Homosexuality as a Sin(off topic from other thread)

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

We have Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and New Testament (ie the original languages in which they were written).

Yes, but are you certain that these accurately represent the infallible Word of God? As I understand it, the earliest that any part of the bible can be conclusively dated to as a fixed text is about 1000BC... and the oldest surviving example of an actual piece of written biblical text is from 600BC. As many of the accounts claim to portray events from 2000BC or earlier that immediately raises the possibility that the Infallible Word has been modified by people.

The original texts are just not available, so to my mind a certain amount of subjective reasoning has to come into this. Given that we see irrational fear and hatred of homosexuality as prevalent today, is it not reasonable to suspect that this sort of sentiment could very quickly have made it's way into the bible? It is not reasonable to suspect that this could very easily have happened undetected given the vast amounts of time and great number of authors and canon selections that have occurred in that time?

PDN wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the passages which address homosexuality are mistranslated?

If they had been, how certain could we be of it? What if they were inserted into the text of a given book in the very first revision?

Given that there are in fact quite a number of contradictions and errors in the bible that (if we consider the Word itself to be infallible) must be due to human error in copying or translation (many of which can't be properly elucidated today), surely that calls for the utmost of caution when it comes to such vital issues as how we view our fellow humans in a moral sense. After all, that feeds into how we'll be judged.

"We" here doesn't include me of course.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont remember Jesus ever converting someone from homosexuality to heterosexuality. I dont even remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality being a sin, in fact, I seem to remember Jesus saying something about how we should all love our fellow man...?

Loving your fellow man does not mean approving of everything he does. God loves every homosexual, every atheist, every idolator - and He commands us to do the same.

As for Jesus converting homosexuals: "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. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The New Testament, therefore, clearly speaks about homosexuals being converted through Christ.

I know a number of converted homosexuals. I also know a lot of converted heterosexuals.

Funny how Ruth and Naomi seem to be commended for being lesbians in the book of Ruth.

Only to illiterate buffoons who read their own sexual obsesson into everything else.

UU

Hi all,

Sorry I've been off for a while due to exams studying three languages is tough work! lol ok back to this...

sukikettle wrote: »

Dear UU
You say you cannot help your sexuality but you can be delivered of homosexuality. Jesus was a deliverer as well as a healer. He loves you and wants you free

Ok Suki to be honest I've heard this argument before you're not the first. As a devout Christian like yourself your view doesn't surprise me in the least. Also what makes it funnier is you actually have the audacity to give a personal opinion and judgement on something you either have no clue about or choose to believe what you want about it. Ok I do not believe in Jesus as I am an atheist so that point obviously is irrelevant for me. The fact is is I am free, people are free because we are faced with the agony of choice which is inevitable. Of course choice only refers to things you can actually choose and as far as I'm concerned homosexuality wasn't one of those. But if homosexuality is a choice then heterosexuality must have been a choice for you! As far as becoming not gay, that is total rubbish and it's the ex-gay movement which is back by Evangelist Christian lobbies in mainly America. Not only is it unethical, but also those people who say they are "ex-gay" are really just in fact oppressing their sexual desires. You can say what you want about homosexuality, you can have whatever opinion you want but I really don't give a toss because I'm happy with who I am and I'm not being fake and I know sexuality is a part of who we are and thus is not a choice. Gay people in this country will continue to fight for our rights and acceptance in the face of discrimination and we stop our struggle.

AtomicHorror

UU wrote: »

Hi all,

Sorry I've been off for a while due to exams studying three languages is tough work! lol ok back to this...

Ok Suki to be honest I've heard this argument before you're not the first. As a devout Christian like yourself your view doesn't surprise me in the least. Also what makes it funnier is you actually have the audacity to give a personal opinion and judgement on something you either have no clue about or choose to believe what you want about it. Ok I do not believe in Jesus as I am an atheist so that point obviously is irrelevant for me. The fact is is I am free, people are free because we are faced with the agony of choice which is inevitable. Of course choice only refers to things you can actually choose and as far as I'm concerned homosexuality wasn't one of those. But if homosexuality is a choice then heterosexuality must have been a choice for you! As far as becoming not gay, that is total rubbish and it's the ex-gay movement which is back by Evangelist Christian lobbies in mainly America. Not only is it unethical, but also those people who say they are "ex-gay" are really just in fact oppressing their sexual desires. You can say what you want about homosexuality, you can have whatever opinion you want but I really don't give a toss because I'm happy with who I am and I'm not being fake and I know sexuality is a part of who we are and thus is not a choice. Gay people in this country will continue to fight for our rights and acceptance in the face of discrimination and we stop our struggle.

Amen.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The New Testament, therefore, clearly speaks about homosexuals being converted through Christ.

Yes, but that wasn't what was asked.

I could say I used to pick my toes and now I don't because of Jesus. That doesn't mean Jesus actually did anything or cared about me picking my toes.

It is pretty clear that Paul had issues with homosexuality (as most people at the time did I imagine), but it would be rather false logic to assert that because Paul says someone is no longer a homosexual because of Jesus that Jesus actually did something or even cared that he was a homosexual in the first place.

UU

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.

Sorry I'm going to get really agitated here because you have started comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. They are two different things! I don't think paedolphilia is a choice but acting upon it is. The main difference between both is this:

PAEDOPHILIA IS ULTIMATELY HARMFUL BECAUSE IT HURTS CHILDREN. CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER-AGE AND THUS IT IS ALSO CONSIDERED RAPE.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. IF IT WERE NOT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PAEDOPHILIA AS WOULD HETEROSEXUALITY BE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt people any more than heterosexuality would. You say you don't see it is a valid sexuality but that is nonsense. In fact, it is evident you really know very little about it and probably know very few gay people (if any).

You're understanding of choice is odd. Ok I cannot choose to be gay or not but I can choose to act upon it (i.e. have sexual relations with other men). Rape and murder natural? Em ok... you know you can CHOOSE to rape or murder people or not to do so so comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality to those is a very weak argument. The difference between humans and other species is that humans have a conscience whereas other animals it seems even our close relations the apes are rather different in those ways.

Well you can think whatever you want about homosexuality but the fact is I'm a happy in myself and there's absolutely wrong with me. You're giving a biased Christian view and misunderstanding on something you really don't understand at all.

Ruskie4Rent

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.

I'd also like to criticise your comparison with paedophillia and homosexuality. I always assumed that most child abusers had a history of trauma inflicted on them in their youth, so their perversion might be some form of mental illness no?

Homosexuality however, is something that I've always understood to be something to be the result of something before birth.
I saw a programme on the BBC where some gay dude was looking at all the things that might have effected his present sexual orientation. I can't remember all of them, but one of the scientists interviewed said that a low exposure of tertosterone to a male foetus could be a reason. That could've been caused by the mother giving birth to a few male children prior, so the more male children she had, the higher the likelyhood the next one would be Homesexual. The guy presenting happened to be an only child so it didn't seem to be accurate for his situation.
I wish i could remember the name of the show now, twas quite good .

PDN

UU wrote: »

You're giving a biased Christian view and misunderstanding on something you really don't understand at all.

Shock! Horror! Someone giving a biased Christian view in the Christianity forum! Whatever next? Unless someone puts a stop to this then we'll have atheists giving their biased views in the A&A forum!

Down with that sort of thing!

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As for Jesus converting homosexuals

Just a small interjection, but the NT does not say that Jesus "converted" gay men.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Just a small interjection, but the NT does not say that Jesus "converted" gay men.

It speaks of gay men who were had now become Christians by being washed, justified and sanctified. Paul's doctrine of salvation is clear enough - that unbelievers are converted to faith by Christ. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the New Testament portrays gay men (and heterosexual men) as being converted by Jesus.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It speaks of gay men who were had now become Christians by being washed, justified and sanctified.

Oops. My mistake. I'd assumed you meant "converting homosexuals" in the sense of "converting" men who are gay into men who are not gay.

It's the kind of thing that the fundamentalist Joseph Nicolosi claims he does.

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Oops. My mistake. I assume you meant "converting homosexuals" in the sense of "converting" men who are gay into men who are not gay.

It's the kind of thing that the fundamentalist Joseph Nicolosi claims he does.

Converting men who used to practice homosexual acts into men who no longer practice homosexual acts.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

studiorat said:

I'm telling you the author of the article you posted, Bruce Bagemihl, was gay:
Bruce Bagemihlhttp://www.nndb.com/people/033/000044898/

Bagemihl wrote the obituary in the NYT not the wiki article I quoted for you.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Loving your fellow man does not mean approving of everything he does. God loves every homosexual, every atheist, every idolator - and He commands us to do the same.

Ok I wasn't being very sincere with that part, just trying to smart.

PDN wrote: »

As for Jesus converting homosexuals: "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. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The New Testament, therefore, clearly speaks about homosexuals being converted through Christ.

Jesus did not however. Its also another place were male offenders were mentioned but females were curiously absent, were there no female prostitutes at that time?

PDN wrote: »

I know a number of converted homosexuals. I also know a lot of converted heterosexuals.

You know a lot of people who either were or are in denial.

PDN wrote: »

Only to illiterate buffoons who read their own sexual obsesson into everything else.

Does it not say in the book of Ruth that she loved Naomi in the same way as Genisis says Adam loved Eve? Are parts of the book of Ruth not used in a lot of marriage ceremonies to describe the love the couple should have for each other?

PDN wrote:

Paul's doctrine of salvation is clear enough - that unbelievers are converted to faith by Christ. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the New Testament portrays gay men (and heterosexual men) as being converted by Jesus.

Pauls doctrine also includes Romans 1:32, where he says that homosexuals (and other offenders) deserve to die. If that bit of the doctrine is ignored, then why not the rest?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok I wasn't being very sincere with that part, just trying to smart.

Keep trying.

Its also another place were male offenders were mentioned but females were curiously absent, were there no female prostitutes at that time?

It does not claim to be a definitive list of sins. Since Paul was writing to a specific church he was probably thinking of particular individuals in that congregation who used to follow those sins that he mentions.

You know a lot of people who either were or are in denial.

So you summarily dismiss what doesn't square with your position, by accusing others of being in denial.

The ironing is terrific.

Does it not say in the book of Ruth that she loved Naomi in the same way as Genisis says Adam loved Eve?

I'm pretty sure the Book of Ruth doesn't mention Adam and Eve.

Are parts of the book of Ruth not used in a lot of marriage ceremonies to describe the love the couple should have for each other?

Yes, as is 1 Corinthians 13. But no-one is stupid enough to suggest that Paul was rodgering all the Corinthians.

Pauls doctrine also includes Romans 1:32, where he says that homosexuals (and other offenders) deserve to die. If that bit of the doctrine is ignored, then why not the rest?

It's not ignored. Every sinner deserves to die. That's why we believe in hell.

sukikettle

Atomic no argument will ever stand up against God. He is not diminutive nor is He a whole lot interested in how we think things should be run. Watch how He says He will shake that which says cannot be shaken. He is shaking every economy, every expectation, even the weather. He is turning His world on it's head and you are wasting your time proving it's just a massive coincidence. He will have the last word and you will literally have to eat your words just like they did in Ezekiel only they did it to send out His Word

AtomicHorror

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic no argument will ever stand up against God. He is not diminutive nor is He a whole lot interested in how we think things should be run. Watch how He says He will shake that which says cannot be shaken. He is shaking every economy, every expectation, even the weather. He is turning His world on it's head and you are wasting your time proving it's just a massive coincidence. He will have the last word and you will literally have to eat your words just like they did in Ezekiel only they did it to send out His Word

Suki, I don't wish to cause you upset so instead I will try to give you some sincere advice. I hope that it does not seem patronising to you.

What you're doing here, proselytising to the atheists, attacking evolution, damning the homosexuals, claiming the imminent fulfilment of prophesy- it won't end well. They'll attack you back. They'll make you doubt all of it. They'll make you very, very upset and that is not at all an exaggeration. They'll keep at it until you stop posting out of sheer bleak depression. It's when you externalise it so forcefully and with such unsupported confidence that people feel compelled to take away your faith. Sceptics demand evidence and you can't even muster a quote from scripture.

You strike me as being happy. I suspect you're happier now than you were when you were a believer in the occult. This is a good thing, so I say enjoy it. If your faith is as wonderful and fulfilling as you say, then you shouldn't need to convince us all so loudly.

PDN

Moderator's Note

Since other threads are continually dragged off topic in order to discuss homosexuality, let's make an effort to keep this thread on the topic.

Sukikettle - it would be much better if you discussed the topics on hand rather than off-topic preaching at people.

Zombrex

sukikettle wrote: »

Atomic no argument will ever stand up against God.

I think that is why the question of how individual Christians feel about homosexuality, independently of God's feelings on the matter, is far more interesting.

Do you personally believe homosexuality is immoral?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Converting men who used to practice homosexual acts into men who no longer practice homosexual acts.

I see you also know people who've "gone both ways" in a previous post. To me there would seem to be a certain fluidity of sexual preference in individuals through-out nature and humans would seem no different.

But there seems to be a certain bent towards actual homosexual acts as sins in this discussion. My questions are about what according to the Old Testament exactly constitutes a homo-sexual act and there fore a sin.

Now, is it a sin for example two men to live together and love each other? Is it a sin for them to kiss? What I'm asking firstly is: is it only the act of homosexual penetration that is a sin? or is it a sin for two men or two women be "life partners" and live as a couple?

And what specific commandment covers this issue?


Which brings me to my next point. Is the sin of thought greater than the sin of the deed.
Covetousness (the cut-throat of grace and canker of the soul) aside. Is the sin of homosexual lust greater than that of hetrosexual lust. Or beastial or paedophilic lust for that matter? Or does the sin of lust only apply to "thou shall not covet".

And again what specific commandment covers this issue?

Homosexuality would seem to be such a dreadful act and a sin against God and Humanity that I find it particularly queer that there is no specific mention of it in the ten commandments.

It would seem to me that the Old Testament, or the "Desert Book of Common Sense" or "Why we're the Winning Team" as I would consider it.
Has very little to offer in respect to guidance in the intricacies of modern family life It seems to be more concentrated on keeping you from sleeping with the male or female slaves.

I would be very interested to know of the Old Testament advice regarding One Parent Families, Custody Rights, Adoption, Artificial Insemination, Surrogate Families, etc.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

I wonder do all the atheists here agree with your last comment: If you find an animal that seems to enjoy it, then by all means. At least you are honest about it, and it is the logical conclusion given your system of morality.

Nice...:eek:

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

I see you also know people who've "gone both ways" in a previous post. To me there would seem to be a certain fluidity of sexual preference in individuals through-out nature and humans would seem no different.

I think you've probably misunderstood my earlier post, but no matter.

I agree that individuals can be fluid when it comes to which sexual acts they prefer, or choose to indulge in. This depends on peer and societal pressures, fashion, religious beliefs and a host of other factors. That is why I refuse to label anyone as a 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' as if they were hard-wired unchangeable characteristics.

I know guys who participated in homosexual acts as teenagers because it was fashionable in certain circles. I know one particular lad who slept with other guys because it helped him identify with David Bowie. He grew out of that phase and is now happily married (but probably still a bit dim).

Some guys would not normally indulge in homosexual activity but will happily do so when no other sexual relationship is available to them - ie in prison.

I think, given the right circumstances and conditions, that all of us could be persuaded to participate in, and most likely enjoy, either heterosexual or homosexual acts. This does not carry any implication as to the morality of such acts - since I believe that history indicates that given the right circumstances and conditions you can persuade most people to do just about anything, including genocide.

But there seems to be a certain angle towards actual homosexual acts as sins in the discussion.
Now, is it a sin for example two men to live together and love each other? Is it a sin for them to kiss? What I'm asking firstly is: is it only the act of homosexual penetration that is a sin? or is it a sin for two men or two women be "life partners" and live as a couple?

Yes, you are correct that homosexual acts (not inclinations) are what is addressed in Scripture and that should be the focus of our discussions about the morality of homosexuality.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are asking where we should draw the line? I don't think Scripture gives any hard and fast ruling about this - but I think Jesus' words about committing adultery in our hearts can legitimately be applied to other moral issues.

As a married man I believe in being absolutely faithful to my wife in accordance to the promises I made to her and to God on my wedding day. I do not apply this in some Clintonesque fashion purely to penetrative sex. I would consider kissing another woman to be a violation of my marriage vows. The same would apply to lustfully gazing at another woman with my tongue hanging out, or viewing pornography.

Does this mean that it is a sin to be tempted? No - the Bible teaches that Jesus was tempted, but without sin. So I look at this way: if I see a drop-dead gorgeous woman in a short skirt on a Summer's day then all kinds of thoughts might immediately spring into my mind. If I immediately choose to look away, to ask God to help me think of something else, then that is not adultery of the heart. But if I keep on looking, maybe even getting into a better position to get a better eyeful, then that is, in my book, a betrayal of my wife.

So I would translate that into a similar standard as regards homosexual relationships. Anything designed to inflame desires is, in my opinion, not compatible with living life as a Christian.

Of course for non-Christians all of this is moot. They are free to enter into relationships with whoever they like as long as they keep it legal. That is their business and not mine.

As for living as life partners - if no sexual contact is involved then I see no difference between a guy living with his brother or living with a friend. For example, in the Salvation Army you get many more women clergy than men. It is quite common for two women to live and work together pastoring a Salvation Army Corps (church). They may share a close friendship for many years, so much so that they often continue to share a home after retirement. I see nothing improper in that or anything that is inconsistent with Christian faith and practice.

And what specific commandment covers this issue?

Christian living is not primarily about adhering to the letter of commandments. It is about discipleship - doing our best to follow Jesus and to determine God's will and live accordingly.

Which brings me to my next point. Is the sin of thought greater than the sin of the deed.
Covetousness (the cut-throat of grace and canker of the soul) aside. Is the sin of homosexual lust greater than that of hetrosexual lust. Or beastial or paedophilic lust for that matter? Or does the sin of lust only apply to "thou shall not covet".

Again, it depends on whether you are talking about someone fighting a temptation or cherishing a desire.

For example, I know a man who is sexually attracted to young children. He hates this temptation that afflicts him, and he has ordered his life in such a way as to minimise any opportunities for temptation and to ensure that he does not act upon his inclinations. Most people would despise him for having those inclinations in the first place. I think he is one of the most righteous people I know and I respect him very much.

However, if he chose to view child pornography etc, yet refrained from actual acts merely due to a fear of going to prison, that would not be righteous at all.

It would seem to me that the Old Testament, or the "Desert Book of Common Sense" or "Why we're the Winning Team" as I would consider it.
I think it has very little to offer in respect to the intricacies of modern family life and seems to be more concentrated on keeping you from sleeping with the male or female slaves.

I would be very interested to know of the Old Testament advice regarding One Parent Families, Custody Rights, Adoption, Artificial Insemination, Surrogate Families, etc.

Unfortunately there is no Jewish forum on boards.ie - otherwise you could ask that question of someone who bases their morality on the Old Testament.

As a Christian I see the New Testament as being my primary source of moral guidance - which is why I neither keep slaves nor view homosexual activity as being compatible with Christian faith and practice.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

It does not claim to be a definitive list of sins. Since Paul was writing to a specific church he was probably thinking of particular individuals in that congregation who used to follow those sins that he mentions.

It does not claim otherwise, what you pick and choose is down to your interpretation of Pauls words.

PDN wrote: »

So you summarily dismiss what doesn't square with your position, by accusing others of being in denial.

The ironing is terrific.

I dismiss what doesn't square with biology. You don't convert from s asexual preference without major chemical input. "Converted" homosexuals and heterosexuals are not no longer homo- or heterosexual, they just abstain from the acts associated with homo- or heterosexuality. They are in denial, either about what sexual preference they are, or the morality of what sexual acts they want to do.

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the Book of Ruth doesn't mention Adam and Eve.

I meant the terminolgy used, the way it describes Ruth loving Naomi is written in the same terminology as how Adam loved Eve.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, as is 1 Corinthians 13. But no-one is stupid enough to suggest that Paul was rodgering all the Corinthians.

Because 1 Corinthians 13 (parts 4-7 and 13)is a piece describing love in general, while Ruth 1 (part 16) is Ruth saying to Naomi that she wants to be with her were ever she is, have her god as her god, her people as her people and may god do terrible things to her, if anything but death seperates them. They just don't compare to each other.

PDN wrote: »

It's not ignored. Every sinner deserves to die. That's why we believe in hell.

I thought the whle idea of Jesus coming to Earth was that every sinner deserves to be forgiven and saved. It seems that Paul is putting his own judgement on people, which if I remember Matthew 7 correctedly, thats a no-no

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It does not claim otherwise, what you pick and choose is down to your interpretation of Pauls words.

No, not if language has any objectivemeaning. Paul elsewhere mentions sins that are not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6 - therefore the argument that it constitutes a definitive list of all sins is unsustainable nonsense. Paul also clearly states in that passage that "such were some of you" - in other words he is clearly naming sins that had been committed by some of the Corinthians prior to their conversion.

I dismiss what doesn't square with biology. You don't convert from s asexual preference without major chemical input. "Converted" homosexuals and heterosexuals are not no longer homo- or heterosexual, they just abstain from the acts associated with homo- or heterosexuality. They are in denial, either about what sexual preference they are, or the morality of what sexual acts they want to do.

Now you are addressing a completely different issue - that of orientation.

All I stated was that I know homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been converted (ie have become Christians). I fail to see how that puts them in a state of denial.

I meant the terminolgy used, the way it describes Ruth loving Naomi is written in the same terminology as how Adam loved Eve.

OK, if you're going to make these kind of statements then you need to be prepared to back them up.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam 'loved' Eve. Chapter and verse please?

2. Where in the Book of Ruth does it speak of Ruth 'loving' Naomi?

Because 1 Corinthians 13 (parts 4-7 and 13)is a piece describing love in general, while Ruth 1 (part 16) is Ruth saying to Naomi that she wants to be with her were ever she is, have her god as her god, her people as her people and may god do terrible things to her, if anything but death seperates them. They just don't compare to each other.

They do compare to one another in one important respect - neither mentions sex nor has the slightest sexual connotation.

I thought the whle idea of Jesus coming to Earth was that every sinner deserves to be forgiven and saved. It seems that Paul is putting his own judgement on people, which if I remember Matthew 7 correctedly, thats a no-no

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The whole idea of Jesus coming to earth was so that God, in His mercy, could offer every sinner the undeserved opportunity to repent, be saved, and be forgiven. That's what is known as 'grace' - unmerited, undeserved favour.

BTW - did you actually read that link you provided to Matthew Chapter 7? If you had you would have read these words:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

OK, if you're going to make these kind of statements then you need to be prepared to back them up.

1. Where in the Bible does it say that Adam 'loved' Eve. Chapter and verse please?

2. Where in the Book of Ruth does it speak of Ruth 'loving' Naomi?

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And I note you ignored the post about biblical approval of gays, so I'l give one specific example you might ponder.

Ruth 1:14, in modern translations the word dabaq is translated as clung or cleaved. Interestingly the same word is used in Genesis 2:24 where it refers specifically to teh sexual union of Adam and Eve.

Wow, self quoting FTW!

studiorat

an excellent reply, all good points.

PDN wrote: »

I think you've probably misunderstood my earlier post, but no matter.

I agree that individuals can be fluid when it comes to which sexual acts they prefer, or choose to indulge in. This depends on peer and societal pressures, fashion, religious beliefs and a host of other factors. That is why I refuse to label anyone as a 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' as if they were hard-wired unchangeable characteristics.

I think I understood I was probably stretching the context for my own post.
I agree with your point above though. And the David Bowie story made me howl with laughter too!

PDN wrote: »

I think, given the right circumstances and conditions, that all of us could be persuaded to participate in, and most likely enjoy, either heterosexual or homosexual acts. This does not carry any implication as to the morality of such acts - since I believe that history indicates that given the right circumstances and conditions you can persuade most people to do just about anything, including genocide.

True, this more questions the morality of the persuasion and people and reasoning behind that persuasion to commit such acts. However, free will could come into question here. The actual sin of allowing ones self to be convinced as it were.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, you are correct that homosexual acts (not inclinations) are what is addressed in Scripture and that should be the focus of our discussions about the morality of homosexuality.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are asking where we should draw the line? I don't think Scripture gives any hard and fast ruling about this - but I think Jesus' words about committing adultery in our hearts can legitimately be applied to other moral issues.

I disagree, and I feel this the above is contradictory, if there is to be a discussion on morality per se, it should include the imagination. At the end of the day it is in our hearts where we decide our morality, christian or not. So then, how else can one then know what is innocent fantasy and what is temptation?

PDN wrote: »

As a married man I believe in being absolutely faithful to my wife in accordance to the promises I made to her and to God on my wedding day. I do not apply this in some Clintonesque fashion purely to penetrative sex. I would consider kissing another woman to be a violation of my marriage vows. The same would apply to lustfully gazing at another woman with my tongue hanging out, or viewing pornography.

Indeed, but it does again blur the lines of common morality, what one man and his wife may see as a breach of trust and faithfulness others may not.

PDN wrote: »

So I would translate that into a similar standard as regards homosexual relationships. Anything designed to inflame desires is, in my opinion, not compatible with living life as a Christian.

Of course for non-Christians all of this is moot. They are free to enter into relationships with whoever they like as long as they keep it legal. That is their business and not mine.

I'd agree with the first paragraph except it wouldn't limit the statement to solely Christian.
As for the second part, it depends on your concept of legal. And we both know there are plenty of non-christians who would see the morality discussion here as a far from a moot point.

I think it's dismissive to limit the moral values of non-theists to purely legislative and biological values. For the latter I refer you to the quote in my above post. For the former I'll point out that there are plenty of things that I believe to be quite immoral that are still legal.

PDN wrote: »

As for living as life partners - if no sexual contact is involved then I see no difference between a guy living with his brother or living with a friend.

Reminds me of some neighbours when I was growing up. There was a tacit agreement in the community that they were sisters, they were actually a couple and well respected and loved in the area. No-body questioned it, and everybody was happy. They certainly did more good in the area that harm.

PDN wrote: »

Christian living is not primarily about adhering to the letter of commandments. It is about discipleship - doing our best to follow Jesus and to determine God's will and live accordingly.

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity I'd call it.

PDN wrote: »

Again, it depends on whether you are talking about someone fighting a temptation or cherishing a desire.

A very fine line I'd imagine.

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately there is no Jewish forum on boards.ie - otherwise you could ask that question of someone who bases their morality on the Old Testament.

I'm positive there's a few who would have a large dose of OT wisdom in their moral compass and call themselves Christians.

PDN wrote: »

As a Christian I see the New Testament as being my primary source of moral guidance - which is why I neither keep slaves nor view homosexual activity as being compatible with Christian faith and practice.

I'd be a more pluralistic, and see the NT as only one source. Throughout history we've seen that NT moral guidance change in
it's interpretation of what is right and wrong. As I'm sure it's interpretation will develop as society does. Purely because it's core message of love and respect for fellow man is undeniable.

To get back to topic though, I to would see paedophillia as an inability to form bonds with fellow adults amongst other issues and it consequences are harmful to society. And while homosexuality may or may not have physical or mental "causes" it is in my opinion not harmful to society if practiced in mature and respectful manner. Just like any relationship be it gay or straight.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

No, not if language has any objectivemeaning. Paul elsewhere mentions sins that are not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6 - therefore the argument that it constitutes a definitive list of all sins is unsustainable nonsense. Paul also clearly states in that passage that "such were some of you" - in other words he is clearly naming sins that had been committed by some of the Corinthians prior to their conversion.

It should be fairly obvious that language is quite subjective, subject to who is using it, their audience, the tone of voice etc. Just look at how many different types of sects in Christianity there are, because people interpret the same piece of language in different ways.

PDN wrote: »

Now you are addressing a completely different issue - that of orientation.

All I stated was that I know homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been converted (ie have become Christians). I fail to see how that puts them in a state of denial.

Ok I put my hands up here. When you said converted, I thought you meant converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality or vice-versa, I did not realise you meant converted religion, my mistake.

PDN wrote: »

They do compare to one another in one important respect - neither mentions sex nor has the slightest sexual connotation.

Look at post #176.

PDN wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The whole idea of Jesus coming to earth was so that God, in His mercy, could offer every sinner the undeserved opportunity to repent, be saved, and be forgiven. That's what is known as 'grace' - unmerited, undeserved favour.

If no-one deserved it, then why would god give it? Does god gain something from it?

PDN wrote: »

BTW - did you actually read that link you provided to Matthew Chapter 7? If you had you would have read these words:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)

And this relates to judging someone how? Matthew 7 still starts with "judge not lest ye be judged". Pauls judging is still a no-no.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It should be fairly obvious that language is quite subjective, subject to who is using it, their audience, the tone of voice etc. Just look at how many different types of sects in Christianity there are, because people interpret the same piece of language in different ways.

So, you're joining Wicknight in the Humpty Dumpty use of language where words mean whatever you want them to? Where "and such were some of you" doesn't actually mean that some of them were anything at all? Where the plain sense of language can be dismissed merely as someone's interpretation? Such sophistry in a debate is a sign of a desperate argument.

Look at post #176.

I've looked at it - and it's flat out wrong.

Genesis 2:24 does not refer specifically to a sexual union. It refers to a man leaving his former family - and then joining (dabaq) his wife in a new family.

The word dabaq is used 53 times in the Old Testament. Do you want to try to invest it with a sexual meaning in every one of those 53 instances? That could prove very entertaining for all of us.

Here's a few for starters:

a) Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake (dabaq) me, and I’ll die. (Genesis 19:19)

Kindly explain the sexual connotations here. Was Lot afraid that a disaster was going to have sex with him?

b) So all the men of Israel deserted David to follow Sheba son of Bicri. But the men of Judah stayed by (dabaq) their king all the way from the Jordan to Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 2:20)

Wow! Since this uses the same word as that applied to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24 then this must mean that the men of Judah were having sex with David all the way to Jerusalem? That must have been sore!

c) The Philistines closely pursued (dabaq) Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. (1 Chronicles 10:2)

And there I have been thinking that the Philistines just killed Saul and his sons. But I guess you must believe that they raped them?

d) No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep (dabaq) the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. (Numbers 36:7)

OK, my imagination is failing me here. Mark, I'll need you to tell me what the hidden sexual meaning is in this one.

If no-one deserved it, then why would god give it? Does god gain something from it?

Because God is love. He doesn't gain anything from it - which is so alien to our way of thinking that we find it amazing. Hey, you could write a song about it. You could call it 'Amazing Grace'!

And this relates to judging someone how? Matthew 7 still starts with "judge not lest ye be judged". Pauls judging is still a no-no.

You need me to spell it out?

Jesus is using trees as a symbol of people. You can tell who is really converted by looking at their fruit (what their lives produce). We can look at the fruit of the lives of two individuals (say, Christopher Hitchens and Mother Theresa) and we can judge which one had compassion for others and which is a dishonest pompous windbag.

So, when you read Matthew 7 in context, rather than ripping verses out of context, you see that Jesus was not uttering simplistic platitudes but rather giving some carefully thought out instructions as to judgement. These include being aware that as soon as we judge someone then we invite ourselves to be judged by the same measure.

However, I suspect this may be falling on deaf ears as you are probably more interested in setting up a laughable straw man to knock down rather than really exploring what Jesus meant and how Christians can apply that to our lives today.

There - now you can start complaining about how I'm judging you.

studiorat

Interesting you choose the good Mother Theresa who continued to perform good works while not feeling the existance of God "neither in her heart or in the eucharist" for nearly as long as Hitchens has been alive.

How strange that so many testify to God in their hearts daily when one such as her should doubt so much yet still preach religion when asked to speak publicly.

She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything.

Why do you think Hitchens is dishonest? A wind bag maybe...

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Interesting you choose the good Mother Theresa who continued to perform good works while not feeling the existance of God "neither in her heart or in the eucharist" for nearly as long as Hitchens has been alive.

How strange that so many testify to God in their hearts daily when one such as her should doubt so much yet still preach religion when asked to speak publicly.

Not strange. Faith is more important than feelings. I don't share Mother Theresa's experience, but I admire her for continuing to do what she knew was right even when she didn't feel the blessing of God's presence.

Why do you think Hitchens is dishonest? A wind bag maybe...

I find his claim that Martin Luther King was not really a Christian to be a prime example of dishonest debating tactics. He can't bear to admit that someone admirable was a Christian. In Mother Theresa's case he tried to argue (pretty unsuccessfully) that she was not admirable. Unable to do the same with Rev King he instead tried to deny the man's Christianity. Definitely a dishonest windbag.

studiorat

Just goes to show you that you don't need to feel God's blessings to know and do the right thing.

Luther King Jr was called a communist agitator at Bob Jones Uni on his death, when they refused to fly the college flag at half mast.

Three young women were arrested today, on the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., for walking onto the campus of Bob Jones University to engage students in dialogue. These individuals, part of the 2007 Soulforce Equality Ride Eastbound Bus, came to speak with students at the university about its discriminatory policy towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students and the doctrine that sustains it.

Upon arrival to Bob Jones, Equality Riders were met with groups protesting their visit and message of inclusion for God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children. Operation Save America, Truth Ministry, and Americans for Truth were three of the anti-gay groups present. Through bullhorns and homophobic signs, they loudly and forcefully spoke against the acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

The same University only allowed interracial relationships in 2000.

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

I've looked at it - and it's flat out wrong.

Wow, that is quite a shoal of red herrings you let loose there PDN...

We all know that language is fluid. If you were translating a work from English to another language you may have chapter one had our hero "walking through a rose garden" while chapter two says the hero "rose from his bed". Now in this case you wouldn't assume that the word had an identical meaning in both instances; you wouldn't question why the hero had turned into a flower overnight (unless it's a Kafka story of course). It's called Homonym. The word dabaq is used in several places as it has several meanings:

to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch

So now that we have tidied away all those other examples of the word dabaq perhaps we can return to the specific two I mentioned. I was lucky enough to study law for a year in University and one of the lessons that stuck was the idea of the "reasonable man interpretation". Basically how would a reasonable person read a contract or understand a situation (not how can someone twist words to put an alternative interpretation). I've always tried to use that approach in textual analysis and it's what I'm trying to do here.

So "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". Now the reference to one flesh seems to clearly refer to sex. So this seems to clearly talk of a man and a woman leaving thier families, setting up home in a romantic / sexual union (cleaving together).

"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her" Again I'm just looking at this as an outsider - the context of the word "clave" seems the same. It is referring to a couple who have been joined in a romantic / sexual union.

I appreciate that we have different interpretations of this. But I am very surprised to see a flat rejection of the homosexual reading. When you consider how stretched some of teh analogies made by Christians are (the EU as the beast in Revalations being a recent and fairly silly example) and when you think about how ambigious the Bible is in many places I find it hard to believe that this book should be seen in such a narrow "it means this and this alone" manner. Particularly from a poster who has admitted that there are biblical passages that can cause great difficulty for modern Christian readers.

In the rabbinic tradition, the main theme of Ruth is considered to be chesed, steadfast love). In fact an interesting exercise is to read the exchanges between Ruth and Naomi but replace the name Ruth with John. Ask if they couldn't be considered to be declarations of romantic love; for example "Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me". If a woman saidf that to a man how could it be read as anything other than romantic? Why should changing the gender of a participant change so fundamentally the message and meaning?

Zombrex

oh you so shouldn't have done that ...

<everyone starts edging away slowly with slight panicked look on their faces>

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So now that we have tidied away all those other examples of the word dabaq perhaps we can return to the specific two I mentioned. I was lucky enough to study law for a year in University and one of the lessons that stuck was the idea of the "reasonable man interpretation". Basically how would a reasonable person read a contract or understand a situation (not how can someone twist words to put an alternative interpretation). I've always tried to use that approach in textual analysis and it's what I'm trying to do here.

Exactly, which is why for millennia no reasonable person interpreted Ruth and Naomi's relationship as being sexual. Now, because a tiny group of people want to pretend that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible they twist the text to propose an alternative interpretation.

So "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh". Now the reference to one flesh seems to clearly refer to sex. So this seems to clearly talk of a man and a woman leaving thier families, setting up home in a romantic / sexual union (cleaving together).

The reference does not clearly refer to sex. It refers to a man 'leaving' one family unit and 'cleaving' to another. To invest 'cleaving' with a sexual meaning would, if you are consistent, do the same with 'leaving'. That would plainly be daft.

"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her" Again I'm just looking at this as an outsider - the context of the word "clave" seems the same. It is referring to a couple who have been joined in a romantic / sexual union.

Nonsense - that is a pathetic attempt to foist a meaning onto the text that would be repugnant to any ancient Hebrew. That you would prefer that interpretation over the plain sense of the passage makes a laughing stock of your claim to be practising textual analysis.

The context of Ruth Chapter 1 is that Naomi is standing at a crossroads in a public place with her 2 daughters in law. Orpah (whose name was farcically mispelt by Mrs Winfrey whhen registering the birth of her daughter - but that's another story) is portrayed as being present at the time of the 'cleaving'.

So we have two possible interpretations of this passage.
a) Ruth clings to Naomi's clothing and begs her not to send her away.
b) Ruth participates in a sex act with her mother-in-law while the other sister-in-law watches them.

Now, try to forget for a moment that you are an atheist with an ideological preference for picking any interpretation that makes a good weapon in debating against Christians. Instead try to apply your own reasonable person criteria.

Would a reasonable person believe that interpretation (a) or (b) would be more likely, particularly to be included in a holy text and publicly read out in worship services by ancient Hebrews?

Can you honestly put your hand on heart and say (without first eating magic mushrooms) that option (b) is the plain sense of the text?

I appreciate that we have different interpretations of this. But I am very surprised to see a flat rejection of the homosexual reading. When you consider how stretched some of teh analogies made by Christians are (the EU as the beast in Revalations being a recent and fairly silly example) and when you think about how ambigious the Bible is in many places I find it hard to believe that this book should be seen in such a narrow "it means this and this alone" manner. Particularly from a poster who has admitted that there are biblical passages that can cause great difficulty for modern Christian readers.

So let's get this straight. Your argument is as follows:
1. Some silly Christians arrive at far-fetched and laughable interpretations (which PDN rejects) by using analogies.
2. Therefore PDN should except an equally far-fetched and laughable interpretation when it is advanced by an atheist.

Been hitting the egg-nog a bit early this year, have we?

In the rabbinic tradition, the main theme of Ruth is considered to be chesed, steadfast love). In fact an interesting exercise is to read the exchanges between Ruth and Naomi but replace the name Ruth with John. Ask if they couldn't be considered to be declarations of romantic love; for example "Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me". If a woman saidf that to a man how could it be read as anything other than romantic? Why should changing the gender of a participant change so fundamentally the message and meaning?

You get similar expressions of love and loyalty between men - as when the Israelites affirmed their steadfast love and loyalty for King David.

Your ability to see sexual references where none exists is a wonderful example of anachronistically reading modern obsessions backwards into history. It is as out of place as Shakespeare's famous chiming clock in Julius Caesar.

--amadeus--

I've obviously explained myself very badly because the gist of it has been missed.

I'm not suggesting that Ruth and Naomi got down and dirty there and then. I am talking about the word being used to describe both Adam and Eve's relationship and Ruth and Naomi's. So starting again:

1. The Genesis story clearly talks of a man and a woman establishing a relationship
2. This relationship is a sexual one ("one flesh")
3. Naomi and Ruth clearly also have a relationship
4. The same word that was previously used to describe a relationship is reused

I am not suggesting that the word "clave" indicates that they participated in a sexual act on the spot! Rather that Ruth "cleaved" to Naomi, made it clear that she committed herself to her in such a way as to make it clear that they couldn't part. And indeed they didn't as they "both went until they came to Bethlehem. And when they had come to Bethlehem, all the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, "Is this Naomi?"" (teh pair made quite an impact from teh sounds of it).

So to summarize - the quote from the book of Ruth placed in the context of the entire story implies that the two women were committed to a relationship and I don't see it as unreasonable - given the fluid nature of Biblical interpretations - to read it as a romantic relationship.

And you ignored my final paragraph - read the passages again but imagine they are being said by a woman to a man. The meaning is clearly romantic - why does teh gender of the recipient of teh speech change the meaning of teh speech?

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I've obviously explained myself very badly because the gist of it has been missed.

I'm not suggesting that Ruth and Naomi got down and dirty there and then. I am talking about the word being used to describe both Adam and Eve's relationship and Ruth and Naomi's. So starting again:

1. The Genesis story clearly talks of a man and a woman establishing a relationship
2. This relationship is a sexual one ("one flesh")
3. Naomi and Ruth clearly also have a relationship
4. The same word that was previously used to describe a relationship is reused

1. The word is used at least 50 times in contexts where there is no sexual connotation - including non-sexual relationships and also in the sense of clinging to something or pursuing something.
2. The same word is also used to apply to Ruth holding on to Naomi's clothing - not to their relationship.

And yes, Naomi and Ruth did have a relationship. They were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.

However, let's explore this a little bit further. The Genesis 2:24 quote clearly describes 'cleaving' as an exclusive relationship. A man did not 'cleave' to his parents house and to his wife. He had to 'leave' the one in order to 'cleave' to the other.

Now, are you seriously arguing that Ruth and Naomi had 'cleaved' into such an exclusive relationship? (Before you answer - remember that a couple of chapters later Ruth is going to marry Boaz)

I am not suggesting that the word "clave" indicates that they participated in a sexual act on the spot! Rather that Ruth "cleaved" to Naomi, made it clear that she committed herself to her in such a way as to make it clear that they couldn't part.

And a commitment that prevents people from parting has to be sexual?

And indeed they didn't as they "both went until they came to Bethlehem. And when they had come to Bethlehem, all the city was stirred because of them, and the women said, "Is this Naomi?"" (teh pair made quite an impact from teh sounds of it).

Of course they made an impact. Naomi had been gone for years and now she returned bringing a Moabitess daughter-in-law with her (a bit like a Southern belle bringing a black daughter-in-law to Alabama 200 years ago).

And you ignored my final paragraph - read the passages again but imagine they are being said by a woman to a man. The meaning is clearly romantic - why does teh gender of the recipient of teh speech change the meaning of teh speech?

The gender doesn't change the meaning of the speech. The words Ruth spoke to Naomi would be similar to those we would expect to see spoken by a woman swearing loyalty to a king or a man swearing loyalty to his queen - no sexual connotation whatsoever.

However, since you want to argue that the meaning of speech shouldn't alter when we change the gender .....

If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:12)

Now, by your own reasoning, why should the meaning change when we change the gender? Why would the Hebrews publicly read Leviticus 20:12 in their Temple one day and yet the next day read out a text that celebrates a mother-in-law getting down and dirty with her daughter-in-law? Such an interpretation clearly fails your own reasonable person criteria.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.
Yes, but surely you cannot abandon your own assessment of these things entirely? What if God's word has been compromised by fallible people?

Then it is not God's word. But the Bible is known by Christians as not a mixture of truth and error - rather it is the infallible word of God. All it teachings are pure.

By your estimation of things, you must surely risk much by accepting morality on authority.

Not when it's God's authority. If it were mere human creeds, then I would indeed be in danger. The best of creeds are liable to error, even my beloved Baptist Confession of Faith (1644).

And also, has it not been said elsewhere here that the morality of God speaks to all of us? Does that not suggest that something subjective is valid here?

God's morality is absolute; our knowledge/understanding and practice of it is subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.
They most likely are. But there's a world of difference between desire and action. In action, the two are not comparable and it is insulting and bigoted to suggest otherwise. One cannot be expressed as action with consent, the other can. One is immoral in action, the other is not.

You see the difference, but you'd rather accept text than your own senses.

OK, let's eliminate the 'consent' element in the argument: let's use incest between fully compentent adults as the subject of our morality test. Are they born that way, disposed to sex with their family members? Then, regardless, is their choice to do so immoral?

The Christian says it is immoral, even if no harm is done, even if both parties feel fulfilled, happy or whatever describes the homosexual aspiration. The sinner's feel-good factor is not an indication of morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances.
I'd say you're just homophobic and like to use the Word as a convenient excuse not to have to face up to your irrationality, your fear and immorality.

My morality is a rational response to my knowledge of God. I do not fear homosexuals, but I do fear God. I am not homophobic, for I love homosexuals and want to see them saved from their sin and its eternal consequences.

Zombrex

Mentioned in New Scientist this month (round up of discoveries this year), gay men have "female" shaped emotional centres in the brain, as opposed to straight men.

A gay man is much more likely to have a centre that produces anxiety when afraid or under stress (a "female" response), than the "male" response of fight or flight (ie getting aggressive or simply leaving). And vice versa, gay women are more likely to have the "male" emotional circuitry than the female versions.

The issue for scientists now becomes the question of why.

Theories that this is due to different hormone levels in the womb have not proved that accurate as women with genetic deceases producing abnormal hormone levels do not seem to have the same flip in brain structure.

The answer probably lies in the genes of the person, we are still waiting on hard evidence.

Either way it looks pretty conclusive that homosexuality is a physical thing. The issue for homosexuality in a Christian context is why did God create it?

wolfsbane

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

I'd also like to criticise your comparison with paedophillia and homosexuality. I always assumed that most child abusers had a history of trauma inflicted on them in their youth, so their perversion might be some form of mental illness no?

Homosexuality however, is something that I've always understood to be something to be the result of something before birth.
I saw a programme on the BBC where some gay dude was looking at all the things that might have effected his present sexual orientation. I can't remember all of them, but one of the scientists interviewed said that a low exposure of tertosterone to a male foetus could be a reason. That could've been caused by the mother giving birth to a few male children prior, so the more male children she had, the higher the likelyhood the next one would be Homesexual. The guy presenting happened to be an only child so it didn't seem to be accurate for his situation.
I wish i could remember the name of the show now, twas quite good .

You will note that I compared homosexuality with several examples of sin: theft, drunkenness, etc. Homosexuality is not theft, nor is it paedophilia - but all are sins. Homosexuality has something else in common with paedophilia - sex - but so has fornication. I'm not trying to say homosexuality is as wicked as paedophilia - it is not, as it does not necessitate the corruption or violation of children. But it is sin.

And, no, I do not regard paedophilia as a mental illness. Anymore than an uncontrolled anger and selfishness, or drunkenness is - all are sinful responses to our circumstances. Some are more ingrained than others due to the severity of the early circumstances, but all are matters of choice.

The idea that one is born gay is strongly disputed, see:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2624

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then it is not God's word. But the Bible is known by Christians as not a mixture of truth and error - rather it is the infallible word of God. All it teachings are pure.

Yes but I think AH point was that you can't possibly know that (how could you, are you a god yourself?) so it is foolish to abandon your own ability to assess things.

At some point you have to rationalise that a concept of God who thinks homosexual behaviour is an abomination is a plausible and likely god to exist.

If you don't think homosexuality is immoral yourself, why do you think it is plausible that a concept of a god that does is?

wolfsbane wrote: »

God's morality is absolute; our knowledge/understanding and practice of it is subjective.

So again how they do you judge that what you have been taught is God's morality?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The sinner's feel-good factor is not an indication of morality.

Not in Christianity no, but then you don't have a morality beyond "God says so". If there are actual reasons why these things are immoral you don't know them, you are simply following what you are told.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am not homophobic, for I love homosexuals and want to see them saved from their sin and its eternal consequences.

Ok, but again at some level you rationalised that a homosexual despising god was a probable and likely version of God. So you can't really step back and say that it is not up to you. You choose the religion to follow, you decided that a God that commands homosexuals never have sex is a god you think likely to exist.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The idea that one is born gay is strongly disputed, see:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2624

Yes but it is "disputed" by people who say things like this

what matters is what the Bible says and what can be logically deduced from it.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I find his claim that Martin Luther King was not really a Christian to be a prime example of dishonest debating tactics. He can't bear to admit that someone admirable was a Christian. In Mother Theresa's case he tried to argue (pretty unsuccessfully) that she was not admirable. Unable to do the same with Rev King he instead tried to deny the man's Christianity. Definitely a dishonest windbag.

There was a powerful and wonderfuly moving documentary on BBC2 at the start of the year entitled Martin Luther King: American Prophet. I intended to put up a link the day after, but it was only accessible to those in GB and only for a week at that. In the programme, Oona King (no relation), went in search of the 'real King' - the man, his demons and what really drove him. Being black herself, she was taught to view MLK in reverential terms - a hero who wrought a response to a terrible social injustice. As we all know, this was in no small part due to his charisma and his prodigious and spine-tingling talent for oration.

However, Oona King, like many others, grew up with a subtle suggestion when it came to the importance that the Christian faith played in MLK's life. This suggestion was that his 'faith' was really just a handy tool used to help him galvanise the support of others. In other words, at it's very core, MLK's faith has, by some, received a secular fudge until it is no longer MLK's faith, it's his 'faith'.

At the end of the documentary, and after interviewing many of MLK's confidants and friends, Oona King, a woman with no faith, was surprised to find out how integral his belief in Jesus the Saviour was in powering the wonderful changes he helped bring to the US and the world. Ultimately, and in direct contradiction to what the likes of Hitchens may imply, it was faith that drove him forward and sustained through all those ghastly and terrifyingly violent moments.

While I quite enjoy Hitchen's acerbic humour, he can be a complete prat at times and it is clear that he is able to 'bend the truth' with the best of them.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There was a powerful and wonderfuly moving documentary on BBC2 at the start of the year entitled Martin Luther King: American Prophet. I intended to put up a link the day after, but it was only accessible to those in GB and only for a week at that. In the programme, Oona King (no relation), went in search of the 'real King' - the man, his demons and what really drove him. Being black herself, she was taught to view MLK in reverential terms - a hero who wrought a response to a terrible social injustice. As we all know, this was in no small part due to his charisma and his prodigious and spine-tingling talent for oration.

However, Oona King, like many others, grew up with a subtle suggestion when it came to the importance that the Christian faith played in MLK's life. This suggestion was that his 'faith' was really just a handy tool used to help him galvanise the support of others. In other words, at it's very core, MLK's faith has, by some, received a secular fudge until it is no longer MLK's faith, it's his 'faith'.

At the end of the documentary, and after interviewing many of MLK's confidants and friends, Oona King, a woman with no faith, was surprised to find out how integral his belief in Jesus the Saviour was in powering the wonderful changes he helped bring to the US and the world. Ultimately, and in direct contradiction to what the likes of Hitchens may imply, it was faith that drove him forward and sustained through all those ghastly and terrifyingly violent moments.

While I quite enjoy Hitchen's acerbic humour, he can be a complete prat at times and it is clear that he is able to 'bend the truth' with the best of them.

Yeah, I saw that. It was inspiring.

studiorat

Some Christians have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Denominations holding to that view include:

• United Church of Canada,
• congregations within the United Church of Christ,
• the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
• the Moravian Church,
• the Anglican Church of Canada,
• the Methodist Church of Great Britain
• Friends General Conference

.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Community Church has been founded to specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community.

Other denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, are actively debating the issue. It is a current controversy in the worldwide Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003.

Unfortunately in Ireland we still have bigots and christian homophobe Iris Robinson. ("Christian"/DUP)

Mrs Robinson claimed that homosexuality was an "abomination" and it made her feel "sick" and "nauseous".

"just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual.... If anyone takes issue, they're taking issue with the word of God."

[URL="p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm"]p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm[/URL]

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Some Christians have come to believe that homosexuality is not inherently sinful. Denominations holding to that view include:

• United Church of Canada,
• congregations within the United Church of Christ,
• the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
• the Moravian Church,
• the Anglican Church of Canada,
• the Methodist Church of Great Britain
• Friends General Conference

.

Furthermore, the Metropolitan Community Church has been founded to specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community.

Other denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church, are actively debating the issue. It is a current controversy in the worldwide Anglican Communion since the Episcopal Church ordained the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003.

Unfortunately in Ireland we still have bigots and christian homophobe Iris Robinson. ("Christian"/DUP)

Mrs Robinson claimed that homosexuality was an "abomination" and it made her feel "sick" and "nauseous".



[URL="p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm"]p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm[/URL]

You will find that many of these so-called churches also no longer believe in the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, the necessity of faith in Him for salvation, etc. They are governed by unbelievers, so it is no surprise that they embrace sub-Christian morality.

I have my differences with the DUP, but Mrs. Robinson was merely stating the Biblical assessment of homosexuality.

She is a politician, not a theologian, so caused unnecessary distraction by using the OT to prove her case. The NT sets it out clearly and distinctly, without emeshing it in Mosaic legislation.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but I think AH point was that you can't possibly know that (how could you, are you a god yourself?) so it is foolish to abandon your own ability to assess things.

At some point you have to rationalise that a concept of God who thinks homosexual behaviour is an abomination is a plausible and likely god to exist.

If you don't think homosexuality is immoral yourself, why do you think it is plausible that a concept of a god that does is?



So again how they do you judge that what you have been taught is God's morality?




Not in Christianity no, but then you don't have a morality beyond "God says so". If there are actual reasons why these things are immoral you don't know them, you are simply following what you are told.




Ok, but again at some level you rationalised that a homosexual despising god was a probable and likely version of God. So you can't really step back and say that it is not up to you. You choose the religion to follow, you decided that a God that commands homosexuals never have sex is a god you think likely to exist.

God revealed Himself to me, persuaded me that He existed and the Bible was His word. From that starting point I embraced all I could understand of it. Before I became a Christian I did not know homosexuality was always sinful - I found that out later as I came to study the Bible.

So I did not choose to follow a God I knew to be against homosexuality - I choose to follow Him and then He showed me homosexuality was sinful.

Yes, I am following what I am told. But since it is God doing the telling, I'm happy and secure in that. I have always found His way turns out the best.

wolfsbane

UU said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'll just cover this point tonight. Hope to respond to the rest later.

Is paedophilia a choice? Why would anyone choose such a dangerous sexuality? They too say they are born that way.

No, there is choice for everyone. Enviromental factors work on our sinful dispositions, but the choice is ours. Perverted sex is a sinful response to our circumstances. We will have lesser or greater culpability depending on the pressures - but no excuses.

That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.

We can't just pull one of those out and excuse it as natural. Rape and murder is natural, as evidenced in the chimpanzees.
Sorry I'm going to get really agitated here because you have started comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. They are two different things! I don't think paedolphilia is a choice but acting upon it is. The main difference between both is this:

PAEDOPHILIA IS ULTIMATELY HARMFUL BECAUSE IT HURTS CHILDREN. CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER-AGE AND THUS IT IS ALSO CONSIDERED RAPE.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. IF IT WERE NOT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PAEDOPHILIA AS WOULD HETEROSEXUALITY BE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

See my post to Ruskie4Rent on the comparison issue.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt people any more than heterosexuality would. You say you don't see it is a valid sexuality but that is nonsense. In fact, it is evident you really know very little about it and probably know very few gay people (if any).

I know several homosexuals. I've voted for some, employed one professionally, one is the daughter of a friend. Indeed, when I helped lead a Christian ethics group, I once engaged one to speak on the political situation in Ulster (in the Mennonite centre in Dublin, as far as memory serves).

You're understanding of choice is odd. Ok I cannot choose to be gay or not but I can choose to act upon it (i.e. have sexual relations with other men). Rape and murder natural? Em ok... you know you can CHOOSE to rape or murder people or not to do so so comparing homosexuality and heterosexuality and bisexuality to those is a very weak argument. The difference between humans and other species is that humans have a conscience whereas other animals it seems even our close relations the apes are rather different in those ways.

All supports my point that it feeling 'natural' is no defence of its morality.

Well you can think whatever you want about homosexuality but the fact is I'm a happy in myself and there's absolutely wrong with me.

Being happy with yourself is no indication you are right.

You're giving a biased Christian view and misunderstanding on something you really don't understand at all.

I'm giving the Christian view, and it comes down to who has the correct assessment of his condition - the homosexual or God?

If it is the homosexual, then he need not worry about God, for a god who is mistaken about a sexual condition is not a real God at all.

But if it is God who has correctly assessed the condition, then the homosexual needs to re-evaluate all he has assumed and reject all that is contrary to God's word. He needs to confess and forsake his immoral desires and practices and let God replace them with those that God intended.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me remind you once again that 'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is.

As to lesbianism, it too is covered in the Romans 1 text: 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Funny how Ruth and Naomi seem to be commended for being lesbians in the book of Ruth.

I don't need to add anything to PDN's exposure of your bizarre interpretation.

Its also odd how god punishes these people with an act they enjoy, how can that be a punishment?

Because it is a degradation of their God-given status. One may enjoy being drunk and lying in one's piss and vomit, but the impartial observer sees it for what it is.

Also Romans 1:32 says "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them". So I'll ask again, why aren't you calling for their death?

Because the text is speaking of eternal death, not capital punishment. God is the Judge who will sentence them to death on the Last Day.

How do you console the fact that you are picking and choosing your interpretations of pieces of bible, some only a few lines apart? Do you not think your god will see through your deception, that all you have is your own homophobia and that the parts of the bible you hide behind are the just the bits you feel you can get away with?

As above, no picking and choosing involved, just careful reading leading to correct interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That applies to all sins - heterosexual, homosexual, theft, drunkenness, idolatry, murder.
Heterosexuality is a sin?

Only fornication and adultery. Married sex is positively good.

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

Earlier you stated "'harm' is not the basis of my rejection of homosexuality as a valid sexuality. God's word is." Why then do you keep making invalid comparsions with clearly harmful practices to justify yourself?

I wasn't using them as harmful practices, but as sins. However, to avoid being side-tracked, I've lately suggested we use adult incest as a comparison. Providing birth-control is applied, I can't think of any particular harm involved - but I assert it is a sin comparable to homosexuality.

What say you? On what basis could one condemn it while affirming the validity of homosexuality?

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

God revealed Himself to me, persuaded me that He existed and the Bible was His word.

I don't suppose you have that on tape....?

wolfsbane wrote: »

What say you? On what basis could one condemn it while affirming the validity of homosexuality?

Between siblings raised in the same nuclear family its viewed as harmful. In the case where it arises between children seperated at birth, I see no problem as long as there are no offspring.

What has it got to do with relationships two non-related consenting adults?