SecretMethod70

It's important that I point out, before this post, that this is all stated in my capacity as a user, *NOT* as a moderator. My opinions regarding the direction of this thread are merely my own and not representative of any authoritative position

This highlights, quite well, the extreme danger of literal biblical interpretation.

Literally, yes, those passages address Zyr's question. Of course, if it were that simple, this thread wouldn't still be going. Citing those passages as a "clear" answer requires completely ignoring the fact they have been translated over and over again and that they were written within a particular cultural context which may or may not apply to our own.

Recognizing the above doesn't necessarily say that those passages don't condemn homosexuality, but to cite them as if it's obvious that they do requires completely ignoring those points.
You are correct that you posted links, but as I've pointed out multiple times, they are not links without severe bias. As a previous poster pointed out, the burden of truth here lies with you: when faced with the possibility of condemning something, or someone, the person advocating condemnation must prove that condemnation is appropriate. The persons against condemnation must necessarily be considered correct until adequately proven otherwise. This is the only acceptable way to treat such matters in a civil society which values the rights and freedom of individuals.

That said, just as you can post links from biased sources, so can others:

The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality from www.truthsetsfree.net

Quote:

TruthSetsFree.net is an inclusive, ecumenical Christian outreach to GLBTQ Christians, friends, and family.

<hr>


I see no reason why I should give the above biased source much different consideration than the sources you've provided, which include (quotes edited for relevancy, emphasis mine):

www.bible-researcher.com

Quote:

About the Editor, Michael Marlowe I live in Northeast Ohio. I was raised in a Lutheran church, but while I was at college I joined a conservative Baptist church, where I began to lead a weekly Bible study. After I got my bachelor's degree in English Literature I decided to get some formal training in Biblical Studies, and so I entered the Master of Arts program at the closest seminary, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (a Presbyterian school). Theologically I am conservative and Reformed.

I don't bold "conservative" because it's an inherently bad word, only to emphasize that he comes at his interpretation through a specific viewpoint. Furthermore, the mere fact that he can be "conservative" implies that there are other viewpoints which are "liberal," which makes it clear that biblical interpretation is not the clear-cut issue you'd like to pretend it is.

His education in biblical studies comes not from an institution dedicated to the secular pursuit of knowledge, but one which clearly approaches the bible with a set of assumptions that may not be present in a more secular environment that will be more critical in its analysis. Furthermore, the fact he has a master's degree says very little. For the more reasonable readers of this thread I would only point out that James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, has a doctorate in child development from the University of Southern California and is a licensed psychologist. While Infinite_Loser may not recognize the hilarity of that sentence, I know the majority of people who read this thread can see just how little such credentials can mean. (Not to discount credentials entirely, but credentials alone do not create truthful statements.)

Finally, again for the benefit of the more reasonable readers, I would point out that you are citing as a source a site which fully condones and encourages an oppressive society in which men dominate over women and in which women are expected to "wear headcoverings as a sign of their subordination."

At this point, I would appeal to readers of this thread not to waste their time debating with someone who condones such a viewpoint. It's a lost cause. There is reasonable discussion to be had on this subject, but I don't think it is going to happen while we continue to allow Infinite_Loser to dominate this thread.

Nonetheless, I will continue with this post for the sake of completeness.

http://www.catalystresources.org

Quote:

Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians

Again, this implies that there are other perspectives to be had. And, again, this represents a generally conservative perspective.

http://www.leaderu.com

Quote:

Leadership U. is a project of Christian Leadership Ministries, part of Campus Crusade for Christ, International.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Leadership University is a non-profit online information resource for Christian apologetics and articles about theology and biblical studies. It is financed and run by Christian Leadership Ministries, the faculty outreach and training arm of Campus Crusade for Christ International, an evangelical Christian organization. Despite its name, Leadership University is not a college that conducts classes, research or grants degrees. Leadership University consists of a web portal with links to external sites and thousands of articles hosted on its own servers and a number of related sister sites. The content and structure of the site accommodates multiple audiences: the general public, students and professors. The content promotes an evangelical Christian perspective and ideals. Christian Leadership Ministries has played a notable role in the intelligent design movement, and Leadership University's document database has become a major online repository of the works of intelligent design proponents and continues to actively assist through logistic support and in its provision of "virtual" office space to leading intelligent design proponents on the Leadership University Web site. Leadership University is funded by Campus Crusade for Christ International, one the largest of all evangelical organizations, and actively solicits donations on its Web site like many other non-profit organizations.

I'm noticing a trend here. Not only are all your sources so far biased in that they're non-secular, but they're also all specifically conservative and evangelical. While of course there's nothing wrong with you holding those viewpoints personally, this is hardly a broad array of Christian thought.

http://www.trinitysem.edu

While I think Gilda pointing out that this site compares homosexuality to pedophilia is sufficient enough to prove it's a ridiculous "resource," I'll continue with the same pattern as before.

Quote:

Trinity College & Theological Seminary

I'll give you this: I couldn't find anything saying it was specifically evangelical. Still hardly an unbiased or secular source. And, of course, there's the whole pedophilia thing.

<hr>


Now, back to my original point: biased sources. I have some more of my own to post.

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (book) by Daniel A. Helminiak

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

He holds a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School, and a Ph.D. in educational psychology from The University of Texas at Austin. He is also currently a professor at the University of West Georgia. For 28 years, he served as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. He is a member of Dignity/Atlanta, a subset of DignityUSA. He serves on the Advisory Board of White Crane Journal a magazine of Gay Culture and Wisdom.

Now, I know you're not likely to go out and read that book (I'll be honest, it's not exactly something I have the time to do either), so here's another biased source which references it...

What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak: A study presented by Jack McKinney

This short review (which ultimately reaffirms Helminiak's conclusion that the Bible says very little about homosexuality and that, at the very least, the issue is incredibly unclear) is made available by Pullen Memorial Baptist Church. I would also echo Jack McKinney's preference for a narrative approach in reading the bible, followed closely by an historical-critical approach.

Bible Mistranslation

Quote:

Sigma_Logo_Books, LLC, established in 2004, offers a contemporary approach to traditional publishing that encompasses eBooks. Our vision incorporates the role of small publisher as a vital link in preserving the integrity of the printed word. Our goal is to maintain the highest standards of writing and to become a major force in bringing to reality the works of writers seeking to enlarge the spectrum of human experience.

NOTE: I said I have more biased sources to post, so why do I call this biased? Well, I didn't see anything specifically stating so, but it seems SigmaLogo Books heavily caters to homosexuals.

The Bible and Homosexuality by www.ChristianLesbians.com

Paul's use of the words malakoi and arsenokoitai

Or, here's some commentary by a religious scholar who believes that the bible condemns homosexuality but that the teachings on homosexuality are not binding to Christians today:

Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality
To Hell with Gays: Sex and the Bible

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Prof. Dr. Walter Wink is Professor emeritus at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. His faculty discipline is biblical interpretation. He previously worked as a parish minister and professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. In 1989-1990 he was a Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He is known for his work on power structures, with a progressive Christian view on current political and cultural matters. He coined the phrase "the myth of redemptive violence", and has contributed to discourse on homosexuality, pacifism, and Jesus as a historical figure. Neal Stephenson likens some of Wink's ideas to "an epidemiology of power disorders", a phenomenology of oppression. He is one of the scholars affiliated with the Jesus Seminar.

Here's commentary arguing for gay marriage:

An Argument for Gay Marriage

Quote:

Eugene F Rogers Jr. is the author of Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way into the Triune God (Blackwell) and Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Blackwell). This article appeared in The Christian Century, June 15, 2004 pp. 26-29. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscriptions information can be found at www.christiancentury.org.

The Clobber Passages: Reexamined from "The Epistle: A Web Magazine of Encouragement & Inspiration for Christian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender People"

Here's a nice little resource from www.religioustolerance.org, outlining the most extreme conservative as well as liberal views and the thinking behind them:

What the Bible Says About Homosexuality

This particular point is worth repeating:

Quote:

We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups: Religious liberals promote homosexual ordinations, same-sex marriage, civil union ceremonies in the church, equal protection under hate-crime legislation, protection against discrimination in employment, etc. as fundamental human rights issues. Religious conservatives feel that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always a serious sin. Allowing sexually active gays and lesbians to be ordained, or to have their committed relationships recognized by the church would involve a drastic and unacceptable lowering of church standards. The church would be condoning sin. They also oppose including sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation. We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these hundreds of people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue. We don't expect that the attached essays will change the beliefs of many visitors to this web site. However, the essays may help people understand opinions that are not their own.

<hr>


Finally, since I've been on your case about it, here's a (rather long) article that *is* from a secular viewpoint (as secular as one can be at least).

No kingdom of God for softies? or, what was Paul really saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in context

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Professor Sir John Huxtable Elliott (June 6, 1930 - ) is an eminent historian, Regius Professor Emeritus in the University of Oxford and Honorary Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford and Trinity College, Cambridge. Elliott was Professor of History, King's College, London between 1968 and 1973. In 1972 he was elected to a fellowship of the British Academy. Elliott was Professor in the School of Historical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey from 1973 to 1990, and was Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford between 1990 and 1997. He was awarded the Prince of Asturias Award in 1996 for his contributions to the Social Sciences. For his outstanding contributions to the history of Spain and the Spanish Empire in the early modern period, Elliott was awarded the Balzan Prize for History, 1500-1800 in 1999. His studies of the Iberian Peninsula and the Spanish Empire helped the understanding of the problems confronting 16th and 17th century Spain, and the attempts of its leaders to avert its decline.

For those too lazy or busy to read the whole thing, this sentence sums up the general point:

Quote:

The present essay ... has focused on a subordinate issue and a passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, that has been claimed to speak of and condemn "homosexuals" and "homosexuality." The conclusion of the study is that this claim is unsubstantiated, erroneous and methodologically misguided.

Infinite_Loser: I'd like to see you post a decent, scholarly, and secular resource which supports your view, but I can't say my hopes are high. Please prove me wrong if you intend to continue this discourse. Personally, I really don't see much point in where this discussion is heading, and the experiences of the folks at religioustolerance.org is a pretty good indicator of how useless the current discussion in this thread is. It's a shame too, because the discussion frogza started was quite a good one and far more civil.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling