corinthians 7:3 – 4 shows that sexually – woman and men should have equal power in marriage. There is no dominant and submissive there.

¨3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. ¨

Even more controversially – Modern secular scholars maintain that the new testament uses Feminine pronouns as well as male to refer to God.

Fundamentalists of course call this heresy but the claim is that is what is used. (A. Nylands Study New Testament discusses this and when my next copy arrives I can look this up again – I´m without a copy a the moment but have one on order)

I personally don't have a problem with this because I suspect that Gender is meaningless to refer to God anyway. If God is Onipotent, Omniscient. If he created the universe then he created time. So try to imagine an entity that isn´t bound by time. I have university Pure maths, Physics and Philosphy and I can´t and I've never come across anyone that is convincing that says they can. (In Christian, Jewish including Cabilistist lore, Bhudhist, Zen and many other traditions). I´m not big on faith in general – but I will say that I think the nature of God has to be taken on faith because it can be done any other way. Our understanding stops at the boundaries our our universe I think.

Women definitely led in churches in the past. I have found Margaret Courts attitude on Gays interesting in this respect. Here is a female pastor who oppresses another minority although she belongs to an oppressed minority. Talk about selective memory and reading of scriptures.

What is also interesting is that the bible gives clear instructions on who should be leaders (elders) in a church.

They should be married. They should have grown up children who are part of the church. I only know of one church who actually holds to those teaching. The theory is actually clear – If you haven´t married and successfully brought up kids who have remained in the church (dont ask me for for a citation please) – how can you even think about presuming to teach others about how to live their lives. Church leadership nowadays is again an example of convenience and promoting the power structure.

Also We don´t live biblically. Show me a minister that doesnt have a polyester cotton blend somewhere in his wardrobe. Thats a sin. Show me a church that lives biblically (well – I think the Amish give it a good try but … elsewhere – not even close).

What about

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.c He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. ¨

Does anyone believe that is right now ? Does your friend ?? What about stoning to death people who work on the sabbath ?? (Lets not even think about is the sabbath saturday or sunday !!)

ok now Jesus says he fulfilled the old testament – so I think its applicability to us is debatable anyway (not to mention we ignore 98% (I made that figure up by the way but its most of it we ignore) of it nowadays – even the devout extreme fundamentalists do) so what about

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." How many churches preach that ???

Or what about

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Ann Maree,

Thanks for linking to the article. I have read that one here before and found it extremely helpful. 🙂

I agree with you that women were treated differently back then and that Jesus was radical in his equal treatment of women. I also don't think there has to be a dominant/submissive dynamic in any relationship. However, even after expressing these views to my friend, she still hung on to the Scriptures that connect marriage with the church's relationship with Jesus; she believes that to be the most Scripturally true/sound/coherent understanding. I think the last thing I said to her was that perhaps the writers of those passages were using an example from their time–the way marriage looked then–to describe something that is much more difficult to comprehend: our relationship to God. Basically, that the church's relationship with Jesus was not supposed to help explain our relationships in marriage, but rather, marriage at that time was supposed to explain our relationship with Jesus. That it doesn't go both ways, I guess. It's more of an example or metaphor, rather than a model we are all supposed to follow. This makes sense to me because I don't feel like God is as concerned about who marries whom as He is about loving people. So why would this great metaphor for God's love for us be used simply to define how He wants marriages to be conducted on Earth? I'm not sure if that was a good argument/sound logical reasoning/Scripturally accurate, (is it?) but it's what I said to her. I think the last thing she said to me was that maybe homosexuality was ok with God, but that maybe it was something different than marriage. Like a third….representation? of God–singleness, marriage, and then gay relationships. I don't remember exactly what she said, to be honest. I just remember her separating homosexual relationships from marriage, which was a little upsetting to me since the way we feel towards those we love is the same as the way heterosexual people feel towards the ones they love. :-/

Phill,

I too can be very analytical, so that works for me. 🙂

It's true that Jesus never taught the submission doctrine, nor did he make use of the marriage metaphor for his relationship with people. Of course, when discussing this issue with those who believe every word in the Bible is written directly by God, Paul's words are considered equal with Jesus'. As for myself, I do believe God inspired the Bible, but that it was written by people, and thus subject to their limited world views, their backgrounds and culture, the knowledge they had. Just as, I'm sure, if we were to write down truths we believed God was telling us to write, those in the distant future would be able to point out parts where our limited or flawed understanding of the world affected our writings. I also believe, as you do, that we should look at Jesus's words and life first to understand difficult passages that Paul wrote; unfortunately many of my friends and family would not agree with me.

As far as Galatians 3:28, I think my friend separates singleness and marriage here. Like, we're equal as single people, but then in marriage, the woman must be submissive, which would be defined by the couple. I believe this view is also shared by the blogger I was responding to, from what I read in a couple of their other posts. I guess this would just come down to a different understanding of the passage? Or is there a way to argue that that belief does not stand up to logic or an understanding of the BIble as a whole? Personally, it doesn't make sense to me that as a single person, a woman is free, but then suddenly when she gets married, she is then to be submissive to a man. Of course, she would just say that sometimes what God desires for us doesn't seem to make sense to the world, or something like that….I don't know.

Oh, I like your reference to 1 Corinthians 7:3,4! That's a really good point about submitting to each other. I think you could make a case that at least Paul seems to imply equality there, if not in the other passage. Combining that with both Jesus' and Paul's ideas about equality of all people, and our own modern understanding of the equality and value of all people, you might be able to say that the overall message of Christianity/Jesus/the Bible overwhelms one small mention of women submitting to their husbands in marriage as being a model for all marriages for all time. I don't know, though, my friend is pretty set in her ways as far as marriage goes…She might have some other explanation or interpretation.

I have no problem with the idea that God is not exclusively male. If we are all created in His/Her image, then wouldn't God have to have both male and female aspects? I generally refer to Him as Father/using male pronouns etc, but that's just out of habit. 😀 I'm not sure how this applies to the marriage metaphor for our relationship with Jesus, however, since Jesus came to earth as a man, and the church is called the bride, a male/female relationship. I did make an interesting case to my friend, though, that the church is made up of males and females, so how does that fit perfectly into the "Jesus is the man, the church is the woman" model. Along with that, if marriage is supposed to reflect God (another point I believe she made) then wouldn't God be in a polyamorous, homosexual relationship with Himself (which includes in that relationship a being called His son)? I said it partly in jest, but if you believe that God is strictly male, then how could you think that human marriages between a man and woman would reflect God's relationship with Himself–in the traditional view: male God, male son, and (unknown?) Holy Spirit? Even if you think God has no gender, it's still not the same as human relationships. I don't really remember what her response to that was…if she gave one at all.

I agree with Ann Maree that you make a good point about people picking and choosing what they want to follow in the Bible. This happens all the time, and the Old Testament can be said to not apply any more, at least, it's what both Jesus and Paul seemed to be saying–it's completed, it's fulfilled. My friend shares this view as well. I hadn't remembered the specific qualifications for being a leader in the church–but that's such a good point! We don't follow those today, we don't tell people who are not married or who don't have children in the church they can't be a leader in the church. Yet another example of the idea that perhaps some of these passages really were only meant to apply to those specific times or instances, rather than serving as the rule for all time.

All good and helpful ramblings. 🙂

Thank you both, Phill and Ann Maree, for sharing your thoughts with me! It is much appreciated. If you have more, keep 'em coming. 😀 I'm trying to prepare myself for when I tell more of my friends. I had hoped to get at least one friend on my side before talking to others, but it's been months and that one friend still hasn't replied with a definite "yes, I have no problem with you having a girlfriend." I send her various articles (many from the support section here) from time to time to read, but she hasn't had a lot of time to read them recently. I know I should be stronger and just tell everyone and be secure in my own faith and understanding and knowledge, but it would be nice to have just one of my old friends who doesn't secretly thinking I'm constantly sinning just by being who I am.