Ask moderators

Here is a thread for you,to address any problems,ask questions and bring suggestions.

Please do not discuss here specific moderator actions,or specific members-general quesries only.

Thank you

__________________

Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

i have a question.

could you ask Erwin, or whoever needs to be asked, if there can be a sticky to explain liberals reasoning for believeing homosexuality is ok/ok within the scriptures?

i'm asking this cause, i wonder if having a sticky that fully explains the whole reasoning behind this view, including interpretation differences, logic and reason, maybe even philosophical reasoning, theological reasons, i wonder if the flaming, false accusations would stop.

help out discussion and help out moderation

__________________
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus

hmm,this is innteresting idea,but i doubt it would help

I personaly cant make this decision,I will see what can be done

I dont think the CF message about this issue is in agreememnt,so that may complicate things

__________________

Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

true. i was just thinking if a set explanation of why some liberals believe as they do, for a forum that is Open, would maybe help people out for discussion matters and maybe even moderation as well.

thanks for at least trying

and to put as a disclaimer to, this does not reflect CF Forums views. but what i'm wandering is, since this is an Open Forum, couldn't it be possible to at least have an informational sticky, which is the only intent it could be for.

__________________
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus

i actualy thought about it
and CF allows people to post information about their beliefs,as long as they dont try to change other peoples mind about it

go on,prepare it and i will stick it

__________________

Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

very cool. and that would be the mentality i would hope it would be in, to not change people's mind, but to offer explanation.

give me some time to get it ready. i'll do some research, ask some help from some posters here on CF, and i'll send it to you pm and see if things need to be changed

thanks!

__________________
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus

you can post it here,it will be easier to edit this way,that in PM

__________________

Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

[Disclaimer]: This thread DOES NOT reflect the views of CF. This thread is not to change anyone's opinion. This is merely an educational thread, for those who want to debate the topic of homosexuality with Libera Christians to at least know a little background of the reasons why liberal Christians view as they do in regards to homosexuality, and to have a more productive discussion with their liberal brethern and to help out moderation of CF in regards to the discussion of this topic, so CF can have a more mature discussion between peopel who don't agree with one another. Please note, that this thread does not show any personal views of my own. All information is to just show some of the Liberal Christian perspective of homosexuality. It may not explain every single Liberal Christian and I am in no way meaning to speak for every single Liberal Christian. Please read this sticky through and through, so that maybe a little education can be known in regards to the diverse differences amongst Christians in this topic, and so discussion may be more fruitful here at CF in this forum. Now to the initial post.[end of Disclaimer]

To start this sticky, here is a quote:

"It is wonderful that nobody has ever yet fancied it to be sinful to scratch where it itches, and that it has never been determined that the only natural way of scratching is with such or such a finger and that it is unnatural to scratch with any other."-Jeremy Bentham in his 1785 essay on "Paederasty."

In a brief lay out here are what some Liberal Christians argue for in regards to homosexuality (copy and pasted from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibx.htm#conlib):

English versions of the Bible are translations from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The wording has been filtered through the mind-set and prejudices of various sets of translators. They feel that one must carefully examine the original texts from the point of view of ancient Israeli and early Christian societies in order to determine their precise meaning.

Most religious liberals believe that some sexual acts are sinful; others are not. It depends mainly on the participants' relationship, not by the specific act itself. They view manipulative, dominating, coercive, under age and/or unsafe sex is sinful. Safe heterosexual or homosexual sex within a truly consenting and committed relationship is not sinful. Author Chris Levan sees this reflected in the Bible. He writes: "The best response that scripture can give with regard to homosexuality is the declaration that our Creator is very often not concerned about the 'who' of relationship so much as the 'how.' It simply asks if the relationship is functioning according to principles of justice and dignity? Does the partnership demonstrate mutual trust and compassion? If so, it is blessed by God."

The original passages in the Hebrew Scriptures usually do not refer to homosexual acts in general, but to specific immoral behaviors, such as rape, ritual sex in Pagan temples, and prostitution:

Genesis 19: Other biblical passages about Sodom identify the sin of the city as being unresponsive to the poor and needy, and being uncharitable towards strangers. The only obvious sexual sin of Sodom was a desire to rape strangers.

Leviticus 18 & 20: Male ritual sexual activity in Pagan temples is clearly prohibited. Such behavior was a common practice within the Canaanite fertility religion. The practice was also taken up by some ancient Israelites.

Deuteronomy 23: Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is always condemned.

Judges 19: A duplicate of the Genesis story.


Jimmy Creech, former senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church, in Omaha, Nebraska has concluded that: "...there was no understanding of sexual orientation in the culture and time when scripture was written. There was not even a word for 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual' in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the original languages of scripture. There are biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior. The same condemnation is given to opposite-sex sexual behavior that is violent, idolatrous, promiscuous and exploitative."


The Bible says little about homosexual feelings.

The Bible says nothing about the concept of sexual orientation for the same reason as it does not mention television sets and airplanes. All were unknown in biblical times. The concept of orientation dates only from the late 19th century and only began to be seriously investigated in the middle of the 20th century.

There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned. But there is no absolute proof that they were sexually active.

Paul's Epistles in the Christian Scriptures considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:

temple prostitution,

ritual sex activities in Pagan temples,

heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual acts against their basic nature,

child sexual abuse,

group sexual orgies, or

all people who commit any homosexual acts.
Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy (often a slave) for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same-gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consensual, committed homosexual relationships. He may well have not known of any; he may not have known that any could exist.

Paul is not necessarily a useful guide for ethics and morals. Elsewhere in his writing, he was sexist: For example, he condemned women preaching (1 Corinthians 14:34). A passage in 1 Timothy 2:11 condemned the wearing gold or pearls. This book says that it was written by Paul, but most mainline and liberal theologians believe that it was written up to 80 years after Paul's death. Paul accepted and did not criticize the institution of slavery (Philemon 1:15 to 16). Many Christians feel that some of his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly helpful guide today.

Of the many hundreds of Jesus' instructions and prohibitions recorded in the gospels,few if any have a sexual component and none deal with homosexuality.

It is debatable whether St. Paul's prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:

for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or

for all people, forever.One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul's criticism of homosexuality (if that was his intent) is no longer valid today.

Bible translators must be aware of the errors that have been made in previous versions of the Bible; they are widely discussed in theological literature. But it would probably not be economically possible at this time to produce a translation of the Bible that was accurate. People are so used to expecting homophobic references in a half-dozen locations in scripture that they probably would not buy a Bible that was accurate to the original text, or which admitted that the meanings of certain words are unknown.

Most religious liberals agree with the main mental health associations. Sexual orientation is determined before school age, and is perhaps determined genetically at conception. It cannot be changed through prayer, religious conversion, reparative therapy, aversion therapy or counseling, any more than a person can change their race or gender.*
[Note: Transgendered individuals can and do have their appearance changed to that of the opposite gender through surgery, medication, makeup, etc. We are defining "gender" here in a narrow sense to refer to the X and Y chromosome content of each cell of a person' body. They are unchangeable.]


on to page 2...

__________________
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus

copy and pasted from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#rut

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."(KJV)
This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.
David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.




Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are: 1 Samuel 18:1

"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.



1 Samuel 18:2

"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."



1 Samuel 18:3-4

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.



1 Samuel 18:20-21

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.



1 Samuel 20:41

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse: "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.



2 Samuel 1:26

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

Daniel and Ashpenaz


Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Various English translations differ greatly: "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible) "Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)Interpretation: Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.


The basis of theology is another critical issue that shows the extreme differences. Here is an exerpty from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...gomenal_issues

The basis of theology

Many of the debates among Christians relate to, or derive from, differences in what is taken as providing authoritative information about God and his will, or more generally which kinds of arguments should be persuasive for Christians.

In traditional Christianity Scripture is understood as the central authority, and in some traditions as the only truly definitive authority (a position called Sola Scriptura). Exegesis, or the reasoned study of the text to discover its own meaning, is a central concern, especially for believers in Sola Scriptura. The classic formulation of Sola Scriptura regards "good and necessary deduction" from Scripture as authoritative; what these deductions might be is a frequent subject of controversy.

Additional authorities are accepted by other traditions. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox regard Sacred Tradition and Ecumenical councils as additional authorities, and the ordinary Magisterium is authoritative in Catholic theology.

Methodism derives doctrine from the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which consists of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. There are also differing positions about continuing revelation (see Cessationism).

Liberal Christians consider the Bible a document of the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing, which may reflect a heightened spiritual consciousness, or which may simply be primitive and wrong; liberal Christians often dismiss Biblical teachings, especially accounts of miracles such as the Virgin Birth.


now to pg. 3...

__________________
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus

Choice and free will
The existence and nature of free will is a topic in philosophy of mind and theology. Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is at odds with free will, while compatibilism holds the two are not contradictory. Compatibilists such as Hobbes generally claim that a person acts freely only in the case where the person willed the act and the person could (hypothetically) have done otherwise if the person had decided to; what matters, Hobbes believed, is that choices are the results of desires and preferences, and are not overridden by force. (See Compatibilism and incompatibilism .)
In the history of theology, debates about the issue have happened between Augistine and Pelagius, Martin Luther and Erasumus, and the Calvinists and Arminians. At the Councils of Orange, Western Christianity officially adopted a form of compatibilist determinism known as original sin, according to which the sin of Adam and Eve has corrupted the whole human race such that humans are unable to refrain from sin, yet remain accountable, and cannot even desire holiness apart from Divine intervention. However, belief in free will remains popular and many even regard free will as a basic doctrine of Christianity.

Among incompatibilists, the question of how voluntary homosexuality is, and what voluntariness might mean in this context, is a central concern in considering its morality. The Roman Catholic Church regards homosexual intercourse rather than attraction sinful, although the attraction is still considered as a temptation to sin. The ex-gay movement movement believes that homosexual orientation is also a choice, or changeable, and claims cases of people who have ceased to be homosexual. The American Psychological Associationclaims that sexual orientation is not chosen (although there are notable psychologists who dispute this position; see Robert Skinner, and many homosexuals report that they do not experience homosexuality as a choice . No long-term, scientific peer-reviewed study has been conducted as to the effectiveness of.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I apologize for the length of this, and I am sure there are areas I have missed.

I am sure you will be learning more reasons why liberal Christians may differ in opinions of homosexuality, but I hope these internet references will be a small way to help have discussion in a more mature, educational fashion.

God Bless you all! <><

__________________
“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”
― Albert Camus