Do you think that homosexuality is a choice?

[EnemyPartyII]

Okay. I'm bisexual. I didn't choose to be bisexual. I didn't ask to be bisexual. I didn't do anything to be bisexual.

What exactly is it about my being bisexual that you see as a sin?

David.

Its wrong cos the Bible SEZ!

Seriously though Dave, can you take over? Its late and I'm tired, and your doing such a good job.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Thats why God gave us inteligence, so we can use logic and judgement to interpret the Bible for ourselves. Biblical literalism is abhorent to me, mostly because you end up so embroiled in tiny minutiae of the Bible that you miss its fundamental message of love and peace.

The fundamental message of the bible is salvation from the wage of sin and reconciliation to God. When one reads it, one knows that.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is a very important point. You are right indeed.

thankyou. Its one of those "forrest for the trees" type things.

 

[David Brider]

yes, and yes.

My understanding from scholars, is that the English translations of the Bible, noteably the KJV, are poor bastardised copies of the Vulgate of St. Jerome, which was not a particularly good interpretation into Latin of the original texts in the first place.

Actually, no - earlier English translations may have used the Vulgate, but modern translations (certainly from the KJV onwards) have used Greek manuscripts for the NT (& Hebrew for the OT, but I'll freely admit that the NT is more my speciality, and I've not done much in-depth study on it for a while). Text criticism has enabled scholars, using the earliest and/or best manuscripts, to get a much clearer idea of what was originally written in the Greek, although that doesn't help much with translations of obscure (and much-debated) words like arsenokoites - it's perfectly clear what Paul wrote, just not terribly clear what he meant...

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

We who can see the Bible condemns same-sex sex and testifies to people who can chose not to indulge, interpret the Bible as well. The difference is we interpret it in context based on what it says, not on what it doesnt say

 

[Phinehas2]

Its quite clear what Paul meant with the use of arsenokites. Firstly its in a list of sexual deviations, as it is in 1 Tim 1, it refers to the law as in 1 Tim 1, and we see the words in the law in the Greek septuagint in Lev 18 & 20. We can also see from Romans 1 that same-sex sex is error, and from Jude 1 and 2 Peter 2 that its at least implicated.
We can also see from Eph 5 that God's purpose is the union of man and woman, and from Matt 19 and Mark 10 that fornication (porneia) and adultery (moicheia) breaks this.
So there is no doubt. Indeed if fornication outside a faithful man/woman union is sinful then 1 Cor 5-7, 1 Tim 1 and Romans 1 doesnt even need to spell sepcifics out.

 

[David Brider]

Its quite clear what Paul meant with the use of arsenokites. Firstly its in a list of sexual deviations, as it is in 1 Tim 1...

No, it's used in lists of very general sins.

...it refers to the law as in 1 Tim 1...

Yes, but that's no indication of what specific transgression Paul's referring to.

...and we see the words in the law in the Greek septuagint in Lev 18 & 20.

Not, though, in the compound form which Paul uses here. It may be referring back to Leviticus, but that's by no means a certainty.

We can also see from Romans 1 that same-sex sex is error...

That's not really what Paul's getting at with Romans 1, and certainly nothing to do with translating the word he used in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

No, it's used in lists of very general sins.

Ok so you accept it’s a sin. But its used with pornos and moichos, which are sexual. So my point stands, it is used in a list of sexual sins as well as other sins.

Yes, but that's no indication of what specific transgression Paul's referring to.

well yes that’s exactly what it is, an indication of a specific transgression as outlined in the law.

Not, though, in the compound form which Paul uses here. It may be referring back to Leviticus, but that's by no means a certainty.

On the contrary, it points us to Kai meta arsenos ou koimEthEsE koitEn gunaikos.

That's not really what Paul's getting at with Romans 1, and certainly nothing to do with translating the word he used in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

how can it not be when that’s what its says?? Men with men instead of with women is eror.
How much of the rest of the Bible don’t you want to believe?

 

[Ohioprof]

We who can see the Bible condemns same-sex sex and testifies to people who can chose not to indulge, interpret the Bible as well. The difference is we interpret it in context based on what it says, not on what it doesnt say

That's your opinion of your interpretation. You are right, though, that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it.

 

[Ohioprof]

The fundamental message of the bible is salvation from the wage of sin and reconciliation to God. When one reads it, one knows that.

The fundamental message of Jesus is that we are to love God and love our neighbor.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

The fundamental message of Jesus is that we are to love God and love our neighbor.

Well that counts you out then as Jesus says to love God is to obey Jesus commands
John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
yet you have consistently disputed His commands concerning marriage and sexual immorality ie Matt 15 & 19, and Mark 7 & 10.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
Well that counts you out then as Jesus says to love God is to obey Jesus commands
John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
yet you have consistently disputed His commands concerning marriage and sexual immorality ie Matt 15 & 19, and Mark 7 & 10.

God never issued any command against marrying one's beloved spouse who happens to be of the same sex. That's something that ordinary people invented.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

God never issued any command against marrying one's beloved spouse who happens to be of the same sex. That's something that ordinary people invented.

Thats the problem with your beliefs, they seem centred around what God didnt say. But if they were centred around what God did say you would have come up with same-sex unions.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

God did not saying anything of the kind. That's just a story. Genesis is not literally true. It's just a creation myth, a story similar to the creation stories of other cultures.

I believe animals are no less in the image of God than humans are because God created animals no less than humans. To believe that humans are the only creatures that will be saved and that humans are the only creatures in God's image is dangerous anthropocentrism, an idea that seems to be at least partly at the root of our wanton destruction of and disregard for the environment. But this, again, is off topic for this thread.

Ohio, I commend u for standing your ground. Good job. However, you also must know when it's time to step aside. When arguing with a literalist, there is nothing that will change their mind, until they use their intelligence God gave them in order to be rational. Until then, it's insanity...doing the same thing over and over and trying to get a different result. I admire your passion here...I sorta threw in the towel quite a few months ago, but i do enjoy your reads and standing up for what you believe is right.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
Thats the problem with your beliefs, they seem centred around what God didnt say. But if they were centred around what God did say you would have come up with same-sex unions.

Huh? Can you explain this point?

I cannot point to anything Jesus said about same-sex marriage, because as far as anyone knows he didn't say anything. To presume that because he did speak about opposite-sex marriage that he would then condemn same-sex marriage is a giant leap of interpretation based on nothing. He really didn't say anything about same-sex marriage, and one cannot read into that silence condemnation, no matter how much you want Jesus to have condemned same-sex marriage.

Jesus did denounce divorce, quite plainly, and I don't hear anyone talking about the "divorce theology" being driven out of the churches and divorced people needing to repent and go back to their spouses in order to be included in the churches. Even the Catholic Church allows what amounts to divorce, though they call it anullment. And Jesus actually did denounce divorce.

Some Christians have a double standard, focusing on denouncing "homosexuality" while saying nothing about divorce. They pick out the few Bible verses that they think support their anti-gay beliefs and lift them up and rail at anyone who thinks differently, but they conveniently ignore Jesus' actual statements against divorce, quietly allowing divorced people to be left alone.

 

[Ohioprof]

Ohio, I commend u for standing your ground. Good job. However, you also must know when it's time to step aside. When arguing with a literalist, there is nothing that will change their mind, until they use their intelligence God gave them in order to be rational. Until then, it's insanity...doing the same thing over and over and trying to get a different result. I admire your passion here...I sorta threw in the towel quite a few months ago, but i do enjoy your reads and standing up for what you believe is right.

Thanks for your supportive comments. I do not post with an expectation of changing the minds of the people who take hard anti-gay positions. I post primarily to show other readers that gay people, and Christians who support gay people, are not going to be bullied or put down or steamrollered without standing up for ourselves.

There is not just one Christian viewpoint, and people who insist that they speak for God cannot claim that their way is the only way to be a Christian without being challenged on it. I may be arguing largely alone at the moment, but there are many Christians who agree with me, and who find the statements of the hard-core anti-gay crowd appalling. I think we need to stand up to them and speak our truth. We can take turns at it, for sure. But I think we have to speak up.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

yes, and yes.

My understanding from scholars, is that the English translations of the Bible, noteably the KJV, are poor bastardised copies of the Vulgate of St. Jerome, which was not a particularly good interpretation into Latin of the original texts in the first place.

The question here should be have some of these posters read anything OTHER than the Bible? Even more so, have they read the Bible and NOT used their influences from their churches to interrprut it? My point being. If today, churches, regardless of denominations, starting teaching that love is love, and sex should not matter. That same sex relationships were perfectly acceptable in God's eyes...then 100 years from now, the issue would be acceptable simply b/c the Bible said so. Many YOUTH today have no real issues with same sex anything only because it is not so foreign nor taboo as back in my parents day, etc... This generation will grow up teaching same sex anything is not an abomination...just that it is the way some people are prewired. Just like today no one is around embracing slavery, and saying we must have it cuz the Bible said so. So will homosexuality go the same way in years to come. the more exposure to it, the more it's understood, the more it will b/c acceptable. Accepting homosexuality does NOT make a heterosexual a homosexul despite what some fundamentalists would have you believe. This new generation is much better than the former when it comes to interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, etc... Once thought to be an abomination, is not considered that at all..by most. Homesexuality is the same. Some will always dislike it, but it will not be something that "needs to be changed" or "corrected" or "medicated" or to receive therapy to "reverse it". Ok, 'nuff said. Went off way too long here..but guess I had lots to say.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Thanks for your supportive comments. I do not post with an expectation of changing the minds of the people who take hard anti-gay positions. I post primarily to show other readers that gay people, and Christians who support gay people, are not going to be bullied or put down or steamrollered without standing up for ourselves.

There is not just one Christian viewpoint, and people who insist that they speak for God cannot claim that their way is the only way to be a Christian without being challenged on it. I may be arguing largely alone at the moment, but there are many Christians who agree with me, and who find the statements of the hard-core anti-gay crowd appalling. I think we need to stand up to them and speak our truth. We can take turns at it, for sure. But I think we have to speak up.

AMEN!! couldn't have said it better than myself. People INSISTING that they speak for God and KNOW what God said, etc.. is what gives Christianity a bad name. My congregation is growing, and quite nicely since I became a member last year. In fact we baptised yet another memeber this past Sunday. Is our church perfect...of course not. There are some issues I do not support at all, however that is what you get with organized religion. Even "non-denominational" is a denomination in and of itself. They are traditionally hardlined. In any event, it is people like yourself that I admire b/c of your continued pursuit to set the record straight. There is no "gay agenda" unless that is used to the same way fundamentalists and literalists have an "agenda". There is no "gaying" of Christianity, and I do not believe in GAY CHRISTIANITY. CHRISTIANS ARE GAY! CHRISTIANS ARE MEN! CHRISTIANS ARE DIVORCED. CHRISTIANS ARE LIBERAL. CHRISTIANS ARE CONSERVATIVE. CHRISTIANS ARE DEMOCRATS. CHRISTIANS GET ABORTIONS. CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALITY. CHRISTIANS ARE PRO LIFE. Christians come in all shapes, sizes, colors, etc... It is beyond ridicuous when people say something as stupid as it's impossible to be gay and be a christian. That's like saying it's impossible to be divorced and be christian. It's impossible to believe in dinasours and be christian. It's impossible to be a female pastor and be christian. It's just the squeeky wheel that gets the grease, and the few loud mouth people that ruin something beautiful. As you so clearly stated....they are HARD LINE ANTI GAY HIDING behind Christianity. For thousands of years people have slaughtered others in the name of religion when actually it is done out of hatred, and not faith. Christians are as guilty as the next. Fast forward to the 21st century. People will kick, ridicule, abuse, hate, and even kill gay people in the name of "religion" when the fact is they are cowards. Instead of saying what is REALLY the issue...that they "hate"...they say "God said"...and that magically makes everything ok. Again..tragic at best...and so very very VERY sad. In ending what is already a very long response, i read something the other day in the paper that really said it well. That while so many of our fundamentalist christian brothers/sisters spew anti-gay hatred, and that gay people will not be accepted into God's kingdom because of their knowingly embracing sin...it is EXACTLY those people that turn off so many from Christianity..that thus PREVENT many from receiving God's grace and salvation. Perhaps THEY should be the ones worrying about whom God will accept at their death and whom he won't? A great thing for the hardliners to think about.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear Ohioprof,
Thats the problem with your beliefs, they seem centred around what God didnt say. But if they were centred around what God did say you would have come up with same-sex unions.

nonsenese.

God says "love one another" and "don't have sex out of marriage".

Neither Ohioprof nor I are contradicting this

 

[Floatingaxe]

The fundamental message of Jesus is that we are to love God and love our neighbor.

It is a message of salvation, first. Without Jesus Christ, we cannot obey that call.