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.

[Danmark]

Danmark

Is it legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof.
. . . .
My neighbor smokes cigarettes. Should I encourage that behavior? How loving is that?

[emphasis applied]

I confess I do not understand the first sentence.

If it is legalism to use scripture to define Christian truth, then Jesus and every other voice in scripture is from a legalistic spouting religionist. Stating that there is scriptural support for this or that isn't legalism. It is simply being honest.

I think I understand the 2d. It is commendable if you do not judge your neighbor for his smoking. I don't think the issue is whether or not you 'encourage' your neighbor to smoke, but whether you can look upon him, and treat him as a neighbor despite his habit.

If I give him or her the $95.00 for a carton of cigarettes, that is encouraging and supporting his bad behavior. It would be anti Christian, based on scripture and Christian reality. No different than celebrating gay pride. Which of course is encouraging gay behavior. Which of course is encouraging sin and sinning. That is not loving based on Christian truth. Which is based on Christian behavior and what is written in the scriptures.

What you apparently miss here is that no one is suggesting you help him buy cigarettes. The suggestion is that you love him rather than judge him.

Instead of preaching and judging, it seems more Christian-like to give him a box of fine cigars, which are not inhaled and do not introduce the health risks that cigarettes do. You sit with him on the deck, enjoying the fine aroma of your cigars as you gently introduce him to your faith. Perhaps he will be overcome with the fairness, love, and lack of judgment he sees in you as you both puff away on your gift box of Arturo Fuente Hemingway cigars.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Danmark

Is it legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof.
. . . .
My neighbor smokes cigarettes. Should I encourage that behavior? How loving is that?

[emphasis applied]

I confess I do not understand the first sentence.

If it is legalism to use scripture to define Christian truth, then Jesus and every other voice in scripture is from a legalistic spouting religionist. Stating that there is scriptural support for this or that isn't legalism. It is simply being honest.

I think I understand the 2d. It is commendable if you do not judge your neighbor for his smoking. I don't think the issue is whether or not you 'encourage' your neighbor to smoke, but whether you can look upon him, and treat him as a neighbor despite his habit.

If I give him or her the $95.00 for a carton of cigarettes, that is encouraging and supporting his bad behavior. It would be anti Christian, based on scripture and Christian reality. No different than celebrating gay pride. Which of course is encouraging gay behavior. Which of course is encouraging sin and sinning. That is not loving based on Christian truth. Which is based on Christian behavior and what is written in the scriptures.

What you apparently miss here is that no one is suggesting you help him buy cigarettes. The suggestion is that you love him rather than judge him.

But then you go on to suggest that I bring him cigars. Uh, yeah. I rarely miss anything in these threads.

Instead of preaching and judging, it seems more Christian-like to give him a box of fine cigars, which are not inhaled and do not introduce the health risks that cigarettes do.

Tobacco use is linked to the powerful addictive effect that nicotine can have on the body, causing oral, lung and throat cancers while making it very difficult for a person to stop using tobacco in whatever form. Knowing this addictive effect can have both physical and psychological elements, it is perhaps ironic that one of the most famous oral cancer sufferers of all was the father of modern psychoanalysis.

Sigmund Freud was born May 6, 1856, in Moravia. When he was very young, the family moved to Vienna, where he lived most of his life. In many ways he is considered to be the most important historical figure in the areas of psychology and psychiatry, and his theories on the subconscious are debated in these fields to this day. However, he suffered from a powerful mental and physical addiction to nicotine, which would ultimately lead to heart problems and a series of oral cancers that would end his life.

- See more at: http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/peo ... A7cve.dpuf

Isn't it fair to say that Sigmund was born with a inhalation orientation and celebrate and affirm his behavior?

You sit with him on the deck, enjoying the fine aroma of your cigars as you gently introduce him to your faith.

What if he has made it clear that he doesn't want anything to do with Jesus and His Gospel?

Perhaps he will be overcome with the fairness, love, and lack of judgment he sees in you as you both puff away on your gift box of Arturo Fuente Hemingway cigars.

I don't smoke.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 162 by Joab]

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/ ... n-protest-...

"Current PC(USA) policy bars sexually active gay members . . ."

"We’re done with the debates; those aren’t working," said Jean Holsten, a Presbyterian attorney from Davis, Calif. . . ."

There ya go.

Moderator Warning


This is the epitome of the sort of one-line comment that is against the rules. You know better.


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.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 161 by 99percentatheism]

Are you still refusing to respond to post 159 and all of the others I have presented?

Moderator Warning


This is a one line comment that does not advance the conversation. As well, you know that participating on this forum is a voluntary activity. No one is required to respond to a post, and demanding that someone do so is uncivil.


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.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 172 by 99percentatheism]

Why have you refused to support your claim contained in this post and at least four others, when the rules of this forum require you to provide support for your claims when challenged.

@99%
You have so far failed to provide any support for your claim:

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

Please supply the support or withdraw the claim.

How have you convinced the moderators to let you flout the rules of this forum and make them sanction those members who insist upon your adherence of those rules?

Are you a sock puppet?

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

[Replying to post 175 by Joab]
For the purposes of debate, there is no relevance whether this user is a real person or a sock puppet. Address the ideas being presented. Do not attack those presenting the ideas.

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.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

Rules
C&A Guidelines

Temporarily closing the thread. There are more warnings than posts today.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[McCulloch]

First, it doesn't hurt anybody but them...unless of course one of the requirements for attending a specific church service or event is that one must be married 'in the eyes of God' and according to the doctrine of that church, and the gay couple, figuring that the basic theology is wrong, decides to sue for discrimination and wins.

Suppose that there was a church that believed in genetic diversity. In this hypothetical church, people with the same eye color are prohibited from marrying. Those people would have the right and the freedom to believe that. People who disagree with their doctrine are in no way compelled to participate in their religion. However, in their dealings with outsiders, they should treat those heathens and heretics who legally marry someone with the same eye color as being married.

Or unless the gay couple, being able to marry in the eyes of the law, figures that the eyes of secular law trumps religious doctrine, and sues to force those who go by the doctrine in this matter...and wins.

So, in the case of a racist church, you believe that the civil miscegenation laws should not trump church doctrine. In what other ways do you believe that churches should be above the law? Should a church be allowed to obey God's commandment about stoning adulterers? How is that different?

Let's try this one though; same situation; a couple attend church, sing in the choir, sit quietly in the meetings and are not publicly displaying their affection. Shoot, let's say that they are even husband/wife and married according to the beliefs of the church they are attending. Indeed, the only problem is that the church teaches that gambling is a bad idea; evil, even...and nobody in the church is supposed to do it. Ever.

And this couple owns a casino.

Who is harmed by this? Nobody in the church goes to their casino, after all, and nobody is expected to gamble just because that's how they earn their living. It's all good, right?

Except that it's against the teachings of the church they belong to, and because it does go very much against those teachings, this couple will not pass the background check for any church job. Perhaps they can sing in the choir, but not lead it. Perhaps they can attend church, but are not allowed to take communion (Catholics do this all the time for far lesser transgressions) Now, if they were like the LBGT rights group of today, they would get all incensed about this discrimination against gamblers and sue to make the church change its policies about allowing casino owners to hold jobs in the church.

Basically, any organization, especially any religion (or organization about religion...have you seen the requirements for someone applying for a scholarship from American Atheists?) has the right to decide what the membership rules are. They can be as reasonable or unreasonable as they want. The rules are the rules; if you don't want to abide by them, find an organization that has rules you feel more comfortable with.

But under the law, some types of rules are not allowed. I would not be allowed to set up a white gentile males only curling club. I would not be allowed to establish a no-gays apartment building. Why should churches be exempt from obeying the law?

[dianaiad]

First, it doesn't hurt anybody but them...unless of course one of the requirements for attending a specific church service or event is that one must be married 'in the eyes of God' and according to the doctrine of that church, and the gay couple, figuring that the basic theology is wrong, decides to sue for discrimination and wins.

Suppose that there was a church that believed in genetic diversity. In this hypothetical church, people with the same eye color are prohibited from marrying. Those people would have the right and the freedom to believe that. People who disagree with their doctrine are in no way compelled to participate in their religion. However, in their dealings with outsiders, they should treat those heathens and heretics who legally marry someone with the same eye color as being married.

Or unless the gay couple, being able to marry in the eyes of the law, figures that the eyes of secular law trumps religious doctrine, and sues to force those who go by the doctrine in this matter...and wins.

So, in the case of a racist church, you believe that the civil miscegenation laws should not trump church doctrine. In what other ways do you believe that churches should be above the law? Should a church be allowed to obey God's commandment about stoning adulterers? How is that different?

Let's try this one though; same situation; a couple attend church, sing in the choir, sit quietly in the meetings and are not publicly displaying their affection. Shoot, let's say that they are even husband/wife and married according to the beliefs of the church they are attending. Indeed, the only problem is that the church teaches that gambling is a bad idea; evil, even...and nobody in the church is supposed to do it. Ever.

And this couple owns a casino.

Who is harmed by this? Nobody in the church goes to their casino, after all, and nobody is expected to gamble just because that's how they earn their living. It's all good, right?

Except that it's against the teachings of the church they belong to, and because it does go very much against those teachings, this couple will not pass the background check for any church job. Perhaps they can sing in the choir, but not lead it. Perhaps they can attend church, but are not allowed to take communion (Catholics do this all the time for far lesser transgressions) Now, if they were like the LBGT rights group of today, they would get all incensed about this discrimination against gamblers and sue to make the church change its policies about allowing casino owners to hold jobs in the church.

Basically, any organization, especially any religion (or organization about religion...have you seen the requirements for someone applying for a scholarship from American Atheists?) has the right to decide what the membership rules are. They can be as reasonable or unreasonable as they want. The rules are the rules; if you don't want to abide by them, find an organization that has rules you feel more comfortable with.

But under the law, some types of rules are not allowed. I would not be allowed to set up a white gentile males only curling club. I would not be allowed to establish a no-gays apartment building. Why should churches be exempt from obeying the law?

Because the first amendment to the US constitution states that Congress (and by 'congress' the courts have expanded that to mean 'anybody') shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]

I don't know if there is a similar rule in Canada, but here in the USA, religion is a special case, constitutionally...and it SHOULD be. Nobody has been burned at the stake because they wanted a white gentile male only curling club (and I don't know why it surprises me to know what that is, desert dweller that I am). They HAVE been so persecuted for religious beliefs. In fact, most of the first Europeans coming to North America were religious outcasts wanting freedom to live as they wish. It's why this provision was enacted.

Religion (or freedom to not have one) is quite possibly the most important freedom we have; without it, none of the other freedoms we cherish would be possible, I honestly don't think. If the state can tell people what they must believe and what they must do about those beliefs (or lack of same) it can tell people what they must do and think about anything else.

BTW, I happen to think that it should be perfectly permissible to form a white gentile male only curling club. Good luck finding members. It is, after all, perfectly OK to form a black male only curling club. Which, btw, is also fine by me.

People should be free to associate with whom they want to associate, and abide by the rules of the group they choose to join.

Oh. Wait.

THAT'S in the first amendment, too, come to think. Isn't there something similar in Canada?

Oh, yeah. Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Sounds awfully familiar to me.

[Danmark]

But then you go on to suggest that I bring him cigars. Uh, yeah. I rarely miss anything in these threads.
....
Isn't it fair to say that Sigmund was born with a inhalation orientation and celebrate and affirm his behavior?
....
I don't smoke

You complain about being attacked personally, yet you invite personal responses by claiming you have won all your debates on this subject and that you "rarely miss anything in these threads." If you don't want to receive personal responses, perhaps it is advisable to refrain from talking about yourself.

What you missed completely is that smoking cigars is irrelevant to the discussion. It was introduced only as an example of an enjoyable pastime two men could share. It could be a cup of coffee, or helping your neighbor mow his lawn, or sitting on your deck with tall cool glasses of iced lemonade as you enjoy each others' company.

Only a legalist would go off on a tangent about smoking, thus 'straining a gnat,' and miss the main point [the camel] which is introducing your neighbor to the Lord by being his friend regardless of his beliefs.

You ask, "What if he has made it clear that he doesn't want anything to do with Jesus and His Gospel?" Does that mean you are no longer his neighbor? When he tells you he is not interested in the Gospel, a good neighbor respects that, but he continues to be a good neighbor and friend, who helps even those who disagree with him. He may yet win his neighbor to the Lord by kindness and friendship.

A legalist, like Peter asks how many times he must forgive, "seven times?"
Jesus, the anti legalist replied "seventy times seven."

BTW, I have a hard time imagining anyone who would argue tobacco addiction to is similar to being born gay.