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.

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

[Replying to post 1 by Goat]

I'll never understand religion, but as long as we can share a common goal, I'm on board. *Happiness with humanity raised 3 points*

[KCKID]

While I realize that you're very much in demand, 99percent, I've a question for you that I'd like answered when you find the time. Now you've acknowledged that one's sexuality (gay or straight) is 'hard-wired' (as revealed in your post #80) ...does this now change your previous negative stance on gay people attending your Church? Also, based on your surprising turn-around, can we now discuss those scriptures ''exegetically' as I suggested from the outset?

[otseng]

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

I'm sick of seeing this claim continually and never seeing any evidence whatsoever.
Can you supply any evidence at all that this fantasy has any basis in reality?

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.

Moderator Comment

I would agree that I do not see any support made for the claim "to activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity." If you make a claim and evidence is asked, you'll need to provide evidence or retract it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

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.

Only if Sodom had a pro-gun culture as popular as its homosexuality culture maybe. And glaring blunder only in the minds that have been conditioned to see it as one and desires to make others see things the same way. And Pop Culture influencing a society is an historic fact. Cultural conditioning is a matter of fact.

The great and powerful prophet of atheism Richard Dawkins, makes it abundantly clear that religion and its resulting behaviors, beliefs and actions, are an influence of ones environment. And although the spread of Christianity seems to counter his opinion, one is definitely influenced by culture and the worldview of ones society. Chinese Christianity, spreading rapidly in China, a godless communistic country, are still Chinese communists.

Now, looking at the "Sodomites" we see that ALL of the men, were cheering on the homosexuality of the guys that would have been doing the sex acts. How does one become so inhospitable towards visitors not of their cultural orientation? Because, as we see throughout history, the term "Sodomite" was about influence. Without doubt, it takes influencing someone to engage in sodomy.

Lot's behavior towards his daughters is utterly anti-Hebrew, anti-Israelite, anti-Torah, but clearly OK to a Sodomite. Now, even the most devoted gay activist says that raping a visitor is wrongdoing. And we have at least one in this thread that opposes "pederasty" as being a behavior that should be engaged in by anyone. When, "pederasty" was in fact, a behavior that was accepted by societal norms. Pop culture as it were. A quick study of "Sapphoism," bears out a similar cultural aspect of accepting something based on influence of others.

I believe even you have presented such a "change and influence," in the gay theology and liberal and progressive culture that you want now to influence The Church. It is accurate to say that gay pride activists want to change the "orientation" of the Church's position on "sodomy" based on what is popular culture today. And again, even you, with a resounding network of supporters constantly remind us all how prevalent, how common and accpetable "divorce and remarriage" is "in The Church." Yes, "Christians are no different than non Christians" in our culture.

In fact, charges are made against anyone "now" that opposes the spread of "LGBT rights" is that not true? So, homophobe, bigot, engaging in a hate crime for opposing gay marriage, all are conditioning the entire populace to find acceptable what was throughout history shunned and "wrongdoing."

So let's look at words that define the influence towards accepting actions of others that would be considered as doing something bad:

De-bauch

dĭ-bôch′)
v. de•bauched, de•bauch•ing, de•bauch•es
v.tr.
1.
a. To corrupt morally.
b. To lead away from excellence or virtue.
2. To reduce the value, quality, or excellence of; debase. See Synonyms at corrupt.
3. Archaic To cause to forsake allegiance.

cor•rupt

(kə-rŭpt′)
adj.
1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
4. Archaic Tainted; putrid.
v. cor•rupt•ed, cor•rupt•ing, cor•rupts
v.tr.
1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
2. To ruin morally; pervert.
3. To taint; contaminate.
4. To cause to become rotten; spoil.
5. To change the original form of (a text, for example).
6. Computer Science To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.
v.intr.
To become corrupt.

per•ver•sion

(pər-vûr′zhən, -shən)
n.
1.
a. The act of perverting.
b. The state of being perverted.
2. A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.

de-base

(dĭ-b�s′)
tr.v. de•based, de•bas•ing, de•bas•es
To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade. See Synonyms at adulterate, corrupt, degrade.

de•base′ment n.
de•bas′er n.

o•ri•en•ta•tion
ôrēən t�SHən
noun
1. the determination of the relative position of something or someone (especially oneself).
"the child's surroundings provide clues to help in orientation"
o the relative physical position or direction of something.
plural noun: orientations
"two complex shapes, presented in different orientations"
synonyms: positioning, location, position, situation, placement, alignment More

o ZOOLOGY
an animal's change of position in response to an external stimulus, especially with respect to compass directions.

I'll present the same positions in your latest post demand. If you so demand.

[99percentatheism]

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

I'm sick of seeing this claim continually and never seeing any evidence whatsoever.
Can you supply any evidence at all that this fantasy has any basis in reality?

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.

Moderator Comment

I would agree that I do not see any support made for the claim "to activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity." If you make a claim and evidence is asked, you'll need to provide evidence or retract it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

How? The rules say that we are not to allowed to challenge Moderators actions in the forum.

[99percentatheism]

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.

Then you are just badgering and harassing me?

I'm asking you to support the claim you have made and continually refuse to support.

Because it is a well established fact. If you haven't heard of The Church of England I'm sorry. It is a worldwide story. As are the other schism driving activist actions on many other denominations. Christian denominations. As in into and onto The Church.

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.

It is odd to me that for all the time you have hounded me from thread to thread that you would have such a query still.

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.

I'd rather not see the word "thanks" attached to a demand. If you don't mind, please avoid the word.

http://www.soulforce.org/

Care to try again to support this claim.

Care to try to challenge any of my theological positions now? Point by point, position by position?

Start here:

The "clobber passages" in the Bible stretch from Genesis to Jude. There simply is no such thing as same gender marriage, or same gender sexuality anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, approved, celebrated or even mentioned or referenced!!!!!

"LGBT" and "Q" activists are free to invent their own religion OR patronize any religious organization that they find willing to celebrate homosexuality. Like I have written, the overwhelming history of gay pride has come to the forefront through completely secular political power. And any Christian Church that wants to have the rainbow flag planted as far away from their Church property as that can possibly happen is not doing anything wrong.

Not one gay pride activist, liberal theologian or "affirming religious body" has yet to produce any supportive scriptures to base the homosexualization of Christianity as just the next step in the gay agenda. The only justification that has been offered is the two wrongs ploy. That The Church has accepted adulterers, the divorced and the remarried into congregations. Yet, not one adulterer, divorcee or remarried person in any Church anywhere has a movement and well funded organizations that demand to have their sins affirmed and ignored.

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

How incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that it was "minority rights" that were all important and all encompassing to validate the concerns of gay pride adherents and proponents, and yet now is the pronouncement from the very same gay pride proponents that there is a minority percentage of Christians that will not submit to gay authority over them and that this ends the debate for good.

My how the shoe is on the other foot.

When ANY scripture can be produced that clearly, unambiguously and directly affirms, celebrates and encourages same gender sexuality, within or without a "marriage" then the issue will be settled for The Church universal. The consistency of scripture supports the Christians that are not in concert with the "LGBT Community." No matter how small that number is or becomes.

With a turning away of the ad hominem attack:

If anyone that calls themselves a Christian, has scriptures that support a doing away with the preaching to repent of sins, or that thoughts in ones own mind can redefine sin and sinning in and for the sinner. . . produce them.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 114 by 99percentatheism]

You, sir, are incapable of debate. Your above post has nothing to do with my question pertaining to the statement you made earlier (Post #80) that 'arousal' is dependant upon one's sexual orientation. You claimed that heterosexuals cannot be aroused by the sight of a naked body of the same gender. Therefore 'arousal' caused by the sight of a naked body of the same gender must be dependent on one's innate sexual orientation, i.e. homosexuality. You are saying without (I'm sure) meaning to say that straight people are born straight and gay people are born gay. Is this what you are saying and, if not, then how do you explain your remark in post #80?

You also make reference yet again to 'those homosexuals' in Sodom and Gomorrah' when I have already explained what I and others believe the story of Lot and the angels and the men of S&G to mean. Do you just put your fingers in your ears and sing, "La, la, la, la, la . . ."? Now, I'm not saying that 'we' are correct in 'our' interpretation, even though I believe that we are. YOU, however, have been given the opportunity to explain (as in debate) the text more convincingly that I/we have and, if need be, to prove us wrong. But, you've done no such thing. You continue on and on with your' "So, you want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse than them", and other irrelevant stuff rather than sticking to the topic at hand. Perhaps it's me, but I honestly can't understand so much of the contents of your posts. They seem to run in every direction other than the right one ...that is, actual responses to the questions asked of you.

So, please, just answer my question ...are gay people, in your opinion, born gay? If not how do you explain your statement about 'arousal' in Post #80?

I won't say "Thank you" since you chided someone else (Joab, I think) for using that polite term.

[Joab]

Care to try to challenge any of my theological positions now? Point by point, position by position?

Your theological position is irrelevant when you are being asked about this statement.

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

Please supply the support you have to defend this claim.

[dianaiad]

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

I'm sick of seeing this claim continually and never seeing any evidence whatsoever.
Can you supply any evidence at all that this fantasy has any basis in reality?

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.

Moderator Comment

I would agree that I do not see any support made for the claim "to activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity." If you make a claim and evidence is asked, you'll need to provide evidence or retract it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

How? The rules say that we are not to allowed to challenge Moderators actions in the forum.

Moderator Warning


And yet, 99, you just did 'challenge moderator action.' In all cases it's important, if you have a question regarding moderator action, to PM the moderator with whom you have an issue, and not bring it up on the public forum. In this case, especially, you should have done so.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Haven]

OK, 99, I finally have time to get to your "green challenge" (which I will be recoloring as I do with all posts). Let's begin:

The "clobber passages" in the Bible stretch from Genesis to Jude.

Where in Jude is homosexuality mentioned? In all 25 verses of the book, the only place where sexuality is mentioned at all is verse 7, which mentions only "sexual immorality" and "perversion." It never talks about homosexuality or lesbians and gays.

The entire book of Jude, by the way, is in a setting of high superstition, talking repeatedly about angels, demons, and other mythological beings that can't be demonstrated to exist. It's obvious the pseudonymous author of Jude was not in touch with reality, so it's reasonable to take everything s/he said with a grain of salt.

There simply is no such thing as same gender marriage, or same gender sexuality anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, approved, celebrated or even mentioned or referenced!!!!!

The Bible never mentions same-gender marriage. However, it also fails to mention interracial marriages (in fact, it commands against such things), but very few Christians today would consider this a condemnation of such relationships. The Bible also favorably mentions polygynous marriages, concubinage, rape, and outright sexual slavery, but very few Christians today approve of such practices. The fact is that the Bible was written by primitive men in accordance with their cultural context, and so their ideas on sexuality were rooted in their own cultures. This has little relevance today; we should be guided by justice, reason, and kindness, not the cultural beliefs of tribesmen in the ancient near east.

Moreover, the Bible does favorably mention a same-sex relationship. The romantic and probably sexual relationship between King David (who was apparently bisexual, given his numerous relationships with women) and Jonathan is celebrated in 1 Samuel 18-20.

"LGBT" and "Q" activists are free to invent their own religion OR patronize any religious organization that they find willing to celebrate homosexuality. Like I have written, the overwhelming history of gay pride has come to the forefront through completely secular political power. And any Christian Church that wants to have the rainbow flag planted as far away from their Church property as that can possibly happen is not doing anything wrong.

If, as you say, you feel there is "nothing wrong with it," then why are you obsessed with this subject? No gay person I know cares about what fundamentalist Christians believe about homosexuality. Where we have a problem is when those beliefs are used to belittle, condemn, harass, and even incite violence against members of the LGBTQ+ community, especially those outside of Christianity. The passage of Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" is a perfect example of fundamentalist Christian power impacting the secular world and stripping people of their civil rights.

Short version: believe what you want, just don't pass laws based on your views.

Not one gay pride activist, liberal theologian or "affirming religious body" has yet to produce any supportive scriptures to base the homosexualization of Christianity as just the next step in the gay agenda.

1. Several Christian pro-LGBTQ+ activists have provided Biblical justifications for queer equality, including referencing the aforementioned David and Jonathan and appealing to the "love is the law" and "no male or female . . . in Christ" verses from the New Testament.

2. I and others have asked you repeatedly to define what you mean by "gay agenda." As a gay person, my only agenda is to get through graduate school, find a teaching job, get married and start a family, and dedicate my life to loving others and advancing the cause of equality. There is no nefarious plot among LGBTQ+ people to take over the world (but the same can't be said of fundamentalist Christians).

Why is the radical Christianist agenda so obsessed with stopping homosexuality? Why are you guys so obsessed with the Christianization of the secular world?

The only justification that has been offered is the two wrongs ploy. That The Church has accepted adulterers, the divorced and the remarried into congregations. Yet, not one adulterer, divorcee or remarried person in any Church anywhere has a movement and well funded organizations that demand to have their sins affirmed and ignored.

I have never used such a justification for LGBTQ+ equality.

However, this "two wrongs" argument is about illustrating the hypocrisy of Christian extremists. They shout from the proverbial rooftops about how God hates f*gs and homosexuality is the embodiment of all that is evil, yet they do nothing about (and often explicitly condone) other things the Bible condemns, like divorce and remarriage. It's blatant hypocrisy. To paraphrase your lord, take the plank out of your own eye before getting the speck out of your brother's eye.

By the way, people getting remarried after divorce can and often do marry within churches. There's no organization or advocating for such people because divorce/remarriage is widely accepted in the church and in society, despite Jesus saying that he hates divorce (he never, by the way, mentioned gayness).

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

That is a bald-faced LIE. Not a single LGBTQ+ activist has ever said anything like "we'll treat you worse than them" (who is the "them" in this case? That part of S&G was about rape, remember?).

How incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical . . .

Plank. Speck. Eye.

. . . that it was "minority rights" that were all important and all encompassing to validate the concerns of gay pride adherents and proponents, and yet now is the pronouncement from the very same gay pride proponents that there is a minority percentage of Christians that will not submit to gay authority over them and that this ends the debate for good.

1. The only thing with which LGBTQ+ activists are concerned is equal rights. When radical Christianists want to use the power of the legislature to institutionally oppress gays and lesbians by instituting their unconstitutional Sharia laws, of course LGBTQ+ people and allies will push back. When Christian extremists want to condemn gays from the pulpit, no one cares (except, of course, for the LGBTQ+ youth raised in such churches, who feel a tremendous amount of guilt and shame and often turn to suicide because of this).

The bottom line is that hatred--especially institutionalized hate--in any sphere of society has negative consequences. As an LGBTQ+ activist, I oppose such hate. If that offends you, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to live with it.

When ANY scripture can be produced that clearly, unambiguously and directly affirms, celebrates and encourages same gender sexuality, within or without a "marriage" then the issue will be settled for The Church universal. The consistency of scripture supports the Christians that are not in concert with the "LGBT Community." No matter how small that number is or becomes.

1 Samuel 18-20 & 2 Samuel 1.

I hope you stick to your word.

If anyone that calls themselves a Christian, has scriptures that support a doing away with the preaching to repent of sins, or that thoughts in ones own mind can redefine sin and sinning in and for the sinner. . . produce them.

Christians have been redefining sin and sinning since there have been Christians. There is no Christian that still follows every one of the 613 commandments in the Old Testament, even though Jesus said "not one jot or tittle" will be changed. There isn't a single Christian who condemns eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, despite the fact that the Bible calls both "abominations" (to'evah), the same word mentioned in Leviticus' "man laying with a man" passage.

The fact is, sin (like almost everything else in our society) is a social construct, and its meaning varies over space and time. There is no static definition of sin, and even the Bible acknowledges it (it contains a constant conversation on what is and isn't acceptable to God). It, like all standards of morality, is a constantly evolving construct.

To restate the words attributed to Jesus one more time: "take the plank out of your own eye."