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.

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Intervention

I would agree. Providing a link to Soulforce is not evidence for the claim "activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity." What is necessary is to provide a quote from an activist that says something like, "we want to force pride of same gender sex acts into Christianity."


______________

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.

[otseng]

I find that position of your fairly sad and lonely.

Moderator Comment

It's best not make any observations that can be perceived as a personal attack. Just stick to logical argumentation on the issue.


______________

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.

[KCKID]

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?

Precisely. "If it ain't in the Bible it's neither normal nor God-approved" is such an unmaginative argument. That the Bible is used as a substitute for logic and reason and scientific know-how in a contemporary world is ludicrous since much, even most, of scripture has now become obsolete or irrelevant. Just because someone might wave the Bible around constantly and may also pepper their posts with an excessive use of large fonts, bolds and italics, exclamation points and question marks and Bible texts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand really doesn't change this.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 135 by 99percentatheism]

You parsed this:

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 scripture; that yours is not the only approach.

... into 5 paragraphs, diluting it's meaning instead of addressing the key point, where you give the non answer: "Yawn."

This avoids the argument, which is that your literalist, culture bound interpretation of proper human sexuality shares the same fault Paul showed when he went on his rant about hair length. To be consistent and apply your personal interpretation of the Biblical view of sexuality to Paul and 1 Corinthians 11, you would have to claim that God has issued a commandment about how long people should wear their hair. Do you? While you're at it, show me where in the Ten Commandments there is a prohibition of a two people of the same sex living as man and wife.
You are constantly railing against rules and laws that have the same force as requiring hair to be of a certain length or the long list in Leviticus that includes a prohibition on wearing clothes of blended fabric.

[KCKID]

99percent, in Post #117 I said that you were incapable of debate. Now, I would never have considered this to be a personal attack against you. The reason I said such a thing is because you've clearly demonstrated this by having ignored my requests to debate the very scriptures that have led you and mainstream Christianity to believe that "God" is against gay-oriented people. I personally don't believe there is any scriptural condemnation for gay-oriented people, certainly nothing of the like to have caused such a furor within mainstream Christianity. To be sure, there does appear to be condemnation in scripture of certain homosexual (and heterosexual) practices involving pagan idol worship rituals. But, this has nothing to do with homosexuality as we refer to it modern-day. Therefore, these scriptures cannot be used in such a condemning way by you and, again, by mainstream Christianity.

I could be wrong. And yet, while ignoring the opportunity to debate these scriptures with me and to prove me wrong you would rather side step these requests with subterfuge and red herrings and, to be honest, filling your posts with stuff that I can't even fathom. I can't keep up with you. I started this thread by presenting the so-called 'clobber passages' of scripture with the intent to debate them, hopefully in a reasonable manner. You've chosen not to. But, you STILL persist in demeaning gay people (apparently WITH these very scriptures) as well as their supposed 'gay agenda' intended to corrupt and recruit other innocent parties and to generally throw into disrepute 'Christianity' in its entirety ...apparently just as the Apostles predicted! And yet, you're loathe to debate these texts.

I will retract my previous remark and offer you an apology if you will discuss with me - in a level headed manner - what those scriptures are saying and what they actually mean based on their authorship, the culture of the day and what was the issue being addressed at the time ...if it's even possible to determine that. We may both be guessing to a degree since these scriptures are ambiguous. But, at least, we can give it our best shot based on the aforementioned criteria. We can also tap into the research of these scriptures as done by others.

While PMs are obviously considered private, I will publicly state that I have asked of you in a PM that we end this (perhaps perceived) 'hate fest' that we have going on here and instead try to discuss this topic as reasonable adults. I would still like to do that if you're willing.

[Danmark]

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. The New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, and love. Over and over we see Jesus rejecting legalism and insisting on love and compassion as the essence of Christianity. What the New Testament rejects, what Jesus condemns is this attitude:

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.

The essence of why 99%'s legalism condemning 'homosexuality' is wrong:

"Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins� that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible’s 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the “clobber passages,� since they are typically used by Christians to “clobber� LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the lack of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community’s call to them for justice?"

http://notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at ... sexuality/

There is a clear moral principle that we should only condemn behavior that is volitional and violates a moral principle. We all agree that we should not condemn as sinful, those who behave in a certain way because of their genetic make up. I think we can agree that we should not condemn people for behavior that is the result of their being 'hard wired' to be sexually attracted to those of the same sex.

What 99% calls the 'gay agenda' or 'gay pride' is simply a call for justice, for equality, for love, just as Jesus demanded justice, equality and love.

[99percentatheism]

99percent, in Post #117 I said that you were incapable of debate. Now, I would never have considered this to be a personal attack against you. The reason I said such a thing is because you've clearly demonstrated this by having ignored my requests to debate the very scriptures that have led you and mainstream Christianity to believe that "God" is against gay-oriented people. I personally don't believe there is any scriptural condemnation for gay-oriented people, certainly nothing of the like to have caused such a furor within mainstream Christianity. To be sure, there does appear to be condemnation in scripture of certain homosexual (and heterosexual) practices involving pagan idol worship rituals. But, this has nothing to do with homosexuality as we refer to it modern-day. Therefore, these scriptures cannot be used in such a condemning way by you and, again, by mainstream Christianity.

I could be wrong. And yet, while ignoring the opportunity to debate these scriptures with me and to prove me wrong you would rather side step these requests with subterfuge and red herrings and, to be honest, filling your posts with stuff that I can't even fathom. I can't keep up with you. I started this thread by presenting the so-called 'clobber passages' of scripture with the intent to debate them, hopefully in a reasonable manner. You've chosen not to. But, you STILL persist in demeaning gay people (apparently WITH these very scriptures) as well as their supposed 'gay agenda' intended to corrupt and recruit other innocent parties and to generally throw into disrepute 'Christianity' in its entirety ...apparently just as the Apostles predicted! And yet, you're loathe to debate these texts.

I will retract my previous remark and offer you an apology if you will discuss with me - in a level headed manner - what those scriptures are saying and what they actually mean based on their authorship, the culture of the day and what was the issue being addressed at the time ...if it's even possible to determine that. We may both be guessing to a degree since these scriptures are ambiguous. But, at least, we can give it our best shot based on the aforementioned criteria. We can also tap into the research of these scriptures as done by others.

While PMs are obviously considered private, I will publicly state that I have asked of you in a PM that we end this (perhaps perceived) 'hate fest' that we have going on here and instead try to discuss this topic as reasonable adults. I would still like to do that if you're willing.

Again, and again, "I" am being personally attacked and personally addressed in thread after thread. The ad hom attack. For more posts and threads than I can remember, no one has ever produced any pro gay scriptures. Nothing. And yet, I am painted as the intolerant bigot and once again, as some kind of non-loving Christian.

The very definition of intolerance is from the position of altering the clear and unambiguous absolute that Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. And "sex outside of marriage" and redefining what a Christian marriage IS, is not justifiable ether.

I produce a multitude of scriptural support for my positions and I am blasted form every conceivable angle EXCEPT from scripture. I am the honest and forthright "Christian" and I am subjected to such hate and ridicule, again and again, for doing more than protecting honesty.

I have again and again, exercised the exact demand for "tolerance" by stating over and over again, that what gay activists and gay proponents want to call their religious movement is their right to do. BUT, when it comes to rewriting Christian reality, Christian truth, inventing support from invisibility . . . THAT has to be contended against.

KCKID, you of all people know that I have soundly defeated every pro homosexuality position ever offered up by anyone. Historically or Biblically. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, pederasty, whatever it is! I have not done this by hate or bigotry. I have contended for the faith the way Jesus did. The way Paul, Peter, Jude and John did. With scriptural support and logical and reasonable argument. The gay side demands are that we simply expunge truth from what it is and replace it with the gay agenda's idea of reality. A secular based morality does not trump Christian Truth. And yet again, I have supported secularists, liberals, progressives or whoever, to do whatever they desire. But when secular morality demands to come into the Church and force acceptance of secularism, any and every Christian has the right to contend against that. I do that. I don't even know what you are in your religious choices. Nor, do I care to. We exist in different worlds and worldviews. And supposedly secularists support freedom of choice. At least that's the rumor.

That anyone can think that gay pride is not about the sexual bahvior of LGBT's is simply ignoring reality for the desire to strawman me into some category where I can be charged with hate and bigotry. It's simply ridiculous to present LGBT (AND Q + whatever THAT means) demands as not having anything to do with their sexual behavior. How is it honest or honorable to take a position that marriage is not about sexual behavior. Again, scripture supports my positions 100% and utterly opposes that gay agenda of trying to claim that homosexual sex acts and Christianity are compatible. Who is the hateful bigot in that? Who is the intolerant person there? And, as usual, when there can be no defense for homosexualizing Christianity, the "love" card and how a Christian should treat others is pulled out for political expediency. How is it loving to support sinners to continue in sin? At least you could agree that the pro-family Christians are doing what they do with support of historic evangelicalism. It is the very definition of intolerance, protest and demand . . . to protest and demand that The Church bow to gay demands. How is "gay pride" not about the sexual behavior engaged in by people that identify in that group? To paint this issue as one of just a misunderstanding about goals, is idiocy. And YOU provide the evidence. YOU seem more than definitely to present the remarriage issue squarely in the support of adultery BY The Church. Because, what other hypocrisy would there be in a plutonic remarriage? Adultery is immutably about sexual behavior defining an act. And yet again, when I present logic and reason about the goals of gay theology, I am attacked with charge after charge of being bigoted and hateful. Yet I am being true to reality and reason every single time.

You have the right to believe that there is support for gay sex and the gay agenda in the Bible. I cannot and will not and never have denied that that isn't your right. But when it comes to inventing a new "gay affirming" religion out of the pages of scripture, well, that gets to be contended against. I'd rather there be no "personal" interaction between anyone here on the internet. But the ad hom attack is used against anyone that dares not support the gay agenda. Well, for me and my house, which includes hundreds of millions of Christians that will not submit to gay theology and gay political power, we will serve the Lord.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 135 by 99percentatheism]

You parsed this:

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 scripture; that yours is not the only approach.

... into 5 paragraphs, diluting it's meaning instead of addressing the key point, where you give the non answer: "Yawn."

This avoids the argument, which is that your literalist, culture bound interpretation of proper human sexuality shares the same fault Paul showed when he went on his rant about hair length. To be consistent and apply your personal interpretation of the Biblical view of sexuality to Paul and 1 Corinthians 11, you would have to claim that God has issued a commandment about how long people should wear their hair. Do you? While you're at it, show me where in the Ten Commandments there is a prohibition of a two people of the same sex living as man and wife.
You are constantly railing against rules and laws that have the same force as requiring hair to be of a certain length or the long list in Leviticus that includes a prohibition on wearing clothes of blended fabric.

This is known in the world of politics as spin. Looks to me like Alinsky tactics.

The support from silence is a bit unsettling. I warn my children about this all the time when they go out with people they do not know well, AND, even some people they do.

Silence does not mean an agreeing to or affirming. Nor is there proper affirmation in silence. In all reality, you should be producing the clearly pro-homosexual commandments and pronouncements FROM scripture.

Mother and Father in one of the Ten Commandments. There is nothing about same gender "parents" because as science can prove, there is no such thing as well. Unless of course the world and its ways intervene.

That request is impossible to answer because there isn't any.

[99percentatheism]

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. The New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, and love. Over and over we see Jesus rejecting legalism and insisting on love and compassion as the essence of Christianity. What the New Testament rejects, what Jesus condemns is this attitude:

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.

The essence of why 99%'s legalism condemning 'homosexuality' is wrong:

"Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins� that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.
Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible’s 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the “clobber passages,� since they are typically used by Christians to “clobber� LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the lack of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave. Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community’s call to them for justice?"

http://notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at ... sexuality/

There is a clear moral principle that we should only condemn behavior that is volitional and violates a moral principle. We all agree that we should not condemn as sinful, those who behave in a certain way because of their genetic make up. I think we can agree that we should not condemn people for behavior that is the result of their being 'hard wired' to be sexually attracted to those of the same sex.

What 99% calls the 'gay agenda' or 'gay pride' is simply a call for justice, for equality, for love, just as Jesus demanded justice, equality and love.

I will be back later on today to defend against what is in my opinion is this spurious attack on my Christian character.

But until then I will still stand on Jude's excellent advice and encouragement:

. . . contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

[cnorman18]

I will be back later on today to defend against what is in my opinion is this spurious attack on my Christian character.

I would STILL like to see 99percentatheism provide evidence for his endlessly-repeated claim that mere DISAGREEMENT is equivalent to "PERSONAL ATTACK."

He has, without doubt, been subject to personal attacks from time to time; but the post he quotes here is very clearly NOT one of those attacks. He has also called some of my own posts "personal attacks" when they were, very clearly, no such thing.

Is calling mere disagreement "personal attack" itself a personal attack? I think it is -- and without providing some evidence for that bogus claim, I would consider it a "repeated unsupported claim" as well.

Just an observation.