Christian belief and homosexuality
 

Posting this has been on my mind off and on for some time, the latest clash between Christians and homosexual rights advocates served as a catalyst to get me to actually write this. I think too often people use political catch phrases that to them and their ilk make sense because they are on the same page to start with. We hear things like “Gay marriage is an attack on the family” or “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” or on the other side we hear “Gay pride” or “Organized religion = organized bigotry” My intention with this post is NOT to offend, convert or to condescend, but to simply explain the Christian side of the argument without the emotionally charged catch phrases. I certainly welcome an explanation from the gay rights side. Again, I don’t foresee a mass conversion from one side to the other, but a greater degree of understanding and respect.

(Disclaimer: I don’t pretend to be able to present the opinions of what is considered the fringe elements of Christianity, I won’t even attempt to explain gay hating or bashing from Christians or the movement to remove homosexuality rules from Christendom. Neither are in accordance with mainstream Christian teaching. I only have time, and the understanding to present the main stream Christian view.)

Christian belief, boiled down to its simplest form, is as follows:
1. God has given us laws and guidelines designed to bring us happiness. The end reward of perfect obedience is Heaven.
2. Due to human weakness, both native and acquired, we can’t be 100% obedient 100% of the time.
3. God, knowing of our weakness, sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay the price for our disobedience. That payment, called the Atonement, allows us to essentially start over with a clean slate through repentance.

#2 is where temptation comes into play. Temptation has basically two definitions to Christians. One, the whisperings of the Devil, and two, the desire to do something wrong. For the sake of clarity, when I use the word I mean the desire, and I will use “whisperings” for the other definition.

If you were to ask any parent how often they have to tell their toddlers and small children “You can’t have that, it’s not yours” You would likely either get the answer “A TON!” or an exasperated groan. Most everyone has a tendency to do what is wrong, like taking something that is not yours. For some, that desire to take that to which you have no right goes away as they mature, for others it is a constant battle. Temptation is universal, but we aren’t all tempted in the same areas.

If we were to list of the Ten Commandments, then had people rate each one according to how difficult it is for them to obey, we would find an amazing diversity of graphs. For example, for me the hardest one is “Thou Shalt not commit adultery” I’ve never broken this one, but I have to fight pretty hard. “Thou shalt not kill” is a breeze, when the whispering has come to break this one, there was no degree of temptation involved.

Whether we are born with a tendency to be tempted by something or whether we acquire that trait is strictly an academic question. So if scientist someday find a gene that is responsible for homosexual tendencies or one that makes a person want to steal, the Christian world’s response will be “So what? We could have told you that there is such a thing as being inclined to a certain temptation.” That is one of the premises of Christianity, and indeed most organized religions.

The reason why Christians are so vehemently opposed to the homosexual movement is because we see it as identifying oneself by ones temptations. Or in other words, I would be a cheating husband, even though I have never cheated. Gay rights are viewed as a slippery slope. Christians find themselves asking “Where will it stop? Which vice will become the next movement?”

Christians also view procreation as a divine gift, to be respected and held sacred. Homosexual acts are seen as a desecration of something divine. Marriage between a man and a woman is seen as ordained of God, to allow men and women to contribute their strengths and become stronger than their sum and to provide a place for children to be conceived and reared. 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.

I hope that I have explained things clearly and without offending anyone. I realize this is a hot topic and as such can illicit a knee jerk to many, if I have offended anyone with this please forgive me.

The Bible is a tricky thing. I personally have read it cover to cover more time than I can count (thanks to my father, the Pastor), and I still don't know everything. One of the things I do know is that for the sake of sanity one has to accept some things in the Bible and dismiss others, as some things are either contradictory or possibly outdated. The ban on eating anything other than fish from the sea. I love calamari, and love muscles, and I eat them. Do I think I am sinning? I doubt it. It's been suggested that rules like that come from the dangers of eating uncooked or ill prepared meat and the resulting illnesses. It was not only reasonable at the time, but helped to keep people healthy and alive. Now, however, we understand the science behind cooking and removing bacteria, viruses, and such from meat so that we can enjoy our food without disease. I dare not answer the question of homosexuality or even intercourse between anyone of any gender outside of wedlock, but with sexually transmitted diseases, these two seemingly different topics could be fundamentally linked. There are plenty of real world arguments against intercourse outside of wedlock, including STDs, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and social issues. It is now very common practice to have multiple partners, outside of wedlock, without and social or medical consequences. As such, one could not be blamed for reexamining God's words. Did God decree that man shall not lie with another man because of supreme moral law or out of safety, whether social or physical? I can't answer that for anyone but myself.

At the end of the day, God has given every man, woman and child the ability of free will so that we can make a conscious decision as to how we interpret God's words. I am not qualified to tell anyone else what God means. Pastors and religous or political fitgures are not qualified to tell anyone else what God means. You are responsible for your own faith. IMO.

What I can't understand about the bible is that....

There are many different versions of the bible.

Which one do you have to follow to be a true christian?

If the meaning is the same, then why are there so many versions?
Why are there passages missing between the different versions?

Also, there are different languages in the world, even the same ones changing over a few centuries, so how do can you say which translation is the correct one?

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the bible against women working out of the home?

But to finish, I have yet one more question...

If god has given mankind free will, then why are his devout followers claiming that we have to change to be in god's good grace, why not let a person choose their own destiny, specifically if those persons are not breaking the ten commandments?

First, frogza, thank you for expressing your thoughts on a charged issue in a respectful manner. :)

The biggest problem with the bible isn't the bible itself, it's how most people read it - i.e. without making any attempt to put it in context.

That said, as I fall into the "movement to remove homosexuality rules from Christendom," I would like to point out that I, and the majority of respected religious scholars, believe the "mainstream Christian view" to be lacking in historical context and, by extension, wrong.

willravel: The idea that rules on homosexuality are included in the bible due to health concerns is also not quite correct. It's a popularly held thought - and one that makes sense from our modern perspective - but in my studies (both personal and academic) on the issue, it has become clear that, when looked at in historical context, the reasoning for the decree in Leviticus was actually quite different.

At the time it was written, the idea of marriage as something done out of love was not exactly the norm. Women were literally considered to be property. So, the statement in Leviticus 18:22 that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is in reference to this. For a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman is to place the other man, sexually, in the same position as the woman, thus treating him as property is treated, which is not how men should be treated.

Now, there are a few other areas of the bible where homosexuality is criticized, and again they are almost always read out of context. For example, the statements against homosexuality in Romans have little to do with homosexuality itself and everything to do with differentiating the fledgling religion that would become "Christianity" from the dominant "pagan" religions in the area in which same sex relations were relatively common.

And, remember, we're talking about the time of the Roman Empire here. Homosexual relationships were incredibly well established, even among those who were not biologically homosexual. The same can be said for the Egyptians and the Greeks. Anyone who has studied a little history knows of the Spartan penchant for homosexual relationships among their men.

So, even if we set aside the terrible need to at least attempt to put the bible in historical context, which I believe is ignored by 90% of those who purport to follow the bible, a logical argument can also be made against the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Jesus preached about many things, but one thing suspiciously missing from his teachings is any mention of homosexuality! Now let's be fair here: homosexuality would have been very common in the time Jesus was teaching. Does it make any sense whatsoever that not once did he mention that this very common practice of the time should be considered wrong?

None of this needs to challenge the idea of the bible as a holy book, the word of god, or whatever you want to believe it is. All it means is that we must recognize that, regardless of what the words of the bible represent, we are interpreting those words ourselves. If one wants to have any hope of a relatively accurate interpretation, that requires applying a great deal of historical context to everything that is written. The methods of thought prevalent across the times when the various books of the bible were written are so drastically different from our own, attempting to directly apply any sort of modern reading to the texts is a sure method of achieving failure in interpreting them.

Thank you SecretMethod70 for clearing that up, I was well informed by your post.

Hmmm...very interesting take on that passage. I'm not sure that I've ever seen this presented. Definately a theory worth examining and considering. Good job Smeth...good job. You may have a cookie.

While I appreciate your attempt to create understanding, there are still many points in your post I don't understand and I'm afraid they're the major ones...

While I am able to parse the sentence fragments "identifying oneself by one's temptations" and "I would be a cheating husband even though I have never cheated," I don't understand how they apply to homosexual marriage. Could you clarify this point? How does gay marriage mean either of these two things?

If I were to read the rest of the paragarph into context, it sounds like you're trying to say that homosexual marriage justifies a sin and, thus, justifies all sins. Is this right?

This simply sounds like you view homosexual marriage as insulting. It's not a physical attack, like a temple literally being destroyed, because homosexual people getting married doesn't prevent heterosexual people from getting married, so nothing's destroyed... So, I can only assume you mean a verbal attack, like an insult. Is this what you mean?

Well, you can't talk about insulting topics without insulting people. The best you can hope for is to talk with the goal of understanding, rather than for pejorative purposes...

The problem I see with this theory is the use of the word "abomination". It is a strong word, suggesting that the act of lying with another man is disgusting, not that it would be a violation of the other's rights as an equal man.
Of course, perhaps the intention of the statement was quite different originally and has been lost in translation.

The interpretation of the use of the word abomination as meaning "disgusting" is accurate. To treat a man as property the way a woman should be treated would be seen as a disgusting subversion of the proper social order, making both men involved in the act ritually impure.

SM -- I'm not sure you can draw the conclusions from Christ's silence that you do. While it is true that Jesus never says anything about homosexuality, it seems at least likely that the pagan practices prevalent in Greece and Rome were less prevelent in Palestine, so might well not have been the most pressing thing on his mind.

I'd like to offer a couple of points. Christians by and large do not have a problem with homosexuality. Evangelicals do.

There is no part of the bible that directs us to condemn homosexual union. The main reason for the Leviticus verse was to foster procreation. The reason procreation was such a big deal in biblical times was because the human race was by no means healthy and thriving. Jesus was an elder at 33. All the dietary and social directions from the bible are solely for the survival of the species.

The real argument in religious circles is about whether the church should be accepting of new ideas, or if they should remain true to a book that was collected, voted on, and canonized in a highly political process in 387 AD. It's a different world and overpopulation actually threatens survival of the human race.

Are you saying that Jesus is into discrimination?

The person who was about peace and unity?

I don't see asaris as saying that at all. He was simply pointing out that the possibility that Jesus didn't address homosexuality as far as we know because it just wasn't on his radar. It wasn't an issue in the area in which he lived and taught.

However, I agree with SM that homosexuality not being an issue Jesus taught on is because it wasn't one he felt was necessary; not because of lack of homosexuality in his geographical area, but because of it not being necessarily "sinful."

The overarching theme of Jesus' message when you break it down is simply love one another. Of course this doesn't have to include erotic love, but that can be a part of it as well. I just can't believe that he would teach unconditional love with the condition of it not extending to two people of the same gender. Especially considering that there is strong evidence for homosexuality being genetic in most cases.

:thumbsup: to Poppinjay. What you say is succinct and accurate, at least from my extensive experience with both Christians and evangelicals (not to mention *being* an evangelical "Christian" for a significant time).

Another cookie for Poppinjay. I never pinned you as a cultural materialist (that's the theoretical basis of my social-science training), but I like it, I like it a lot. Very refreshing. :)

A relevant question: You say the real challenge for the church is to see how flexible they really can be, given how much the world has changed since the biblical canon became established. But many Christians (especially evangies) would say that to be flexible is to be a relativist, which is to side with the devil. So I'm afraid that as long as evangies/fundies have as much control over the church as they do today, the church ain't gonna flex on much of anything (hail the Episcopalians, though, for embracing homosexuals... at least, in Seattle!). :D

Well, I will say the historical Jesus may not have been a fan of homosexuality, but it does seem it wasn't a particularly important issue to him. Regardless of how common it was in the area, he certainly would have known of its existence. The real concern though has less to do with what the historical Jesus thought than it has to do with what makes sense with the Jesus of faith. And that's where the point comes in that, ultimately, the message of Jesus is simply that of love, and there's no reason a responsible homosexual relationship shouldn't fit into that paradigm.

I would qualify much of frogza's OP by adding a "some" in front of his statements regarding what Christians do and/or don't believe regarding homosexuality.

There are Christian churches that have no problem with homosexuality, homosexual acts, or homosexuals, the Episcopaleans, UU, MCC, and Unity churches, for example. Others look at homosexual acts as a sin, but see them as one among many. In a Christian sense, we're all sinners, and all have to look to Jesus for guidance and God for forgiveness of those sins. Everyone commits a myriad of sins on a regular basis. Homosexuality, assuming that it is a sin in the first place, which I and a great many other Christians don't believe, isn't one of the big ones, and doesn't deserve any special recognition or penalties as a result.

Personally, I think the stigmatization of homosexuality by some evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians is really an after effect of a disapproval of homosexuality with a few biblical passages taken out of context used as justification.

Reproduction is again, one of those back end justifications. There is no requirement that heterosexual couples reproduce or even be capable of such, so to use this as an objection to homosexuality and homosexual relationships is to apply a condition solely to homosexuals for the purpose of condemning homosexuality, a circular argument at best.

Regarding the "gay gene": There is no such thing. The best evidence available indicates that male homosexuality is determined by gestational hormones and is fixed at birth. Female homosexuality is less certain, and seems to be more highly influenced by environmental factors, and does seem to be to some extent chosen by some lesbians, though the evidence varies so widely across the spectrum that the best we can say at this point is that theer is no one cause of female homosexuality; instead, there are multiple factors that all have an influence which varies from individual to individual, so the cause is for the most part unknown.

Gilda

Up to this point I haven't been addressing gay marriage, simply the justification of homosexual acts by saying that a person is tempted.

Again, marriage hasn't entered into it yet. I am simply saying that the pattern of justification can be a slippery slope. Christians are saying that there needs to be a line drawn and claim that the line was drawn many years ago.

That is probably a fair assessment.

That is precisely why I put off writing this for so long.

If you read what Jesus taught you will find that it is fraught with teachings of love and acceptance of people, but absolute hatred of sin. He talked to and taught women, roman leaders, samaritans and even those who belonged to the parties that would eventually have him crucified. In each recorded meeting with the social outcasts he was talking about repentance and greater faith.

Remember we are talking about the man who said
This is the same man who on various occasions launched into tyrades against the Jewish leaders and against Herod. The man who also made a whip and thrashed and kicked out the money changers who were in the temple.

Note: Bold emphasis Sultana's.
Which vice will become the next movement? Perhaps women's rights. Or minority rights. Both groups of which in the past have been considered divinely ordained as "below" the rank of the male majority. I'd like to imagine that in today's world, only the most rabidly fundamental "christians" would have a problem with women's or minority rights. Heck, in the not too distant past interacial marriage was prohibited (legally? not sure. Socially, certainly). I doubt that any reasonable person would make an issue of that today. Why is gay marriage any different?

You know, only the most fundamental of "christians" have a problem with birth control, which accomplishes the same thing in today's society.
Could you please cite the scriptures used to support the idea that procreation is respected and held sacred? It was certainly important, especially to the Old Testament family--hence the multiple wives, concubines, maidservants for that purpose and the like for the man able to afford them--but respected and sacred? The only thing I can think of to support this is where the scriptures talk about g*d "quickening the womb" of some lucky contestant, but that's more props to g*d rather than the woman. The woman was (as Smeth pointed out), little more than property for the most part. A vessel for the all-important "Man-seed". Women, especially in the Old Testament, are rarely referred to outside of the state of their vagina--Virgin, Wife, or Whore, if you please. A woman's worth was based solely on their untouched state, their families wealth, and perhaps how many sons they had pushed out. Not a pressing arguement for respect for their role in childbearing, in my opinion.

I think you did a grand job, really! Thanks for being brave and able. :thumbsup: It's much easier to preach to the choir, I know.

Regarding the slippery slope, it's something we've always been on and always will. That's because the world is always changing.

Without resorting to trite messages, maybe I can narrow down my feeling on the subject with an examination of these two sentences.

We will become a Godless nation if we allow homosexuals into the church.

We will become a Godless nation if we allow sinners into the church.

I go to church nearly every Sunday. And I eat too much, curse in heavy traffic, sloth, a little greed here and there... How would I be able to stand up and denounce homosexuality? I'm not entirely certain that it's still a sin because we've reached a point where procreation is not really neccessary. On the other hand, my sins are still to the detriment of society.

Also, Frogza, your Luke 12:51 quote is also apt for my beliefs. the multitudes had their way of doing every thing. They argued about the way inheritance should be divided, about who gets what, about disobeying from the way things have always been done. 12:51 basically says, I'm not here to remind you of the way it's been, I'm here to say things have changed.

From about 25 verses earlier: Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest?

Sorry for breaking the unwritten no verses rule. I just think it lends merit.

Okay, now that we have this understanding, I think I can say that there is no insight in this post. As far as I can tell, and please correct me if you disagree, the three main points of your original post are:

Gay marriage will justify homosexuality.
Allowing gays to marry is a slippery slope to other unsavory unions.
Gay marriage is insulting.

Is this a fair assessment? Would you agree with this summary?
Or, perhaps the point of your post was to explain why christians believe that these three points are true?

Every times I hear somebody say "Christians believe...," or ask "What do Christians believe," I ask, "Which Christians?" Because there is plenty of disagreement.

In the public eye, evangelicals currently hold center stage, because they are active and growing in numbers and increasingly involved directly in politics. For many people not familiar with Christianity, "Christian" means evangelical.

But that's not the only kind of Christian there is, and the only kind of Christian belief there is. The standard packet of conservative/evangelical beliefs aren't necessarily held by the majority of Christians.

And _this_ Christian says: the Bible is not the holy and inviolate word of God; it is, instead, the spiritual history and collected spiritual wisdom of a people. And there is much in it to live by, adhere to, and adopt the spirit of.

We take these old lessons and try to apply their spirit to the modern day; but to many of us that does _not_ mean following unthinking allegiance to 3000-year-old rules that were developed in a particular time by a particular culture.

That's the other type of Christian. The only "slippery slope" to this type of Christian is to fail to see Christ in new situations, and to insist that God's approval can only be won by blind adherence to strict rules set for old situations.

I'm not going to say the OP or any other post is wrong, I think some of them might misrepresent beliefs, Christian is very broad. Having said that, I think this could be helpful:

The Catholic Catechism:
I think the bottom line is at least for catholics, procreation is key. Marriage is the confines for reproduction as it is a holy union between Man, Woman, and God. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, marry, they would be fornicating which is a sin. At least thats how I understand it.

You know I thought the same thing. The protestant bible has 66 books I think, and the catholic has something like ten more books, and the Jewish bible has half of that. So three believe in the same God. The way I see it someone is getting misinformed and someone is getting a bunch of bull crap.

Back to the question, I’m not a Christian anymore, but Ill play along from what I know of God and the bible. I know the bible states some stuff against homosexuality. The bible also speaks against a lot of other different stuff. Is homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, No? Aren’t these the important rules in the bible? I believe not using the word of God in a bad manner, and loving your parents are in those list of rules, but loving someone of the same sex isn’t. So my question what would God frown upon more? Breaking his one or two of his ten important rules, or not following a couple lines out of the bible?

I know not all but some of Christians use the occasional "God Damns" and how many don’t have a good relationship with their parents? I just see it as probably being gay is just a misdemeanor in the eyes of God.

The only thing im gonna say on this one is simply this

Christians say love one another and judge not!

So why do they not love homosexuals and why do they judge them?

I feel it is for the diety to decide such things and for us to let them do their job while we spend more time working on our own problems.
(Please ignore the ramblings of this sleep deprived lunatic.)

See this is what gets me. People who are against homosexuality that always preach the Bible as to why gays are evil or whatever never read the whole thing. The read what they want to read. They have made up in their minds that "Jesus hates fags" and other inteligent remarks, but apparently were absent from Sunday school the day "love thy neighboor" and "Jesus hates the sin and loves the sinner" were taught. What Jesus taught us and what Christianity teaches us are, in my opinion, two different things entirely.

not only did you not offend but you eplained your views & thoughts clearly. Thanks for sharing.

Point of advice: You really need to qualify your statments when you speak about what Christians say or believe. I am a Christian and I do not believe the things that you are saying Christians believe in your posts. Nor are such beliefs widespread in the church I attend. Some Christians or many Christians or evangelical Christians might serve your cause better than painting us all with the same broad brush.

Don't lump me in with those who believe the things in your posts by making statements about what "Christians" believe. I really don't want to be there.

Gilda

Yes, Christians say love each other, and don't judge. But many Christians also think that God doesn't like it when we do bad things, and some of those believe that homosexual activity is one of those bad things. We would want a thief, a liar, or a hypocrite to repent of their sins; if we believe that homosexual activity is also a sin, shouldn't we want them to repent of that?

And, just as Gilda points out (correctly) that reasonable Christians can disagree on the appropriateness of homosexual activity, it's probably worth pointing out that not all of those who believe that homosexual activity is sinful fall into the "God hates fags" camp.

“A truly religious person worries about his own spiritual well-being and the physical well-being of every other human being on this planet; a hypocrite worries about his own physical well-being and the spiritual well-being of every other human being on this planet.”

Rav Yisroel Slanter

Does this mean that a truly religious person shouldn't also worry about the spiritual well-being of every human being?

This was quoted once, so it's responding to both the original and the quotiation. If homosexuality is a sin like stealing or murder, then the point kind of falls apart. Unless you love murderers and thieves and don't judge them. In which case, you're a better person than I.

Don't nitpick this point with "well murder and stealing hurt someone else and being gay doesn't" since that's not the point. The point is, given this premise, they're all sins and, generally when people do things that we think are wrong-regardless of our creed-we dislike them and judge them.

No.

Homosexuality, assuming it is a sin, which I do not believe, isn't a sin like stealing and murder. Those are sins that directly harm others, while homosexuality is not.

Nonsense. Not all sins are equal to one another merely because they are sins. If someone consistently eats more than they need to (gluttony), I'm going to neither dislike nor judge them for that. Why? Because it doesn't harm me or any other person, and the degree to which that behavior is a sin or not and how that sin is to be resolved is a matter strictly between that person and God. God judges and forgives sins. It isn't my place to do the first, and I have no power to do the second.

We dislike and judge murders and thieves because they inflict harm on others, that is, we react to them because of the effect of their actions on others, not because those actions are sins. We all sin a dozen, two dozen times a day. I sin every time I open up Tilted Exhibition, especially threads with colors in the title. I sin every time I go to the KFC buffet. I don't believe what I do with my wife sexually is a sin, but if it is, the degree to which that harms my soul and whether or not I need to be punished for that sin is strictly God's place to decide, not anybody else's.

Gilda

I guess the key thing is that religious restrictions should not apply to those who don't have the same faith. For example - if muslims cannot eat pork, the law should not prevent others from doing so. Ditto, if another religion requires (male) circumcision - it should not mean that all parents are required by law to have this done on their children.

But this (my point above) is a sideshow. You are talking about the teachings assuming a Christian context ok, so I should not diverge from that. Sorry.

My feeling then on this teaching, as somebody who is not Christian but who grew up on a 'western' or Christian influenced society, is that I don't understand the reason behind it.

The OP talks about it being wrong to give into temptation to do something wrong. Sure, I agree - this is self evident.

But what I want to know is the reasoning behind homosexual contact being "wrong" in the first place.

I can understand that murder is wrong, on the basis that I don't want to be murdered.

I can understand prohibitions against adultery, stealing etc in a the same manner.

But clearly, the same "treat your neighbor the same" concept does not serve to explain why sex between consenting homosexuals (with no cheating etc) is wrong.

Okay, but if judgement is wrong in a christian sense, doesn't that make it a sin? In which case, aren't you sinning by judging people? Logically you'd have to judge yourself for sinning, but you'd only be sinning more and eventually the universe would collapse in on itself in some sort of closed feedback sin-loop.

I've always been somewhat suspicious of the blanket claim "Christians are taught not to judge," mostly because it seems obviously false. It seems perfectly clear that some people in certain positions of the church are not only allowed to judge the activities of others, but are required to (elders/overseers, for example). But I've never really bothered to look into it in any detail. So I just did a search on bible.com (God, I love the internet). One caveat; it's in the KJV, so it's not the most accurate version, but this is what I've found. Note: I searched the word 'judge'. I've ignored passages indicating Christ judging (since it seems reasonable to believe that he might judge in situations where we shouldn't) and those where 'judge' refers merely to a human judge (as in "The kingdom of heaven is like an unjust judge"), as these are of limited relevance to the present topic.

A few times, Jesus says something like "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Looking at the similar passages where this occurs, and doing my be to ignore the archaicness of the language, what he seems to be saying is that the same standard you judge others by is the standard by which you will be judged. But this seems to refer to a judgement of someone's eternal salvation (or lack thereof); to the extent that we say to others "You're a sinner, therefore you're going to hell," we are condemning ourselves to hell. But this doesn't preclude condemning individual actions. (Matt. 7:1-2, Luke 6:37,

As I've indicated earlier, sometimes scripture encourages certain forms of judgement. John writes, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement." (7:24, NRSV) But the announcement of how we should judge indicates some role for judging in our lives.

Romans 2 talks a lot about not judging, but in that passage, it is explicitly regarding judging someone for doing the same sort of thing you're doing. "In passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

I'm guessing Romans 14 is going to be the strongest support for a strict 'do not judge' position. It certainly contains the broadest language. But looking at the examples (drinking wine, eating meat, observing holy days), it seems to be talking about things which aren't really moral commands. We shouldn't judge those who sing only Psalms in their services; we shouldn't judge those who sing only praise songs in their services (except at worse, perhaps, bad taste). But it doesn't seem to directly address the question of what we say to someone who is clearly sinning.

I Corinthians 5 is interesting, since it pretty clearly states that we should only judge the activity (here, even more interestingly, it's sexual activity) of those inside the church.

On the other hand, there's I Corinthians 6:2 "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" However, given the context, this probably is referring to the last days.

Again, James 4:11-12 seems to speak generally against judging, but given the context, it seems more likely to speak of judging publically, and so should probably be considered with that other passage that indicates if you have a problem with a fellow believer, you should first approach them in private, then with two or three, and only after that publically.

So from all this I gather that the ultimate judgment belongs to God, but also that to some extent we are called to, as it were, encourage our brothers and sisters in righteousness. What does this mean specifically for homosexuality?

At this point, I should note a few things explicitly, in the interest of full disclosure. I tend towards the opinion that homosexuality is wrongful, but I am quite far from holding it firmly. I think that scripture in general is against it, but it's not the clearest case to make. I don't think there's any reason other than scripture to think that such activity is wrongful. But for the sake of the rest of this post, to indicate how I think a Christian more convinced than I of the wrongfulness of homosexuality should respond, I'll give responses as if I were convinced of its wrongfulness.

It should be clear from the scripture above that I should not engage in a general campaign to make homosexual activity illegal, or to restrict their civil rights, or anything like that. Rather, if someone were to ask me what I think, or for my advice, I would give it kindly and honestly (the proportions of each would depend on the person). I would not consider it my duty to point out to someone engaging in homosexual activity that that activity was wrong without them approaching me first, unless for some other reason I had an obligation to that person; for example, if they were a close friend, or if I was an elder in the church, and even then it would depend on the situation.

The key to me, for how Christians should deal with 'sinners', is found in the story of the young woman caught in adultery. If you recall the story, Christ says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So no one casts the first stone. But after that, after everyone has left, Christ asks "Is no one left to condemn you?" She replies "No sir." Then Christ says "Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." That, to me, is what we should be saying to someone who we believe is sinning, when we are in the proper position to do so. We should say "You are not condemned, but you need to go and sin no more." And we should say that as many times as we have to.

One more thing (and I'm sorry that I'm adding this after an entirely too long post). This may be true. But a saint worries about his own spiritual and physical well-being and the spiritual and physical well-being of every other human being on the planet. Else, what does it mean to love your neighbor like you love yourself?

I think you miss the point there. Jesus was the one telling her to sin no more, not the other people. It's a parable about God being the only one qualified to judge and forgive sins.

Gilda

I think, given everything else I've cited, that while Jesus is the only one qualified to judge the state of someone's soul, the rest of us can and should judge the appropriateness of other people's actions. The conclusion is not merely a result of that one passage. And it's not even clear that only God can forgive sins ("For whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.")

I agree, which exactly where the judgment that there is something wrong with homosexuality falls apart.

Gilda

The trend to not judge things that people do in their private life is exceedingly recent. Particularly for religious purposes, the private life has been judged just as harshly as the public life. Masturbation, homosexuality, dietary requirements, impure thoughts, disbelief in god or belief in the wrong god, lust and envy, to name a few. Fair or universal enforcement aside, it is neither uncommon nor unprecedented for people to be judged on the basis of things that would seem to have no direct effect on others, often fairly harshly, largely because of the belief that such conduct would would corrupt the society because of its impurity.

That's not to say it's right or it's in line with modern theological ideas or modern societal norms, but it certainly is not a bizarre outlandish concept of sins and how religions/societies have treated/judged sin. It is a product of liberal democratic thought that people are individuals and as long as what they do doesn't directly harm another, they should be allowed to do it. Most of human history and most of human society does not follow that pattern, nor necessarily value it.

Again, I'm not saying it is right, but to simply dismiss that explanation of why homosexuality has gained the status it has in some schools of religious thought, Christian and otherwise, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The private is something that a minority of people in a minority of countries value as being supremely important. The United States is having a severe clash between those who think the private needs to be protected and those who believe that the private needs to be controlled.

I agree with you; I think the private life is exactly that, private, and that our society has evolved to a point where we don't need to worry about corruptions of society through individual actions or impure thoughts. It is apparent that others do not feel that way and responding to that belief simply by saying "what I do is my business and doesn't hurt you" has failed for as long as they've been slinging it.

Right or wrong, some people believe that homosexuality does harm others. Some others believe it doesn't. There is not common ground because, by definition , the paradigms are on opposite sides of the spectrum. If it does harm others, it shouldn't be allowed. If it doesn't, it should. I know how I believe, but I don't have an argument that could convince someone who believes otherwise that they're wrong.

They are wrong.

There's no need. The person making the positive claim, in this case that homosexuality harms others, is responsible for proving that claim.

It is not necessary to prove that homosexuality does not harm others, and indeed such a claim cannot be proven in a practical sense. I can't prove to you that my making love with my wife this morning didn't hurt anyone, just as the heterosexual couple next door cannot prove that their making love didn't hurt anyone else. We can only point to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

I was, by the way, making love with the person to whom I am married, and there is, I guarantee you, no prohibition against this in the bible.

Gilda

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Gilda

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Do you take everything the bible says at face value?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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! :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. ;)

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 :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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 :lol: ), 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.

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.

????

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

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.

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.

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 :thumbsup:

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 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).

TFP POLICY AND GUIDELINES

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 ;)

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".

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?

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

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?

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

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

^Read it again.

Isn't linguistics a wonderful thing?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I only go by what you say.

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 :)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

So can I.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The tone you’re taking really isn’t conducive to clear communication.

Sex is different for men and women.

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.

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.

I stand corrected. Philios, agape, and eros are loves my wife and I share.

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.

That is my point.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

“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,”

“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,”

“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,”

“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,”

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.

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.

Your statement to which I objected as a distortion of what I said: “So, what you're essentially saying is that the unilateral condemnation of homosexuality isn't unilateral at all?”

My argument the entire debate has been that there is no blanket condemnation of homosexuality. When attribute to me the statement “the unilateral condemnation of homosexuality” this is a gross distortion of what I said. Argue your own points. Please stop telling me what mine are. It’s rude, it’s a logical fallacy (straw man) and you’re either doing a remarkably poor job of it or deliberately distorting what I’m saying. Argue your own points. Stop telling me what mine are.

10By this the (A)children of God and the (B)children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who (C)does not love his (D)brother.

If you don't obey the Word of God, then the previous three statements you made serve no purpose. Maybe perhaps you won't ignore it this time J[/quote]

Cool. I do obey the word of God, therefore those do apply to me. My wife doesn’t; her religion is Shinto, so she’s entirely off the hook.

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.

Of course. This is in large part a semantic debate. You throw out “homosexual lifestyle” and I’m going to counter it.

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.

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.

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.

I stand corrected. Understand, I don’t believe in a literal interpretation nor in Biblical inerrancy, so I’m not arguing from either position.

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

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

You have disputed my arguments, not refuted them.

[/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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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:
and in the same post, above this, I found:
and in an earlier post:
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.
Infinite_Loser assumes that those condemnations extend to all homosexual acts, and to homosexuality.
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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. Hmmm.

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

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

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

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.)

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

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