asaris

I'm sorry, it's been a long day at work, but I don't see how what you say follows from what I say.

__________________
"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

Gilda

Absent sin, which you've agreed is solely God's place to judge, I don't see any possible way to object to homosexuality on a Christian basis. That is the objectiion some Christians make, erroneously, IMO.

Gilda

asaris

That's not what I'm saying; I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. What I mean is that we cannot judge who is going to heaven. We shouldn't assume that Hitler isn't getting in, and we shouldn't assume that Mother Theresa is. And we certainly shouldn't assume that someone who is a homosexual isn't going to make it. But we can judge that Mother Theresa's life was better than Hitler's, and that helping the poor is a good action while gassing Jews is a bad action.

__________________
"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

raeanna74

The only reference that I can find so far in the New Testament, that most Christians will point to as a statement against homosexuality is:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

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.
The phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' is translated from, "Arsenokoitai". Literally translated, "arsen" meaning 'man'; "koitai" meaning 'beds'. In the Septuagent, the translation of the Old Testament laws (Torah), the translators chose to translate the Hebrew "quadesh" as "Arsenohoitai". The subject they use the word in referred to male temple prostitutes serving in Pagan worship. It seems the word was also used in referrence to "catamites" who were generally boy slaves kept for the purpose of sexual satisfaction. This phrase then could be understood as either male prostitution for the purpose of pagan worship, or pedophilia.

I have not found other referrences in the New Testament to 'homosexuality' as some people choose to translate it.

As for the Old Testament laws. How many people can you think of who obey the 3rd and and 4th commandments?? Some might say that the temptation is too great and people are just incapable of resisting. But yet I cannot think of many who attempt to resist the temptations to work on Sunday or not swear using the name of Jesus or God. So what makes the the 7th commandment more important than the 3rd or 4th? Not the temptation surely.

If a person wants to draw the condemnation of homosexuality from the Old Testament rules then they should return to a Kosher diet. A woman who is menstrating would have to be 'cleased' post menses before she could have sex with her husband. And numerous others petty laws. We cannot pick and choose if what we adhere by simply because its easy. I believe that we do not need to be concerned about the Old Testament laws.

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).
If we love our neighbor then we will not steal from him, or lie to him, or steal his wife, etc. We do not have to be concerned with the small petty laws of the old Jews. We will take the time to worship on Sunday because we LOVE him but we do not have to avoid cooking ourselves lunch simply because it would be breaking God's Old Testament laws.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

asaris

The OT arguments don't work well either way. The problem is that, unlike the kosher laws, it's unclear whether the proscriptions on homosexuality are part of the purity laws (in which case they wouldn't apply), or are part of the moral law (in which case they would). Like you say, the NT is also ambiguous. "Homosexuality" as we understand it today either didn't exist or wasn't recognized in the first century world. So the proscriptions in the NT can be read as simply proscribing, say, visiting a temple prostitute or being effeminate, as you note.

The simplest argument, for those who believe that scripture also prohibits premarital sex, is to show that Christian marriage is only between a man and a woman, so any homosexual sexual activity must be illicit.

__________________
"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

Gilda

It is possible for gay couples to have a Christian marriage, so that breaks down as well.

Gilda

raeanna74

I found another reference used to arue against homosexuality.

Romans 1:26,27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In the original Greek the phrases which were translated as passions or lust were usually used in reference to pagan ceremonial drug induced ecstasies.
"para physin" which is usually translated as unatural or against nature in this particular text is defined as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." If this is the technical definition of the phrase then a better translation could be unconventional. The phrase is used in other parts of the Bible in reference to men wearing long hair, and also bringing Jews and Gentiles to work together.

It seems even this passage could be interpreted in mulitple ways. One of which is that it deals with Christians who participated in pagan ceremonies. Worship in a pagan way would in a sense be 'unnatural' for a Christian to do.

The fact that 'Christian marriage' is not common for homosexuals is not because most homosexuals don't desire it but because of a religious prejudice against giving a 'Christian blessing' to the union. Maybe this needs to change?

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

asaris

I'm not saying that the Christian teaching on marriage is unambiguous. I'm saying that it's easier to argue that Christian marriage is only between a man and a woman than it is to argue that homosexual activity is sinful. The passages suggesting that marriage is between a man and a woman are generally less ambiguous than those suggesting that sex between a man and a man is wrongful.

__________________
"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

Poppinjay

Let me throw some useless wood on the fire.

Gilda is right.

I offer up as an example Luke 12:51.

He offers up division, and a whole lot of problems. The verse starts "do you think I've come to give you peace?"

And that just starts the war.

Sorry, lets keep it short.

I've studied at a religious school for years.

And I've believed acceptance for years.

Still waiting for a MIRACLE.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Ch'i

Its difficult to use passages from the Bible in such a way. Examples:

Sounds like Israel has some bull slaughtering to do...

Infinite_Loser

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Period.

1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 11

This isn't even taking into account the Old Testament, in which homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin.

For the life of me I can't understand why people are trying to purposely contort what the Bible says for the sake of their own argument.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

Do you take everything the bible says at face value?

Gilda

Nope:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

On a personal note, I'm neither male, nor a prostitute, nor a sodomite. I'm married and have sex exclusively with my wife, so I'm neither a fornicator nor an adulterer. I'm free across the board here. Woo hoo!

Nope. Homosexuality itself is not addressed, only certain homosexual acts when committed by males in certain circumstances. The bible also condemns heterosexual acts quite frequently, but I seldom see this read as a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~Lynn Lavner

Also, with the new covenant brought by Jesus, the laws of the old testament no longer apply, unless you happen to be Jewish.

I agree completely. High five!

Gilda

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

~Steven Colbert

Frosstbyte

How do these threads keep dragging their rotting corpses out of the grave? Sleeping dogs and dead horses and all that.

Infinite_Loser

Yup.

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.

Go figure!

Anyway, I offer up the NIV version of the aforementioned passages of scripture, which is a bit more clearer and easier to understand:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

You're right! You're free across the board IF you ignore the sodomy part.

Homosexuality in the Bible isn't addressed? Care to further elaborate one what you mean?

You're right. The Bible does condemn some heterosexual acts as well. However, heterosexuality as a whole ISN'T an abomination to God while homosexuality IS.

Or it could mean that God's laws concerning homosexuality were clear cut, and needed much less explanation. I'm not sure how much someone could elaborate on the phrase "Don't do it!"

...But that's just a guess.

Incorrect.

According to Christian belief, Jesus came to Earth to die for all of our sins. In the Old Testament one had to offer up sacrifices to receive forgiveness (Assuming your sin didn't lead to instant death, such as being stoned for homosexuality). Jesus brought with him a new covenant; One which wasn't as harsh as its predecessor. According to Jesus, all sins could be forgiven through him. This is why Christians today no longer engage in such practices as elaborate sacrifices or public stoning.

Most (Almost all) Christians today will tell you that the moral and civil laws of the old Testament (Such as the Ten Commandments) are still applicable. To say that none of the laws of the Old Testament apply is not only hogwash, but it's a blatant attempt at miscontruing the Bible.

How about this? Why don't you find me a passage of Scripture in which God, Jesus, any of the prophets or any of the disciples condones homosexuality?

Apparently not, since you seem content to do just that.

I don't care if you're a heterosexual or a homosexual, but don't take any religious book out of context to justify that action.

I was merely being objective. There isn't any place in the Bible where homosexuality is condoned.

But, to answer your question, I don't take everything the Bible says at face value.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

The funny thing about christianity is that even if you're christian, you can't claim anything on behalf of christianity in general. The term christian is an umbrella term for over a thousand different denominations that all follow the teachings of jesus in their own way. So please, if anyone's going to claim that christians are this and that christians believe that, please qualify your statement and stop acting like any one person or group of people has cornered the market on christian thought.

That way we can end fruitless discussions like this by acknowledging that different people interpret different manifestations of dieties in different ways.

Gilda

Nah, and here's the problem. "The Bible" is quite vague. What translation, and what interpretation? Some interpretations of some translations see homosexuality as a sin, other interpretations don't, some bibles use one translation, others use another. Homosexuality, that is, the state of being attracted to others of the same sex, is not addressed at all in the bible. All references are to specific instances of male-male sex acts. The act, not the state. Homosexuality as a relatively stable state of being was not a concept that in any probability existed at the time the bible was written. Temple prostitution and pederasty (an older man having sex with a younger boy) were, and the admonitions against male-male homsexual acts were likely a reaction to those elements of Roman society.

In biblical terms, Sodomite means a resident of Sodom. The whole city was condemned for it's sins. The modern meaning of sexual contact other than vaginal intercourse is derived from the biblical usage. It makes little sense to project modern usage back on previous uses of the word. It's just unsound etymologically. Also, even in modern usage, sodomy does not mean homosexual sex, it in general means oral or anal sex, which is something engaged in far more often by heterosexuals than homosexuals. It was consensual sodomy laws that were struck down, not forcible sodomy which remain on the books, as they should.

Eh. I think the NRSV tranlastion I provided is just as straightforward, but it does point out the big problem with this passage. The first word there, tranlated in both versions as "male prostitutes" is actually in the original texts malakoi, which literally means "soft". It's sometimes interpreted as "effeminiate", but I think that's a stretch. In Matthew the same word is used to describe weak or sick people. Most male homosexuals aren't prostitutes, and given that the bible condems prostitution in other places, we can safely read this as a condemnation of prostitution with males being specified as not exempt. But since your translation agrees with mine that it refers to prostitutes, I think we can agree that it's not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.

Arsenokoitai, translated in your version as "homosexual offenders" and in mine as "sodomites" is likewise unclear. It literally means "man lying in bed". The homosexual reference is, dare I say it, projected onto the original text by translators. The precise meaning is unclear, though it may be a holdover from leviticus where two smaller words arseno and koitai, are What this means in this context is unclear. It might mean a male prostitute, differentiated from a female, but who might service either sex, but it seems most likely to be a reference to the Greek practice of pederasty, a specific context no longer relevant and which does not translate easily into a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, just one specific sex act as practiced between a grown man and a young boy in a specific culture.

Nope. The original language is male specific, and adresses specific sex acts, not homosexuality in general.

Homosexuality, that is the state of being homosexual, is not addressed anywhere in any way in the Bible. It would be surprising if it did, as exclusive male homosexuality wasn't really a cultural concept of the time, and the idea that there were female homosexuals would probably have been an entirely foreign concept.

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

Interesting how you jump from what the bible says to what God believes. Do you have a hotline or something like that? I've got some questions I'd like to ask.

Ah, well, it's good to see you admit that you're guessing. My guess would be that the "Don't do it" refers to the specific acts and doesn't qualify as a blanket condemnation. Just as with the many heterosexual acts condemned.

The ten commandments were reaffirmed in the New Testament, but still, there's no blanket condemnation of homosexuality (as opposed to specific homosexual acts in a specific context) in the Old Testament as well. You'd think that if Jesus was really all that concerned with homosexuality, he'd have said a little more than what he did about it, which was, by the way, nothing.

Unnecessary. A lack of support does not equal condemnation.

Show me a passage where driving a car is condoned, or eating barbequed potato chips or running the high hurdles. Are we to assume those things are sinful because the aren't condoned? Of course not. Endorsement in the bible is not a requirement for an act to be permitted.

However:

Galatians 5:14

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

Also, Matthew 8: 5-13

No, truly I'm in agreement with you on the main point, that projecting an agenda onto the texts of The Bible is counterproductive.

The disagreement here is in who is doing this.

I agree. That's been the cause of any number of atrocities over the last couple of mellenia.

No, you're not being objective. You have an agenda, a pretty clear one, and you're promoting it pretty heavily.

Gilda

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

~Steven Colbert

Bill O'Rights

What? You're kidding, right? "People" have been doing that since the ink was first set to the paper...or the chisel to the rock, or whatever. In my opinion, the Bible is singularly the worst reference to cite, due to the anbiguity and contradictions.

Christianity has been a "buffet religion" for centuries. "Hmmm...that looks good, I'll have a little of that, some of this, oooh I'm piling up on that, but that stuff looks a little stale, I think I'll pass." Hence, all of the denominations.

That's my 2 cents...and that's about what it's worth.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Infinite_Loser

The Bible, as we know it, in many instances explicitly states that the act of homosexuality is an abomination to God. It would make sense that all references of homosexuality are male-male, as it was a patriarchal society at the time. Still, women were expected to follow the laws handed down to men (See Adam and Eve).

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

And, as I'm curious, could you find me one translation of the Bible which doesn't see homosexuality as a sin?

By the time the New Testament era had come around, the cities of Sodom and Gamorra had been destroyed for hundreds of years. I fully well know how the original word was derived and its meaning. The word "Sodomy" is derived from the sexual acts which occurred in the region.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a semantics debate, but look up the word "Sodomy". One of it's meaning will be "Intercourse between two members of the same sex". Notice that I didn't say that it only had one meaning (In reference to an earlier post).


The entire Bible is male specific, with a few passages dedicated to women in general.

*Further explained a bit below*

Ah! I love the "But the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexual feelings!" argument. Unfortunately, the Bible says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which would promote homosexuality in any form, feelings or the manifestation of it, either. In fact, it says just the opposite.

Now, I'm going to assume that since you're arguing from a Biblical standpoint that you believe that the Bible is the absolute truth and that God is omnipotent. If both the latter are true and if God doesn't show disdain for homosexuality, then why are there no passages of scripture stating as much?

There are very few commandments in the Bible given explicitly to women, simply because the society was male-dominated (Patriarchal). However, men were given the laws and women were expected to abide by them.

Take the story of Adam and Eve, for example. While God never explicitly commanded Eve not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was expected to follow the rules that God had layed down upon Adam. Therefore, she was prone to the same penalties as Adam when she broke them.

It's the same same concept.

No, I don't have a hotline; I've just got good reading skills

Not to sound brash or offensive, but what part of "It's an abomination to me" is so hard to understand?

While Jesus never said anything specific about homosexuality, he did command others to follow the "Laws of Moses" (Jesus himself lived by the law).

Matthew 23: 2-3
Matthew 23: 16-22
Mark 7: 7-13
Luke 10: 25-28

Leviticus 18: 22, one of the "Laws of Moses", clearly prohibits homosexual encounters.

If Jesus promoted the "Laws of Moses" and the they, in turn, prohibited homosexuality, then is Jesus' stand on homosexuality not clear?

There are numerous times in the Bible where homosexuality is referred to as an "Abomination before God". Even worse, you happened to provide a passage of Scripture which even said that homosexuals have no place in heaven, so I've no idea where you get the notion that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.

If you want to play this game, then I can most certainly play this game. While there isn't anything explicitly relating to driving a car or eating barbecue, there are passages of scriptures directly relating to homosexuality and none those passages condones the act.

And, as you are aware, Christians are commanded to love their neighbour but hate the sin, the sin in this case being homosexuality.

Yet you continue to do it, which perplexes me.

There really shouldn't be any disagreement. The Bible is quite clear on the subject.

If I had a problem with you or any other homosexual, I'd tell you so.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

SecretMethod70

Infinite_Loser, you act like abomination is such a clear-cut term, biblically speaking. I'd be interested to know whether or not you consume shellfish. After all, they're an abomination too. (Lev 11:10-12)

I'm actually not sure you're comprehending anything Gilda is saying though. At the core of her posts lies one important fact: the bible has been translated over...and over...and over again. This doesn't necessarily devalue it. What it does mean, however, is that it takes a certain level of bullheadedness to claim one is certain of the message intended to be conveyed. In fact, Gilda utterly trounced your repeated claims that the bible blanketly condemns homosexuality - and I'll add nothing she stated is anything I haven't heard said before, both in my numerous classes focusing on religious studies, and from a number of clergy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you haven't gone out of your way to read each book of the bible in the original language they were written in (sometimes more than one per book!). That's OK. I wouldn't expect you to, and neither have I. However, I do recognize that there are people who HAVE studied the bible with careful consideration of both language and context, and every person I have come across that has done so has echoed Gilda's primary points.

You also conveniently ignore Gilda's point that lack of support does not equal condemnation. You're right that the bible does not expressly condone homosexuality. Seeing as how it also does not universally condemn it, it is impossible to draw a clear and certain teaching on the issue. However, there is one predominant thread in Christianity, and that is love. With that in mind, a well-educated person would be hard-pressed to claim the bible explicitly and universally condemns homosexuality, especially with regard to committed, monogamous relationships.

Perhaps it's time I revived an old signature of mine which serves to point out, among other things, that relying strictly on the face value of words is a highly flawed method of understanding a message that is being conveyed:

"There is always a gap between what is experienced within the cave of the human heart and what is expressed through words and symbols." - Stanley J. Samartha

Finally, this is all setting aside the very important point that what is appropriate for Christians in one cultural context is not necessarily appropriate for Christians in another. Regardless of the debate over how clear the bible is on homosexuality and what exactly it's trying to say, there is something the bible is very clear about: women ought to cover their heads when in church (1 Cor 11). I hope you speak out against uncovered female heads in church with the same kind of dedication as it seems you speak out against homosexuality.

Of course, I'm being facetious. I know full well the odds are you don't believe women are required to cover their heads in church. It just goes to show, no matter how explicitly clear the text of the bible is, there are other factors to be considered as well. Most significantly, cultural context. Even if we accept that the bible is clear in its condemnation of homosexuality - which it is not - it then follows that that is not necessarily a condemnation for our time. And that leads us to an entirely different debate altogether.

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

As an aside, while I enjoy debate that has a point, the fact is there's nothing you're going to say which will convince persons such as Gilda or myself that what you are saying is correct. No offense intended to you - I'm sure you're a nice guy - but in this particular case, I frankly think your view is uneducated. Likewise, I must also recognize that it seems nothing that is said, no matter how much is cited to support it, will serve to alter your viewpoint. So, let's just agree to disagree and allow this thread to either die, or be continued with the efforts of another member who is interested in mutual discussion and understanding as opposed to proselytizing.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Infinite_Loser

Mark 7: 18-19
Acts 10:9-16

But, to answer your question, I dislike all seafood.

I've done more than the conventional "Go to church and read my Bible because I have to" thing. Religion happens to be one of the things in which I take the most delight in learning about (Partially because I had to and partially because history has always fascinated me). I only assert the claims which are true (And if you want to call that conceited, then go right ahead).

No, she didn't. She did, however, manage to evade a few points of mine.

A.) While it's true that Jesus never once outright mentioned homosexuality, one of the main focal points of Jesus' teachings was that he was born to fulfill the "Law of Moses"; Not to end or change it. Those people who claim that the Old Testament is no longer valid and thusly can be ignored are mistaken. While many practices of the Old Testament are now obsolete (Such as religious sacrifices and stoning), many of the moral and civil laws continue to predominate themselves in modern day Christian sects. Upon examining and studying the Old Testament, we conclude that the Biblical aversion to homosexuality stems from the "Law(s) of Moses", typically referred to as the Torah. The Torah's attitude concerning homosexuality is definite-- It's a perversion and a sin before God. In fact, the word it uses to describe homosexuality is "to'evah" (Or "Abomination", meaning "To cause to stray from"). If you don't believe me, then read it for yourself. Better yet, pick it up and read it in Hebrew.

B.) You trying to challenge the interpretation of the Bible's view on homosexuality is like me trying to challenge the meaning of "Thou shalt not steal"-- It's not up for debate. If you took a look at the original Hebrew text regarding homosexuality, you would notice that homosexuality in all forms was condemned and punishable by death.

C.) The majority of religious scholars do NOT make that claim that perhaps the interpretation of the Torah or the Bible on homosexuals is wrong. In fact, it's quite the opposite. During the past thirty or fourty years, what you see is a number of religious groups either rejecting doctrine or trying to redefine homosexuality so it conforms with previous teachings rather than trying to redefine religious doctrine.

No offense to you or anyone else, but you're not the only person who has ever taken religious studies classes or done studies yourself.

Of course there will be. Those looking for change will almost always come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, you fail to mention that there are a larger number of people who have studied the Bible with careful consideration in every language and context who do not agree with nor echoe Gilda's primary points?

You can't look at one side of the equation while utterly ignoring the other one. A one-sided argument doesn't prove much, now does it?

I feel like a broken record.

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.

This is what gets me the most.

I suppose it's just me, but when something is called "An abomination unto God", it doesn't have a positive connotation (The accepted meaning of the word being "To cause to stray from"). Anything which causes a person to stray away from God is considered a sin and instantly condemned.

The love most explicitly covered in the Bible is love between a man and a woman, God's love for his children, Jesus' love for the Church and love between neighbors.

The love of which you speak would probably be more closely related to the love between a man and a woman (I suspect you're talking marriage). Marriage, according to the Torah/Old Testament is a sacred unity of a man and a woman before God and, as such, the idea of a marriage between homosexuals (Two men or two women) directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian doctrine concerning marriage.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html

I believe that explains it better than I could. Hapy reading!

I know.

Almost all the women here do wear hats and the like when they go to church. Though, if you haven't already, read the link. It's informative.

So you admit that the Bible is explicity clear on the subject, but that it might not be relevant anymore?

No offense taken, because I also find your view highly uneducated. And not because you disagree with me, but simply because you disagree with me while telling me that I'm uneducated on the subject.

By the way, there is no such thing as tolerance. Love the person, but hate the sin-- That is a paramount teaching of Christianity. Most people seem unable to grasp the concept.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

SecretMethod70

Heh, fair enough. Nonetheless, the general point still stands...abomination is hardly as harsh a word as it comes across in English. Lying is an abomination (Proverbs 12:22), but I hardly see people voting to deny liars their rights and self-respect.There is a fine line between having conviction in your own beliefs and recognizing it's impossible to be sure you are right. As a personal rule, I think it's important to err on the side of respect and tolerance. That doesn't mean agreeing with everything, just recognizing that I'm not in the position to tell someone else what is moral or immoral when it comes to things like homosexuality, etc.On this point, you won't get much disagreement from me. I can't say I know of any Christian sects which claim the OT is no longer valid. Indeed, if they did, there would be little point in including it. However, sects is the operative term here. I can say I know of Christian belief systems which do not view things in the way you do, in terms of homosexuality in general, and in terms of whether the bible is a "rulebook" or something more like a "guide." So, I do think it's important to avoid painting broad strokes with the term "Christian." I think discussion would be far easier if people said things like "according to my Evangelical belief, homosexuality is a sin," as opposed to "in Christianity, homosexuality is a sin."Oh, I believe you. That doesn't address the fact there is lack of clarity regarding whether it is speaking of homosexuality in general, only male homosexuality, only specific acts of male homosexuality, etc. I return to my previous statement about erring on the side of respect and tolerance.It's funny you mention that. The commandment, "thou shalt not kill" is turning up more and more in its more correct form, "thou shalt not murder" these days. It would seem, when dealing with translating a centuries-old, dead language, most anything is up for debate I should clarify. I am hard-pressed to find secular religious scholars who have such conservative views on the bible. No doubt, the large majority of religious scholars are not secular, and likewise are more likely to take the conservative view.

As for the religious groups...well, so what? Scriptures are living documents, holding not only the spiritual history of a people, but evolving with the people in the here and now. Nothing shows this more than the fact it took the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to clearly define biblical canon. And of course that's not to mention that they did so in response to the fact other Christians had different views of biblical canon. So, maybe they're rejecting doctrine, or maybe they're choosing a new interpretation, that may or may not be historically based, of an old text. Either way, what they are doing is being active participants in their spiritual history. To steal a phrase from a Catholic studies professor I once had, they are "changing to preserve the changeless." Namely, they are changing an archaic view of homosexuality (if we assume, for the moment, that your interpretation is historically correct), to preserve the changeless message of Jesus' mission: acceptance and love. Add into the mix the mounting evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis, and you've got a recipe for reform.No argument there. I seem to have come across differently than I intended: I only mean to point out that I'm not making this stuff up simply because I want it to be true. Nor am I saying you are. However, on a discussion board, there are often participants in a discussion which have no background for their opinions other than the fact it just sounds right to them.Again, I must emphasize the distinction between secular and non-secular religious scholars. Genearlly speaking, I don't give as much credence to the viewpoint of non-secular scholars, although being secular does not necessarily preclude one from bias.I could have sworn Gilda elaborated on this point. Furthermore, regardless of whether she's correct or not, the issue is not as clear-cut as you'd have us believe. Once again, I believe in erring on the side of respect and tolerance.I won't argue that abomination is a negative word...but I don't think it's as loaded as you think it is. LOTS of things are abominations in the bible (and many of them don't have convenient little counterpoints in the NT like the ones you pointed out in the beginning of your post ), but I don't see lying be treated as an equal "abomination" to homosexuality, for example. When we talk about lying, it's just "bad." It's when we talk about homosexuality that people like to bring out the "abomination" comments.The OT (and the NT for that matter) also says a whole bunch of other stuff regarding the relationship between a man and a woman that no reasonable person would accept today. That's not a condemnation of the bible, but an emphasis on the fact it must be read in cultural context.I read it...but I think I addressed what I think of it with my previous paragraph. However, in the interest of clarity - and because it further demonstrates the futility in continuing this exchange - supporting the information on a page like that just about makes it certain I'll ignore anything you might say to me with regards to spirituality.I admit that whether or not the bible is explicitly clear on the subject is secondary to the relevance of the teaching. In this case, I do not think it is relevant any longer.Hating the sin doesn't include drafting laws to prevent two people who love one another from committing themselves through marriage. If you think it's a sin, let god handle that part.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Kensei

I'd have to agree, religion is perhaps the greatest evil ever to exist, and we are better off without it if you ask me. Let history be your teacher on this.

Lady Sage

Now, now some religions are very non violent and dont recruit!
But yeah, for the most part youre right.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Gilda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope. But it can mean many things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see no call to hate there.

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

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

I neither said nor implied that you did.

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

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

This is:

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

No exception for homosexuals. No exceptions period.

Gilda

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

~Steven Colbert

Kensei

There are plenty of religions that are non-violent eh? Name them, and then tell me what in their history, if they have been around very long, contributed to their persecution.

I think you will find that extreme nonviolent philosophies are just as bad as extremely violent ones, since it leaves you at the whim of those who are cruel and vicious. Example, the Jews in Europe during world war two. They were quite peaceful people, not anymore, good thing they learned their lesson.

To teach that all violence is wrong is foolishness, and will lead to victimization and wrongs not being righted. There is such a thing a righteous anger, anger that is right, and if you must kill or be killed, kill to make the world a better place, then yes, you kill, become violent.

That is just reality, and pacifism is just an excuse not to face reality. You can indeed choose to be non-viloent, but then you have no right to complain about the state of affairs, or about how wrong violence is. Let's just remember, all it take for evil to rule is for good men to do nothing. Pray you don't become too pious and good, then your philosophy may be to do nothing at the expense of all.

Religion is dogmatic, and often a form of extremism. It is a brach of philosophy, and each religion has it's own philosophy. The problem is that religion preaches itself to be universal truth. Better to be philosophical then religious, it's a far better way to attain a higher level of spirituality then praying to some arbitrary hunk of wood shaped like a cross, or an ankh. Look within, not without, for your path to the divine, to understanding the universe better, cause religion just doe's it all as backwards, promotes intolerance, and just creates a lot more wrong then right in the world.


There are plenty of religions that are non-violent eh? Name them, and then tell me what in their history, if they have been around very long, contributed to their persecution.

I think you will find that extreme nonviolent philosophies are just as bad as extremely violent ones, since it leaves you at the whim of those who are cruel and vicious. Example, the Jews in Europe during world war two. They were quite peaceful people, not anymore, good thing they learned their lesson.

To teach that all violence is wrong is foolishness, and will lead to victimization and wrongs not being righted. There is such a thing a righteous anger, anger that is right, and if you must kill or be killed, kill to make the world a better place, then yes, you kill, become violent.

That is just reality, and pacifism is just an excuse not to face reality. You can indeed choose to be non-viloent, but then you have no right to complain about the state of affairs, or about how wrong violence is. Let's just remember, all it take for evil to rule is for good men to do nothing. Pray you don't become to pious and good,then your philosophy may be to do nothing at the expense of all.

Infinite_Loser

No, I don't. As most theologins will tell you, this is a relatively new, man-made concept which has no bearing on the Bible.

1.) There are not plenty of gender specific admonitions. As I stated earlier, there are a handful of such laws (Even fewer). Off the top of my head I can name two. There might be one or two more, but that is it. The majority of laws are male specific but also referred to females as well.

2.) I'm slightly curious. It seems to me that you are saying that homosexuality in males is unacceptable but homosexuality in females is acceptable, as it's not explicity condemned. Am I right in my assumptions?

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.

And you are still assuming that God's reason for destroying Sodom was not because of homosexuality. It would be quite presumptuous to claim that Sodom was destroyed simply because of homosexuality, but it would also be presumptuous to claim that Sodom wasn't destroyed in part due to homosexuality.

Yes, it can. And one of those terms is regarding homosexuality.

The state of being homosexual is directly intertwined with feelings. How is that distorting what you said?

As I stated earlier, there are four main types of love reffered to in the Bible; The love between a man and a woman, the love of God for his children, the love of Christ for the church and the love of man for his neighbors.

Now, because I'm curious, under what category would the love between two homosexuals fall under?

Natural to you may or may not be natural to God. If anything you do would be considered a perversion unto God then it is deemed unnatural. Whether or not you realize it (Or choose to accept it), Paul deams homosexual activities as a perversion and, therefore, unnatural.

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.

Oh, and if you would have read the Bible the nature of God is clearly defined.

This is the last time I'm going to address this. There are very, very, very few laws which specifically mentioned women, as women were considered subordinates of their husbands/fathers. The majority of laws were given to the men who later conveyed them to those in their households.

If the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, then it can be inferred that all homosexual practices are a sin. Why would the Bible need to elaborate on a concept which it has already condemned?

Jesus commanded all to obey the "Laws of Moses", and one of those such laws were that homosexual acts were strictly forbidden. Is there something that you're not understanding?

If I tell you to follow the "Ten Commandments", then that would mean that I expect you to abide by the rules listed there. Why is it any different in this case? It shouldn't be.

As the saying goes, sarcasm is usually the lowest form of wit

You ignored my previous point regarding how the majority of Biblical laws were male-specific, yet still applied to females. Being a patriarchal society, men were considered the head of the household and women their subordinates. Men were the ones given the laws and all in their households were expected to abide by them.

A classic example of this is the story of Adam and Eve. Eve was not told by God to not partake of the tree of wisdom (He told Adam), yet she was expelled from the Garden of Eden just like Adam.

Inherencies and roles involved are irrelevant to the discussion. The idea of sex being different for males and females is a relatively new concept and therefore can not be applied to laws written over 2,500 years ago.

So, what you're essentially saying is that the unilateral condemnation of homosexuality isn't unilateral at all? Well, I suppose that you're the leading theologin on Christianity-- Even moreso than the majority of theologins who agree that the Bible takes a hard defined stand on homosexuality.

To'ebah is given the popular definition of "To cause to stray from". I've already gone over this.

It's the act of a man lying with another man or a woman lying with another woman. The translation really isn't that hard.

You're assuming again. Nevertheless, if you continue to read through my responses, I provide an excerpt from an article which I believe you'll find highly enlightening.

Mosaic law hardly provides a blanket condemnation of homosexuality?!?!?! This is a highly incorrect statement.

Yes, really.

Here's an excerpt from an article describin the underlying meaning behind the term "Arsenokoita" which, when translated into Hebrew means "To lie with men".

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

Does that answer your question?

That's right. No sin can seperate us from God's love, but it can cause us to stray away from God's purpose for our lives.

Ezekiel 14:11

Since this is going nowhere fast, let me ask you a fairly simple question.

Which statement appears in the Bible:

A.) Homosexuality is an abomination to me or
B.) Some forms of homosexuality are an abomination to me.

It's not rocket science nor is the choice hard. There is no clause in the Bible which states that some forms of homosexuality are acceptable to God; It is, in fact, quite the opposite. The statement is starkingly unambiguous.

And now you are assuming as to what the bans of homosexuality were in reference to. As I stated prior, there is no clause in the Bible which qualifies homosexuality. None.

Although, I have to say that I see where you're coming from.

The Bible states that killing (Murder) is unacceptable. Obviously what God really meant was that you shouldn't kill (Murder) unless you really feel the need to.

The Bible also states that stealing is an unacceptable behaviour. You see, though, what God really meant was that it's okay to steal just so long as you don't do it on the Sabbath.

You see? I can turn a concrete statement into a matter of assumptions, too!

Ezekiel 3:18
Isaiah 5:20
Psalms 45:6-7

To put it as nicely as possible, you're taking a non-abiguous statement, claiming that it's ambigious and then interpreting it in a way which would conform to your lifestyle.

Time period and translation mean very little, as we can easily study the original (Well, what's left of them, anyway) Hebrew texts to determine the original meaning of any given passage of Scripture and, in this case, those texts condemn all homosexual behaviour.

That's the way it sounded.

This is not what I was talking about.

As you were quick to point out, the Biblical definition of the word tolerance is different than the definition we use today. The Bible teaches us that we shouldn't condemn one another, but that we shouldn't accept sin as a daily part of our lives. Christians aren't supposed to condemn their brethern but, at the same time, they're not supposed to be accepting of sinful practices, either.

Ezekiel 3:18
Isaiah 5:20
Psalms 45:6-7

(Posted for the second time.)

Proverbs 8:13
Romans 12:9-13

No offense to you, but this is why I seldom get into argument with people concerning the Bible (Or any religious texts, for that matter). If you're going to argue using the Bible as basis, then at least know what you're talking about.

God loves everyone equally, hence him sending his only begotten son to die for the sins of humanity. However, not everyone is a child of God (1 John 3:10). Simply because you believe that Jesus' died for your sins doesn't mean that you are guaranteed eternal life; You must also adhere to God's word.

In every language translated, there is almost a unilateral concensus that God's stance towards homosexuality is not a favorable one, regarding it as an "Abomination". As I illustrated earlier, the Hebrew word for abomination is "To'evah" which literally means "To cause to stray from". Anything which causes you to stray from God is considered a sin and, as any Christian will know, sin causes a divide between humans and God.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Kensei

Lets face it , persecution of a minority by the majority has always been a way to bring people together, and unite people under one banner. Hitler did it to the Jews, and the Jews of Jesus time did it to homosexuals, and other such folks.

Listen, your longer then needed post, I mean talk about a tirade, is really just a pack of lies. It is loaded with intolerance, and basically you are argueing that something is wrong because some old book said so.

Perhaps your not aware that the bible was written by a bunch of old men who wanted to have power over the people, so they called it God's word. This is the case with most religion.

I could realy care less if the bible claims being gay is wrong, or that eating meat on Friday is wrong, that rule was rescinded by the church, so much for the almight universal truth of the bible, lol.

I have no problem with gay people, to each his own I say, live and let live. it is your kind of close minded, biggoted intolerance thought that led to many o the worst atrocities committed by man.

If you want to pidgeon hole a group, why don't you pidgeon hole the religious zealots out there, who take bible verse as gospel and discriminate wantenly in the name of God.

As if some being who created the heavens and the earth gicves a hoot what some ant amoung countless ant's doe's with his genitalia, I think God has more important things to do, sad that you don't, you should.

SecretMethod70

I'd be careful what kind of assumptions you make, Kensei. You can tell I certainly don't believe it proper simply to take the bible literally, nor do I believe that followers of the bible don't have the right to critically evaluate it and what it means for them today. I certainly don't believe that a writing being "inspired" and "commanded by God" are synonymous. Faith communities - whether they're Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else - are ultimately the ones who decide what is and is not "inspired." It is because of this process that a book of what used to be bar songs is now part of Jewish and Christian scripture: not because God commanded anyone to write them (I may be mistaken, but I've never heard of God being characterized as a heavy drinker ), but because someone in the Jewish faith community looked at the songs and realized that they could be interpreted to mean something about his peoples' relationship with God, and his community ultimately accepted that viewpoint.

That said, I think it's very important to not be hasty regarding how we view the bible or the people who wrote the books in it. The authors of the books of the new testament were in no position to be writing for power. In fact, for a significant number of them, being associated with the early Christian movement was not only not a source of power, but a source of potential danger to their life. When it comes to power, they didn't see much of it. In fact, Paul gave up a fair amount of power in order to join the early Christian movement.

This is not to say that there have not been and are not people who manipulate scriptures of any sort for their own gain, but let's not confuse the authors with people of a later time.

The bible - along with most other scriptures - has a lot of good things to say about life, provided one reads it with an eye for context and relevance, and remembers that its position as scripture does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of spiritual wisdom.

Indeed, while the western view of scripture tends to be of a singular collection of documents, set in stone, the eastern view of scripture is much more fluid.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Kensei

Blah blah blah, what a windbag. First you extort the bibles virtue and the evils of homosexuality, now it's not to be taken all that seriously, make up your mind. You would make a good politician.

SecretMethod70

????

Did you read my posts? I've never made any argument against homosexuality (far from it), and I've constantly made statements to the effect that, while the bible is a significant book, it should not and cannot be taken at face value.

I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that I've made contradictory statements

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Kensei

I was speaking of infinite loser, in all of my posts, why would you thiink I was speaking to you ever. Someone else looking for conflict. Please don't respond when I clearly have no spoken to you, and I won't make the mistake of thinking it is you who posted the post I initially responded to, ok. Good bye.

SecretMethod70

Sorry, since I was the only person to post between your post #68 addressed to Infinite_Loser and your post #70, and since I don't recall Infinite_Loser ever saying the bible shouldn't be taken all that seriously, I was under the impression you were responding to me. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding, I certainly wasn't looking for any conflict.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Infinite_Loser

I don't recall ever saying that the Bible was the universal truth nor that it was infallible nor that it shouldn't be taken seriously by Christians (Scroll up a few posts. Someone asked me if I took everything the Bible said at face value and I said "No"), so don't try putting words in my mouth.

My point is that if you're a Christian and you're going to conform to the Christian lifestyle, that you'd be wrong to assume/say that the Bible doesn't have a problem with homosexuality, as this claim has been largely disproved by theologins over the past few hundred years.

Seriously. Have you read any of my posts?

Oh, and before I forget. I like being verbose

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

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.

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

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

EXACTLY! Finally I think we can agree completely on something.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Good. That means I get the last word.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

This includes those about love.

Good to see you having some fun with it. What good is a discussion of theology without a little levity?

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

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


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.

Neither of those says “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

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.

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

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

That said, though I’m not perfect, I do adhere to the teachings of the bible as best I can. Do I observe all of them strictly? Nah. I wear my hair short (see my profile picture), don’t cover my head in church, eat shrimp and shellfish (a lot of it actually), wear fibers made of two different threads, and my garden has more than one crop in it. All of those are abominations in the biblical sense, but I seriously doubt that those things are going to have much of an impact on God’s love or my relationship with him.


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

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

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

Gilda

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

~Steven Colbert

SecretMethod70

I tried making this point earlier, but maybe it got lost among the rest of my posts. Please don't use the term "Christian lifestyle" as if it has a single, clear meaning. It does not, by any means. There are plenty of Christian groups which do not adhere to your viewpoint.

Also, please try to make a distinction between secular and non-secular scholars. There is a large difference in the general credibility of both groups (although I will freely admit that there are secular scholars who are not credible and non-secular scholars who are).

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

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

Willravel

TFP POLICY AND GUIDELINES

Kensei

Windbag means your long winded, it's not biggoted, but an observation that someone just talks too damn much to say something that they could really say with a lot less breathe. Usually this is because they like the sound of their own voice, and are overly impressed with themselves. Windbag, understand now, Take care

Willravel

If someone were to hypothetically call you an asshole or an idiot, then explain the meaning of each term and how using the term was "an observation", would that make it any less of an insult?

Homosexuality could very well be wrong, but we do live in a world where the Christian denomonations can't agree on the meaning of something as important as baptism or communion...what that suggests to me is the word of God is something subjective. I've said it before: I, personally, think that the Bible, and even religon in general can act as a mirror to the reader/believer. When I read my Bible or my Qu'ran, I see reflections of my own morality played out in prables and tales. I'm not just talking about general morality, like "do on to others as you would have them do unto you", I am talking about specific things like "God does not declair war on nations anymore" or "BET is racist".

Kensei

It's funny you think I was talking about you, I was talking about the person who wrote a post ten miles long, if that was you, the so be it, if not, then ok. Thats long winded, the post I was refering to that is, hence the writer is a windbag, so what, you take offense at this, ok?