Christian belief and homosexuality - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Infinite_Loser · 10-05-2006, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Homosexuality as a state of being is a modern concept this is true. It is not a modern invention, but a result of the greater understanding of psychological processes that has come with systematic study of human psychology and biology.

Either way, it's irrelevant as it has no bearing on the Bible, the Torah or any other ancient work.

Quote:

Your first and last sentences contradict each other, and the last contradicts itself.

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?

Quote:

No, and it amazes me that you could get that out what I’ve been writing.

Oh, it wasn't hard, especially when you kept repeating "But the Bible doesn't say anything about lesbians!" over and over again.

Quote:

Well, no. As you admit above, homosexuality was a concept that did not exist in biblical times and there were no words for it in the languages used at the time. Therefore, those terms could not mean homosexuality in the modern sense.

http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html

Quote:

Translating Arsenokoitai

The main issue highlighted in recent debate over 1 Cor 6:9-11 concerns the correct way to render the Greek term arsenokoitai which occurs here. The NRSV reads, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers— none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’

In this recent critical translation arsenokoitai is taken as a reference to those who practice homosexuality. Arsenokoitai poses a problem to the translator because this is its earliest known occurrence in Greek literature. Robin Scroggs has plausibly suggested that Paul created this new word by combining the two terms found in the Greek version of Lev 18:23 (LXX 18:22) and 20:13: arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed,” which translate the Hebrew for “lying with a male” (mishkav zakur; The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate [Fortress, 1983] 106-8). With the likelihood that these Levitical prohibitions are echoed in 1 Cor 6:9, the NRSV is justified in translating the term as a reference to homoerotic intercourse, even if the English “sodomites” is somewhat archaic.

The most vociferous critic of taking arsenokoitai as a reference to homoerotic practice is the late, gay scholar J. Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1980] 335-53). He concludes that arsenokoitai refers to male prostitutes without specifying the gender of their partners. Boswell’s theory has been popularized by the widely known work of gay Catholic J.J. McNeil, who confesses his dependence on Boswell even though his work appeared earlier (The Church and the Homosexual [Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, 1976] 200). Boswell’s broader thesis, the Bible does not justify the later homophobia that appealed to it, has not been challenged, but his lexicography has come under unfavorable review. David F. Wright has devoted an article to demonstrating the inaccuracies of Boswell’s presentation of the data (“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53). Wright and Boswell engage in highly sophisticated and detailed lexicographical argumentation, which space prohibits re-presenting in this brief article. Wright’s most telling argument is that Boswell seriously underestimates the use of arsenokoitai in early Christian writers, and he is especially negligent in his highly selective and inaccurate use of the early, Greek-speaking bishop John Chrysostom. Wright points out how the very texts from Chrysostom cited by Boswell, when viewed in light of their surrounding texts, both undermine Boswell ‘s interpretation and support the traditional view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexuality.

W.L. Petersen agrees with Wright’s dissection of Boswell’s lexicography but draws attention to an anachronism evident in the alternative that Wright offers (“Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by ‘Homosexuals’ (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)?”, Vigiliae Christianae 40 [19861187-91). Petersen criticizes Wright for using “homosexuals” and “homosexuality” as appropriate English terms for arsenokoitai when this is clearly anachronistic. The Oxford classicist K.J. Dover has demonstrated that there was no Greek term for homosexual identity, and the concept of sexual identity itself is a recent phenomenon (Greek Homosexuality [Duckworth, 1979]). The terms in Greek refer to homoerotic practice, not sexual identity. With this in mind the NRSV is not far off the mark, though “sodomites” wrongly draws attention to an intertextual echo suggested by the English term (to Sodom and Gomorrah), when instead arsenokoitai echoes the prohibitions of Leviticus. The NRSV translation is problematic and needs to be revised, but it is more accurate than some critics have allowed.

^Read it again.

Isn't linguistics a wonderful thing?

Quote:

Because they’re not the same thing. One can have homosexual feelings without being homosexual. Most heterosexuals have homosexual feelins at some point. Bisexuals by definition all have homosexual feelings but are not homosexual. Being homosexual is inself more than having homosexual feelings.

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.

Quote:

One of those feelings is, by the way, love, endorsed all over the place throughout the bible...

...Eros and Agape can both be shared either between opposite sex couples or same sex couples. The love I feel for my wife is the same kind of romantic love a man feels for a woman...

...Eros and agape both.

Firstly, the Bible never uses the word "Eros", but rather "Philios".

Secondly, as I've stated twice before, the four main types of love in the Bible are the love between a man and a woman, the love between God and his children, the love between Jesus and the church and the love between neighbours. Love, as dealing with homosexuals, fits into none of the aforemention categories.

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.

Quote:

In Romans, Paul deems homosexual acts unnatural when engaged in by heterosexuals as part of a pagan temple orgy. They aren’t unnatural because they’re homosexual, but because homosexual acts are unnatural to heterosexuals. Likewise, heterosexual acts would be unnatural to homosexuals.

I noticed you ignored this the first time, so once more couldn't hurt *Points below*.

Quote:

Homoeroticism and the Corinthian Social Context

Petersen’s criticism of Wright centers on anachronistically importing twentieth-century concepts of homosexual identity into the translation of ancient texts. This leads us to consider what practice exactly Paul is referring to. Scroggs has argued that Paul did not think—and could not have been thinking—of anything other than the practice of pederasty, intercourse between an active and older man (usually called an erastes, but here an arsenokoitos) and a passive younger man or boy (usually an eromenos but here malakos). Scroggs’ own suspicion is that Paul was against the more degrading forms of this practice that employed a young male prostitute (malakos) or the sexual domination of a master with his slave (109-18).

Scroggs rightly points out that pederasty, prostitution, and a master’s sexual abuse of his slaves are clearly documented as the most common homosexual practices cited in the known literature and portrayed on vase paintings, but extrapolates from this that these are all that Paul could have known of homoeroticism.

There are two reasons why we should not accept Scroggs’ reconstruction. First, Paul stands in line with a long ethical tradition of Judaism that condemned all homosexual practice (as Scroggs is well aware [66-98]), and Scroggs himself acknowledges that Paul identifies with this OT tradition as echoed in his coinage of the lexeme arsenokoitai.

This leads to a second and decisive reason why we cannot accept Scroggs understanding that Paul’s conception must have been limited to pederasty. Pederasty occurred between men and boys, but in Romans 1 Paul condemns a practice that cannot be identified as pederasty: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another” (Rom 1:26). Under no conditions can this verse be reduced to a reference to mere pederasty as Scroggs seeks to do. Furthermore, Scroggs cites the evidence from other Greek writers from Plato to Plutarch and Pseudo-Phocylides who refer to female homoerotic acts (1 30-39). Against Scroggs’ contention, there is evidence for homoerotic activity that was not pederasty. He deals with the evidence that contradicts him with the disclaimer, “What the female part of the slogan may have included is beyond recovery” (133). Scroggs has clearly succumbed to the reductionism he claims he avoids (139). The evidence—which Scroggs himself cites—shows Paul could and did have something besides pederasty in mind, and he condemns both male and female homoeroticism as against the will of God.

The Co-text of 1 Corinthians 5-7

It has often been pointed out that the so-called vice list imbedded in 1 Cor 6:9-10 is somewhat stereotyped, probably adapted from Hellenistic Judaism. Furthermore, there is evidence that this list is combined with elements of a baptismal liturgy which Paul has adopted, describing the effects of being baptized into Christ. Paul asserts that conversion and baptism (“you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”) effect an elimination of the sins listed. The list is not exhaustive nor is it exactly duplicated elsewhere (cf. Rom 1:29-31; 1 Cor 5:10-11; Gal 5:19-21), but it points to the character change brought by the Spirit’s presence in a believer’s life: “And this is what some of you used to be.” The past tense verb indicates that Paul believed that spiritual conversion wrought ethical transformation that includes a reconstruction of one’s sexual practices (cf. Gal 5:16-25; 1 Thess 4:4).

There is a further, perhaps even more important, observation to make about the larger co-text of 1 Corinthians 5-7. The first two terms of the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9, “fornicators” (pornoi) and “idolaters,” link this brief passage with the unifying themes of 1 Corinthians 5-10. At 5:1 the issue of sexual immorality (porneia) is announced, a theme that is addressed in various ways from 5:1-6:20, and the issue of porneia (cf. 7:2) is developed in relation to marriage in 7:1-40, while chs. 8-10 engage the issue of idolatry and idol meat. Thus “the sexually immoral” and “idolaters,” the first two terms of the vice list in 6:9, are representative issues of the teaching of 5:1-10:33.

In this larger co-text Paul gives multiple indications of what is included in the scope of the catch-all term “sexual immorality” (porneia—cf. Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3), including incest (5:1) and involvement with prostitutes (6:13-20).

In 6:9-10 the list is expanded to include adultery, and passive and active homoeroticism. But we find in 7:2 the most revealing passage about what Paul considers porneia: “on account of porneia let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband.” Paul here sets “sexual immorality” against the broader biblical framework of marriage as the proper context for sexual expression. Appeal to Gen 2:24 is to the point since Paul cites this very scriptural tradition in 6:16 as an explanation of the marital-sexual bonding between man and woman: “The two shall become one flesh.” It is this marital expression of sexuality that Paul sets at the rhetorical climax of this section (1 Corinthians 7), building up to this solution after thoroughly portraying the plight of improper sexual expression in the previous two chapters. Thus homoeroticism is not singled out as somehow worse than other forms of porneia, but merely as one other example of it. For Paul, sex is for marriage, which by biblical definition is consummated by sexual intercourse between one man and one woman.

http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html

Once again, I urge you to do a little bit of research.

Quote:

No, circular logic invalidates the argument. To claim that the bible is not a perfect record is to accept that humans are fallible. Because humans wrote, edited, and translated the Bible, errors and prejudices are bound to have crept in. In addition, there’s cultural context. What is true for one cultural context may not be equally appropriate in another.

Of course it would invalidate the argument; That's not the point, though.

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.

This is the underlying logic of Christianity, and to deny any point of it is to denounce your Christian basings.

Quote:

That’s where we’re different. Things you see as “clearly defined" seem somewhat muddled and ambiguous to me. It is God’s place to judge me, not the other way around. It is never my place to speak for God.

It's only ambigious to you because you want it to be. I could provide all the evidence in the world but, as it doesn't conform to your beliefs, you won't accept it.

Quote:

We’re discussing sexuality and sexual roles, and these are inherently different for men and for women, moreso in the time we’re discussing for the reasons you identify above. A man taking the female role in sex was lowering himself by acting like a woman. It was not possible for a woman to take the male role in either sense, either as the physical act or in the social role. Look at the wording of Leviticus: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. This is unambiguously specific to men.

Pardon me while I go bang my head against the wall.

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).

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.

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.

Quote:

It cannot be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality because, as you admit above, that concept did not exist at the time.

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.

Quote:

Also, if it is equally applicable to both sexes, then it says that women are not to lie with men as they do with woman. If it applies to both sexes, it actually becomes an endorsement of lesbianism. Woo hoo! Another endorsement. I’m going to tell my wife about this.

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.

...But nice try. Seriously.

Quote:

Circular reasoning again. It doesn’t condemn homosexuality because, as you say above, that concept did not exist at the time and the language had no word for it. It condemns certain homosexual acts, which you are extrapolating to cover all homosexuality and then extrapolating from that to all homosexual practices. One of those practices is, by the way, loving each other, something endorse quite freely in the Bible.

What are you talking about? There are a few things wrong with what you just said.

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.

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.

3.) The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. 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.

Quote:

Um, you really can’t condemn homosexuality without an understanding that male and female sexual roles are different.

Also, I’m flabbergasted that you believe people didn’t understand that sex was different for men and women. Leviticus

condemns a man who acts like a woman.

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.

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.

Quote:

Once again, you are attributing to me ideas that I did not express. Please stop doing this.

I only go by what you say.

Quote:

Which statement appears in the Bible:

A. everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
B. everyone who believes in him may not perish, except for those dirty homosexuals.

This is fun! Let’s try some more:

A. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
B. For everyone who asks receives, except if they‘re homosexual; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

A. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.
B. Dear friends, let us love one another, except for those damn homos, for love comes from God.

Hee hee. This is really delightful.

A, A and A!

But also be wary that one plus doesn't equal two (Yes, you read that right).

I noticed how you conveniently forgot to mention 1 John 3:10. Let me give you a slight refresher as to what it says.

Taken from the NASB:

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

Quote:

Interpretation based on context is rather a different thing from assumptions. I’m doing the former.

How about this? Your interpretation is littered with assumptions. Does that make you feel better about it?

Quote:

None of those say “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

Really? And here I thought your reading comprehension skills were better than that.

Quote:

Lifestyle? I love this one, my lifestyle. I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood, teach English and teacher education, and I’m married to a nurse instructor. I eat a healthy breakfast every morning, drive through commuter traffic to get to work, teach, advise students, have lunch by myself or with my wife or sister. I read poetry books, classic novels and graphic novels. I collect and read comic books. I go to church every Sunday. I’m kind and considerate as best I can be. I dress nicely because it makes me feel good about myself. I listen to folk music and love Hong Kong action movies and Asian horror. I take periodic trips to amusement parks with my family. I go to conventions and sometimes wear costumes.

That’s my lifestyle. If that’s a homosexual lifestyle, there are plenty of straight people living one. Homosexual is my orientation.

Wait wait wait... You typed out 15 sentences simply to argue semantics? It seems like a waste to me, since you already knew what I was talking about. Even through all of this, somehow you still didn't address the original question.

Quote:

Quick quiz. Does Romans 12:10 say:

A: love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour.
B: love one another with mutual affection, unless you‘re homosexual; outdo one another in showing honour, unless you‘re

homosexual.

I'm going to have to go for "The answer is A", Alex!

Of course Christians are to love one another. However, there is no passage in the Bible where Christians are commanded to be tolerant of sin. In fact, they are commanded to hate sin while loving the Lord.

Quote:

That I disagree with you does not mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

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.

Quote:

Abomination is an English word, so I doubt other languages have a concensus regarding that usage.

The accepted meaning of the word as used in the Bible is derived from ancient Hebrew. The Biblical definition of abomination is "To cause to stray from" while the modern day English definition of the word is "A vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit."

Quote:

I can name a dozen churches in the US that don’t have a problem with homosexuality or believe that it is a moral sin.

So can I.

Of course, I can also name hundreds of other Churches which simply do not share this view.

Quote:

Abomination in this sense is a judgement regarded procedural matters, not morality, and again, refers to certain specific acts, not homosexuality in general. How could it? The concept didn’t exist at the time.

What exactly are you talking about? I've gone over this one too many times. Read one of my previous responses if you need a refresher.

Quote:

Didn't you dispute Biblical fallibility above? I made reference to not believing in Biblical inerrancy, and you debated with me on that point.

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.

Quote:

Not all Christians believe this. Me, for example. Not all churches believe this. UUA, Unity, MCC, Episcopaleans, for example.

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.

SecretMethod70 · 10-05-2006, 02:16 AM

Infinite_Loser: I only skimmed your most recent post, mainly because it seems to be the same general stuff you've been saying in your previous posts. In skimming, though, I couldn't help but notice that the site you link to to back up your claims is subtitled: "Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians."

There is a ton of secular scholarship on the bible...but you seem intent on utilizing non-secular sites to back up your claims. I'd be interested in seeing you link to more trustworthy sources (historically speaking) next time. If you can't at least do this, I'm afraid you're wasting a whole lot of your own time and ours.

Willravel · 10-05-2006, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kensei

It's funny you think I was talking about you,

It's even funnier that you think I think you were posting about me, as I never even hinted that (if you could post back with an "it's even funnier still that you think I think you think I was posting about you" type post). You were either talking about IL or Gilda. A lot of people here take a tremendous amount of time and energy in order to properly communicate their ideas. Shouldn't that be commended instead of insulted?

Infinite_Loser · 10-05-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Infinite_Loser: I only skimmed your most recent post, mainly because it seems to be the same general stuff you've been saying in your previous posts. In skimming, though, I couldn't help but notice that the site you link to to back up your claims is subtitled: "Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians."

There is a ton of secular scholarship on the bible...but you seem intent on utilizing non-secular sites to back up your claims. I'd be interested in seeing you link to more trustworthy sources (historically speaking) next time. If you can't at least do this, I'm afraid you're wasting a whole lot of your own time and ours.

Erm... Unless I'm missing something, I'm the ONLY one providing references of any sort. A reference is better than no reference, correct?

With that being said, you shouldn't skim over an article. The one I provided you is very detailed and cites the works in which it references.

Gilda · 10-05-2006, 01:50 PM

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.

Quote:

Taken from the NASB:

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

Infinite_Loser · 10-06-2006, 10:02 PM

It's a bit tiring to type the same thing over and over and over again, only to have you ignore it by repeating what's already been refuted.

Therefore, here are some nifty links for you to read:

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/bibl..._overview.html

http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html

Gilda · 10-07-2006, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

It's a bit tiring to type the same thing over and over and over again, only to have you ignore it by repeating what's already been refuted.

You have disputed my arguments, not refuted them.

Quote:

Therefore, here are some nifty links for you to read:

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/bibl..._overview.html

http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html

[/QUOTE]

Wow. First you link to a site that says women should be subservient to men, and now to a paper that compares homosexuality to pedophilia. Is NARTH next? Misogyny International?

I'm curious about something. Why is it so important to you to prove that the Bible is and Christianity should be in opposition to homosexuality? Why do you argue so vehemently about an issue that doesn't affect you in any way (I'm assuming you are heterosexual)? You obviously feel very strongly regarding homosexuality, gay marriage, and gay adoption, but I can't see any reason why you, or anyone who isn't homosexual for that matter, would even care, let alone oppose these.

Where is the harm in saying, "I think homosexuality is a sin, so I won't engage in homosexual acts, and I'll join a church that feels the same. I'll allow others to decide the issue for themselves and their churches, and we can each tend to our own lives and homes and churches and spirituality."

My being a Christian homosexual affects nobody but me and my wife. My same-sex marriage affects nobody but me and my wife. My church's beliefs regarding homosexuality affect nobody but its members.

I argue so strongly not because I want you to adopt my belief system and start having sex with another man, start attending a gay church, or marry another man and adopt children. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs or act differently in regards to homosexuality. Indeed, I would find such a stance abhorrent.

I accept that you should be free to determne your beliefs regarding homosexuality and act based on those, and your church should be free to do the same. I don't want anybody to renounce their heterosexuality, don't want anybody to start viewing heterosexuality as a sin, don't want my church to prohibit heterosexual sex or heterosexual marriage. I don't want to limit the freedoms of others in any way except when they attempt to harm others.

I argue because the policies your promote harm me through limiting my freedoms based on your belief system without benefitting anyone, and because you promote your belief system as the one true one in regards to this issue. Before you try to turn this around and say that I am doing the same thing, let me make it very, very clear that I do not claim that my interpretation is the correct one for anybody but me, my family, and my church. I believe you have the right to do the same.

I want you to be free to act on your spiritual, moral, and ethical beliefs, and I would hope you would feel the same about my freedom to do that also. I don't want to force a pro-homosexual belief system on you or society. I don't want homosexuals to be given any preferences or special status. I only want to be free to live my life and to worship as a Christian as I see fit.

Gilda

billege · 10-09-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

Gay marriage is seen as an attack on what we hold sacred, the reaction we see to destroying a mosque, temple, or synagogue would be almost identical.

Frogza, if not thing else you should be given credit for attempting to start such a thread with class and respect. Good job there.

So far as the belief system you describe goes, I have no problem with it *(other than totally disagreeing)* until that last part I quoted. That's where my willingness to argue with "Christians" begins.

I've read a fair amount of the bible during my Catholic upbringing, and I'll be durned if I remember the section that taught what you describe in the quote above. I do remmber Jesus saying somthing about "let the first among you with no sin, cast the first stone." I also remember him saying "Turn the other cheek."

Should "Christians" be offended by gay marriage as an "attack" its both somthing they've made up and applied to themselves, and past that, have chosen to ignore Jesus' teachings as they apply here.

True believers in God's "Christian" teachings would have the faith to let God deal with the enforcement of God's rules.

He appointed no man as judge upon another man, He Himself held that privledge.

In *my* understanding of the gospels, True believers should unconditionally love "sinners" as Jesus did, and offer them both infinite compassion and understanding.

If God should decide gays are "going to hell" unless they repent thier "evilness" then let God make that decision when he returns to judge us all. Anything else is both a misunderstanding of the Bible's teachings, and presumption of God's own thoughts; which is blasphamey.

Anyone with a true belief in Christ and His teachings would open thier door to gays, and break bread with them. True believers would show the unconditional love that God showed us when He sent His only Son.

If the "gay" would turn away, that's thier choice, and they face it alone; between themselves and God, not man.

raeanna74 · 10-09-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

snip...First and foremost, I'm sure that you know that one of the definitions of sodomy is to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. Look at the "anti-gay" laws in the United States. What were those called again? Oh... That's right...! Sodomy laws... snip

Did you miss what I posted earlier in this thread about this particular reference???

"The word 'effeminate' here was translated from the Greek "Malakoi". It is usually interpreted as 'soft', 'fine', 'loose', 'pliable'. None of these specifically refer to homosexual behavior."

I chose the KJV which uses the word Effeminate but it's the same word in the Greek no matter who translates it and what they translate it as. IF you go to the original writing I do not see how you can translate it as sodomites, or homosexuals. That is someones TRANSLATION and not the original meaning or intent.

Infinite_Loser · 10-09-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raeanna74

I chose the KJV which uses the word Effeminate but it's the same word in the Greek no matter who translates it and what they translate it as. IF you go to the original writing I do not see how you can translate it as sodomites, or homosexuals. That is someones TRANSLATION and not the original meaning or intent.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think I posted three or four different links with detailed analyses of the word "arsenokoitai".

They're well worth reading.

asaris · 10-10-2006, 06:49 AM

Gilda, I think one of the reasons to dispute the Bible's teaching on homosexuality is that that's the topic of the thread. It'd be a pretty boring thread if we weren't arguing with each other, wouldn't it?

frogza · 10-10-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billege

Frogza, if not thing else you should be given credit for attempting to start such a thread with class and respect. Good job there.

So far as the belief system you describe goes, I have no problem with it *(other than totally disagreeing)* until that last part I quoted. That's where my willingness to argue with "Christians" begins.

I've read a fair amount of the bible during my Catholic upbringing, and I'll be durned if I remember the section that taught what you describe in the quote above. I do remmber Jesus saying somthing about "let the first among you with no sin, cast the first stone." I also remember him saying "Turn the other cheek."

Should "Christians" be offended by gay marriage as an "attack" its both somthing they've made up and applied to themselves, and past that, have chosen to ignore Jesus' teachings as they apply here.

True believers in God's "Christian" teachings would have the faith to let God deal with the enforcement of God's rules.

He appointed no man as judge upon another man, He Himself held that privledge.

In *my* understanding of the gospels, True believers should unconditionally love "sinners" as Jesus did, and offer them both infinite compassion and understanding.

If God should decide gays are "going to hell" unless they repent thier "evilness" then let God make that decision when he returns to judge us all. Anything else is both a misunderstanding of the Bible's teachings, and presumption of God's own thoughts; which is blasphamey.

Anyone with a true belief in Christ and His teachings would open thier door to gays, and break bread with them. True believers would show the unconditional love that God showed us when He sent His only Son.

If the "gay" would turn away, that's thier choice, and they face it alone; between themselves and God, not man.

If you would go back and read my OP, you'll find that I do not understand or support gay bashing or shunning.

I do not advocate shunning people for not abiding by the laws that Christ set in place. This is something he addressed when he explained that the healthy have no need of a physisician. A churches job, regardless of its core of beliefs, is to take people as they are and help them change into something better. That would mean, removing the traits that don't fit and adding others that do.

The premise of Christian churches is that they are in some way founded by God himself. The authority to teach was given either through direct lineage (Catholic Church) or an enlightening of some kind (Most other Christian churches) Both methods of assembly claim divine help in some form. Therefore it is claimed that the teachings of these churches are from God himself. The current trend of adding or taking away from a churches belief system is baffling to me. If people believe that God started the church they belong to, how then can they justify taking teachings away or adding new doctrines via a popular vote? By so doing, they are voiding the claim of divine guidance in their church.

Gilda · 10-10-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

Gilda, I think one of the reasons to dispute the Bible's teaching on homosexuality is that that's the topic of the thread. It'd be a pretty boring thread if we weren't arguing with each other, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. It's possible to have a civil discussion/debate without it descending into an argument.

My point wasn't that there's no reason to debate the topic. That would be somewhat hypocritical given my posts here. My point was that there's a difference between presenting one's interpretation as one's interpretation and presenting it as the one true and factual meaning given by God that should be accepted by an acted on by everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

The premise of Christian churches is that they are in some way founded by God himself. The authority to teach was given either through direct lineage (Catholic Church) or an enlightening of some kind (Most other Christian churches) Both methods of assembly claim divine help in some form. Therefore it is claimed that the teachings of these churches are from God himself. The current trend of adding or taking away from a churches belief system is baffling to me. If people believe that God started the church they belong to, how then can they justify taking teachings away or adding new doctrines via a popular vote? By so doing, they are voiding the claim of divine guidance in their church.

The simple and obvious answer to this is that not all Christian churches (or churches that have Christian members) are based on this principal. The two churches I've been a member of the last five years or so, the Metropolitan Community Churches and the UUA were started by people for the purpose of providing people with a similar belief system with a safe and welcoming place to worship and find fellowship.

I'd venture to guess that only those churches that believe that they are the one true church representing the one true way are based on the principle and line of reasoning you describe here.

It makes sense to me to interpret church doctrine to take into account the time and place and culture that existed at the time the Bible was written and to adapt church doctrine to take into account new knowledge regarding science and human nature and the differences between the culture of the time and as it exists currently.

Certainly not all churches will do this, but some do, and do so because they don't subscribe to the more conservative interpretation of the Bible.

Gilda

Zyr · 10-11-2006, 03:56 AM

Being neither homosexual, nor christian, I can not say I've done too much research on the subject myself, but here's a couple of things I spotted while reading the thread.

In one post I found this:

Quote:

Didn't you dispute Biblical fallibility above? I made reference to not believing in Biblical inerrancy, and you debated with me on that point.

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.

and in the same post, above this, I found:

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.

and in an earlier post:

Quote:

A bit of circular logic here, but one of the underlying principals of Christianity is that God commanded people to write the Bible. Since God is infallible, the Bible is true and without error. To claim that the Bible is erroneous in some area would be to claim that God is prone to human error.

Which is it? Do you disptute biblical fallibility or not?

This does however bring up the other point. If you believe the bible might be incorrect in any way, then this arguement is pointless. As we have seen, two people can take what is suppose to be the same thing, and get different things out of it. You end up saying "The bible might not be right, but I'll use it to back up my statements", which isn't good logic.

What really annoys me is all the assuptions.
Gilda assumes that the condemnations of certain homosexual acts are specific to those acts only.

Quote:

Certain male-male homosexual acts are addressed, but homosexuality itself is not, and discussiono female homosexual acts is absent.

Infinite_Loser assumes that those condemnations extend to all homosexual acts, and to homosexuality.

Quote:

Condemnation equals condemnation. Both in the Hebrew texts and the translated books of the Bible, homosexuality as a whole is condemned. You are assuming that God didn't mean all forms of homosexuality and the problem you have is that there is no evidence that this is what was meant.

While it seems there is insufficiate evidence to make a claim either way, I think the burden of proof is upon Infinite_Loser.
And of course, make sure arguements that are suppose to be supported by the bible, make claims of what is in the bible, not that which is not in the bible (i.e. "The bible doesn't condone, there for it condemns." This is not good logic either)

asaris · 10-11-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Not necessarily. It's possible to have a civil discussion/debate without it descending into an argument.

My point wasn't that there's no reason to debate the topic. That would be somewhat hypocritical given my posts here. My point was that there's a difference between presenting one's interpretation as one's interpretation and presenting it as the one true and factual meaning given by God that should be accepted by an acted on by everyone.

I'm not sure I agree with your point here, though we might have to just agree to disagree in order to avoid hijacking this thread. I tend to hold my opinions because I think I'm right. This entails that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I don't believe I'm infallible, and I'll admit the possibility that I am, in fact, wrong. But if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind. I'm not sure whether there's a difference between this standpoint and what you describe as "the one true and factual meaning given by God," but given that I believe that I'm right and you're wrong, and that it's good to believe true things, I'll generally try to convince others that they're wrong, given the appropriate forum. Moreover, believing that I'm right and you're wrong does not imply that I think you're unreasonable in your belief.

Disclaimer: This post is by no means intended to reflect my opinion on the topic in this thread. I tend to believe that homosexual activity is proscribed by scripture, but I'm very unsure about that, especially given my lack of any Greek to speak of.

Infinite_Loser · 10-12-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyr

Which is it? Do you disptute biblical fallibility or not?

Where have I ever stated that I dispute Biblical fallacy? Everything you quoted were basic Christian princples.

Quote:

While it seems there is insufficiate evidence to make a claim either way, I think the burden of proof is upon Infinite_Loser.

How did you come to the conclusion that there is insufficient effidence either way? If you'd do a bit of research on the subject, you'd find that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which proves that the Bible doesn't condone homosexuality. The number of people who believe that the Bible condones homosexual behaviour is strikingly small simply because the research done over the past hundred years says otherwise.

Quote:

This does however bring up the other point. If you believe the bible might be incorrect in any way, then this arguement is pointless. As we have seen, two people can take what is suppose to be the same thing, and get different things out of it. You end up saying "The bible might not be right, but I'll use it to back up my statements", which isn't good logic...

...And of course, make sure arguements that are suppose to be supported by the bible, make claims of what is in the bible, not that which is not in the bible (i.e. "The bible doesn't condone, there for it condemns." This is not good logic either)

You're putting words into my mouth.

As I said to Gilda, the underlying logic of Christianity is that the Bible is infallible, since it was written by God through humans. Therefore, it's not up for debate and personal interpretation. Saying that different interpretations of the Bible could mean different things isn't a good argument, because people who have studied the original (Or what's left of them) Biblical scrolls come to the same conclusion as the majority of theologins today. The basis of the thread is Christianity and homosexuality, therefore one would believe that all arguments would stem from a Christian basis.

And, just so you know, the Bible does condemn homosexuality. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why a select group of people seemingly believe that they know more than people who spend their entire lives dedicated to researching the Bible and Christian beliefs.

It baffles me.

Gilda · 10-12-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

How did you come to the conclusion that there is insufficient effidence either way? If you'd do a bit of research on the subject, you'd find that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which proves that the Bible doesn't condone homosexuality.

Not condoning is not the same as condemning. However, I do think maybe you chould consider the story of Johnathan and David. It's a pretty sweet love story.

Quote:

As I said to Gilda, the underlying logic of Christianity is that the Bible is infallible, since it was written by God through humans. Therefore, it's not up for debate and personal interpretation.

Actually it is up to debate. We've been debating it. It is subject to interpretation. Every person interprets everything they read every time they read it, without exception. If you gain meaning from words, you have interpreted them.

Quote:

Saying that different interpretations of the Bible could mean different things isn't a good argument,

It's absolutely a rock solid argument, because different interpretations of scripture do come to different conclusions regarding the meaning. This is a fact.

Quote:

because people who have studied the original (Or what's left of them) Biblical scrolls come to the same conclusion as the majority of theologins today. The basis of the thread is Christianity and homosexuality, therefore one would believe that all arguments would stem from a Christian basis.

Of course. There is not, however, one Christian belief system. There are hundreds of them all having certain elements in common. Unity, MCC, Pentecostals, Episcopaleans, Catholics, and Southern Baptists are all Christians, and all come to different conclusons using the same basic source materials. Some Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy. The MCC churches, for example, believe this, and likewise believe that there is no blanket condemnation of homosexuality in the bible.

Christian Churches don't all have identical belief systems

I'm cool with that. It's fine with me that Catholics don't have female or openly gay clergy. I'm no longer Catholic, so their belief system doesn't apply to me. It's cool with me that Southern Baptists believe in "once saved, always saved". I don't believe that, but I'm not a Baptist, so it's not something that I need to be concerned with. The Church of Christ and the First Christian Church have nearly identical belief systems, but the Church of Christ split off from the FCC in an internal dispute over whether the Bible permits instrumental music in church and other related topics. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, so other Christian belief systems aren't applicable to me, except when they're used as justification for restricting my human rights, in other words, used to attempt to regulate matters external to the church rather than internal.

Quote:

And, just so you know, the Bible does condemn homosexuality. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why a select group of people seemingly believe that they know more than people who spend their entire lives dedicated to researching the Bible and Christian beliefs.

I, for one, don't claim to know more.

Everone who reads the bible interprets it. Everyone who reads anything interprets what they are reading. Only the illiterate don't do this. You cannot live by Biblical principals without doing this, without knowing what they are and what they mean and how they apply to your life situation.

For example, I see no biblical condemnation of monogamous, stable, loving, same-sex relationships.

--------------

Johnathan and David

Quote:

1 samuel 18

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armour, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

The two men meet, love each other more than their own souls at first sight, Johnathan strips and presents those things that are most valuable to him to David.

Quote:

1 Samuel 20:14-17

If I am still alive, show me the faithful love of the Lord; but if I die, never cut off your faithful love from my house, even if the Lord were to cut off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.’ Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.’ Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life.

A covenant to join houses in the name of the Lord. Hmmm.

Quote:

1 Samual 30--

Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, ‘You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.’ Then Jonathan answered his father Saul, ‘Why should he be put to death? What has he done?’ But Saul threw his spear at him to strike him; so Jonathan knew that it was the decision of his father to put David to death

Saul is upset that his son has shamed him by loving David, to the point that he wants David killed.

Quote:

1 Samuel 20:41-45

As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever.”

The two men kiss each other and cry as they say goodbye, and speak of the covenant with God joining their houses.

Quote:

2 samuel 1:26

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful,
passing the love of women.

Finally David professes a love for Jonathan greater than the love of women.

It's a classic love story, and I'm pretty sure David is held in high esteem in the Bible.

---------------------

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17

‘Do not press me to leave you
or to turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go;
where you lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people,
and your God my God.
Where you die, I will die—
there will I be buried.
May the Lord do thus and so to me,
and more as well,
if even death parts me from you!’

Sweet, isn't it? Words spoken from one woman to another. Grace and I used this as part of our wedding ceremony.

Gilda

Zyr · 10-14-2006, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

How did you come to the conclusion that there is insufficient effidence either way? If you'd do a bit of research on the subject, you'd find that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which proves that the Bible doesn't condone homosexuality. The number of people who believe that the Bible condones homosexual behaviour is strikingly small simply because the research done over the past hundred years says otherwise.

Everytime someone asks you if the bible condemns homosexuality, you have always responded by saying "...the Bible doesn't condone homosexuality.". I may have been paraphrasing earlier, but I was not putting words in your mouth.

I have a simple request. I don't think it's too much to ask. It's a simple thing that I think would clear up a lot, and hopefully put us all back on the same page. I ask you to answer the following question, first in a single word, and then back that up with quotation. Does the bible condemn (not the same as not condoning) homosexuality (The sexual preference, not just the acts) explicitly? Where? (Biblical quotes, please).

Assuming you were able to fufill that small request, I think it would make this arguement a lot easier to argue. Assuming the quotes given are not in dispute as to their meaning, then the situation should be resolved quickly. If the meanings are in dispute, then we have found a central point over which we could argue, focusing the arguement. I'll sure all could agree that that would be a better thing that to be arguing over things spread all over the place. And of course, if you can not come up with quotes, then the arguement goes to the other side. It's up to you. (Now, if you can't fufill that request, I think it makes a pretty strong statement about you.)

tecoyah · 10-14-2006, 01:40 AM

............No.............Not in any version I have Read (4 so far)

Zyr · 10-14-2006, 03:49 PM

Well the question was intended for Infinite_Loser, but I appreciate the input, tecoyah.

Infinite_Loser · 10-14-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Not condoning is not the same as condemning. However, I do think maybe you chould consider the story of Johnathan and David. It's a pretty sweet love story.

I'll get to this later on.

Quote:

Actually it is up to debate. We've been debating it. It is subject to interpretation. Every person interprets everything they read every time they read it, without exception. If you gain meaning from words, you have interpreted them.

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.

Quote:

It's absolutely a rock solid argument, because different interpretations of scripture do come to different conclusions regarding the meaning. This is a fact.

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.

Quote:

Of course. There is not, however, one Christian belief system. There are hundreds of them all having certain elements in common. Unity, MCC, Pentecostals, Episcopaleans, Catholics, and Southern Baptists are all Christians, and all come to different conclusons using the same basic source materials. Some Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy. The MCC churches, for example, believe this, and likewise believe that there is no blanket condemnation of homosexuality in the bible...

...I'm cool with that. It's fine with me that Catholics don't have female or openly gay clergy. I'm no longer Catholic, so their belief system doesn't apply to me. It's cool with me that Southern Baptists believe in "once saved, always saved". I don't believe that, but I'm not a Baptist, so it's not something that I need to be concerned with. The Church of Christ and the First Christian Church have nearly identical belief systems, but the Church of Christ split off from the FCC in an internal dispute over whether the Bible permits instrumental music in church and other related topics. I'm a Unitarian
Universalist, so other Christian belief systems aren't applicable to me, except when they're used as justification for restricting my human rights, in other words, used to attempt to regulate matters external to the church rather than internal.

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.

Quote:

I, for one, don't claim to know more.

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.

Quote:

Everone who reads the bible interprets it. Everyone who reads anything interprets what they are reading. Only the illiterate don't do this. You cannot live by Biblical principals without doing this, without knowing what they are and what they mean and how they apply to your life situation.

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.

Quote:

For example, I see no biblical condemnation of monogamous, stable, loving, same-sex relationships.

...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.

Quote:

The two men meet, love each other more than their own souls at first sight, Johnathan strips and presents those things that are most valuable to him to David...

...A covenant to join houses in the name of the Lord....

...And speak of the covenant with God joining their houses.

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.

Quote:

Saul is upset that his son has shamed him by loving David, to the point that he wants David killed.

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.

Quote:

The two men kiss each other and cry as they say goodbye...

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

Quote:

Finally David professes a love for Jonathan greater than the love of women.

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.

Quote:

It's a classic love story...

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".

Quote:

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17

‘Do not press me to leave you
or to turn back from following you!
Where you go, I will go;
where you lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people,
and your God my God.
Where you die, I will die—
there will I be buried.
May the Lord do thus and so to me,
and more as well,
if even death parts me from you!’

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.

Quote:

Sweet, isn't it? Words spoken from one woman to another. Grace and I used this as part of our wedding ceremony.

Sweet! You married your sister-in-law?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyr

I have a simple request. I don't think it's too much to ask. It's a simple thing that I think would clear up a lot, and hopefully put us all back on the same page. I ask you to answer the following question, first in a single word, and then back that up with quotation. Does the bible condemn (not the same as not condoning) homosexuality (The sexual preference, not just the acts) explicitly? Where? (Biblical quotes, please).

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.

SecretMethod70 · 10-15-2006, 03:14 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Erm... Unless I'm missing something, I'm the ONLY one providing references of any sort. A reference is better than no reference, correct?

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.

Infinite_Loser · 10-15-2006, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

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

Quote:

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon serves the Seminary as the associate professor of New Testament. He received his bachelor's from Dartmouth College, his M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and his doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary. His main fields of interest are sexual issues in the Bible (particularly homosexuality), exegesis of Romans and 1 Corinthians, Pauline theology, and spirituality in the New Testament. He is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon 2001) and co-author with Dan Via of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress 2003). He has published a companion essay to the latter in Christian Sexuality (ed. R. Saltzman; Kirk House 2003) entitled "Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful?" (addressing also the use of the creation texts and "orientation" theories in antiquity). He is also the author of a number of scholarly articles which have appeared in journals such as the Journal of Biblical Literature, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, New Testament Studies, Zeitschrift fuer alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, and Horizons in Biblical Theology.

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

Quote:

Bernadette J. Brooten, director of the Feminist Sexual Ethics Project, is Robert and Myra Kraft and Jacob Hiatt Professor of Christian Studies and Professor of Women's Studies at Brandeis University and a former MacArthur Fellow. She has also held fellowships from the Harvard Law School, the Fulbright Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and many other granting agencies.

Brooten is currently writing a book on early Christian women who were enslaved or who were slave-holding, and she is editing a volume on slavery's long shadow over the lives of girls and women that will focus on the intersection of slavery, religion, women, and sexuality.

She has written Women Leaders in The Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) and Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), for which she received three awards. In addition, she has published articles on Paul and the Jewish Law, Jewish epigraphy, papyrological and literary evidence for Jewish women's power to initiate divorce in antiquity, and on various topics of ancient Jewish and early Christian women's history.

Brooten studied German at the University of Portland (B.A. 1971), Roman Catholic and Protestant theology at the University of Tabingen; Talmud and Jewish history at Hebrew University and the University of Tabingen; and New Testament, ancient post-Biblical Judaism, and early Christian literature at Harvard University (Ph.D. 1982). She previously taught at the School of Theology at Claremont, the Claremont Graduate School, the University of Tabingen, Harvard Divinity School, and the Department of Theology of the University of Oslo in Norway.

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:

Quote:

The central argument of Love Between Women: Early Christian responses to female homoerotism, is simple: Both Christian and non-Christian writers in the Roman world were aware of sexual love between women, and nearly all rejected it. Christians and non-Christians both condemned woman-to-woman love because they believed that women are by nature passive and should subordinate themselves to men. Many of today's scholars believe that lesbian orientation and relationships were unknown to ancient writers.

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

----------

Richard Hays

Quote:

Richard B. Hays is the George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. Hays received his B.A from Yale College and his Masters of Divinity from Yale Divinity School, and a Ph.D from Emory University. Considered as one of the world's leading New Testament scholars, Hays' work focuses on New Testament ethics, the Pauline epistles and early Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.

In the field of New Testament studies, Hays has often been identified with figures such as N.T. Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson and Raymond Brown. Hays is well-known for his criticisms of the Jesus Seminar and the modern Historical Jesus movement. Recently, Hays has been vocal about his criticisms of Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code for its controversial historical claims. His more conservative stance on homosexuality has drawn some attention, considering that many New Testament scholars take a more liberal stance on the issue. In Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, he candidly describes his relationship with a longtime friend from Yale, Gary. Gary, as both a Christian and a homosexual, struggled with his homosexuality for many years, "experiencing it as a compulsion and an affliction" (pgs. 379-380). Hays uses Gary's story not only to show how homosexual Christians can believe that homosexuality is an affliction, but also to show how important it is to develop friendships across gay/straight boundaries.

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?

Zyr · 10-16-2006, 01:44 AM

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.

SecretMethod70 · 10-16-2006, 02:06 AM

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:

Quote:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
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.

That last point was the original intent of this thread:

Quote:

My intention with this post is NOT to offend, convert or to condescend, but to simply explain the Christian side of the argument.

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyr

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.

Zyr hit the nail on the head.

Fallen Angel · 10-17-2006, 01:08 PM

Ok... I didn't go through to read everything EVERYONE posted, but I did do an overview... I'm a lesbian that has read the bible and once believed in God, but that was before the whole Gay Rights thing started... What I don't understand is why A lot of people can not accept it, because.. it hurts... I've had my fair share of rude comments when I was in high school... I had a wonderful girlfriend, and that's all that mattered... i lived in a town that was VERY RELIGOUS... and a lot of the people accepted me because I had a girlfriend, and promised them I wouldn't hit on them... Gay people find it REALLY hard to hit on straight people, it's just a fact of life... I just wish we could be accepted into society with open minds and open hearts...

Gilda · 10-17-2006, 02:41 PM

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.

Infinite_Loser · 10-17-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

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.

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.

Frosstbyte · 10-18-2006, 01:02 PM

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.

tecoyah · 10-20-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

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

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.

10-05-2006, 02:16 AM	#82 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Infinite_Loser: I only skimmed your most recent post, mainly because it seems to be the same general stuff you've been saying in your previous posts. In skimming, though, I couldn't help but notice that the site you link to to back up your claims is subtitled: "Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives for United Methodist Seminarians." There is a ton of secular scholarship on the bible...but you seem intent on utilizing non-secular sites to back up your claims. I'd be interested in seeing you link to more trustworthy sources (historically speaking) next time. If you can't at least do this, I'm afraid you're wasting a whole lot of your own time and ours. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

10-06-2006, 10:02 PM	#86 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	It's a bit tiring to type the same thing over and over and over again, only to have you ignore it by repeating what's already been refuted. Therefore, here are some nifty links for you to read: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/bibl..._overview.html http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 10-07-2006 at 02:14 AM.. Reason: Added extra info

10-10-2006, 06:49 AM	#91 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Gilda, I think one of the reasons to dispute the Bible's teaching on homosexuality is that that's the topic of the thread. It'd be a pretty boring thread if we weren't arguing with each other, wouldn't it? __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

10-14-2006, 01:40 AM	#99 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	............No.............Not in any version I have Read (4 so far) __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-14-2006, 03:49 PM	#100 (permalink)
Zyr Crazy Location: Hamilton, NZ	Well the question was intended for Infinite_Loser, but I appreciate the input, tecoyah. __________________ "Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at." Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis. All things change, and we change with them. - Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

10-16-2006, 01:44 AM	#104 (permalink)
Zyr Crazy Location: Hamilton, NZ	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. __________________ "Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at." Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis. All things change, and we change with them. - Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

10-17-2006, 01:08 PM	#106 (permalink)
Fallen Angel Upright Location: FLorida	Ok... I didn't go through to read everything EVERYONE posted, but I did do an overview... I'm a lesbian that has read the bible and once believed in God, but that was before the whole Gay Rights thing started... What I don't understand is why A lot of people can not accept it, because.. it hurts... I've had my fair share of rude comments when I was in high school... I had a wonderful girlfriend, and that's all that mattered... i lived in a town that was VERY RELIGOUS... and a lot of the people accepted me because I had a girlfriend, and promised them I wouldn't hit on them... Gay people find it REALLY hard to hit on straight people, it's just a fact of life... I just wish we could be accepted into society with open minds and open hearts...

10-17-2006, 02:41 PM	#107 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	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. __________________ 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 Last edited by Gilda; 10-17-2006 at 07:28 PM..

10-18-2006, 01:02 PM	#109 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	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.