The Bible - Is it really the book for me?

[A_Wanderer]

Tyranny of the majority is not and never has been either a legal or moral justification.

That is the difference between a democracy and a liberal democracy.

 

[AcrobatMan]

That is the difference between a democracy and a liberal democracy.

yes..i am totally against the former and totally FOR the latter

 

[Anthony]

That wasn't my point, A_Wanderer; my point was that keeping a certain law because its 'traditional' to do so is not a particularly strong reason to keep it, especially when social attitudes are changing as we speak.

The best example cited in the article is the classic one - slavery. Just because its traditional and many people believed in its institution does not mean its right, and is not in itself a legal justification.

It doesn't matter. Change is inevitable and it will happen.

Ant.

 

[coemgen]

Ant, I understand where you're coming from, but with all due respect there's a big difference between slavery and marriage (maybe not for some people, but you know what I mean )
Slavery was never sacred. Marriage is. Plus, you'd be asking me to change the definition of something as important to me as my relationship with my wife and have it include a relationship that has not been proven to be based on genetics. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's just me. I'm not demanding things be changed just on my single opinion. That's just where I'm coming from. I respect where you're coming from as well.
Now, with that said, let's all get back to the Bible, which is what this thread is about.

 

[Irvine511]

Ant, I understand where you're coming from, but with all due respect there's a big difference between slavery and marriage (maybe not for some people, but you know what I mean )
Slavery was never sacred. Marriage is. Plus, you'd be asking me to change the definition of something as important to me as my relationship with my wife and have it include a relationship that has not been proven to be based on genetics.

civil marriage is not sacred. to call it such is a violation of church and state. maybe you view it as such as a Christian, but to legislate from that viewpoint is inconsistent with the foundation of the country.

you really think that gay people getting married would ask you to change the definition of your marriage? did you ever think to yourself, "gee, it's because im a man and she's a woman that this is so special!" isn't it about the love you share, not your genitalia? are you willing to say that two men are incapable of loving each other in the way that you love your wife?

 

[melon]

Melon great questions. I'll admit ignorance here! I actually wondered about the situation with Cain and his wife when I read Genesis a while back (I even put a ? in my Bible next to that.), but I never looked into it. I wanted to answer your question and I found a Web site that did. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html covers it extensively. For space and time reasons, I'll just let you and others check the site out.

As far as the Noah's Ark issue (another good question by the way) the site goes into GREAT length explaining this. It's incredible. I can tell you from my own knowledge of Genesis that Noah didn't have to collect the animals, they came to him under God's guidance. The site even answers your question about salt water and freshwater fish in this case. It also looks at how all the world's animals fit into the ark, how Mt. Everest was covered in water and whether or not the ENTIRE Earth was flooded. It also answers how animals from Australia made it to the ark. Check these sites out. I think you'll find them to be way more in-depth than you would've ever thought. It also addresses your point on the Black Sea.
I think this site will give you the historical, scientific and logical explanations you (and I'm sure others) were looking for.

This is why it is called "mythic speech" (not to be confused with "myth"). If you construct large arguments based on faith and things that we cannot empirically see, then it is impossible to disprove the argument outright.

It is an interesting argument based solely on Biblical fundamentalism. However, I also added some historical background outside the Bible. It is believed that OT Judaism has two distinct periods:

1) Judaism as an offshoot of Sumerian worship of their sun god, Elohim. Elohim is mentioned once as the name of "God" in Genesis, and Abraham, the father of Judaism, is said to be from Ur, the capital of Sumer. This "Elohist" Judaism would likely be the religion of the Sadducees in the NT. "God" here is typical of most early gods: a warrior God with strict expectations for his people, and strict punishment for disobedience. The "afterlife" was also a lot "gloomier" in Sheol, which seems quite similar to the Greek concept of "Hades." In both instances, death meant you parted with your memories and knowledge, as that was seen as part of the body, not the soul.

2) Judaism melding with Persian Zoroastrian beliefs. Zoroastrianism had a preoccupation with "good vs. evil" with their being no gray area. It is also the likely originator of Messianic beliefs, along with being the originator of heaven, hell, angels, and "Judgment Day." It is also where we get the idea of a "loving God," rather than a warrior God. The name, "Satan," is a derivative of "Shaitan," another name for the evil Zoroastrian god, "Ahriman." Satan, however, is reduced to an evil angel, rather than a god in Judeo-Christianity. This, however, may explain why Satan is attributed with such wide powers over humanity for such a non-deity; his attributes were originally created for a god. This secondary period of Judaism is the religion of the Pharisees (as the name comes from "Parsi" or Persian).

As the Christian Old Testament is taken from the Pharisees' texts, it is difficult to surmise exactly what early Judaism would be like. I must admit, as well, that I don't know much about "Kabbalah," but I've heard claims of it being similar to early, "Elohist" Judaism combined with the Talmud.

And Irvine, the site also has great stuff on the Christian perspective of homosexuality, and answers questions such as "What's wrong with being gay?" "Are people born gay?" "What does the Bible say about same sex marriages?" and "Can a gay or lesbian person go to heaven?"

But here's the thing: that's solely the traditional interpretation of the Bible. I also vehemently disagree with it. Each culture overemphasizes parts of the Bible and distorts it to suit their ideology. Early Christianity was greatly obsessed with idolatry and idolatrous practices.

Our modern obsession with same-sex behavior is actually medieval in origin, due to the rise of "Christian stoicism" with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Thomas Aquinas over a span of a few hundred years. Their "natural law" arguments were based on the assumption that all pleasure was from Satan. Thus, same-sex behavior was not condemned on the basis of the Bible; it was condemned because they perceived it as the ultimate act of irresponsibility and pleasure (because the sex acts could never result in pregnancy). Plus, this had to do with their belief that "sperm" were little humans and that women just had the "incubating waters." This belief was meant to be demeaning to women to say that they had no place in the creation of life; they only held it in place to grow.

However, that was not the full target of their wrath. All sex was to result in pregnancy. Period. And even then, a married couple was not to enjoy it at all. A woman was not allowed to show any pleasure, and a man was not supposed to look as if he was enjoying it at all. To look lustfully upon your spouse was evil. Later Christian stoicism went as far as to say that all fetuses were inherently male and Satan's interference made some fetuses female.

As a side note, the first five centuries of Christianity were very different. There were female priests, but the Christian stoics' hatred of women compared them to "pagan priestesses" (forgetting, of course, that pagans also had male priests) and eliminated them on that basis. It was also very homoerotic. We know this, due to a Christian stoic book written around this time describing the early Christian church as being very very gay. If the Bible was meant to be anti-gay, I would think that early Christians would, of all people, have known it. Instead, these very bigoted interpretations of the Bible against women and homosexuals are mostly the product of the medieval Christian stoic movement.

Do notice, of course, that most of the Christian stoic beliefs that limited heterosexual male activity has long since been rescinded (but only for about 100 years or so). Of course, humans being humans that they are, loosely kept the Christian stoic beliefs about women and homosexuals to justify their prejudices. Now that most of the erroneous beliefs about women have eroded, it's time to shed light on the erroneous beliefs about homosexuals.

You cannot justify judgment against homosexuals on the basis of the Bible. Period. It is not my fault that translators took liberties on the original source texts to strip out the context of idolatry that most of those "condemnations" are really about.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

And Irvine, the site also has great stuff on the Christian perspective of homosexuality, and answers questions such as "What's wrong with being gay?" "Are people born gay?" "What does the Bible say about same sex marriages?" and "Can a gay or lesbian person go to heaven?"

Irvine, before I go any further, I want you to know I have the utmost respect for you as a person and I respect your views, no matter how much they may differ from mine. We've had some great discussions and I treasure those. First of all, I don't have to use the Bible to object to gay marriage from a legal standpoint. I, as a member of the vast majority of people who are heterosexual, don't think a small minority of people should change the very definition of something as sacred as marriage for everyone else. Call me close-minded if you well, but that's how I feel. Also, I didn't call homosexuality sinful, God did. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. There's no denying that.
I know this all sounds harsh to you, and I'm sorry for that. You know I respect you greatly. You seem like a nice person too, and I'm confident that if we did meet, we'd get along well. I know there's more to a person than their sexuality. To be honest, I'd love to observe your life and better understand what you go through. I have no doubt there are homosexuals out there who deeply care for their partners, but I have to go with what God tells me in his word over a human's perspective. And frankly, God's word is clear enough on this matter that there's nothing really to "interpret."

i did take a look at that site, and it is very difficult for me to accept a line of thought on homosexuality that denies what is so central about it: it is involuntary. it is not a choice. and to, again, reduce homosexuality to simply behavior -- so we can discriminate, because we need to differentiate between homosexuality and race and gender.

also, marriage isn't sacred. it is a civil contract. you might view it as sacred, a marriage performed in a church and recognized by the church might be sacred, but civil marriage is decidedly secular.

how is loving someone a sin? i might perform acts that are sinful by most definitions -- sleeping with a prostitute, etc. -- but why does a loving, romantic relationship require heterosexuality? are you going to assert that homosexuality is, in all ways shapes and forms, inferior, by definition, to heterosexuality

i also get frustrated when you say "i have to go with what God tells me." if God told you the sky was red, would it then be red? i understand faith, but when it conflicts with reason, which wins out? this might be a fairly fundamental divide between the secular and the religious -- how much do you trust your own powers of reason. i would also say that to use the parental "because God says so" line of justification shuts down any possibility of argument and discussion between people. in a modern liberal democracy, we don't govern by faith, we govern by reason. we don't govern based upon asserted truths and received wisdom; we create arguments.

i did some reading last night, and found some interesting things.

basically, your argument is this: homosexuality is a chioce; there is no difference between orientation and acts. it is a contingent quality of a human being, like lying or kleptomania, and it is behavior that can then be controled with proper guidance. this is supported by the fact that in the bible, there is no mention of homosexuality. there is only sexuality, which is definitionally man/woman. there is no mention of homosexuality as an inherent, involuntary human condition. there is not even a word for it, nor a word taht could even be vaguely translated as such; there are only a handful of injunctions against same-gender sexual acts which have been deemed to be a perversion of the only acceptable condition for intercourse to take place: male-female intercourse in marriage.

but how persuasive is this argument? and this goes back to the "sky is red" analogy -- we can't really debate faith; but we can debate the essential argument the Bible is putting forth.

in Biblical writing, sexual conduct is a matter of social and familial and tribal obligation, and has little to do with morality, as we would understand it today. the injunctions against adultery are thus far more profound and common and insistent than the injunctions against homosexual acts. yes, homosexual acts are mentioned, but there are no homosexual people in the Bible's eyes, so all homosexual acts are inherently destabilizing of the family and of the community.

many modern scholars -- John Boswell -- have argued (as have people in FYM) that Sodom does not refer to the sin of homosexual sex but to inhospitality to strangers; similarly, Boswell argues taht the King James Versino of the Bible erroneously translates the term "kadeshim" as "sodomite," when it should properly be understood as "temple prosititue."

as for the NT, there is not a single reference to homosexual acts in any of the four Gospels. so now we have Paul. Boswell points out that there are mistranslations -- two words translated later to imply homosexuality are more accruately rendered as "wanton" and "Male prostitute." there is still the line that calls "men with men working that which is unseemly."

what's the reason behind Paul's statement? it's important to point out the phrase "natural use" -- it is a sin to spurn the natural use of one's body for members of the same gender. fine. Paul views the perversion of heterosexuality to be a crime against the nature of the people involved.

but we should note this is not a crime against nature, but the nature of the heterosexual. could this condemnation apply to people who are by their own nature homosexual? Paul is inequipped to answer this question, since his assumption is that everyone is heterosexual. but we know -- EVERYONE knows -- that some people are involuntarily homosexual; if Paul's point is not to act contrary to one's nature, then by this logic, the person whos i by his own nature homosexual would be acting against his nature by engaging in heterosexual acts.

it's all much more complicated than anyone wants to admit.

 

[coemgen]

Irvine, my wife and I got married at our county courthouse before we did our actual wedding ceremony. When the judge read everything for us to be married from his government-prepared script, he read that "marriage is a sacred institution created by God between a man and a woman." He also brought up that we were doing this before God. (I was blown away at all of this myself.)

Yes, I do think allowing homosexuals to get married in the same way heterosexuals do would change the definition, if not the value of my marriage. It's in our biological makeup for a man and woman to be attracted to each other, have a sexual relationship and have a family together. It's not that way for homosexuals. There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic. So you'd be linking a natural relationship with an unnatural one under the same definition. Plus, like I stated before, even the civil union we had included God in it. If every major religion sees homosexuality as a sin against God, why would homosexuals want the same thing? Again, this is my PERSONAL view. I'm not trying to attack anyone and I respect you for having your own personal view. I know this is a touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just making my argument.

I'll welcome your response Irvine, but I really think we shoudl get back to the thread topic after that. I'll just let you respond and let's all move on. OK?

 

[melon]

And if you don't believe me, read this:

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

It doesn't touch on specifically what I touched on. On the contrary, it talks about same-sex unions in the medieval times, which are not a theory, but a fact!

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

It's in our biological makeup for a man and woman to be attracted to each other, have a sexual relationship and have a family together. It's not that way for homosexuals. There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic. So you'd be linking a natural relationship with an unnatural one under the same definition.

do you see the contradiction here?

you're claiming that your heterosexuality is biologically based, but that homosexuality isn't. is there proof of heterosexuality being genetic? yes, it makes logical sense that men and women be attracted to each other, and it also makes sense that we recognize this relationship as can (but does not always) produce children. but why does the recognition of one relationship have to come at the denigration of the other?

 

[melon]

Irvine, my wife and I got married at our county courthouse before we did our actual wedding ceremony. When the judge read everything for us to be married from his government-prepared script, he read that "marriage is a sacred institution created by God between a man and a woman." He also brought up that we were doing this before God. (I was blown away at all of this myself.)

The Catholic Church would refuse to acknowledge this kind of marriage and would say that no marriage took place. Period. My point is not to denigrate your marriage, but to point out that religion--even major religions--have the full right to recognize or not recognize the marriages of their choice. If same-sex marriages occurred, what is to stop all the churches who disagree to say that no marriage took place? The Catholic Church does this all the time with heterosexual marriages.

Yes, I do think allowing homosexuals to get married in the same way heterosexuals do would change the definition, if not the value of my marriage. It's in our biological makeup for a man and woman to be attracted to each other, have a sexual relationship and have a family together. It's not that way for homosexuals. There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic. So you'd be linking a natural relationship with an unnatural one under the same definition. Plus, like I stated before, even the civil union we had included God in it. If every major religion sees homosexuality as a sin against God, why would homosexuals want the same thing? Again, this is my PERSONAL view. I'm not trying to attack anyone and I respect you for having your own personal view. I know this is a touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just making my argument.

"There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic." There is no proof that heterosexuality is genetic. It is just assumed based on biology. The fact remains that science knows very little about what causes sexuality. What it does know, however, is that the traditional view of nature is very very very off-base.

If God created solely Adam (XY) and Eve (XX), how do you explain XY females? Yes, they exist. Contrary to Christian stoic logic, fetuses are known to be, by default, be female. Every early fetus has both male and female sex organs. Males solely exist, due to the coordination of fetal hormones (both with the mother and the fetus) to destroy the female sex organs and the presence of the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger hormones to create a male.

Genetically, however, this is a complicated and easily corrupted process. XY females exist when the hormone to destroy the female sex organs works, but the hormone to express "maleness" does not. Hence, by default, the XY fetus will grow up to look like a woman, but will be infertile. The testicles never drop and are usually destroyed internally. There are always rumors that Jamie Lee Curtis is an XY female, but, regardless, we know they exist.

Consequently, there are also intersexuals of either XX or XY sex chromosomes. The hormones to destroy either the male or female sex organs do not work, and, hence, a child is born with vestigial male AND female sex organs.

Where is science looking to discover sexuality? Precisely during this sexual differentiation period during the third month of pregnancy. You can say that homosexuality isn't genetic, but logic already very much points at this stage in development, and logic dictates that it would actually be quite illogical if homosexuality *wasn't* genetic. The thing to realize, of course, is that if the right amount of hormones and genes aren't coordinated EXACTLY during this third month, all sexuality is fixed and cannot be changed. They know this in regards to intersexuals and XY females. It is not a matter of going in to do fetal surgery to correct it. On the contrary, it cannot be corrected.

This is, in my view, precisely where the origin of sexuality is.

Melon

 

[dickma]

Another valid point: the argument for proof that homosexuality is genetic is peripheral to the argument of whether or not gay people are "born that way." Whatever the cause of homosexuality, almost every scientific study ever conducted has indicated that gay people ARE born that way, to my knowledge, at least.

The only reason anyone would deny that virtually all the evidence points to the fact that gay people are born that way would be to have closed your mind to the subject, and to deliberately choose to fairly evaluate the existing proof.

 

[Do Miss America]

Yes, I do think allowing homosexuals to get married in the same way heterosexuals do would change the definition, if not the value of my marriage.

Wow, how extremely selfish and smalled minded of you.

I'll choose to ignore the rest of your post for it shows a true lack of understanding, but let me ask you why two women getting married would change the value of your already existing marriage?

Does everytime someone gets married and then divorces within a week, uses marriage to get rich, or uses marriage to be a legal citizen also devalue your marriage with your wife? Or do only gays devalue your marriage?

 

[dickma]

That is - choose *not* to fairly evaluate the proof. My bad not proofreading.

 

[Irvine511]

Wow, how extremely selfish and smalled minded of you.

I'll choose to ignore the rest of your post for it shows a true lack of understanding, but let me ask you why two women getting married would change the value of your already existing marriage?

Does everytime someone gets married and then divorces within a week, uses marriage to get rich, or uses marriage to be a legal citizen also devalue your marriage with your wife? Or do only gays devalue your marriage?

outstanding points, DMA.

i'd say Britney, J-Lo, and Elizabeth Taylor have done far more to weaken and degreade marriage than any gay person.

 

[coemgen]

Holy crap, where did everyone else come from? I'd love to respond to everyone, but I don't have the time to at the moment. Quickly, Do Miss America, actually yes, divorce and marrying for the wrong reasons HAVE cheapened the idea of marriage.

I've only skimmed through everyone elses repsonses and the one thing I want to say quickly to melon is I could care less what the Catholic church says. They've gotten a lot of things wrong. They're not an athority for me at all.
Also, to save time in responding to everyone's point of view (which I might do at a later time) consider this. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the verses in the Bible calling homosexuality a sin were misinterpreted. Then lets look at the many verses in the Bible that talk about marriage and relationships. They all deal with a man and a woman. There's nothing in there about how a man should treat a man or how a man should love a man. You see what I'm saying? If God didn't have a problem with it and he saw value in homosexual relationships, there would've been guidlines and words of wisdom on how that relationship should work to honor God. However, this just isn't there! (I know, the liberals here probably will argue that those pesky interpreters of the orginal texts simply left God's instructions on how a man should love another man out for political reasons.)
For those looking for biological proof of heterosexuality, I think the penis and the vagina are pretty good examples.

 

[Irvine511]

For those looking for biological proof of heterosexuality, I think the penis and the vagina are pretty good examples.

not all penises are attracted to vaginas, and vice versa. some people are asexual. the presence of genitalia does not indicate orientation, or even sexual role identification.

and i also find it offensive -- to homos and heteros alike -- that you would reduce something as complex, mysterious, and wonderful to sex organs.

 

[melon]

I've only skimmed through everyone elses repsonses and the one thing I want to say quickly to melon is I could care less what the Catholic church says. They've gotten a lot of things wrong. They're not an athority for me at all.

I was expecting you to say this. I could care less what evangelical and fundamentalist Christians say. They've gotten a lot of things wrong. They're not an authority for me at all.

Hence, this is why we have had separation of church and state: to prevent "the majority religion" to legislate its morality, at the expense of minority religious beliefs. If it weren't for separation of church and state, what is to stop the Catholic Church, where it is dominant, to ban non-Catholic marriages? Or how about praying the rosary in public schools? I'd get a kick out of watching some people say ten "Hail Mary" prayers.

Also, to save time in responding to everyone's point of view (which I might do at a later time) consider this. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the verses in the Bible calling homosexuality a sin were misinterpreted. Then lets look at the many verses in the Bible that talk about marriage and relationships. They all deal with a man and a woman.

Ahem...

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." -- 1 Samuel 18:1-4

It's funny how we hear about "covenant marriages" nowadays.

There's nothing in there about how a man should treat a man or how a man should love a man. You see what I'm saying? If God didn't have a problem with it and he saw value in homosexual relationships, there would've been guidlines and words of wisdom on how that relationship should work to honor God. However, this just isn't there! (I know, the liberals here probably will argue that those pesky interpreters of the orginal texts simply left God's instructions on how a man should love another man out for political reasons.)

Funny. You focus on "how a man should love a man." I find it curious how everyone focuses on male homosexuality.

The Bible was written by man, not God. The concept of modern homosexuality was not "discovered" until 1874; hence, the men who wrote the Bible would not have dealt with something that did not believe existed until 2000+ years after their deaths!

For those looking for biological proof of heterosexuality, I think the penis and the vagina are pretty good examples.

Well, and I think my genetic examples are evidence enough of how simplistic I believe that to be. XY females are not a "theory." They are a fact. Intersexuals are not a "theory." They are a fact. Homosexuals are not a "theory." They are a fact.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Holy crap, where did everyone else come from? I'd love to respond to everyone, but I don't have the time to at the moment. Quickly, Do Miss America, actually yes, divorce and marrying for the wrong reasons HAVE cheapened the idea of marriage.

Actually I think your first comment was it devalued YOUR marriage. If Brittney or homosexuals devalue your marriage then you have a very superficial marriage. A marriage is between 2 people and God, someone elses actions don't devalue your marriage. You are the only that can do that.

 

[Dreadsox]

not all penises are attracted to vaginas, and vice versa. some people are asexual. the presence of genitalia does not indicate orientation, or even sexual role identification.

and i also find it offensive -- to homos and heteros alike -- that you would reduce something as complex, mysterious, and wonderful to sex organs.

I was kind of holding back from participating in this thread because of the drugs I am on.

Lets see if I can coherantly make an observation.

If the argument that marriage is clear because of the presense genetalia, doesn't that reduce the concept of marriage as being all about sex?

This concept does more to devalue what marriage is than two homosexuals marrying out of love.

 

[BVS]

, doesn't that reduce the concept of marriage as being all about sex?

Some would say it's the total opposite.

 

[Irvine511]

If the argument that marriage is clear because of the presense genetalia, doesn't that reduce the concept of marriage as being all about sex?

This concept does more to devalue what marriage is than two homosexuals marrying out of love.

undoubtedly. you are 100% right.

 

[coemgen]

Melon, in regards to 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 — There is no inference of homosexuality in this text, simply a picture of devoted friends. Notice, as we continue through 1 Samuel 18, "...it pleased David to become the king's son-in-law." (v 26-28). Now, if David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship, and such was acceptable before the Lord, why did David marry Michal, Saul's daughter and not Jonathan?
There is not a single instance where a homosexual relationship is shown in the Bible to be acceptable to God. The Bible time and again speaks against those who participated in homosexual relations (Genesis 18:18-19:29; Romans 1:24-27), and indicate that such will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent of their sinful actions (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Go ahead and say that homosexuality didn't exist as we know it now, but that's a weak argument. The word homosexuality may not be used, but the definition is there. A man lying with another man sounds like homosexuality to me.

I would also encourage you guys to check out www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html, where this guy named Joe Dallas refutes the pro-gay theology. It talks about just about everything you guys have brought up in great length, much better than I can.
Also, melon, even if that example of yours was talking about homosexuality, it still doesn't answer my question like you assumed it did — where are the verses where homosexuality is affirmed and guidelines for a Christ-centered homosexual relationship can be found?
Also, I'm for the separation of church and state as well!! I've so far only stated my opinion on these matters, I'm not calling for new laws to be written, it's just my opinion.
BVS, you're right — I said "my" marriage, but I should have used a more general term. Thanks for clearing that up.
To everybody else, yes, marriage is more than sex. Thanks for stating the obvious. The argument I was making was about how the penis and the vagina and how they work together are simply proof of heterosexuality. In a sense, I was stating the obvious too, but someone asked for biological proof of heterosexuality and I thought that was a good start. That's all I was trying to do, I wasn't trying to link that to marriage like everyone claims I was.

 

[melon]

Melon, in regards to 1 Samuel 18: 1-4 — There is no inference of homosexuality in this text, simply a picture of devoted friends. Notice, as we continue through 1 Samuel 18, "...it pleased David to become the king's son-in-law." (v 26-28). Now, if David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship, and such was acceptable before the Lord, why did David marry Michal, Saul's daughter and not Jonathan?

Jonathan is slain by the Philistines at the end of 1 Samuel. In the beginning of 2 Samuel, David learns of his death and mourns for him.

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! Most dear have you been to me; More precious have I held love for you than love for women." -- 2 Samuel 1:26

I guess you can't marry a dead man (except in France by special permission of the President).

There is not a single instance where a homosexual relationship is shown in the Bible to be acceptable to God. The Bible time and again speaks against those who participated in homosexual relations (Genesis 18:18-19:29; Romans 1:24-27)

Something tells me you're doing a cut and paste somewhere, which I don't appreciate. Mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah is useless, because the OT says repeatedly the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is "inhospitality." Secondly, even if it were about sex, it's a passage of RAPE. Gibeah in the book of Judges is a mirror of Sodom and Gomorrah, except the victim is a female concubine. Is Gibeah now a warning against those who participated in heterosexual relations? Mentioning Romans 1 is equally useless, because it is not only a mistranslation of an idolatrous pagan temple sex orgy, it also ignores Romans 2, which admonishes those who have JUDGED the "sinners" in Romans 1!

and indicate that such will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent of their sinful actions (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Corinthians 6:9-11 is also about temple sex acts. Funny...even the Catholic Bible I use, which is very good at listing footnotes of confusing passages, says the same thing!

"The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

If homophobic Vatican scholars can admit this, then I don't know what else I can say to convince you.

Go ahead and say that homosexuality didn't exist as we know it now, but that's a weak argument. The word homosexuality may not be used, but the definition is there. A man lying with another man sounds like homosexuality to me.

That's because it's not "a man lying with another man." It's really a man (Hebrew="ish") lying with what is most likely a temple prostitute (Hebrew="zakar"). Unfortunately, due to there being no modern word to translate the term for a pagan prostitute, it is most commonly mistranslated! Most assuredly, if it really was a condemnation of "a man lying with another man," it would have said "an ish shall not lie with another ish." Instead, it says "an ish shall not lie with a zakar." Big difference!

Secondly, even if it were, the Mosaic Law is voided in Acts, and even if you bother to make the arbitrary distinction between "ritual" Mosaic Law and non-ritual, the "condemnation" is written in the ritual Purity Codes! Even Jewish rabbis have commented on the Mosaic Law and say that it was written solely to apply to Jews and not Gentiles.

Also, melon, even if that example of yours was talking about homosexuality, it still doesn't answer my question like you assumed it did — where are the verses where homosexuality is affirmed and guidelines for a Christ-centered homosexual relationship can be found?

If you're so hung up on gender roles, then that's your problem. The lessons learned in the Bible transcend literal "male" and "female" gender roles.

Also, I'm for the separation of church and state as well!! I've so far only stated my opinion on these matters, I'm not calling for new laws to be written, it's just my opinion.

At least we agree on something.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

The word homosexuality may not be used, but the definition is there. A man lying with another man sounds like homosexuality to me.

no, that would be fucking. that's not homosexuality. that's a part of homosexuality, an activity related with homosexuality; that's a part of heterosexuality, an activity related with heterosexuality.

you're reducing the constitutive pull -- both emtionally and physically -- to one's same or opposite gender, to simple friction.

 

[coemgen]

This is going to be an extremely long post. Sorry.

Irvine, I don't see what point you're trying to make. Aren't we having a debate about homosexual sex? Of course the term a man laying with another man means sex. That's the point that I'm getting at. You have to talk about sex to talk about sexuality.

Melon: First off, you said "The lessons learned in the Bible transcend literal "male" and "female" gender roles." This is totally false. Have you read the verses on marriage? There are very distinct roles that the male and female are to play and there are very distinct guidelines laid out for each as well. I'm asking for verses that are similar, but meant for a homosexual relationship, either between men or women, and you have yet to produce those for me. Even if the 1 and 2 Samuel verses are about a homosexual relationship, it's simply a story about one, not any guidelines or expressed wisdom on how a homosexual relationship should work Biblically. Just because a story of a supposed homosexual relationship may be included, doesn't mean God approved of it. My question to you, which I'll ask you again, is if such verses are found in the Bible for heterosexual relationships (which is even compared to Christ's relationship with the church), and homosexuality is approved by God, which is what you're trying to get at, then where are the verses that support that? The whole Bible is about relationships of all kinds, yet there are NO verses on how a homosexual man or woman should love their partner in the boundaries of their relationship. The verses in the two books of Samuel don't offer any advice, they simply, if you interpret them that way, tell of a homosexual relationship. So what.

The copied text below is from Joe Dallas' comments on that link I provided earlier. I think you'll find that citing the verses about Sodom and Gomorrah are not useless in this debate. Then near the bottom, is a response to your comments on Romans 1.
However, before you read that, I must say this — Romans 2 does talk about judgment, you're right. However, to say something is wrong or is a sin isn't judgment, although many people would like to think that. There are many verses that say as Christians we are to correct those who are not doing what is Godly. Surely, if I am caught up in a sinful lifestyle, I would want someone to tell me so so I could ask for forgiveness and receive salvation. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not passing judgment on homosexuals as people, it's the act or the lifestyle that I am commenting on. Irvine, if you're not aware of it, has expressed in many posts that he's a homosexual. Do I hate him as a person or even consider him to be a bad person? Nope. In fact, I've read many of his posts and I can tell you he's a great guy. I would love to call him my friend. He even commented that if we met we'd probably get along. I agree. My views of homosexuality don't keep me from loving and befriending another person based on their sexual orientation. That's absurd and not Christlike anyway.
We can go on debating this issue, but there's something bigger than it that we all must consider — homosexual or not, we're all sinners. That's Biblical and there's no way to misinterpret it. Believe me, I'm in the upper half of that list too. The Bible says we must all seek forgiveness through Christ by believing he died for our sins, rose again and is our Lord and confessing him as so. I've done so, have you?


The Destruction of Sodom
Genesis 19:4-9

Before they [the angels visiting Lot to judge the wickedness of Sodom and determine whether or not to spare it] had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them [lit., 'so we may know them']." Lot went outside to meet them... and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men... ." ...And they said, "We'll treat you worse than them."

Traditional Position:

The men of Sodom were attempting homosexual contact with Lot's visitors. Sodom was subsequently destroyed for its great wickedness, homosexuality playing a major role in its destruction.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Professor John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1980), supports this view, basing it on two assumptions: first, that Lot was violating Sodom's custom by entertaining guests without the permission of the city's elders,[75] thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them"; second, that the word "to know" did not necessarily have a sexual connotation.

The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times. The argument, then, is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions towards Lot's visitors.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot's responses. His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters- another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged-Lots', or Sodom's citizens?

The theory raises more questions than it answers. While Boswell and Bailey are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Biblical times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of Lot's response to the men, or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument #2:

Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.

This argument is more common; it is proposed by lesbian author Virginia Mollenkott and others, and is far more plausible than the "inhospitality" theory.

"Violence-forcing sexual activity upon another- is the real point of this story," Mollenkott explains.[76] Accordingly, homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction; had the attempted rape been heterosexual in nature, judgment would have fallen just the same. Violence, not homosexuality, was being punished when Sodom fell.

Response:

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men...

And again in Jude 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.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."[79]

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.

The Levitical Law
(Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable [or, 'an abomination'].

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable [or, 'an abomination']. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Traditional Position:

Under Levitical Law, homosexuality was one of many abominable practices punishable by death.

Pro-Gay Argument:

The practices mentioned in these chapters of Leviticus have to do with idolatry, not homosexuality.

The Hebrew word for "abomination," according to Boswell, has less to do with something intrinsically evil and more to do with ritual uncleanness.[80] The Metropolitan Community Church's pamphlet, "Homosexuality: Not A Sin, Not A Sickness," makes the same point:

The (Hebrew word for abomination) found in Leviticus is usually associated with idolatry.[81]

Gay author Roger Biery agrees, associating the type of homosexuality forbidden in Leviticus with idolatrous practices. Pro-gay authors refer to the heathen rituals of the Canaanites-rituals including both homosexual and heterosexual prostitution-as reasons God prohibited homosexuality among His people. They contend homosexuality itself was not the problem, but it is association with idolatry and, at times, the way it was practiced as a part of idol worship. In other words, God was not prohibiting the kind of homosexuality we see today; He forbade the sort which incorporated idolatry.

Response #1:

The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 appear alongside other sexual sins-adultery and incest, for example-which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God's displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved.

Response #2:

Despite the UFMCC's contention that the word for abomination (toevah) is usually associated with idolatry, it in fact appears in Proverbs 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony:

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable [an abomination or toevah] to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

Idolatry plays no part in these scriptures; clearly, then, toevah is not limited to idolatrous practices.

Response #3:

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.


And in response to your view of Romans 1.

Pro-Gay Argument #2:

This scripture describes people given over to idolatry, not gay Christians who worship the true God.

Perry states:

The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1: 24- 27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.[84]

Response:

Idolatry certainly plays a major role in Romans Chapter One. Paul begins his writing by describing humanity's rebellion and decision to worship creation rather than the Creator. The pro-gay theorist seizes on this concept to prove that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to him-he does not worship idols, he is a Christian.

"But," Schmidt cautions, "Paul is not suggesting that a person worships an idol and decides therefore to engage in same-sex relations. Rather, he is suggesting that the general rebellion created the environment for the specific rebellion. A person need not bow before a golden calf to participate in the general human denial of God or to express that denial through specific behaviors."[85]

A common sense look at the entire chapter bears this out. Several sins other than homosexuality are mentioned in the same passage:

Fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers; backbiters, haters of God, disobedient to parents.... (vv 29-30)

Will the interpretation applied to the verse 26-27 also apply to verses 29-30? Any sort of intellectual integrity demands it. If verses 26-27 apply to people who commit homosexual acts in connection with idolatry, and thus homosexuals acts are not sinful if not committed in connection with idolatry, then the same must apply to verses 29-30 as well.

Therefore, we must assume that fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness et al are also condemned by Paul only because they were committed by people involved in idolatry; they are permissible otherwise.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Like homosexuality, these sins are not just born of idol worship; they are symptomatic of a fallen state. If we are to say homosexuality is legitimate, so long as it's not a result of idol worship, then we also have to say these other sins are legitimate as well, so long as they, too, are not practiced as a result of idolatry.

 

[Dreadsox]

Jesus must have misundestood the sin of S & G then.....

Since he told his disciples to travel without anything. And see who shall receive them, which would imply HOSPITALITY.

[Q]6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

6:10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.[/Q]

 

[nbcrusader]

Hospitality?

Does it add up that Jesus is speaking of hospitality?


Failure to receive them was a way of saying rejection of the Gospel.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hospitality?

Does it add up that Jesus is speaking of hospitality?


Failure to receive them was a way of saying rejection of the Gospel.

really.....

So why did he tell them to travel with nothing?

I can buy the hearing them as being a rejection of what they may have had to say, since the Gospel had not been written yet.

That myst be why for lines before he gave instructions on how to travel. WEaring sandels made them so much easier to understand.

It is a parallel to God sending his two angels to Sodom and G and the way they were RECEIVED....

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Is it just God-inspired?
No - there is no God

God's existance and non-existance remains to be proven. It's still a "mystery".

I'm sure some smart-ass atheist with all the technology in the world would've already proven that God doesn't exist. But they haven't so be careful what you say.