BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Homosexuality and the Bible

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tamayyurt
21:03 / 03.09.02
I don't know if this is the proper place to put this but I was in a debate with a churchy (Baptist) coworker of mine about the bible and homos and sinning and all that. You've all heard it before and I'm sure you're bored to death by it. But I had a teacher a long time ago that pointed to certain parts of the Bible that says homosexuality is ok.

So can any of you point me to gay loving scripture? Preferably in the old testament cause we all know that long haired Jesus guy was a bit wishy washy when it came down to laying down the law.
 
 
Hieronymus
21:44 / 03.09.02
I don't think there's a particular Scripture verse wherein Jesus says it's okay. But strict legalist application of Leviticus (which is usually the chapter of the Bible most often quoted by Fundamentalists in defence of the evils of homosexuality) is not followed by anyone in modern society (unless they ARE wearing clothes of a single thread, etc) and runs counter to God's strict penalty to not adhering to ALL commandments within it (Leviticus 26:13-46). All of which makes it easy to short-circuit that kind of antiquated bigotry and to do so scripturally.

Also here are other options you can look into.
 
 
Hieronymus
21:51 / 03.09.02
And don't let them quote 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 without reminding them that Paul was a misogynistic prat. And was not Jesus, who one would presume, from a Christian perspective, has greater authority on what is divine law (Matthew 22:36-40).
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
23:25 / 03.09.02
And keep in mind that all of Paul's epistles were written to specific groups of people. They were not written as infallible scripture but mere letters to people he cared about. And I personally think much of his criticism of homosexuality was more aimed towards hedonism than out and out homosexuality.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:56 / 04.09.02
I'm not sure if there's much point arguing scripture, it can be used to back up any argument in any direction you want, Genesis condones smoking dope for example.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:52 / 04.09.02
True enough. Christ himself said "even the devil can quote scripture to suit his own purposes", so that kinda renders the whole thing inert from a moral perspective (by which I mean: if you're having an argument and the agreed rules are to use scripture to back up your position, then go ahead and do what you will. But if you hope to prove that your posistion is morally superior, then the whole thing can be thrown out the window by quoting Christ's conversation with the Devil in the desert).
 
 
Tamayyurt
22:32 / 04.09.02
Lada- I'm not sure if there's much point arguing scripture, it can be used to back up any argument in any direction you want

Exactly. Then there should be a way to biblically support homosexuality. If not condone it.
 
 
The Falcon
23:38 / 04.09.02
I've known very nice Christians in my time - however, penetrate beneath the visage (in my experience) and you will inevitably find intolerance of homosexuality.

Make of that what you will.
 
 
Logos
00:47 / 05.09.02
What, even the gay Christians?
 
 
Seth
06:48 / 05.09.02
I've known very nice Christians in my time - however, penetrate beneath the visage (in my experience) and you will inevitably find intolerance of homosexuality.

I would hesitate to say this was always strictly true, even from your experience. About half of the Christains I know are like that: the others, when pressed on the point and forced to lay aside their diplomacy, will grudgingly take what they believe (incorrectly, I think) to be the Biblical stance. It's almost as if they're panicked, as if by taking this one block out of the Jenga stack of their belief system the entire thing will come tumbling down. I don't think they're actually intolerant, just scared of damaging their faith. They'd probably never act in an intolerant way, they just have this one useless prehistoric memetic dead alley that's been left over from their otherwise positive mental evolution. You get the impression that with the next generation it'll be gone altogether (that's right! You too can undergo surgery to get yours removed today! I did! Now I'm the CEO!).

There are plenty of sites online that interpret the Biblical passages that supposedly deal with homosexuality from a number of differnet angles. The brief time I spent researching it left me much more impressed with the people who interpreted the passages with a lareg degree of open-mindedness - there's actualy very little to support a fundamentalist anti-gay stance. These scholars seemed to be far more honest with the text, tracing back the original words used and examining the historical context. The pages written by the trad faction didn't even look past the modern English!

Next time I have more than five minutes I'll do some digging and present both cases as fairly as I can, so you can judge for yourself.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:43 / 05.09.02
impulsivelad Lada- I'm not sure if there's much point arguing scripture, it can be used to back up any argument in any direction you want
Exactly. Then there should be a way to biblically support homosexuality. If not condone it.


But why bother? So you find a passage in the Bible that condones homosexuality. Hell, you find a passage where God comes down to Earth, gives out lube and johnies then spends the rest of the night at Heaven. It's not going to change one bigots mind.
 
 
Stone Mirror
20:08 / 05.09.02
I've known very nice Christians in my time - however, penetrate beneath the visage (in my experience) and you will inevitably find intolerance of homosexuality

Given that there are large, widespread and passionate debates going on right now within (at least) the Methodist and Presbyterian churches in America over the issue of whether or not gay marriages should be sanctioned, I'd have to say that your experience must be fairly limited.
 
 
Tamayyurt
23:08 / 05.09.02
Lada- But why bother? So you find a passage in the Bible that condones homosexuality. Hell, you find a passage where God comes down to Earth, gives out lube and johnies then spends the rest of the night at Heaven. It's not going to change one bigots mind.

Because I think it will change this bigot's mind. I believe she's more like this:

exp.- I don't think they're actually intolerant, just scared of damaging their faith. They'd probably never act in an intolerant way, they just have this one useless prehistoric memetic dead alley that's been left over from their otherwise positive mental evolution. You get the impression that with the next generation it'll be gone altogether

The reason we were debating this (and I realize I should have mentioned it sooner cause it's interesting.) Is that in 1998 a bill was pasted (here in Florida (I live in Miami.) adding sexual orientation to a list of things people couldn't legally discriminate against. Well, the churchies took to the streets in mad protest and now they've mustered enough force to have the bill (or at least the sexual orientation part) removed. So elections are Sep. 10th. And it's been Fags Vs. Churchies ever since. Now this girl's church is going to vote (obviously) for the removal and I was just trying to throw a monkey wrench into their machine by persuading the Pastor's daughter to vote to keep the bill intact.

One line from the bible would place enough doubt in her fragile little mind that it'll spark a huge debate in her church while they're preparing for their attack (vote/march whatever....)

So yeah pant pant pant I'm all out of breath... but I think it could make a difference.
 
 
Fist of Fun
07:00 / 06.09.02
As far as I can tell, by the time someone starts believing in stuff like what the Bible says about homosexuality either:
(i) They also believe in what it says about creationism and other patent rubbish, and the only safe place for them is the funny farm; or
(ii) They don't believe what it says about creationism, and they are just using those particular passages to back up their inherent feelings/beliefs.

Give up on trying to persuade people the Bible isn't anti-x,y,z, and concentrate on the really important argument which is that all religion is patent rubbish, deeply damaging to society (yes, individual exceptions, but that's the people, not the religion) and no more sensible than believing in Mystic Meg.

Except for the pretty architecture and painting.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
08:31 / 06.09.02
Fist of Fun: Yes. That's a sensible, informed and inoffensive reaction to impulsivelad's thread and to his last post, not in any way a casually dismissive and laughably kneejerk response to the issue being discussed. Good one. However, can you go start your own thread in the Conversation rubbishing all organised religion, rather than rotting this one?

I think the point's already been made by my brother, but I'll restate it - the arguments in the Bible for outlawing homosexuality through scripture are lazy and hazy. That there's so little in the Bible concerning this subject, especially considering the fact that it was just as widespread in the ancient world as it is today, and probably more widely accepted, is an excellent indication of how important Jesus and others considered it to condemn.
 
 
Rev. Orr
08:44 / 06.09.02
Yeah, what have the Roman Catholics ever done for us...?

I agree that you're not going to find a section where Moses gives a top twenty run down of 'really important shit that didn't quite make it as commandments' including 'Sex? Hey, it's a broad church, dude. Find your own bag and stop bringing other groovy kids down, man'. On the other hand, as Fist was trying to say, I think, the chances of them believing and following the entire Old and New Testaments are slim to self-delusional.

For a start, scripture is self-contradicting (cf that little spat re Henry VIII and his sister-in-law/wife) - two versions of creation, OT God of vengeance vs. NT 'love thy neighbour' etc. Anyone who claims that they live strictly by literal biblical instruction is fooling themselves, it can't be done. How can you tally a system of justice which includes execution and the 'eye for an eye' principle with with the message 'love they neighbour' and 'vengeance is mine saith the Lord'? More to the point, do they allow different crops to be planted side by side, do they mix threads in their clothing, do they eat kosher, do they have bank accounts that generate interest(usury), what do they do if their brother's wife is made a widow? And so on ad tedium.

If they are still persisting with the literalist nonsense then try exploring the translation used. Which text in which language was used for which section of their English version. Is it based on Alexandrian or Palestinian manuscripts. Whose translations of the earliest versions were used. Given that interpretation and presentation are inescapable elements of translation, how can the modern text retain the 'word of God' power to override vital tenets of tolerance and acceptance, an understanding of the cultural and historical antecedants, roots and motivation of these rules?

Finally, point them gently in the direction of the New Testament where they are clearly told that what someone else gets up to is none of their damned business. If kosher eating is not prohibited, then neither is same sex intercourse (which obviously is not the same thing as 'homosexuality', but for any number of reasons is all that the Bible addresses). Even if it were, they should still be against removing the section of the legislation because it is not up to any Christian individual to judge, condemn or attack another person for not following our teaching: remove the beam from your own eye before trying to pick the mote from theirs, let him that is without sin cast the first stone, that sort of thing.

I doubt that you'll change their minds regarding the question of whether homsexuality is (let alone could be) a sin, but there is definitly a shot at reminding them that it is not there religion to legisislate in favour of hate. Best of luck.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
08:55 / 06.09.02
All good points, well made. Except that what Fist of Fun was trying to say was that those arguments you've just painstakingly typed are a waste of time, since all religion is bullshit. He didn't exactly go to any effort to obfuscate his meaning, Orr.
 
 
Rev. Orr
09:10 / 06.09.02
True, but I'm little Mary Sunshine this morning and the second half of the post had nothing to do with the topic. My faith (and the God i have faith in) isn't so weak that it's going to be threatened by a little unexamined rhetoric so why bother starting a fight neither of us can win? Of course, next time I post I'll probably be sitting here nursing a bastard of a hangover and a misanthropic grudge against the universe as per usual, so make the most of it.
 
 
Seth
09:34 / 06.09.02
Sidestepping all the angst that's being thrown around: finding a Biblical perspective that does not take a fundamentalist approach to homosexuality is crucial. There are a huge number of people in the church for whom a Biblical reframing of the issue would solve a crisis of their personal faith, allowing them to more fully act in the way they find it natural to act. I've heard the case for "The text is flawed, so why refer to it at all." For these people, the only things holding them back are the text and the tradition. Undermine those with thorough theology and hermeneutics and these people will realign.

I believe that religions offer something essential to humanity. I wholeheartedly agree that there are difficult issues involved with prejudice and fundamentalism: however, the solution is not to adopt a polarised stance that can't help anyone. I'm afraid that you're not going to get your anti-religion wishes granted, my friend. It's not going to go away in a hurry. The only acceptable, pragmatic stance here is to seek to transform religion: to draw out its source code, remove its dead wood, and reconstruct it without its legalism. In terms of pure theology, this is the process that created Cristianity from Judaism (although as a generalisation, there will be those for whom that statement is untrue). I believe that this is also the same process at work in some of the syncretist beliefs at the outside edge of Christianity, for example the Santo Daime churches crossover with Shamanism, or the widespread rediscovery of Gnosticism, or the study of the Bible from a comparative mythology school of thought.

The point being, impulsivelad is dead right. We can have more influence if we get involved with relgion, understand its nature and seek to change it. Coming up against it with an attitude that it's all worthless will just cause everyone to dig their heels in further, exactly the opposite of the favourable solution.
 
 
gridley
13:23 / 06.09.02
I used to be the born again christian who battled with other christians over all this stuff. still a big fan of mr. christ, but the status of my eternal soul is extremely up in the air right now.

anyway, when other Christians used to quote the Paul verses to show me that Christians cannot allow homosexuality, I would point to the verses where Paul also says that heterosexuality is bad as well. Paul's belief was that marriage was only for the weak of spirit, and that true Christians should be abstinent. Fortunately, in later years, the Catholic church said, "oh, no, that just applies to us priests, the rest of you should please make babies for our lord."

When they quoted the old testament verses, I would give the aforementioned argument that the same part of the bible says you should be stoned if you wear clothes made of two different fabrics.

My closing was always that Christ said to love everyone as you love yourself, because that's how god loves everyone.

I don't know if I ever convinced anyone who didn't want to be convinced, but I can look up those verses for you if it helps.
 
 
Tamayyurt
14:48 / 06.09.02
That would be great gridley. Especially the ones about the two fabrics and Paul's thing about marriage.
 
 
gridley
15:37 / 06.09.02
Here's Paul (1 Corinthians 7):

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

(10-24 are about not cheating on your spouse and concern about circumcision.)

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, F21 I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
 
 
gridley
16:18 / 06.09.02
As to the old testament, there something like 600 laws given, mostly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Included among these are such activities as a man lying with another man as a man lies with a woman and dressing in drag, both of which are punishable by death. Also punishable by death are the following: Disobeying your parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), committing adultry in the city (both the woman and her lover must be killed) or outside of the city (where only the man must die), and a ton of other things.

Also, Crippled people are forbidden to enter a church. A man who's brother dies had to marry his brother's widow and treat her as well as his own wife. (This is all in Deuteronomy 20-26, and you'll find ones I don't remember). Basically, it's all laws that are clearly out of date and which we do not practice, so why choose one law (against homosexuality) out of a hatful and just enforce that one.

The classic example people use (to sum it all up) is Deuteronomy 22:11, which forbids wearing clothing of two different fabrics (such as wool and linen).

Hope this helps....
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:07 / 06.09.02
The bible has lots of outdated verses within it. See here for a heavily critical, quotation heavy site. (You can read the whole christian bible there.) I should make clear that I think this guy goes overboard, but it is well researched, from a certain point of view. Also, even here, the auhor finds it hard to seriously criticise the Gospels.

Having said that, many christians that I have known use the bible as a source of inspiration. Just because there are homophobic christians out there, does not mean that christianity is inherently homophobic. This is true even if bigotry is justified by appeals to bible quotation and "core" christian values. That sort of position is one sided at best.

Personally, once I found that my moral beliefs would not depend on finding the right quotation or interpretation in the good book, my need for christianity evaporated. It is ironic that my independence is in no small way derived from the Jesuits who taught me as a kid.

So I only half understand exp saying, finding a Biblical perspective that does not take a fundamentalist approach to homosexuality is crucial, as there are good people who will find solace in that. But, exp, you wouldn't hate another for their sexuality no matter what the biblical arguments. It would be wrong. Isn't that what it should be about?
 
 
Seth
18:44 / 06.09.02
You're quite right, Lurid. My point here is that not everyone is like you or I or the rest of this messy site. There are Christians who know deep down that an anti-gay stance is unjustifiable, but you'd be amazed at how easy it is to cling to a Biblical standpoint even when your heart isn't in it, claming that it's Biblical truth and knowing that you can't defend that attitude. There are so many Christians whose faith teeters on the brink of major reconstruction, who think that pulling this one thread will unravel the entire tapestry. Not everyone is as honest with themselves and what they think and feel as the people on this site - some people just aren't prepared to go through all that self-examination. So you work on them a little bit at a time. Christians need to be shown that there are other ways to read the Bible other than as what they believe it to be, but some people just don't have the resources, time or energy to totally take apart their beliefs. Better to slowly transform what they believe than to destroy their faith altogether.

gridley: The key to understanding the passages you quote from Paul's writing is the phrase, "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress." Paul was not speaking to some kind of non-existent monolithic Christendom that echoes throughout the ages: he was talking to one particular Church in a time of great persecution. You could re-phrase these passages as, "Look, I'd prefer it if you stayed single. That's better than seeing your spouse and children murdered before your eyes. However, we're all human, so if you're really in love you've got to be with them and cherish whatever short time you have together." This is getting to be a bit of a hobby horse of mine - I stongly dislike constant criticism of Paul (although I'll concede some is justified, just none I've seen directed at him from Barbelith members). He's a human, who makes bad decisions and is imperfect, but he's not the ignorant fucker a lot of people make him out to be. In the proper historical context, the above passages show him to be more of a humanitarian than most people depict him.
 
 
Seth
19:05 / 06.09.02
Found a lot of great stuff here, or click here for the same site's main page on the topic. I was going to talk about homosexuality from both the fundie and the liberal Christian angle, but changed my mind. I jus't dont want to perpetuate the anti-gay stance.

To see the range of stuff available on the Bible and homosexuality: you've got Google, do the math. Enjoy:

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are mistranslated in many English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

- qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. it is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

- to'ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew eating with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be "to'ebah."

In order to understand what the Bible has to say on heterosexual activity, we could consult the original Hebrew texts, dividing all of the references to heterosexual sex into different categories:

- rape;
- sexual abuse of children;
- ritual sex in Pagan temples;
- prostitution;
- sexual orgies;
- non-exploitive, consensual, monogamous sex in a loving relationship, etc.

The final category is the only one that would help us understand what the Bible teaches about heterosexual activity in a committed relationship. After all, a verse which describes how an army kidnapped some female virgins for use as sex slaves does not tell us anything about the role of sex in marriage today. A verse that discusses temple prostitution during the worship of Pagan gods does not instruct us about feelings of romantic love between a man and a woman. Similarly, in order to comprehend what the Bible says about gay and lesbian relationships, we must pass over the references to homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. We would be left with only those references relating to consensual sexual activities within homosexual partnerships. There may not be any of these.

There are biblical descriptions of close and intimate relationships between members of the same gender. But there are no unambiguous passages that show that they were sexually active.

One is forced to conclude that the Bible often condemns heterosexual and homosexual exploitive, manipulative sex, and prostitution, but may be totally silent on consensual homosexual relationships.
 
 
gridley
20:34 / 06.09.02
Hey, Exp, I'm far from a Paul basher, but could I get you to expound more on the specific conditions Paul was addressing?

I was under the impression that things were pretty good for the christians of Corinth at that time. Citizens had successfully rebuilt Corinth after the Roman seige two hundred years earlier, and the Christians were moving up to successful positions in both wealth and power there.

I guess what I'm asking is, if the situation there was fairly benign, why do you think Paul wanted them to stay single to save the lives of their unborn kids?

Because I think the passage I quoted very much does represent Paul's views in general, and not just specifically. I'd be curious to know more about your theories. I could talk about Paul all day. If this is threadrot, let's start a new topic, if you're into it....
 
 
Seth
20:42 / 06.09.02
Nah, on doing a few background checks it seems I was misinformed. Which kinda highlights how easy it is to spread false reports which show the text in the wrong light, and also something I plan on taking up with the person who gave the teaching. My bad. Apologies.
 
 
Seth
21:05 / 06.09.02
Although the following seems to bear it out, at least in part (of course, in much more moderation than my previous post):

The Corinthians in their letter had probably asked questions which tended to disparage marriage, and had implied that it was better to break it off when contracted with an unbeliever.

good -- that is, "expedient," because of "the present distress"; that is, the unsettled state of the world, and the likelihood of persecutions tearing rudely asunder those bound by marriage ties. Heb 13:4, in opposition to ascetic and Romish notions of superior sanctity in celibacy, declares, "Marriage is HONORABLE IN ALL." Another reason why in some cases celibacy may be a matter of Christian expediency is stated in 1Co 7:34, 35, "that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction." But these are exceptional cases, and in exceptional times, such as those of Paul.


Taken from http://ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB46.htm#Chapter7

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman." An Old Testament phrase which means not to marry. He does not mean that marriage is wrong, but that on account of "the present distress" it was a good thing not to be bound by family ties.

Taken from http://www.ccel.org/j/johnson_bw/pnt/PNT07-07.HTM

On this point he had no commandment from the Lord. He could only give his judgment as one who had received mercy of the Lord to be faithful. It was good to remain in that condition, seeing what the world was and the difficulties of a christian life.

Taken from http://www.ccel.org/pager.cgi?file=d/darby/synopsis/1Corinthians.html&up=d/darby/synopsis/index.html&from=chap7

Yet I would (qelw de). "But I wish." Followed by accusative and infinitive (anqrwpouß einai). This is Paul's personal preference under present conditions

Taken from http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=1co&chapter=007&verse=007&next=008&prev=006

All these seem to target the "present distress" as central to the interpretation of the passage. Whether this is something that the church in Corinth were specifically asking about we'll never know, as we have no access to the questions they asked him, only his answers.

It probably can be considered threadrot. But I doubt we'll get another chance to mdiscuss such a specific passage of scripture in another thread. It'd be so specific as to be only you and me talking in all likelihood.
 
 
gridley
12:14 / 09.09.02
Plus it gives us something to do while we wait to see how things worked out for Impulsive Lad!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:47 / 09.09.02
Bit off-topic, but exp - where are you getting the character guide for transliteration of koine? I haven't come across a straight Greek/Roman alphabet swithch that uses "q" for theta before...
 
 
Tamayyurt
15:36 / 09.09.02
It's actually working. I told her to find me in the bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin. (This is not unlike a magician asking for help from the audience ... you know, just to prove that there's no trickery on my part!)

First she picked out the obvious Sodom and Gamora (however they're spelled) and I pointed out that God wasn't pissed about the gay behavior but that the people were trying to rape his angels!

Next she picked out the leviticus stuff and I was like well look over here if you're going to follow these rules you should be thrown in a sack and beaten to death as well! Cause you're shirt is a poly - rayon blend!

You could almost here the gears in her head turning. She slightly shook her head in disbelief. In the end she said she was going to ask her dad about it and *TA DA* the fracturing of her church begins!!!
 
 
gridley
17:00 / 09.09.02
right on!
 
 
Seth
18:15 / 09.09.02
Haus: I'm a bit limited to just online research concerning translation of the Bible (so there are a fair few pitfalls). I've listed all my sources in my posts, but I'm no expert on Greek or Roman - just an amateur trying to figure out what the original text actually said. I did find this this, however... dunno if it helps.
 
 
Ganesh
21:48 / 19.09.02
After the moderately harrowing 'what you do is like murder' conversation with my aunt around this time last year, I found myself getting into the pro- and anti-homosexual scripture interpretations, if only because I didn't want to find myself on the receiving end of that stuff again.

From what I can recall, a lot is down to etymology (the varying subtly different translations of the verb 'to know', for example) and selective emphasis. In the New Testament, Christ Himself is notable for saying absolutely nothing either for or against homosexuality (as I recently attempted to discuss on Fade To Black).

Reading a little on this subject gave me something of a taste for theist debate, and I've recently out the right-wing horrorshow that is the Christian Bulletin Board Service. I guess I thought that with such a mainstream URL, their worldview would similarly reflect a range of middle-of-the-road Christian attitudes. I bloody hope it doesn't...

The best summary of the debate came from Religious Tolerance.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply