Homosexuality: Are there any biblical arguements for it?

[Spiffor]

Obiwan :
I think this is the important point of difference between us : I am extremely wary of organized religions, and of the texts they have developed. To me, organized religions have nothing to do with the true God(s) if there are any, but are mere human organizations with a political agenda, which use supranatural arguments to fulfill it and gain support.
To me, the whole ancient Testament sounds like a code of laws whose punishments are "magical" to scare the people more. The Catholic church has always been part of powermongering, and will be so as long as it remains somehow significant. Like any other church.

To me Churches are abusing the gullibility of the people, or their legitimate attempt to discover what is beyond the obvious, to fulfill their own purposes.

In such a view, it's obvious the churches act according to customer satisfaction (or rather customer fidelity : in many situations, fear is not satisfying for the "customer", yet it works wonders to have him remain fidel). And it is in their very nature to do so.

I have no particular qualms regarding spirituality, but organised religions are just the closest of antichrist in my book

[Ben Kenobi]

Spiffor:

To me Churches are abusing the gullibility of the people, or their legitimate attempt to discover what is beyond the obvious, to fulfill their own purposes.

And what do you believe these purposes to be? What does the church have to gain from temporal power?

To me, the whole ancient Testament sounds like a code of laws whose punishments are "magical" to scare the people more.

How do you defend a seperation of the Testaments?

In such a view, it's obvious the churches act according to customer satisfaction (or rather customer fidelity

Not there yet. You have only alluded to what the church has to gain from temporal authority. You have not given sufficient motivation for the Church to abandon it's own principles in an effort to increase members.

Why do you think people join a church Spiffor?

[Spiffor]

I think people join a church either because of
- Tradition (belong to this religion from their birth, have been educated in its values, and don't feel like changing)
- Attempt to find answers to the mysteries of life, through organised teachings
- Gullibility (swayed by gurus or missionaries)
- Miscellaneous (converting to please the husband/wife, for example)

I don't think people join a church because they are power-hungry or anything. They most often have good reasons to do so.

However, Churches as such, I mean the organised power structure whose religion is its core, is a power structure. As such, it seeks to get more power and influence, or to conserve the existing one (depending of the religion's teachings, which undelrine the aims of the religious organisation).

Don't get me wrong : I think the huge majority of religious people are sincere and genuinely care much more about salvation than about their Church's interests. But Churches, at their creation back when religion and politics were closely tied, were definitely a political tool. Their structures haven't changed, and we can see that people at the top want to have a political weight. From forcing abortion-wanabee women to be inteviewed by priests before the abortion in Germany, to actively exert political power in Iran.

To get maximal political efficiency, religions have to get as much support, as many believers as possible, within their field of action. That's why the Jewish clergy seems pretty much concerned about the respect of the Jewish law among the Jewish population of Israel, even though they don't try to convert gentiles.

[Ben Kenobi]

To get maximal political efficiency,

Why should a church desire this end?
What does the church stand to gain?

If people are not power hungry when they join the church, why would they be attracted to a church that seeks political power?

"He who does not gather with me, scatters."

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Excellent point. Why do we think that adultery should not merit a death sentence? What has changed between then and now?

Jesus.

[Spiffor]

If people are not power hungry when they join the church, why would they be attracted to a church that seeks political power?

See the 4 reasons I've written in my above post, and just think the believers can simply ignore/not notice the ambition of their church. To believers, powerhunger is not the main feat of their religion : spiritual teachings are. Can you otherwise explain me why nearly all medieval Europe was catholic, despite the Catholic church being an obviously political entity, and a powerful one that is ?

Why should a church desire this end?
What does the church stand to gain?

Gripe on society. Influence. Sometimes wealth (depending on the creed). Everything a normal powerhungry person or nation would want.
Besides, I suppose most people in the hierarchy, actually believe in their religious teachings, so they want to have them spread as well as possible. To do this, political influence is the way to go. It allows to forbid Darwin's teaching in some States of the US. It allows to officially harass wanabee-aborting women with priests in Germany. It allows to spread the Shariah in Iran. It allows to spread the Jewish law in Israel.
In one word, political influence allows to spread and maintain the word. You bet religious organisations wouldn't want to lose it.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by obiwan18
red_jon:



Matthew 19:10-13

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Homosexuals are not eunuchs, are they?

My version said nothing about eunichs.

Oh well, I guess that just shows the different ways the Bible can be interpreted and translated.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan - you're reading the story of Sodom incorrectly. At what point in the story did God's messengers confirm that the occupants of the city were evil? Was it when the messengers discovered they wanted to "know" them (assuming in a sexual way)? Or was it when they rushed the door to break in? Attempted rape was the offense, not homosexuality. Btw, it really stretches credulity to believe ALL the people of Sodom were homosexual, or even ALL the men. Were there no women at all? Remember, Abraham bargained with God to show mercy if 5 (or was it 10) people were found in the city who were undeserving of punishment. If only the men, even if we assume all the men, showed up to have sex with the messengers, then there must not have been 5 women in Sodom. Also, when God and Abraham were discussing the criterion for Sodom's destruction, they started out with something like 50 righteous people and got down to 5 or 10. That means God was originally willing to destroy some people who were righteous because of those who weren't. And even with 5 or 10, God was still willing to destroy some righteous people to get the unrighteous. An all-powerful God wouldn't need to kill any righteous people unless that God was immoral too.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Boris:

As always, the passage at hand, from the NIV:

Lev 19:22-23

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

" 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."

None of this sophistry with 'beds' that you seem so inclined to present.

First, it's Lev 18, not 19. Second, I hate having to bold things to spell them out:

" National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 2 In English, with minimal punctuation added, it is:

'And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.'"

That is a quote from the cited web site, and I clearly stated:

"And there is room for interpretation. The first is a stretch for some, but does make a certain bit of sense in context:"

You'll notice it was in response to the assertion there was no room for interpretation. You'll also note the explanation about the possible break in subject between 22 and 23.

As for your second point, try actually reading the chapter. Versus 6-24 each list violations of the Law with respect to sexual matters. Ït's not just one verse, but many that bear the exact same structure and format for presenting the violations of the Law.

Ah yes, let's look at the beggining of the chapter:

"At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure."

Now, in context of the chapter, that does make good sense.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Dr. Strangelove:

From the NIV

Genesis 19:3-5

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 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."

Nothing about Sodom using rape as punishment.

What version of the bible are you using?

Read a little further: Genesis 19:9
And they said, "Stand back." And they said again "This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now we will deal worse with thee, than we will with them." And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot and came near to breaking the door.

There is room for interpretation of theis passage. I've taken it to meant that he was seen around town asking questions.

[Sava]

I don't really care what the bible says. It's not the work of any God. It was written by crusty old men 2,000 years ago.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't really care what the bible says. It's not the work of any God. It was written by crusty old men 2,000 years ago.

So why don't you just stay out of Biblical topics instead of adding your useless remark. What a jerk.

[yago]

So why don't you just stay out of Biblical topics instead of adding your useless remark. What a jerk.

The problem is, there are a lot of people who throw around bible quotes, claim to understand them and abuse it to legitimize the weird prejudices they've got.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Um, that's not what Sodom was destroyed for at all. In fact, that's a common misperception about the story. Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality towards guests, not because of there being homosexuals there.

Keep in mind, there was no concept of anyone being "gay" until the late 19th century...

nah they were all gay f**kers like in "Meet the Parents"

[mapfi]

Faith is something personal. I don't want to judge someone else's faith and I don't want anyone to judge mine. I do like discussing it though. For me the important thing about faith is that it makes you lead a live that's worth something, for you and your kindred.
I'm a faithful Christian and I'm ok with my homosexuality no matter what someone drags out of the bible. I definetely don't feel like I would need to start interpreting single words in order to make being gay not a sin. For God's sake, even though the bible is one of the roots of Christianity it is also a book that's been written by humans ages ago.