Gilda

Therein lies the first problem. "As we know it". As you know it, as I know it, as my minister knows it, as a Catholic knows it, as a member or an MCC, Unity, UUA, Prebytarian, Episcopalean church knows it, as it's presented in the KJV, the NIV, or my preferred version, the NRSV, each of those is going to present a different way of knowing the bible. There are as many ways of knowing the bible as there are Christians.

You have to differentiate between homosexuality as a state of being, and homosexual acts. I freely admit that certain male-male homosexual acts are identified as prohibited, but this is not the same as we understand homosexuality as a concept in modern times. Reading the modern concept of the state of being homosexual onto words that refer in context to certain sexual acts is is at best erroneous, and likely an agenda being promoted by the translators rather than an attempt to understand what's being said.

There are plenty of gender specific admonitions. For example, differntiating between prostitution and male prostitution. Something like "you shall not lay lyings as with a woman" cannot be anything but specific to male behavior, and still condemns only the specific act, not homosexuality in general.

You know what else isn't addressed in the Bible? The state of being attracted to an animal or family members. When you make an argument such as the aforementioned, you assume that there was no absolutely no knowledge of homosexuality as a feeling. Could it be that the act was of more importance?

Sure. The NRSV. Keep in mind the distinction between homosexuality--the state of being homosexual--and homosexual acts. In every instance it is the act that is being condemned, not the state of being, even where the word "homosexuality" is used, the context always makes it clear that it is the specific act, not the state of being.

Such as rape. The problem with what the men of Sodom wanted to do was that it was to be the male-male equivilent of rape, not that it was homosexual.

Nope. But it can mean many things.

First, you are distorting what I said, which is bad form. Please don't do that. I referred to homosexuality as a state of being, not as "feelings".

However, it does endorse feelings and manifestaions of it. One of those feelings, one of the manifestations of homosexuality is love. I love my wife. That is a part of my homosexual feelings for her. It is in fact so fully intertwined with my sexual attraction to her that I am incapable of separating the two. I'm told that there are heterosexuals who do the same thing. The bible is pretty cool with the concept of love, and endorses it pretty regularly, all over the place, with no restrictions as to who is allowed to love whom. There are all kinds of restrictions on who gets to have sex with whom, on both homosexuals and hetersexuals (and more on y'all than on us), but no restrictions on who gets to love whom.

Are you familiar with the concept of lesbian bed death? It refers to the phenomenon of lesbian couples ceasing to having sex after becoming monogamous. It's not rare in middle aged couples. There are good sociological and even better biological reasons for it, but there are such couples. Now, since the sex act isn't involved, what form might homosexuality take in the case of a celibate homosexual couple? I'm thinking it's about love. Which is endorsed quite frequently in the bible.

Now, as to an endorsement, Paul does say that it's a sin for people to give up what is natural for what is unnatural, so the logical conclusion from that would be that it would be that I shouldn't have sex with a man (which would be unnatural for me) but that I should be free to act on my attraction to women.

You assume incorrectly on both counts. First, the fact that I'm a Christian and The Bible is my holy book does not require a belief in bilibcal inerrancy. Second, I don't believe I'm qualified to make any judgements about the nature of God.

I don't accept your givens, and I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you still pointing out a lack of endorsement of homosexuality? Do you really not understand that that does not equal condemnation? The Bible prohibits certain male-male sex acts, but is silent on consensual homosexual sex between loving partners in a monogamous relationship

God, in the form of Jesus, does not address homosexuality. His prophets, human men, address certain homosexual acts, but not all homosexuality in the current meaning of that word (the state of being homosexual). Indeed, it would be strange if that were addressed as it's a modern concept that first became widely understood only in the last century.

"You shall not lay with a man as with a woman", that applies to women, too? Woo hoo! Leviticus says women are not allowed to have sex with men.

I'm being facetious of course. It's a an admonition against a man taking the female role in the sex act. There's no way this is gender neutral.

In addition, sex is inheretly diffeerent for men and woman and the roles as understood at the time were much different. Extrapolating from rules specified for male-male sexual behavior to females does not work logically.

Cool, so do I. I also understand that we're talking about he interpretation of a translation of a book written by humans, not the direct word of God.

I assume you're referring to Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

First, notice no condemnation of homosexality, just a specific sex act, and taken in context, this refers specifically to a temple prostitute.

Now, let's look at "abomination". It's a translation of to'ebah, which usually refers to things that are ritually unclean, not violations of moral laws, it can be either, but even if we assume that it it's referring to moral law rather than procedural, it's still addressing specific acts, not homosexuality itself.

That isnt' clear at all. It clearly prohibits some homosexual act as performed by temple prostitutes, by the exact meaning is vague. The literal translation is "lay lyings of a woman". Does this mean being the bottom, having sex on a woman's bed (which was considered unclean due to menstruation)? Why is it it an "abomination"? Spilling sperm, then believed to be the sole carrier of life, was considered akin to murder at the time. Is it that the act is homosexual that is the problem, or possibly that one man is taking the role of a woman, and thus lowering himself?

There are numerous possible transalations of this passage, especially given the original context, which does not apply to most modern homosexual couples of either sex.

It addresse one specific act in one specific context, not all homosexuality.

I'd expect that if it was important to him, he'd have said something about it, and Mosaic law hardly provides a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.

Really? I did? Let me check. I don't see it, so either you're making stuff up and attributing it to me, or I'm missing where I did that. If you're referring to 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11, it was you who provided that and I gave a translation of it that does not mention homosexuals as a group. So please, show me where I did that.

By the way, even if homosexual acts are a sin, they don't separate one from God:

Romans 8: "No sin can separate us from God, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day

Not condoning does not equal condemning. There are three broad categories: Things that are required (duties) things that are forbiddent (sins) and things that are neither. The third group may be safely interpreted as permitted. The biblical prohibitions are in regard to specific acts, usually committed by temple prostitutes, or in the case of Romans, during a temple orgy. Monogamous, stable homosexuality is not addresed in any form because it did not exist at that time and place, except that love is promoted pretty heavily, and love is a big part of many homosexual relationships, just as it is with the heterosexual ones.

Really? I know that St. Augestine said a form of this, and Ghandi gave it its present phrasing, but where is the "hate the sin" passage in the bible? I see in Galatians the requirement to love:

For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

I see no call to hate there.

No. Here's the thing. I'm interpreting the Bible as a means of finding guidance in my own life. You obviously have a different interpretation of it, and I'm fine with that. If you see a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, the best solution is not to be homosexual.

Depends on the Translation used and how it's interpreted both in the context of the time and in a modern context.

I neither said nor implied that you did.

You're quite wrong on this. That you do not tolerate does not invalidate the concept. I for one, tolerate your differing interpretation of homosexuality in the bible. My wife toerates my obsession with comic books.

Where? Where does the Bible say this? This is not the core concept of Christianity.

This is:

John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

No exception for homosexuals. No exceptions period.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert