Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[ENIGMA]

Don't be. I welcome the oportunity to learn new words.

So you don't have hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

[kiwimac]

Don't be. I welcome the oportunity to learn new words.

So you don't have hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia?

Fear of Monstrance-equipped Hippopotami?

EGAD!

[Cathar1950]

Scrotum What would we call "spreading of misinformation for a purpose"?
I think I used it correctly except maybe the information part.
BS may be a good definition.

[Easyrider]

The Bible does not address homosexuality as it is understood today. It DOES address pederasty and Temple prostitution.

More revisionism.

The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 appear alongside other sexual sins - adultery and incest, for example-which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God's displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry (or alleged Temple prostitution, etc.) is involved.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry and alleged Temple practices, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.

It is time for Christians to stop insisting that Homosexuals must change their very being in order to be acceptable to God. It is wrong, it is sub-christian and it is appalling theology which does violence to folk whom society already oppresses.

[/i]

God can change the person, Kiwimac. You shouldn't think he can't.

But perhaps you'll accept this deal: Stop trying to legitimize gay sex relationships in the church and the church will calm down about the subject. Deal?

[Cathar1950]

Easyrider

More revisionism.

If the situation and the definitions change it is not revisionism.
You are imposing you views of the past on homosexuals today.
Your focus on sexual acts instead of sexuality and affection is a travesty.
There is a difference between people doing sexual acts for domination and religion and human companionship. That you cannot see the difference doesnt surprise me at all.

The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 appear alongside other sexual sins - adultery and incest, for example-which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God's displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry (or alleged Temple prostitution, etc.) is involved.

It just shows a law against them given the culture at the time you are not qualified to proclaim Gods pleasure or displeasure. You Christians are dead to the law. Remember Pauls take? It is all or none buddy.

God can change the person, Kiwimac. You shouldn't think he can't.

God shouldnt have to change them he created them. If he doesn't like it then God can make them non gay as he chooses. I don't see any one being gay because they want to. It is usually hard enough to acept it in themselves. You confuse sex with affection and sexuality.

But perhaps you'll accept this deal: Stop trying to legitimize gay sex relationships in the church and the church will calm down about the subject. Deal?

You are not in any position to make a deal. If some one chooses to legitimize gay sexual relationships so be it. If you dont like it keep to yourselves in your little gay non-gay churches.

[Scrotum]

Scrotum What would we call "spreading of misinformation for a purpose"?
I think I used it correctly except maybe the information part.
BS may be a good definition.

But you then need to clarify WHAT KIND OF propaganda. As in "False" or "True".


"spreading of misinformation for a purpose" is Propaganda
BUT
"spreading of True Information for a purpose" is also Propaganda.


That was my point. You need to define "False" or "True" propaganda, as it could be either way.

[Easyrider]

If the situation and the definitions change it is not revisionism.

Nothing's changed.

You are imposing you views of the past on homosexuals today. Your focus on sexual acts instead of sexuality and affection is a travesty. There is a difference between people doing sexual acts for domination and religion and human companionship. That you cannot see the difference doesnt surprise me at all.

That might sell well out in the Bay area but I'm not buying it.

You Christians are dead to the law.

Jesus to the adulteress: "Go and sin no more."

Jesus to the invalid he had healed in John chapter 5: "See, you are well now. But stop sinning or something worse may happen to you!"

You confuse sex with affection and sexuality.

Nope. Gay sex is a deliberate sin. As in deliberately dropping trou. If it's not deliberate watch out for "Breaking sex" in the malls and street corners. LOL!

You are not in any position to make a deal.

Sure I am. I can sell that deal I proposed all day long.

If some one chooses to legitimize gay sexual relationships so be it. If you dont like it keep to yourselves in your little gay non-gay churches.

We try, but you guys keep trying to legitimize gay sex relationships and actively gay priests in our churches, so you will have to live with the adversarial situation you create.

[Cathar1950]

Nothing's changed.

Whatever.

That might sell well out in the Bay area but I'm not buying it.

I am not selling anything.

Jesus to the adulteress: "Go and sin no more."

This is a later addition in my opinion. I was thinking of your Pauline Christian thinking so why bring Jesus into the mess? He was YHWH alone and the law. The law is dead to you so why to you persist in your selective demand for obedience?
I am suggesting it isn't a sin to "love" another person of the same sex.

Nope. Gay sex is a deliberate sin. As in deliberately dropping trou. If it's not deliberate watch out for "Breaking sex" in the malls and street corners. LOL!

Again it is your definition of sin. You are also confusing love and sexuality with sex acts.

We try, but you guys keep trying to legitimize gay sex relationships and actively gay priests in our churches, so you will have to live with the adversarial situation you create.

There are many that feel that it is legitimate in your churches.
You are the one that must live with the adversarial situation not I.
As long as you don't break civil laws I don't care what you think or do.
Although I think protesting at funerals is tasteless and should be outlawed.

[MagusYanam]

Nothing's changed.

There's an argument to be made against legitimising gay ordination and/or marriage. Sadly, that isn't it, unless you're willing to say the same thing in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine.

The Bible is both sacred Scripture and a product of its times and the people who were inspired by God to write it. Would homosexuality have been shocking and reprehensible to the ancient Hebrews? Of course. Does this mean automatically that we should have the same attitudes? We live in a different society in a different era, with different moral and epistemological mores and speaking different languages. And 'nothing's changed?'

Sorry, I'm just not buying that one. If you're going to oppose homosexuality in the church, do it for the right reasons, at least.

We try, but you guys keep trying to legitimize gay sex relationships and actively gay priests in our churches, so you will have to live with the adversarial situation you create.

Who is 'we' and who is 'you guys' who are 'trying to legitimize [sic] gay sex relationships and actively gay priests in our churches'? I'm a moderate-to-liberal Episcopalian, and our congregations are threatening to split over this very issue, a scourge which up until now has left our Church untouched regardless of the variety of Catholic-influenced and Protestant-influenced beliefs and practises, so I am well familiar with this 'adversarial situation'. Episcopalian priests and theologians are not pushing for gay priests to be ordained in any other denomination, nor is there any external pressure to our Church that appears to be affecting this change in policy. (The Catholic Church tried, but to little effect.)

Generally, it was not the congregation but the clergy that pushed for the ordination of Bishop Robinson. This, I will admit with concern, was a radical departure from the Church tradition and still needs to be addressed with great caution and debated with much thought and prayer. I'm still not sure whether to endorse Bishop Robinson's election. However, the man (it must be admitted) was in every other way competent and vigilant in his ministry at the time of his election to the episcopate.

Coming from a tradition which is sorely affected by this 'adversarial situation', I implore you not to paint the issue as a black-and-white, us-versus-them situation. There are many devout, conscientious Episcopalians who were willing to accept the election of Bishop Robinson after much reflection and prayer who have the backing of the Scriptures and their own reason behind their stance.

[kiwimac]

The Bible does not address homosexuality as it is understood today. It DOES address pederasty and Temple prostitution.

More revisionism.

The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 appear alongside other sexual sins - adultery and incest, for example-which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God's displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry (or alleged Temple prostitution, etc.) is involved.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry and alleged Temple practices, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.

It is time for Christians to stop insisting that Homosexuals must change their very being in order to be acceptable to God. It is wrong, it is sub-christian and it is appalling theology which does violence to folk whom society already oppresses.

[/i]

God can change the person, Kiwimac. You shouldn't think he can't.

But perhaps you'll accept this deal: Stop trying to legitimize gay sex relationships in the church and the church will calm down about the subject. Deal?

You can call it revisionism as much as you like ER, but the truth of the matter is that you are reading back into an ancient document modern concerns that were not even concepts then. Homosexuality certainly existed then but that is NOT what the levitical texts are speaking about.

They are speaking about temple prostiitution and pederasty. To insist that the ONLY thing they can POSSIBLY mean is homosexuality is to insist that only the 19th and 20th C translations and understandings of those passages have validity.

God can indeed change individuals but Gay folk do not need changing they are not wrong in and of themselves. In addition so-called "reparative therapy" does not work when people have been through the courses they still imagine / fantisise about Gay sex, they may marry a woman and make both her and themselves thoroughly miserable but in their hearts they are and they remain Gay.

As a Priest my job is to proclaim the kingdom of God, it is not to make the path to the kingdom a minefield of human-made rules and regulations folk must adhere to BEFORE they can become part of the kingdom.

Jesus said that the 'prostitutes and sinners' would enter heaven before those who considered themselves Godly. Please note he did NOT say the 'former prostitutes and sinners.'

Kiwimac
Priest & Theologian