I'll get to this later on.

You can interpret it however you want, but the Bible's condemantion of homosexuality is definite. This has been proven through numerous studies by differing people over the past fourty or so years. The studies are there; All you have to do is read them. I, myself, have given you three or four different references. I'm sure you could find a few hundred more if you visited your local library or even used the internet.

No, it's not a "Rock solid argument". You can easily examine the original Biblical scrolls (What's left of them, anyway). I hate to burst your bubble, but this has been done before by multiple people and the conclusion is the same. There really isn't any debate over the subject. In fact The majority of scholars and theologins simply do not make the claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, because their is overwhelming evidence which proves otherwise.

If you studied Christianity you will find that the belief system between differing sects remains almost constant; Most of the splits are caused by trivial matters (Such as the iconoclastic controversy) which don't affect the central belief system. As I'm sure you're aware, even amidst their differences the majority of Christian sects remain united in their stance against homosexuality. Why, you might ask? Well, it's rather simple. The sects which insist that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality commit a cardinal sin; They reject the Bible's teachings as a whole. This directly contradicts the Christian belief system.

No "Christian" believes in Biblical innerancy. To do so is to deny basic Christian discipline.

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi...nspiration.php

The Bible says that everything you do should be for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 6:18-20). To exclaim that the Church as a whole is trying to restrict your "Human rights" by denouncing homosexuality when you profess to be a Christian is astounding.

Not to sound pompous, but you display a very basic understanding of Christianity.

Yes, you do. You ignore any and all evidence presented to you and instead choose to recite the same rhetoric over and over and over again.

The passage of Scripture which you're trying to interpret needs no interpretation, because it's concrete. I hate to constantly repeat myself over and over and over again, but there are hundreds of studies which re-affirms the traditional view held by many Christians.

...Because you ignore it whenever someone presents you with it. I, myself, have given you at least three or four different references which proves your claim to be false, and you could probably find a thousand more by visiting your local library or using the internet. You, however, don't want to.

I'm wondering... Do you know what the term "Covenant" means? A covenant, in Biblical terms, usually translates to loyalty and allegiance. Jonathan presenting those things to David that were most valuable to him represents his willingness to sacrifice materiality for friendship. Time and time again, you see this type of covenant demonstrated in David and Jonathan's relationship.

That's not accurate. Israel openly accepted David and sung his praises moreso than Saul. This, in turn, made Saul jealous. Saul hated David not because of his relationship with Jonathan, but because David was seen as greater than Saul.

Kissing was commonplace in the Bible and used to signify greetings and farewells.

This he does. Now notice how there is absolutely no mention anywhere of a male-male relationship between David and Jonathan anywhere in the Bible (In fact, there are none of any sort). Also notice that David's relationship with Bathsheba was far more sexual-- And detailed-- Than the relationship he had with Jonathan.

Once again, it's not widely accepted that David and Jonathan had any kind of relationship other than platonic as this would contradict Biblical law.

I wonder how you came to this conclusion? David was a man after God's own heart and God staunchly opposed homosexuality. David couldn't have had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, as this directly contradicts the "Laws of Moses".

If you're going to quote a passage from the Bible, make sure you don't take it out of context.

Just to give a bit of background information, Ruth was married Elimelech and had two sons, Mahlon and Chilion. Fearing a famine in Bethlehem, they all moved to Moab. Once in Moab, Elimelech died. Later, Mahlon and Chilion married Orpah and Ruth. After a few years, Mahlon and Chilion died. As a result, all thre women became greater friends. One day, Naomi wished to travel back to Israel-- Orpah and Naomi wished to go with her, but Naomi insisted that they both go bck to their families. Orpah left but Naomi didn't and followed Ruth to Israel. Once in Israel, Ruth cared for Naomi and began to work for a man named Boaz. After a while, Boaz introduced himself to Ruth, they fell in love, were married and had a son named Obed. Naomi cared for Obed as Ruth had cared for her.

Sweet! You married your sister-in-law?

Leviticus 18:22-- You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13-- If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10-- Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-28--For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

All taken from the NASB version (You can use a different version if you wish). I also posted a few links somewhere which clearly define the term arsenkoitai (The Biblical word used to denote homosexuality) as well as detalied analyses of the aforementioned passages.

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.

Ooo... So let me get this straight. Any resource I provide is biased because it's non-secular as opposed to secular? Let's just forget the fact that the majority of people writing on the subject have a non-secular base because *Gasp* the issue is non-secular itself? Also, never mind the fact that the resources I provided are, in your own words, "Decent, scholarly and well-received"; None of that really matters, eh?

Not only did you go out of your way to try to discredit my sources, but you also failed to examine where any of the information came from. Apparently you're not into content as much as I thought you were. More than one article contained a bibliography (So you could research the information yourself), yet you ignored them. Go figure...!

Anywho, for your reading pleasure, here are a few works cited for you.

----------

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon

Excerpts from a few of his articles:

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes

Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful?

Critique of other's work:

Why the Disagreement Over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice? A response to Myers and Scanzoni, What has God Joined Together?

Reviews and summaries of his works:

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics

Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views

----------

Bernadette J. Brooten

Reviews and summaries of her works:

Paul's Views on the Nature of Women and Female Homoeroticism

Love Between Women

Here's a small excerpt from the review:

^That is especially for Gilda who continues to assert that women's sexual roles were unknown during Biblical times.

----------

Richard Hays

A small excerpt from the article entitled [I]Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans I

----------

Notice you didn't reference any of these authors nor their individual works in your post. Rather you focused on the websites in which their works were. I'm interested in seeing how you'll respond.

Edit: I forgot to add something. When you have the time, be sure to read these short (If you can call them that) essays. It's hard to find them online, so you're going to have to visit your local library and pick them up.

James DeYoung:

The contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality

A Critique of Pro-Homosexual Interpretations of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigripha

The Meaning of Nature in Romans 1 and its Implications for Biblical Proscriptions of Homosexual Behavior

David Malick:

The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9

Philip Reynolds:

Same-Sex Unions: What Boswell Didn’t Find

Michael Satlow:

They Abused Him Like a Woman: Homoeroticism, Gender Blurring, and the Rabbis in Late Antiquity

Mark Smith:

Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans

David Wright:

Homosexuals or Prostitutes?

Well then, this issue is just as clear as mud, and I for one, am going to leave you to debate this yourselves. I don't feel I have any more to contribute.

Things I have learned from this thread:
* Despite what Infinite_Loser says, this subject, and the subject of biblical interpretation, is up for debate. The volume of material on both sides speaks to that, as does the length of this thread.
* You can not argue with some people. They will not change their minds, and to continue is pointless.

Things I have [i]not[i] learned from this thread.
* God's stance on homosexuality. On the one hand, there are verses that can be interpreted as condemnation. On the other, they are unspecific, and there is no mention of the scope of the condemnation. And there is no material on either side that is not matched by a work on the other, claiming the opposite view, both by equally well-educated people.

Though I feel this thread is going nowhere, I wish you all good luck with it, anyway.

Well, I made no effort to hide the fact I haven't bothered to read most of the links you provided, due to their nature. (The quote, "decent, scholarly, and well-received doesn't exist anywhere in this thread btw. The only thing I've said which comes close is me asking, in the previous post, for a "decent, scholarly, and secular" resource, not me describing anything you've provided in such a manner.) As I pointed out earlier, the burden of proof is on you. If you're trying to convince someone of something, it goes a very long way to make an attempt to provide the least biased resources which you can. I've been mentioning this for awhile, so I'm not sure why it was so difficult until now to make an attempt to provide resources which don't have the significant bias I've been mentioning. In an ideal world, we'd all read everything you link to, and check out the works cited too in an effort to dispel any apparent bias, but the reality is people just generally don't have the time for that. Changing my mind regarding homosexuality and the bible is pretty low on my things-to-do list. So, instead, I have to be picky about what I do and do not read, and when I open a page that is clearly written to advance the evangelical perspective, for example, I already know what I'll be getting, and I also know they likely did not make any good faith effort to consider sources contrary to their own beliefs.

Which, of course, brings me to a fact which is obvious to us all, and which I tried to touch upon in my previous post. While I am willing to put far more weight on the opinions of the three authors you initially mentioned in the above post, there are equally respectable authors with opposing opinions. I'm glad to see the sites you linked to utilized sources which are not totally unreasonable. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to use any equally reasonable sources which oppose their viewpoint any more than I would expect a pro-homosexuality site to use the sources you mention alongside the ones which support theirs.

I could do the same thing, going through the sources utilized by the biased sites which I mentioned, looking for all the ones which are relatively scholarly. Both sites are bound to make use of some scholarly resources, and both are bound to ignore the points of the other. This is why this whole discussion is pointless, as I've been wasting my time trying to point out: there is no way, whatsoever, that you're going to convince Gilda, myself, or the majority of people here of your viewpoint, regardless of whether or not your sources are based on any reasonable scholarship, because we can just as easily point to scholarly sources which say otherwise. Likewise, I've also been saying I don't see the point in this discussion because I know that regardless of whatever scholarly sources Gilda or I provide, you will find one which disagrees and choose to believe that one over ours.

As a perfect example, I've actually already read a couple of the sources you mentioned after your edit.* I've chosen to accept the arguments of the scholars who disagree with them.

I apparently did not emphasize this point enough:That last point was the original intent of this thread: It was going quite well until it degenerated into citing bible passages as if they are absolutely clear on the subject and as if there is no room for debate. You'll notice the tone changed dramatically somewhere around early October. The rest of us are not without fault of course: we should have simply ignored the change and continued having the friendly discourse which was already occuring. Instead, we bit the bait.

The fact is, there is scholarship on both sides of the debate. This is a point I've been trying to make not so much to convince anyone of one opinion over the other, but to demonstrate that the issue is not clear-cut like you say it is.

Faced with the fact there are scholarly sources on both sides of the issue, we are left with needing to use some other method to decide what is right, spiritually speaking. I've made this point before: while I find the debate over the intent of the biblical authors interesting, I don't find it particularly crucial to deciding what is spiritually appropriate for Christians today (or any other religion for that matter). Such knowledge is a guide, but not an answer.

Common sense brought by a different understanding of the nature of existence is of primary importance to deciding such matters. Setting aside the scientific advances in understanding the nature of homosexuality, there is a more modern understanding of the importance of individual dignity to consider. Not to mention the recognition that many things which we once thought were of vital importance are really pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Similar realities exist in other areas of spirituality. Christian teaching in the bible focuses on charity, and rightfully so, but it is not very vocal at all about addressing the root causes of poverty. The teachings were written at a time when poverty was considered part of the natural order. Now, we recognize the impermanence of structures and realize that we can address the structural causes of poverty in an effort to do more beyond just charity. Charity is important to focus on the here-and-now, other work is important in attempting to change the future of poverty in our world.

Thus, I come to the opinion which I've already stated before in this thread. Perhaps the writings of the bible intend to condemn homosexuality - perhaps they don't (an opinion which I tend to believe) - but regardless of their intention, it is the overarching themes of the biblical narrative which are important, not the minutiae of the passages. That message of love, compassion, and charity, combined with the modern worldview, in my opinion, makes it quite clear that our focus should be on more important things than debating whether or not homosexual persons can marry. In fact, it should be on making sure that such persons are granted the dignity deserved by all people and allowed to declare their love for one another when they so choose, regardless of our own opinions regarding how they live their life.



*Off-topic, but I'd encourage anyone who has access to journal databases to take full advantage of the great resource that they are. I'm not looking forward to the day I can no longer access EBSCOHost or JSTOR from the comfort of my own computer!

EDIT:
Zyr hit the nail on the head.

Fallen Angel, I can certainly understand why you'd lose faith as a consequence of your homosexuality. I've moved further and further away from the more conservative aspects of the Christian faith for this same reason. If you're happy with your current situation regarding your sexuality and your spirituality, that's wonderful; I'll wish you a good life and move on.

But if you still have issues with this, you might try talking to some people at a church that is friendly to homosexuals. Not all Christians are like Infinite Loser, and despite his claims, that is not the only Christian view of homosexuality. The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), Unity, Unitarian Universalists, and Episcopaleans are all open and accepting of homosexuals in their denominations. The MCC churches are conservative Christians who believe in Biblical inerrency and believe that the Bible not only doesn't condemn homosexuality, but endorses it.*

The Episcopaleans are somewhat similar to Catholics in belief, Unity is a Christian denomination that interprets Biblical teachings metaphorically, and UUA is the most liberal of the North American churches in the Christian tradition, adapting what church policy there is to new information, both in science and culture, as necessary for the spiritual health of the members.

If you're good where you are, that's great, just ignore this as the ramblings of a madwoman, but if you do need someone to talk to about faith issues regarding homosexuality, there are good resources available. If you'd like, I can link you to some sites that are helpful.

Be well, and know that there's nothing wrong with being who you are.

Gilda

*I linked to a couple of sermons earlier that are a very entertaining listen, especially after reading this thread. The minister uses much the same reasoning as Infinite Loser, but in the opposite direction, in effect saying that the only way to come to the conclusion that the Bible opposes homosexuality is to come to it with that belief and impose it on the text by interpreting it to fit that belief. This is essentially what Infinite Loser has been accusing me of.

Most of the pro-homosexual arguments stem from the works of John Boswell and Robin Scroggs. The problem here is that most of Boswell's lexicography has been seriously challenged by New Testament scholars (Remember, the majority of New Testament scholars are generally more liberal than conservative) and that Scrogg's argument that Paul only knew of pederastic relationships has also been disputed by numerous scholars.

Further beyond that, you deal with the fact that most of the pro-homosexual arguments rely on two faulty premises, those being:

1.) That the ancient Romans, or anyone else for that matter, knew nothing of homosexual feelings and

2.) That Paul's, or even the Old Testament's, condemnation of homosexuality weren't all encompassing and only related to certain sexual acts.

There are a PLETHORA of text written on each (And not only from a non-secualr view, either) which refutes the previous two claims. The majority of Biblical scholars/hermeneutist don't accept the notion that the Bible condones homosexual relationships and exegesis of the Bible doesn't confirm it, either. As a result, the majority of Christian demoninations don't accept it. The simple fact is that the notion that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality isn't widespread, because there is overwhelming evidence which proves otherwise.

The Bible has lots of very clear rules that we don't follow because they don't make sense anymore. This rule (as indicated by the widespread debate about it) is FAR from clear and, even if it is, doesn't make much sense anymore.

The notions of society and sexuality in the Bible are dated at best and archaic at worst.

And Yet....you do sound extremely Pompous. Pretty sure theres a couple passages in the Books that cover this as well.....might want to re-read those parts. In fact your postings exemplify to me, and remind this old soul why if walked away from the people who claim God as their own. If the way you treat others in this thread shows the path to God....you can have each other, I prefer acceptance, and understanding in my version of God.