QUOTE=Infinite_Loser]Either way, it's irrelevant as it has no bearing on the Bible, the Torah or any other ancient work.[/quote]
Yes! Exactly! I agree completely. That is in fact one of my key points and the first and most important point in my first link below.
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with my sentences. If you knew anything regarding the ancient Hebrew culture, you would understand why the majority of laws do not specifically reference women. Being a patriarchal society, men were considered the head of their households and women were their subordinates. The majority of laws were specifically given to men who later then conveyed these laws to the women.
Is this really so hard to understand?
|
The tone you’re taking really isn’t conducive to clear communication.
Sex is different for men and women.
Quote:
|
Oh, it wasn't hard, especially when you kept repeating "But the Bible doesn't say anything about lesbians!" over and over again.
|
I’ve asked you politely not to misrepresent what I‘m saying, twice I believe. Let me make myself perfectly clear on this one:
DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. It’s both rude and dishonest.
Quote:
|
I believe you missed the point. You can not be a homosexual without having homosexual feelings. Therefore, it's illogical to state that feelings are irrelevant.
|
Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t do that, then, isn’t it? This is the second time in this post you’ve misrepresented my statements.
Quote:
|
Firstly, the Bible never uses the word "Eros", but rather "Philios".
|
I stand corrected. Philios, agape, and eros are loves my wife and I share.
Quote:
|
What you feel for your wife would be most closely related to the love between a man and a woman (Otherwise known as marriage). However, the Bible would deem the union of two males or two females to be a perversion of marriage. Your feelings between you and your wife are only known by you, but they're not covered nor are they condoned by the Bible.
|
Wow, that is some contorted logic. First, love between a man and a woman can exist outside of a marriage. Second, my wife and I have a Christian marriage. Third, the Bible exists in many different translations, some of which include books others don’t, and those translations are interpreted in different ways by a variety of churches, so when making claims, it’s best to be specific as to which translation and which group’s interpretation you are using.
Quote:
|
Of course it would invalidate the argument; That's not the point, though.
|
That is
my point.
Quote:
|
God wrote the Bible through humans. Since God is incapable of lying, the Bible is without error. We know that the following is true because the Bible says so. God's word is the same today and it was yesterday, therefore it's not up for interpretation.
|
Humans are fallible, therefore when transcribing God’s words or when transcribing their own observations and messages, when copying the texts, when translating it into various languages, mistakes, inherent prejudices, ambiguity, and other factors interfering with having a single clear interpretation are bound to creep in. The fact that there are hundreds of different translations shows that human error is a factor. Which bible is the one true Bible?
Quote:
|
This is the underlying logic of Christianity, and to deny any point of it is to denounce your Christian basings.
|
Let me disprove your assertion: I am a Christian. I do not accept that the Bible is without error. The fact that it contradicts itself means that this is impossible.
Quote:
|
I swear I'm writing for my own amusement, because you certainly aren't reading a word I typed. I'm starting to think that you lack any sort of knowledge concerning social roles during Biblical times (Either that, or you're being purposely obtuse for the sole purpose of evasion).
|
No, I just disagree with your interpretations and conclusions. I’d really appreciate it if you dropped the condescending tone. It does nothing to help your argument.
Quote:
|
I'm not going to sit here and explain why most Biblical laws reference only men yet are true for both men and women, as I've already done it a few times.
|
Glad to hear it. This means I get the last word: Sex and sex roles are different for men and women. Therefore a law telling a man not to lie with another man as he would a woman cannot logically be translated into anything other than a prohibition against that specific act.
Quote:
|
Following your illogical train of thought, Eve should have been permitted to eat of the tree of knowledge, seeing as God never told her not to partake of the fruit.
|
The act of eating is the same for men and women, therefore this is not a good parallel. However, I do agree here, that the problem that caused the fall was all Adam’s. Also, I don’t read Genesis literally, but as metaphor for the early development of creation.
Quote:
|
First and foremost, the concept of homosexuality has existed for many millenia; No one ever stated that it hadn't. I stated that the concept of the psychology behind homosexuality is a relatively new idea. Don't try to twist my words. Anyway, it's nice to know that you know more than the plethora of theologins who don't deny the Bible's blanket condemnation of homosexuality.
|
It’s annoying, isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve done that, though.
Your words:
“The state of being homosexual is a relatively new concept which people have come up with to try to describe homosexuality. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the Bible, primarily due to the fact that there is no Hebrew or Greek word (At the time) dealing with the state of being homosexual.”
By the way, see how that’s done? You use the person’s actual words when you quote them. Just a little hint there.
I agree with this statement. Based on my agreement with it, I conclude that the Bible cannot condemn a concept that did not exist at the time. Notice that I am taking credit for the content of that statement and not attributing it to you, as you have done with mine. Also, you admit here that the modern concept of homosexuality “has no bearing on the Bible” and that “there is no Hebrew or Greek word dealing with the state of being homosexual.” I agree. This supports my points better than it does yours.
Quote:
|
No, it would say that women aren't to lie with women as they do men. Of course, it doesn't because the laws were entrusted to the men to deliver to their households.
|
You’re switching the sexes around. If it applies to both sexes equally then “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman” would mean that for both sexes.
Quote:
|
1.) What do you mean the concept of homosexuality didn't exist at that time? The concept clearly existed during Biblical times, otherwise it wouldn't have been prohibited.
|
“The state of being homosexual is a relatively new concept which people have come up with to try to describe homosexuality. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the Bible,”
Quote:
|
2.) I said that there was no Greek word for homosexuality at the time that Paul wrote 1 corinthians; I never that there was no word for it. Once again, don't try to twist my words.
|
“The state of being homosexual is a relatively new concept which people have come up with to try to describe homosexuality. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the Bible,”
Quote:
|
3.) The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.
|
“The state of being homosexual is a relatively new concept which people have come up with to try to describe homosexuality. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the Bible,”
Quote:
|
You are the one who is trying to take a blanket statement and only apply it to areas in which you want to. There have been numerous studies done on this subject, and there is overwhelming evidence that the Bible does indeed condemn all of homosexuality.
|
“The state of being homosexual is a relatively new concept which people have come up with to try to describe homosexuality. Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the Bible,”
Quote:
|
Whether or not people understood the difference in sex for men and women was/is irrelevant. It has no bearing on whether or not the Bible promotes or condemns homosexuality.
|
No, it’s vitally important. If a man doesn’t understand this difference, he’s going to have a pretty difficult time knowing whether he’s having heterosexual or homosexual sex.
Quote:
|
You say that Leviticus condemns a man who acts like a woman? Prove it. You're usually quick to produce links. There should be many studies stating as much, but there aren't. There are, however, many more studies which state that the Bible's stance on homosexuality is quite unambiguous-- Studies done, I might add, by highly respected theologians.
|
I don’t have proof. If you remember our discussion of gay marriage and adoption, you may recall that I tend to state my arguments in terms of evidence rather than proof. In the social sciences, proof is very nearly impossible. What I offer is my interpretation, one shared by many liberal Christians and Christian churches, and by the relatively conservative MCC church.
Quote:
|
I only go by what you say.
|
Your statement to which I objected as a distortion of what I said: “So, what you're essentially saying is that the unilateral condemnation of homosexuality isn't unilateral at all?”
My argument the entire debate has been that there is no blanket condemnation of homosexuality. When attribute to me the statement “the unilateral condemnation of homosexuality” this is a gross distortion of what I said. Argue your own points. Please stop telling me what mine are. It’s rude, it’s a logical fallacy (straw man) and you’re either doing a remarkably poor job of it or deliberately distorting what I’m saying. Argue your own points. Stop telling me what mine are.
10By this the (A)children of God and the (B)children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who (C)does not love his (D)brother.
If you don't obey the Word of God, then the previous three statements you made serve no purpose. Maybe perhaps you won't ignore it this time J[/quote]
Cool. I do obey the word of God, therefore those do apply to me. My wife doesn’t; her religion is Shinto, so she’s entirely off the hook.
Quote:
|
How about this? Your interpretation is littered with assumptions. Does that make you feel better about it?
|
Logical fallacy: Name calling. Giving a negative label to your opponent or her ideas in an attempt to discredit them.
I make interpretations in the context of the work and the culture.
Quote:
|
Wait wait wait... You typed out 15 sentences simply to argue semantics?
|
Of course. This is in large part a semantic debate. You throw out “homosexual lifestyle” and I’m going to counter it.
Quote:
|
It seems like a waste to me, since you already knew what I was talking about.
|
I know what you wrote. There is a homosexual lifestyle, I’ll grant you that, but not all homosexuals live it any more than all rich people live a wealthy lifestyle or all Jews keep Kosher. Status does not equal lifestyle.
Quote:
|
Let's put it this way; Where are your references? You're usually good at posting them. As it stands, your argument is solely based on assumptions, rather than studies.
|
I’m arguing that there is not any one way to interpret the Bible because it exists in many different forms and there are many different churches that interpret the various translations in different ways, and offering one possible interpretation.
Quote:
|
Of course, I can also name hundreds of other Churches which simply do not share this view.
|
Exactly! No two churches and no two translations have the same interpretation, so there is no one “Christian“ interpretation of what “The Bible” says. There are instead legions of them.
Quote:
|
No, I didn't dispute anything which you. I was mearly pointing out that if you believe that the Bible is inerrant, then there is no possible way that you could try to condone homosexuality while using it as the basis for your argument.
|
I stand corrected. Understand, I don’t believe in a literal interpretation nor in Biblical inerrancy, so I’m not arguing from either position.
Quote:
|
The majority of Christians and churches do believe it; So do many theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible and Christianity. The number of people who agree with your view versus those who do not is overwhelmingly lopsided in favor of the classic view.
|
No doubt. And I really have no problem with their believing that or acting as they see fit in their church. That view, however, is not the Christian interpretation of the Biblical view homosexuality. It is a Christian view of the Biblical view of Christianity. There are other Christian views.
You can be a Christian and not believe in Biblical inerrancy.
You can be a Christian and be homosexual.
You can be a Christian and enter into a marriage with a person of the same sex.
You can be a Christian and believe that homosexuality is not a sin.
If you want to say that the Southern Baptist church’s interpretation of the KJV Bible holds that homosexuality is a sin, you’d be in unassailable territory. To claim a that there is any single “Christian” interpretation of the Bible is simply in error.
Oh, and here’s a nice link to a very lucid interpratation:
http://www.truthsetsfree.net/studypaper.html
And some sermons you might find interesting:
http://www.jesusmcc.org/audio/1998/1998-04-19.ram
http://www.jesusmcc.org/audio/1998/1998-04-26.ram
Thos are, by the way, from the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church. They're a little too conservative for my taste, but they give a good idea of how it's possible to be gay and Christian without contradiction.
Gilda