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.

[Goat]

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.

I supplied it.

Soulforce is a gay pride activist organization.

I've just visited Soulforce's website, and can't seem to find any place where they say they want to "force" anything. In fact, they specifically say in their mission statement:

Soulforce is a national non-profit that works nonviolently to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQ people. While we are not ourselves a faith-based organization, we lead from the understanding that oppressive religious beliefs, civil rights abuses and anti-feminist attitudes that oppress LGBTQ people are interrelated. We envision a world in which social justice movements are inclusive and collaborative as we help make it possible for all people, regardless of chosen or inherent identities, to have access, opportunity and security.

Not seeing anything there about "force" - in fact, later on the same page they again espouse nonviolence and evoke Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

"Pressure" I could see, but where's the "force" part?

I stand by the characterization: demand. It is clear from their targeting of Christian organizations, Churches and schools that it is a demand. No different than any other movement that "demands change" by protesting for it.

They could easily sink into the Denoms that "affirm" and celebrate gay pride and gay behavior, but they have targeted decent Bible-based Christian places for their targeted actions.

Then, if you stand by the characterization, please provide evidence that your characterization is correct. Please show anything that they wrote that will fit your characterization, or withdraw your claim.

[99percentatheism]

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.

I supplied it.

Soulforce is a gay pride activist organization.

I've just visited Soulforce's website, and can't seem to find any place where they say they want to "force" anything. In fact, they specifically say in their mission statement:

Soulforce is a national non-profit that works nonviolently to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQ people. While we are not ourselves a faith-based organization, we lead from the understanding that oppressive religious beliefs, civil rights abuses and anti-feminist attitudes that oppress LGBTQ people are interrelated. We envision a world in which social justice movements are inclusive and collaborative as we help make it possible for all people, regardless of chosen or inherent identities, to have access, opportunity and security.

Not seeing anything there about "force" - in fact, later on the same page they again espouse nonviolence and evoke Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

"Pressure" I could see, but where's the "force" part?

I stand by the characterization: demand. It is clear from their targeting of Christian organizations, Churches and schools that it is a demand. No different than any other movement that "demands change" by protesting for it.

They could easily sink into the Denoms that "affirm" and celebrate gay pride and gay behavior, but they have targeted decent Bible-based Christian places for their targeted actions.

Then, if you stand by the characterization, please provide evidence that your characterization is correct. Please show anything that they wrote that will fit your characterization, or withdraw your claim.

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any clear affirmation of same gender sexuality anywhere in scripture as well. In fact, neither Jesus (nor Moses) every said a word about homosexuality.

And NO, I will not withdraw my characterization of a "protest group" and their "demands." No matter how it may be altered for political expediency.

Article: "Gay Activists Plan Protest at General Assembly"
Posted on May 25, 2000
May 25, 2000

Soulforce group demands equal recognition for homosexuals in PC(USA)
by Evan Silverstein

- http://www.archives.soulforce.org/2000/ ... -assembly/

Soulforce has its own Reverend (Mel White) and can easily start a denomination. But that seems not to be in their agenda.

[Danmark]

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any clear affirmation of same gender sexuality anywhere in scripture as well. In fact, neither Jesus (nor Moses) every said a word about homosexuality.

It is a false satisfaction to presume you know people avoid your positions, or why.
You insist on making a 'point by point' analysis using a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Contrary to your claim, you have been repeatedly told that your literalist view that mistakenly relies on cultural issues that applied 3000 years ago are not eternal. Much in the Bible refers to customs and beliefs that are temporal and human; that is, they are culture bound, not universal and timeless. An example is when Paul goes on and on about short hair and long hair for men and women.
[see 1 Corinthians 11]
It is laughable to read Paul's attempt to make this purely cultural 'hair' issue some edict from God. In essence this reflects your error with your single, overriding issue about same gender vs. opposite gender relationships.

Essentially, your problem is that you only accept this narrow literalist interpretation. When debaters point out to you that there are other approaches to analyzing scripture and looking for universals instead of some narrow, culture bound interpretation, you fall back on that lonely literalism and refuse to acknowledge there are other interpretations of scriptuer; that yours is not the only approach.

[Goat]

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any clear affirmation of same gender sexuality anywhere in scripture as well. In fact, neither Jesus (nor Moses) every said a word about homosexuality.

And NO, I will not withdraw my characterization of a "protest group" and their "demands." No matter how it may be altered for political expediency.

Article: "Gay Activists Plan Protest at General Assembly"
Posted on May 25, 2000
May 25, 2000

Soulforce group demands equal recognition for homosexuals in PC(USA)
by Evan Silverstein

- http://www.archives.soulforce.org/2000/ ... -assembly/

Soulforce has its own Reverend (Mel White) and can easily start a denomination. But that seems not to be in their agenda.

I don't see how that particular protest matches your description of their adjenda. Wanting to be recognized is hardly the same as forcing their lifestyle on you.

I find that position of your fairly sad and lonely.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark,

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any clear affirmation of same gender sexuality anywhere in scripture as well. In fact, neither Jesus (nor Moses) every said a word about homosexuality.

It is a false satisfaction to presume you know people avoid your positions, or why.

Your opinion is duly noted. With satisfaction.

You insist on making a 'point by point' analysis using a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

"Literalist"? ad hom

The fact is, there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the entire Bible. There is no affirming statement anywhere in scripture for same gender sexuality. And even the attempted and bizarre use use of Davis and Jonathan (or Ruth and Naomi) shows that these people all married as scripture defines it. Immutably as man and woman/husband and wife.

Even having a PhD and saying "Nuh Uh" just doesn't cut it. It is far more accurate to label as extremist, the position that the Bible affirms the gay agenda position of claiming that immutable Biblical truth can change via a democracy or the demand of mob rule.

Contrary to your claim, you have been repeatedly told that your literalist view that mistakenly relies on cultural issues that applied 3000 years ago are not eternal.

By people that have invented new theology based on an agenda and not scripture. As in marriage for example. There is not one shred of evidence that what a marriage is can change in Christian truth.

Much in the Bible refers to customs and beliefs that are temporal and human; that is, they are culture bound, not universal and timeless.

Goat herding, though still around, but different than what Israelite goat herders would have engaged in (maybe), is hardly a reason to reinvent and redefine Christian marriage. In fact, Jesus is far more assertive on that than anything produced by gay theology. Now, anyone can invent a new religion and claim marriage can be whatever some group or couple wants it to be, but, it is immutably defined in the New Testament. Unless of course someone can produce marriage in the NT as between two same gender individuals. Which has never been produced in the hundreds and hundreds of requests for it that I have made.

An example is when Paul goes on and on about short hair and long hair for men and women.
[see 1 Corinthians 11]

"Men and women?" Isn't that called "heterosexist" stereotyping by LGBT activists? And the "Q" and the +ers?

Sorry, there are immutable facts in the New Testament.

It is laughable to read Paul's attempt to make this purely cultural 'hair' issue some edict from God. In essence this reflects your error with your single, overriding issue about same gender vs. opposite gender relationships.

Yawn.

Essentially, your problem is that you only accept this narrow literalist interpretation.

As do LGBT proponents and adherants with their newly invented demands to alter the definition of Christian marriage. While of course, oddly cloaiming that it is the violating of this immutable reality that allows the camel's nose under the tent for same sex marriage. Hypocrisy or basing "change" on wrongdoing? What is the reason for gay marriage now being forced into and onto The Church? Those seem to be the only "evidence" ever produced. Not exactly sound theology.

When debaters point out to you that there are other approaches to analyzing scripture and looking for universals instead of some narrow, culture bound interpretation, you fall back on that lonely literalism and refuse to acknowledge there are other interpretations of scriptuer; that yours is not the only approach.

So, you do want utter and total control of this issue? Proof again of the gay agenda. And deviating (eh hem) from the new paradigm of the gay agenda's defining of Christian marriage labeled as literalism? Or was it extremist, fudamentalist? Well I for one (Christian) plead guilty to identifying reality of what a Christian marriage is and will stand alongside Jesus, the Apostles and the writers of New Testament truth. Yet, isn't it interesting that "I" allow gay activists and gay theologians to stand in the new religion they are building? Who's the open-minded tolerant one here?

Where's my mirror?

Marriage in scripture is literally man and woman/husband and wife. In the New Testament as well, there is no doubt of that absolute fact. There are absolutes no matter if Christian morality and Christian theology makes the secular world wag its collective head in disapproval or not.

Invent whatever new aspect of the secular world that you wish. I have consistently asserted that that is your right in thread after thread after thread.

But when anyone wants to force me to believe that the red, six-sided sign with the letters S T O P now means: Go as fast as you can when encountering this configuration and letters, based on a movement of people represented by group think, a flag, and demands to "change" the meanings of words and reality . . I get to challenge and oppose that based on established historical fact.

Too.

(That's called an analogy.)

[Joab]

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible

But of course this isn't your argument.

Your argument is this

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

And you have supplied absolutely nothing in support of this argument, as other posters have rightly pointed out.

Perhaps your self satisfaction might be misplaced unless you can support this.

[99percentatheism]

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible

But of course this isn't your argument.

Your argument is this

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

And you have supplied absolutely nothing in support of this argument, as other posters have rightly pointed out.

Perhaps your self satisfaction might be misplaced unless you can support this.

I provided what you demanded. Post 132

End of issue. Now please debate my points and positions one at a time. This is after all debating Christianity .com.

Or admit that you cannot and be well in whatever kind of worldview you desire.

[Joab]

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible

But of course this isn't your argument.

Your argument is this

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

And you have supplied absolutely nothing in support of this argument, as other posters have rightly pointed out.

Perhaps your self satisfaction might be misplaced unless you can support this.

I provided what you demanded. Post 132

End of issue. Now please debate my points and positions one at a time. This is after all debating Christianity .com.

Or admit that you cannot and be well in whatever kind of worldview you desire.

There is nothing in post 132 that even refers remotely to this claim.

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

This is a debate site and if you cannot support your claim as requested (often) you are obliged to withdraw said claim.

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any clear affirmation of same gender sexuality anywhere in scripture as well. In fact, neither Jesus (nor Moses) every said a word about homosexuality.

Exactly who are you talking about? Don't actually answer that. But, as far as I know, I haven't seen this great avoidance of your statements by anyone. Most responses towards you have been done quite handsomely in my opinion.

"Literalist"? ad hom

I wouldn't call it such. From what I can tell, saying you're a literalist would be rather accurate, at least when it comes to homosexuality.

The fact is, there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the entire Bible. There is no affirming statement anywhere in scripture for same gender sexuality. And even the attempted and bizarre use use of Davis and Jonathan (or Ruth and Naomi) shows that these people all married as scripture defines it. Immutably as man and woman/husband and wife.

Why does it need to have been written down in the bible in order for someone to realize that it's perfectly normal?

Even having a PhD and saying "Nuh Uh" just doesn't cut it. It is far more accurate to label as extremist, the position that the Bible affirms the gay agenda position of claiming that immutable Biblical truth can change via a democracy or the demand of mob rule.

What do you mean by the PhD thing? Are doctors and scientists not allowed to research the causes of homosexuality and make a decision that there's nothing wrong with it? And what is it about this 'gay agenda' that scares you so much? Why is it horrific that gay people are fighting for more equality?

By people that have invented new theology based on an agenda and not scripture. As in marriage for example. There is not one shred of evidence that what a marriage is can change in Christian truth.

Homosexuality is not a theology. I'm gay and I'm also an Atheist. Besides, there are gay Christians and Muslims. There are also those within these religions who are perfectly fine with people being gay. In the state I live in, some churches are suing the Prop 8 decision to ban Gay Marriage, calling it an attack on their freedom to practice their religion as they wish. They are fighting for the freedom to marry whoever they wish, gay or straight. So, this anti-gay thing is not solely a Christian trait. There are numerous Christians who would adamantly disagree with this.

Goat herding, though still around, but different than what Israelite goat herders would have engaged in (maybe), is hardly a reason to reinvent and redefine Christian marriage.

Everything that can be expanded upon, left out, or changed with new information should be as soon as this information is known. We now know that homosexuality is normal and natural. It's always been natural, but let's say it hasn't. Are you suggesting we stay as it was before, covering our new knowledge and keeping an oppression on those who do not follow the bible to its last word?

In fact, Jesus is far more assertive on that than anything produced by gay theology. Now, anyone can invent a new religion and claim marriage can be whatever some group or couple wants it to be, but, it is immutably defined in the New Testament. Unless of course someone can produce marriage in the NT as between two same gender individuals. Which has never been produced in the hundreds and hundreds of requests for it that I have made.

Once more, there is no gay theology. Also, we know there's no supporting of homosexuality in the bible. There's no point in looking. It's not there. But, I don't get my opinions and ideas from an old book. I make them myself with reason and evidence.

"Men and women?" Isn't that called "heterosexist" stereotyping by LGBT activists? And the "Q" and the +ers?

Wait, what? If it is, it's the first I've ever heard of it.

Sorry, there are immutable facts in the New Testament.

Which are?

Yawn.

Yes, very compelling. If someone won't take what I say seriously, why should I take what they say seriously?

As do LGBT proponents and adherants with their newly invented demands to alter the definition of Christian marriage. While of course, oddly cloaiming that it is the violating of this immutable reality that allows the camel's nose under the tent for same sex marriage. Hypocrisy or basing "change" on wrongdoing? What is the reason for gay marriage now being forced into and onto The Church? Those seem to be the only "evidence" ever produced. Not exactly sound theology.

There should be no forcing of a church to accept us to be had. As far as I know, that isn't much of a problem with many of the larger support groups. What evidence are you talking about? Also, I'm not sure you know what 'theology' means.

Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience

: the study of God and God's relation to the world

: a system of religious beliefs or ideas

[otseng]

You, sir, are incapable of debate.

Moderator Warning


This would be considered a personal attack and would be against the rules.

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.