THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LI'BLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE

[KCKID]

Why are SO many Christians hung up on homosexuality? While the average Christian would be hard pressed to locate such a text in their Bibles if asked, they would undoubtedly say “Because it’s a sin according to the Bible.� I personally find such a response difficult to accept and rather strongly suspect that one’s ‘religious belief’ on this issue is NOT the driving force behind their aversion/condemnation of homosexuality. I mean, if Christians REALLY desire to condemn ‘sin’ as they perceive it they could give homosexuals a break and instead have a field day targeting the many other human behaviors going on within society that God appears to hate. But …they don’t . . .well certainly not with the same zeal they do toward homosexuality.

So, what is going on here? Does the Bible really condemn sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender? Or, does the Bible not address the matter of homosexuality at all …or, at least, not as we today recognize homosexuality? Would the Bible authors have even been aware of one’s innate sexuality as well as the complexities surrounding sexuality in general? Or, in simple terms, would they, as with many males of today, have regarded some males as 'effeminate' (or ‘sissies’) based on both ignorance and their own perceived cultural image of the ‘alpha male’? Or, if these authors were considered to be writing by divine authority, might we then say that God is the instigator of such ignorance and has allowed this ignorance to persist from generation to generation?

My main question in this thread is: of the ‘thimble-full’ of scriptures that are commonly used by Christians to condemn homosexuality (sexual attraction/desire directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex), how many of these texts might be considered to be far too ambiguous (open to several possible meanings or interpretations) to have caused such a furor within Christendom in general and specifically resulted in the division of a number of present-day Christian denominations? Can these few scriptures be analyzed so accurately that they can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to condemn homosexuality as we refer to the term today? I say no …they cannot. I’ve given my reasons in the past and will do so again if challenged.

Please discuss the below scriptures, as best you can, exegetically, i.e.
observation: what do the passages say?
interpretation: what do the passages mean?
correlation: how do the passages relate to the topic of homosexuality as we define it today?
application: how should these passages affect your/my life?

Note: I've purposely used the NIV for the following texts.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire . . .etc. (NIV)

Should there be other related Bible texts to the topic feel free to present them based on the above criteria for analysis. I purposely omitted the Sodom and Gomorrah saga since it's been done to death and quite clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. However, likewise feel free to present that strange tale for discussion should you find it to be relevant.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 92 by Danmark]

And you "personally" attack me. For the record, instead of countering my points and positions.

The entire post you complain about consists of quotations from you. You claimed you are "not a homophobe or bigot." I simply juxtaposed your own words with your own words. Your words speak for themselves.

Then I have completely defended against the ridiculous charges of attaching gay pride propaganda labels to my completely supported theological positions.

OK

Thank you

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 91 by Danmark]

I've never met a homophobe or a bigot but my wife has a phobia of dogs. I have seen her almost jump onto the road and be killed rather than have a dog run at her.

Having observed someone with a phobia it makes me feel that phrases like homophobe and bigot should be used a lot less.

If we strictly looked at the root of the word 'homophobe,' I would agree with you.
Like many words, the meaning does not perfectly correspond with its root.

Homophobe: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobe

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Scattershooting words like 'homophobia' around, to mean everything from "I'd really rather not have my son dating another guy because I'd like grandkids, but whatever" to "I'm going to shoot the next one I see because they are evil personified and God hates f***" is destroying the intent and effectiveness of the word.

It's like swearing. If you use your most intense swear words for a stubbed toe, where is there left for you to go when something really horrific happens?

Not that I never use them, mind you, but when I do, those around me know I mean them.

The problem with the terms 'homophobe' and 'anti-gay' is that they are used, almost universally, to put even the slightest disagreement with a position on the same level as the the folks with those "God hates..." signs and the shotguns.

I think we need to put the meaning of the word 'homophobe' back up to where it applies to the most extreme and obvious bigots; to use it accurately...because to use it for every point along that spectrum of disagreement waters down the meaning, and leaves nothing accurate to describe the truly hate filled.

[KCKID]

Looking at the "men of Sodom" ALL of them, and you see that homosexuality does indeed enter the scenario. How does a heterosexual get sexually aroused by the sight of a naked man?

Man, I am SO slipping ...how did I miss this? I must be gettin' old or something. Are you sure you want to go down this road, 99percent? Time and time again you (and, in fact, many people) believe, and have emphatically and categorically stated, that people are not born gay. Yet, what you say above clearly contradicts this line of thought. What you are saying above is that one has to have same-sex tendencies in order to be aroused by a naked member of the same gender. You are clearly making the distinction between heterosexuals who are NOT aroused by same-sex nakedness and homosexuals that ARE aroused by same-sex nakedness.

Do you realize what you’ve unwittingly admitted to? You just admitted to the belief that gay people ARE ‘innately gay’ because of what situations causes 'natural' arousal for them but does not occur similarly for heterosexuals. In other words, you seem to have come awful close to saying that gay people are born gay and straight people are born straight and that genetics are involved/responsible for the cause of 'arousal'.

Hmmm, I’m just wondering how you’re going to get around this glaring blunder. I’ll guess. You might say that even ‘arousal’ occurs by choice. And, if so, then I will respond with, “In that case would not ‘arousal by choice’ also be true of heterosexuals?�

I think you may have shot yourself in the foot again.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 94 by Joab]

This is a debate website. Answer my posts point for point position by position. Snippet demands are a waste of time.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not answering your posts.
I'm asking you to support the claim you have made and continually refuse to support.

to activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity,

I've tried this before and all you provided is more unsupported claims, so we'll leave those for the moment.
Could you provide some support for your claim that activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity,
Thanks.

Care to try again to support this claim.

[Danmark]

Scattershooting words like 'homophobia' around, to mean everything from "I'd really rather not have my son dating another guy because I'd like grandkids, but whatever" to "I'm going to shoot the next one I see because they are evil personified and God hates f***" is destroying the intent and effectiveness of the word.

It's like swearing. If you use your most intense swear words for a stubbed toe, where is there left for you to go when something really horrific happens?

Not that I never use them, mind you, but when I do, those around me know I mean them.

The problem with the terms 'homophobe' and 'anti-gay' is that they are used, almost universally, to put even the slightest disagreement with a position on the same level as the the folks with those "God hates..." signs and the shotguns.

I think we need to put the meaning of the word 'homophobe' back up to where it applies to the most extreme and obvious bigots; to use it accurately...because to use it for every point along that spectrum of disagreement waters down the meaning, and leaves nothing accurate to describe the truly hate filled.

The latest uproar on this subject got started when 99% wrote:

I can now rest in that I am not a homophobe or bigot.

_Post 85 [see post 83 et seq.]
Thus he put into issue the question of whether either of those words apply to him.
I followed this quote of his, with several other quotes from him that might apply to his claim.

I agree that the word 'homophobe' has a wide range of meanings, as does the word 'racist.' I'm not sure how these emotionally laden words are to be avoided simply because there may be various degrees, or varying attitudes and behaviors that the terms encompass.

What is really at the heart of this inflammatory issue on this forum is how one interprets both the Bible and Christianity. A culture bound, literalistic interpretation of the Bible has historically been used to justify sexism, racial and ethnic discrimination and even slavery. It is interesting to note that this same kind of interpretation is used by non Christians as well, but for a different purpose: to demonstrate that these scriptures could not have been authored or inspired by a loving God who would not punish people for characteristics they did not choose.

My thesis is that it is error for either the Christian or the non Christian to apply strict literalism to the interpretation of Christianity for their own purposes, and to excuse or justify hatred and discrimination.

But back to words: When someone writes prolifically and almost exclusively about a single subject, perhaps 'obsessive' is the proper modifier for X.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

What does the rainbow flag represent again? Wellllll gay pride. What does the "Gay Pride Movement" represent again? Pride of sexual behavior. THAT is what the bottom-line IS about. Marriage, cannot be defined as just a business partnership concerned with financial and property rights of those garnering a settlement after the death of a spouse.

Have you ever really stopped to think about why we gays have such pride movements? I don't really care for the flashiness of the parades, but we don't just do it to irritate Christians. Kinda. We do it to show that we're proud to be gay, acknowledging that it's not evil nor a sin. Homosexuality is condemned by many cultures. In the Middle East, we can still be put to death. So, maybe instead of going back to that, we can actually get a little progressive and civilized.

Besides, marriage is really just an agreement between two (or more) adults to live together, share finances, occasionally have sex, and wear shiny rings. It's not a religious custom ordained by god. Marriage (or something like it) was probably around way before religions were invented.

Thank you.

Actually, marriage is cultural...and those who advocate now for gay marriage are attempting to claim that it is simply contractual; government assigned living arrangements, and that religions and culture have nothing to do with it.

Now, the problem with your statement is that in order to accept the premise 'long before religions were invented,' one must accept the premise that there is no god and that religions were indeed man-made and invented. It's begging a very big question.

I'll go along with you on this, though...marriage, as a living arrangement between people, has been around long before governments. People were getting married considerably before formal laws existed to assign rights and responsibilities to the institution.

Shoot, it's not been all THAT long ago that in Europe (England specifically comes to mind here) that marriage was specifically and only a religious affair. The government got involved only when the couple had property to deal with. Most of Europe, even today, has two definitions of marriage; the religious one is entirely separate from, and indeed, not especially related to, the 'civil' one. Even William and Kate, with all the hub bub of their royal wedding, still had to go to a separate room in the back and sign the contracts for the government in order for the government to recognize their marriage.

The point is, culturally, I can't remember any societies in which homosexual marriages were accepted. There are one or two where the government forced the idea, and allowed contracts, but I can't think, off hand, of any cultures that did, since marriage was specifically about the combination of male and female for the purpose of procreation and raising a family.

Even when that ultimately did not happen, or could not. The principle of male/female stayed the same.

So now gays want to marry. They don't simply want the governmental, contractual form (which, quite frankly, I have no problem with). they want the cultural definition...and they want the culture to recognize that definition and approve. Culturally and religiously, they want recognition and approval even by those religions and cultures who simply do not see it possible for two members of the same sex to marry in the cultural and religious meaning of the word.

They have an uphill battle, and I'm not on their side. Not because I don't think they have the right to any governmental rights they can get, and not because I don't think they have the right to marry in any religion or culture that accepts/allows that. Go for it.

I'm not on their side because they want me to change my beliefs to approve of, and accept theirs within my own belief system, even when they have no intention of approving and accepting mine within theirs.

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

I'm not on their side because they want me to change my beliefs to approve of, and accept theirs within my own belief system, even when they have no intention of approving and accepting mine within theirs.

You don't have to change anything and in my case, it's not about changing minds anyway. No, it's more about wanting to be treated like an actual person. I've never been comfortable with the "this is the same thing called something else for your people" excuse. For example, "Well, you can get a civil union. It's just about the same as marriage, just not called marriage." I've never understood this. If people are ok with gay people getting things like civil unions, then why can't we actually get married? Is it because of the word marriage? What if the gay couple is Christian and wants to marry in a church?

Now, the problem with your statement is that in order to accept the premise 'long before religions were invented,' one must accept the premise that there is no god and that religions were indeed man-made and invented. It's begging a very big question.

To me, they were completely invented. I understand that many more people think I'll burn in hell for saying this, but that's what I believe regardless. With such an opinion, many things I once thought were sins are no longer (because I don't believe sins exist, either). Homosexuality, sex, masturbation, smoking, drinking alcohol, wearing pants, holding hands, kissing, swearing, reading Harry Potter, watching Twilight (even though it sucked), etc. It's my opinion that it's much easier and better to just forget about calling these things sins and actually have fun.

I digressed, I think. It's been a long, needle-filled day.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

I'm not on their side because they want me to change my beliefs to approve of, and accept theirs within my own belief system, even when they have no intention of approving and accepting mine within theirs.

You don't have to change anything and in my case, it's not about changing minds anyway. No, it's more about wanting to be treated like an actual person. I've never been comfortable with the "this is the same thing called something else for your people" excuse. For example, "Well, you can get a civil union. It's just about the same as marriage, just not called marriage." I've never understood this. If people are ok with gay people getting things like civil unions, then why can't we actually get married? Is it because of the word marriage? What if the gay couple is Christian and wants to marry in a church?

Now, the problem with your statement is that in order to accept the premise 'long before religions were invented,' one must accept the premise that there is no god and that religions were indeed man-made and invented. It's begging a very big question.

Then go ahead and do so in any church that agrees with you. I have no problem with that. Mind you, I think that civil unions and 'marriage' within a culture/belief system should be completely different matters, and that everybody should get civil unions if they want the government benefits (including heterosexual couples), if their union abides by government rules.

Then go get married in any manner that suits you.

My problem is that I keep running into folks who claim that they don't want to force me to change my beliefs within my own faith, but when pushed...guess what? They definitely do.

Y'know, I can't get married in a Catholic church with a Catholic ceremony and have the full wedding Mass. I'm not eligible. I'm not a Catholic. No problem...I am well and truly married where I am.

....and that's another point. I believe that I AM married. I have a husband. He's my spouse. The government doesn't think so: I have none of the rights that it gives to married folks. Other religions don't think so, because their marriage services read 'until death do you part."

But my church thinks I am, and so do I, even though Jim has been gone for twenty years now. Am I any less 'married" because everybody else calls me 'widow' and the government treats me as 'single?"

I don't think so.

If I were a divorced Catholic the RC church would not recognize a new marriage if I entered into one.

Nobody is giving the Catholics grief over this. Nobody is suing the church because divorced couples aren't allowed to use church property to celebrate their weddings. Nobody is suing Catholic owned businesses that refuse to cater a wedding reception for previously divorced people.

But I have been flat out told by more than one gay rights activist that lawsuits were in the wings to force Mormons to allow gay married couples to attend the Temple, and to force the CoJCoLDS to recognize gay marriages as marriages within the church hierarchy and official church job structure; that any rule that says one has to be 'married' will then have to include gay couples............even though the Mormons absolutely cannot, ever, accept gay marriages (that is, an eternal marriage) as doctrinally possible.

Won't go into why, here, just trust me on this. It has nothing to do with how sinful gays are, but rather about who God is, who we are, and what marriage actually IS. To us.

To me, they were completely invented. I understand that many more people think I'll burn in hell for saying this, but that's what I believe regardless. With such an opinion, many things I once thought were sins are no longer (because I don't believe sins exist, either). Homosexuality, sex, masturbation, smoking, drinking alcohol, wearing pants, holding hands, kissing, swearing, reading Harry Potter, watching Twilight (even though it sucked), etc. It's my opinion that it's much easier and better to just forget about calling these things sins and actually have fun.

Well, 'sin,' in my opinion, is knowingly and deliberately doing something against ones own moral and ethical code.

So for ME, well...sex outside marriage is sinful (homosexuality no more sinful than heterosexual sex outside those boundaries), smoking and drinking are sins...not because there's anything intrinsically sinful about those things, but because I promised not to. The sin is in breaking the promise. I only own two skirts and one of 'em is 20 years old. I do swear, but I save it for when it really does some good stress relief, love Harry Potter, can't complain about Twilight, given who wrote it........Oh, yeah, and I dance and sing, too.

Odd of me, but there it is.



I digressed, I think. It's been a long, needle-filled day.

T

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

Won't go into why, here, just trust me on this. It has nothing to do with how sinful gays are, but rather about who God is, who we are, and what marriage actually IS. To us.

I guess we'll have to disagree about the whole religious implications of marriage. You labeled quite a few things that make me happy I left. You may think it's true, but it's so confusing with everyone having a different opinion or practice.

Oh, and that list of things considered sins I posted were examples of sins told to me by a Christian school I used to attend. Every single one of those and more were completely banned and frowned upon.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by dianaiad]

Won't go into why, here, just trust me on this. It has nothing to do with how sinful gays are, but rather about who God is, who we are, and what marriage actually IS. To us.

I guess we'll have to disagree about the whole religious implications of marriage. You labeled quite a few things that make me happy I left. You may think it's true, but it's so confusing with everyone having a different opinion or practice.

Oh, and that list of things considered sins I posted were examples of sins told to me by a Christian school I used to attend. Every single one of those and more were completely banned and frowned upon.

What I find is ironic is the the United Church of Christ is suing the state of North Carolina saying that the Ban against gay marriage is violating their religious freedoms.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/28/ ... riage-ban/