Homosexuality, Divine Command Theory, and God’s Omnibenevolence

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's certainly not as though being gay is a sin but being straight is perfectly fine.  If gay sex is a sin, then so is all kinds of hetero sex that a straight person might have an inclination towards.  We all have inclinations of one kind of another to do all sorts of things we shouldn't. Some of us have greater burdens of temptation than others in one area or another.  The Book of Romans may be instructive here: In Chapter 1, we have a picture of the sinfulness of those who practice pagan homosexual orgies.  But then in the next next chapter, it's "hey you guys reading this and judging it, you all are just as bad!"  No one is righteous, all have sinned.

We are all sick apart from God, it is only through God that we can be well. For the Christian then the key question is not the dichotomy of "Is this a choice or predetermined?", it is "Is this consistent with following Christ?"  From there, we seek to rely on God to help us do what is not in our own power.

This makes no reference to the larger point of a systematic and judicious standard for sin, which requires not just a handful of verses with no larger context but also a demonstration of harm physically, mentally, or spiritually. The unsystematic theology opposing homosexuality does not qualify it under the traditional standard of measurement for every other type of sin, but rather qualifies it using a unique standard that can, will, and has been used to since declare several other unharmful things as sinful.

Are you advocating the position that you can't call something a sin unless you can prove specific harm?   I don't believe that is a traditional standard within Christianity or most other religions, historically.  There is plenty of room within these traditions for the idea that we ought to do or not do certain things because they are in line with a reality we cannot fully grasp on our own. 

[afleitch]

It's certainly not as though being gay is a sin but being straight is perfectly fine.  If gay sex is a sin, then so is all kinds of hetero sex that a straight person might have an inclination towards.  We all have inclinations of one kind of another to do all sorts of things we shouldn't. Some of us have greater burdens of temptation than others in one area or another.  The Book of Romans may be instructive here: In Chapter 1, we have a picture of the sinfulness of those who practice pagan homosexual orgies.  But then in the next next chapter, it's "hey you guys reading this and judging it, you all are just as bad!"  No one is righteous, all have sinned.

We are all sick apart from God, it is only through God that we can be well. For the Christian then the key question is not the dichotomy of "Is this a choice or predetermined?", it is "Is this consistent with following Christ?"  From there, we seek to rely on God to help us do what is not in our own power.

This makes no reference to the larger point of a systematic and judicious standard for sin, which requires not just a handful of verses with no larger context but also a demonstration of harm physically, mentally, or spiritually. The unsystematic theology opposing homosexuality does not qualify it under the traditional standard of measurement for every other type of sin, but rather qualifies it using a unique standard that can, will, and has been used to since declare several other unharmful things as sinful.

Also under conservative theology, homosexuality is the only sexuality that can't be expressed in any form. Not even in marriage. Shua's comparisons to other non matrimonial forms of heterosexual sex is moot.

What do you mean "only sexuality"?  Aside from homosexuality, there are plenty of people whose primary sexual desires can't be fulfilled morally within a traditional Christian or even contemporary conventional sexual morality.

Are you really going there and making that comparison? Utterly shameful.

You know exactly what I mean; that of all sexualities two adults who are of the same sex are not allowed to express that sexuality in any form under conservative Christian sexual ethics.

[Farmlands]

How absurd to think an Entity that created the universe is a peeping tom, lurking around your bedroom making sure you don't engage in the buttsecks.  

Proof #1,565,677 that the concept of a deity is created in the overactive imaginations of primates (albeit relatively advanced ones).  

What people never acknowledge is that the alternative - that the all-powerful Author of the universe takes no interest in human affairs - is far more oppressive.

Oppressive to whom? Perhaps many Christians would be upset, but you can't equate that with the real persecution many LGBT people around the world face today, at all.

[Mopsus]

How absurd to think an Entity that created the universe is a peeping tom, lurking around your bedroom making sure you don't engage in the buttsecks.  

Proof #1,565,677 that the concept of a deity is created in the overactive imaginations of primates (albeit relatively advanced ones).  

What people never acknowledge is that the alternative - that the all-powerful Author of the universe takes no interest in human affairs - is far more oppressive.

Oppressive to whom? Perhaps many Christians would be upset, but you can't equate that with the real persecution many LGBT people around the world face today, at all.

Oppressive to all why find order in the cosmos through a fideistic relationship with their chosen deity - which is by my reckoning a majority of the human population.

I would never downplay the importance of physical comfort, but it cannot be the be-all and end-all of human life, given that, well, we're all going to die. Or was Boethius, waiting in prison to be beaten to death, supposed to be consoled by the fact that he at one point partook in a legally-recognized marriage?

[vitoNova]

The Essense could care less what you stick up your booty-hole.

Just like She could care less about you eating a pork sandwich. 

[Battista Minola 1616]

The Essense could care less what you stick up your booty-hole.

Just like She could care less about you eating a pork sandwich. 

On the one hand, I am thinking about an appropriately snarky response to dunk on you.

On the other hand, you are going to recommend this post as a matter of course whatever it says, so why bother?

[afleitch]

The Essense could care less what you stick up your booty-hole.

Just like She could care less about you eating a pork sandwich. 

On the one hand, I am thinking about an appropriately snarky response to dunk on you.

On the other hand, you are going to recommend this post as a matter of course whatever it says, so why bother?

Why is a 'dunk' deserved. It's crude, but is it wrong?

[Battista Minola 1616]

The Essense could care less what you stick up your booty-hole.

Just like She could care less about you eating a pork sandwich. 

On the one hand, I am thinking about an appropriately snarky response to dunk on you.

On the other hand, you are going to recommend this post as a matter of course whatever it says, so why bother?

Why is a 'dunk' deserved. It's crude, but is it wrong?

vitoNova seems to like being dunked on, because all recognition is good recognition. And (sometimes) I like being the one who does it.
In this specific case I went 'meta' to prove my own point.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's certainly not as though being gay is a sin but being straight is perfectly fine.  If gay sex is a sin, then so is all kinds of hetero sex that a straight person might have an inclination towards.  We all have inclinations of one kind of another to do all sorts of things we shouldn't. Some of us have greater burdens of temptation than others in one area or another.  The Book of Romans may be instructive here: In Chapter 1, we have a picture of the sinfulness of those who practice pagan homosexual orgies.  But then in the next next chapter, it's "hey you guys reading this and judging it, you all are just as bad!"  No one is righteous, all have sinned.

We are all sick apart from God, it is only through God that we can be well. For the Christian then the key question is not the dichotomy of "Is this a choice or predetermined?", it is "Is this consistent with following Christ?"  From there, we seek to rely on God to help us do what is not in our own power.

This makes no reference to the larger point of a systematic and judicious standard for sin, which requires not just a handful of verses with no larger context but also a demonstration of harm physically, mentally, or spiritually. The unsystematic theology opposing homosexuality does not qualify it under the traditional standard of measurement for every other type of sin, but rather qualifies it using a unique standard that can, will, and has been used to since declare several other unharmful things as sinful.

Also under conservative theology, homosexuality is the only sexuality that can't be expressed in any form. Not even in marriage. Shua's comparisons to other non matrimonial forms of heterosexual sex is moot.

What do you mean "only sexuality"?  Aside from homosexuality, there are plenty of people whose primary sexual desires can't be fulfilled morally within a traditional Christian or even contemporary conventional sexual morality.

Are you really going there and making that comparison? Utterly shameful.

You know exactly what I mean; that of all sexualities two adults who are of the same sex are not allowed to express that sexuality in any form under conservative Christian sexual ethics.

This is just a tautology then based on defining "sexualities" in a very particular way:  Homosexuality is the only sexuality that can't be expressed in traditional Christian morality if we exclude everything else that can't be expressed in traditional Christian morality as not qualifying as a sexuality.

Isn't porn usage a "sexuality", as it is the primary sexual expression of millions of people, many preferring the fantasy to the prospect of actual intimacy with another person, even to the point of complete disinterest?   How can someone express that in a traditional Christian morality?

(and btw this is supposed to be a forum for philosophical discussion so don't dismissively throw "utterly shameful" at me just because I gently push back at the implications of your own words.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

honestly why do I even bother?  This forum has proven over and over again it has no ability to discuss these issues, always devolves into anyone questioning or doubting any aspect of liberal pop culture sexuality as being tarred as a dirty homophobe.    ....  Well, if that's your game, then religion or philosophy as it relates to the questions of the nature of the human person in its relations isn't for you.   Go live your lives untroubled by your conscience and cry about the bigots and watch civilization fall down around you because you are so damn sure you are right about the unquestionable truths of self-actualization you only heard about last tuesday.   

[afleitch]

honestly why do I even bother?  This forum has proven over and over again it has no ability to discuss these issues, always devolves into anyone questioning or doubting any aspect of liberal pop culture sexuality as being tarred as a dirty homophobe.    ....  Well, if that's your game, then religion or philosophy as it relates to the questions of the nature of the human person in its relations isn't for you.   Go live your lives untroubled by your conscience and cry about the bigots and watch civilization fall down around you because you are so damn sure you are right about the unquestionable truths of self-actualization you only heard about last tuesday.   

Because you are taking about people's lives and are being deliberately obtuse. Porn usage is a 'sexuality'? Come on shua. You're the one defining that as a sexuality. You know exactly what sexuality means in common usage and in this discussion. You just thought you'd be clever. Unless you wish to clarify exactly what you meant by 'Aside from homosexuality, there are plenty of people whose primary sexual desires can't be fulfilled morally within a traditional Christian or even contemporary conventional sexual morality.'

Because porn usage doesn't pass muster. So what is it?

Earlier in this thread I said;

Also, blue and brown avatars, please don't talk about people like me in the abstract.

And that is still true. I have not been discourteous but there is a tendency for these matters to be discussed without acknowledging the human and lived aspect behind them. Religion is, even by those who don't believe, generally discussed with respect and consideration.

[Kingpoleon]

Are you advocating the position that you can't call something a sin unless you can prove specific harm?   I don't believe that is a traditional standard within Christianity or most other religions, historically.  There is plenty of room within these traditions for the idea that we ought to do or not do certain things because they are in line with a reality we cannot fully grasp on our own.

What sort of moral relativism is this? Sins are not all equal - they can be measured by intentionality, harmfulness, the position of the sinner, and the position of the person sinned against.

“God does see sin differently according to levels of severity as according to intentionality, the degree of harm, the knowledge a person had with regard to God’s moral requirements, and the status of the person attacked. Some sins really are worse than others—not all equally bad, in Plantinga’s phrase—and God sees them that way also.”
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2020/is-all-sin-the-same-to-god