Homosexuality and the Bible - Thumpers welcome

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes - it is your opinion. You won't find Jesus agreeing with it anywhere.

Homosexuality was widely practiced in the first century AD. If Jesus had a problem with it, strange he didn't say anything about it.

Remember Jesus was ministering in a cultural and religious setting that already regarded the practice of homosexuality as sinful. Why talk about something agreed upon by your listeners? The question you should be asking is if Jesus didn't have a problem with homosexuality (as you seem to want to suggest), why didn't he correct the Jews on this point?

More to the point, who knows if he ever said anything about it? The Gospel writers simply choose not to discuss it, which is not strange given that the point of the Gospels is to reflect on the identity and significance of Jesus rather than to provide a comprehensive compendium of his teachings. On the other hand, Paul mentions it because he preached in settings where homosexuality was practiced (and even accepted) and Paul did regard the practice of it as sin.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by finkian
Too bad for the universe-- I guess it's going to hell for lying.

Y'know, I'm not a Creation Scientist; in fact, my tendency is to support evolutionary theory in so much as I understand it. Having said that though, your comment here is disingenuous . . .

The universe is only lying if you assume that it was not created in an advanced stage. If God created a fully grown human being or tree or animal or whatever, of course it would appear to be older than it really is -- much like a Star Wars clone would. The only reason this is so, however, is because you assume the fully grown creation must have come to its present state exactly the same way it does now. If you accept, however, just for the sake of argument, that something were created at an advanced stage than the dilemma dissolves. That your assumptions lead you to overlook this possibility does not mean the universe is lying.

Even so, let me reiterate that I am not a Creation Scientist.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Hey man, lay off the horse...can't you see its dead?

[Robert]

ckweb: "God will open your eyes"

I've said that once indeed,
but not for some kind of argumentation, but morely to explain my feeling about things. I agree with you that it's not a good thing to use something like that as an argument.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Hey man, lay off the horse...can't you see its dead?

Somebody's just going to start another thread like it in a couple of weeks so why not just keep this one alive. Besides, it has been a couple of weeks since I last checked the forum and I wanted to respond to posts that were new to me.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
In my opinion, homosexuality is wrong. It distorts society.

Justify that statement, because it looks like a load of crap to me.

Anyway, you are all well aware of my views on religion and the bible. I think that everyone has to lead their own life in their own lifestyle. I think it is a disgrace that all those biblebashers have this hatred for homosexuals and despise it. It seems very 'unchristian'...

[Jon Miller]

why do you say that biblebashers hate homosexuals?

Jon Miller

[Alexander's Horse]

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think it is a disgrace that all those biblebashers have this hatred for homosexuals and despise it. It seems very 'unchristian'...

Isn't a biblebasher somebody who denigrates the Bible? Don't you mean bible-thumpers?

And, yes, it is a disgrace that there are Christians who hate homosexuals. Not all Christians hate homosexuals, though. Some even support homosexuals. Heck, there are gay and lesbian Christian pastors out there.

But, notwithstanding, just because one thinks the practice of homosexuality is wrong, does not mean one hates homosexuals. One does not automatically equal the other. I can disapprove of a practice without being prejudiced, bigoted, hate-mongering, etc. Incidentally, I also think adultery is wrong. It doesn't mean I hate adulterers. In the same vein, I also think pre-marital sex is wrong. Again, it doesn't mean I hate people that practice pre-marital sex.

[Robert]

I don't hate gay people.

And I think they should make their own decisions about what they do. In fact every human should do that, within the law of the country they're living in of course.

[JCG]

Don't know if this has been posted before, but I found it interesting, at the very least...

"Some of the most obvious mistranslations occur in passages related to:

-Homosexuality, which is used in the Bible to refer to a broad range of mostly criminal activities: homosexual rape, same-sex temple prostitution, group orgies, and child abuse of boys, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities. None of the passages seem to refer to gay and lesbian sex between consenting adults or committed partners.

-Same-sex emotional relationships that Ruth, David and Daniel were involved in."

Of course, this requires you NOT to be an extremely fundamentalist Christian who ignores reason and argumentation....

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

(the site has a few extra pages on this and on other subjects of interest, btw. )

[Jon Miller]

there is no where in the bible where it even suggests (or could be read that way) that ruth was in a same sex relationship

I have no clue who started that rediculous interpretation, but it is one of the stupidest that I have ever heard (and there are a lot of stupid ones out there)

the interpretation where Jesus and John were lovers makes more sense than that one

Jon Miller

[ckweb]

Originally posted by JCG
Don't know if this has been posted before, but I found it interesting, at the very least...

"Some of the most obvious mistranslations occur in passages related to:

-Homosexuality, which is used in the Bible to refer to a broad range of mostly criminal activities: homosexual rape, same-sex temple prostitution, group orgies, and child abuse of boys, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities. None of the passages seem to refer to gay and lesbian sex between consenting adults or committed partners.

-Same-sex emotional relationships that Ruth, David and Daniel were involved in."

Of course, this requires you NOT to be an extremely fundamentalist Christian who ignores reason and argumentation....

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

(the site has a few extra pages on this and on other subjects of interest, btw. )

The first point is something to take into consideration. However, it does not bear out in all the passages of the Bible that speak to the issue of homosexuality.

The second point is wishful thinking on the part of queer theorists. There is simply no real substance to the arguments, especially in the case of Ruth and Daniel (But, even the references about David's love for Jonathan do not imply a homosexual relationship). Yet, even if examples of homosexual relationships existed in the Bible, it would not prove that the Bible condones the practice of homosexuality.

BTW, "Queer theory" is an active field in biblical studies and the label is their own so I'm not employing the term "queer theorists" in a derogatory sense.

Also, about the site . . . it makes the mistake of delineating just two views: Conservative and Liberal. I would add a third (at least): moderates. These fall in between the two and recognize that not all references to homosexuality in the Bible are applicable to the present-day issue of consensual and monogamous homosexual relationships. Nevertheless, moderates would still assert that the Bible remains clear on its point that the practice of homosexuality is a sin.