Christians: Here's your chance...

Maren · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Maren, I don't speak Hebrew or Aramaic, and I suspect you don't either, so there's no point in injecting original language into the debate. If you do speak Hebrew or Aramaic, or have at least a masters degree in those languages, then, sure, let's talk about the original languages.

And if I do hold master's degrees in those languages? Of course, if I say that I do you would still say that we can't go there because you don't.

But ultimately, for what I said it doesn't really matter. You've already said the Leviticus quotes (if I recall correctly) don't really matter since Christians are not required to obey the Levitical laws. And if I'm wrong, and you do think the Leviticus quotes are still in force, than I trust that you do not cut your sideburns, wear mixed fiber clothing, eat shell fish, etc.

As for Paul, it is easy to find out there were six words in Koine Greek for homosexual. It's easy to find out that "arsenokoites" was not one of those six words, nor that there is a Koine Greek scholar that will say they know without a doubt what it means. Rather, they will admit it is merely their opinion and that we do not know exactly what Paul meant by this word.

True_Blue said:
Otherwise, let's stick with English. If you won't read the English Bible in good faith, you won't read the original language Bible in good faith either.

Except the English translations don't agree. They all have variations based on what they believe Paul meant. And there is a belief among many scholars that the only reason those that translated the King James Version (on which so many English translations are based) chose "homosexual" was as a dig at King James (who is rumored to have been homosexual) and not because of any evidence it actually meant homosexual.

True_Blue said:
In previous studies on verses in the original language, I've invariably found that the language is more explicit and more clear than the English version, and I strongly suspect that the same will be true in this discussion as well.

Which, to me, suggests that there are problems with the English translation. If they are "more clear" in English and not in the original Greek or Hebrew then that is a sure indication that the translators are attempting to spin the definition in a way that the original author did not necessarily intend. The true intentions should always be more (or at least equally) clear in the original than in a translation.

True_Blue said:
I'm glad you brought up the attempt by southerners to manipulate the Bible to support enslaving blacks. It's a perfect example of linguistic acrobatics. To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't mention racial characteristics anywhere.

Yet they did the exact same thing you are doing -- trying to read things into the Bible that aren't clearly written there.

True_Blue said:
When it says in Romans, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Even in English, this is clear language.

Yes, it says, "Because of this" to start -- which means the reason they did these things is because of what occurred in the previous verse. It is clearly stated they did the homosexual acts because (as the previous verses clearly state) they rejected God and instead created idols. To go further, it says they "exchanged" (women) or "abandoned" (men) what was natural for them, which clearly implies these are people that were heterosexual who committed homosexual acts, not homosexuals. In this case, it is you missing the clear English meaning and trying to use linguistic acrobatics.

True_Blue said:
The reality is that today, homosexuals in San Francisco around 2000 acquired HIV at a rate of 2.2% per year.

I'd love to see your source for this comment. I really doubt this came from any credible source. And how do you account that Washington, D.C. has the worst AIDS crisis in the United States? Not to mention, the largest percentage of those infected by AIDS are Black, does that mean we should condemn Blacks and deny them marriage rights? Not to mention that lesbian sex has the lowest rates of STDs, especially AIDS.

True_Blue said:
If my child wants to put her hand on the oven door, I'm going to tell her no and take her away. If she persists, I might allow her to get burned so that she learns not to do it. AIDS is not even the worst consequence of homosexual conduct--separation from God is. I care far more about the spiritual and physical health of homosexuals than I do about the institution of marriage.

I'd be interesting in hearing if any homosexuals here feel you have helped bring them closer to God -- or driven them further away. The fact that you have used false statistics (regardless of if you knew they were false) and tried to make blanket claims that don't apply to many homosexuals, I'm guessing most feel you are pushing them away.

True_Blue said:
I oppose gay marriage because it is just another deviation from the one man and one woman construct that is most healthy for men, women, and children in families.

Except this is your personal opinion which you cannot support. The fact is that all the major medical and psychological associations agree that same-sex families are just as healthy as opposite-sex families.

True_Blue said:
But from your perspective, I would be far more concerned about my relationship with God than anything else.

Yet in this thread you seem to care only about denying others rights, and little to nothing about their relationship with God or their God given right of free choice. You cannot legislate a person relationship with God.

True_Blue said:
If you and your partner are or have been promiscuous, that would be another, lesser cause of concern. To have a relationship with God, you have to be willing to sublimate your own desires for God's desires. That is really hard--I struggle with that every single day. I constantly battle between what I want and what God wants in many different aspects of my life. If you do become a Christian, you will continue to struggle against your desire for other women, just as I continually struggle against my desire for women other than my wife. The struggle against sin is part and parcel of the human experience, but you can't experience the love of God in your life unless you decide to struggle against sin.

Yet what does this have to do with the OP? If anything, this seems to contradict what you are saying -- despite your struggles you commit sin yet do not lose rights. Yet you wish to deny other people rights simply because of their sin. Why should your believe trump the rights of others, regardless of their own personal beliefs? And, for the second time, I'd caution you from making assumptions about me -- you have no idea about me or my sexuality.

Maren · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Ok, I will apply my personal five-step system for judging right from wrong to homosexuality:

1. The Bible mentions homosexuality 11-12 times, all in quite negative terms, and nowhere does the Bible give a positive affirmative of homosexual conduct.

I'd love to know what those 11 or 12 times are? Most people only think there are 5 or 6.

True_Blue said:
2. While I have no direct homosexual experience, if I see 2 girls kissing on TV, for example, my conscience is hurt if I don't change the channel.

And I'm sure there are gays that don't like to watch an opposite sex couple kiss. Personally, I don't mind short kisses of either homosexuals or heterosexuals, though I get uncomfortable if they become too intimate. What does this have to do with anything?

True_Blue said:
3. Homosexuality is incredibly addictive,

Source? I see no basis for this claim in reality, especially if you consider the number of heterosexuals that have sex addictions.

True_Blue said:
it causes a person to become unwise in their sexual conduct,

Evidence? I've already provided you studies that show heterosexuals have more sexual partners than gays -- which seems to contradict what you are attempting to claim.

True_Blue said:
it helps spread loathsome diseases,

I could state that heterosexuality does as well. Try looking up the Herpes Simplex rate of infection in the United States (seems to me it is about 1 in 3, the vast majority heterosexual). Yet the facts show that it is not a person's orientation that spreads disease but their promiscuity.

True_Blue said:
it put separates a person from God,

According to your belief. Many other people believe differently.

True_Blue said:
it produces no children,

So? Since when are children required for heterosexuals? You never did respond if you would support that proposed law in Washington state that would require children for people to be married?

True_Blue said:
it changes a person's attitudes and demeanor in subtle ways, etc.

In what way? I'd love to see you even try to show evidence of this.

True_Blue said:
4. The people I know and trust who are close to God all disapprove of homosexuality in the strongest of terms, including my parents, my mentor, my closest friends.

Umm... so? I'm sure that members of the KKK would tell you that their families, friends, etc. all disapprove of the mixing of the races.

Instead, it is more likely that you believe as you do because of your parents and it is also why you have chosen the mentors and friends that you have. You seem to be confusing cause and effect.

True_Blue said:
5. I have received a divine message telling me not to engage in premarital sex, but not homosexuality specifically.

Yet you chose to say that you wish to deny marriage to homosexuals, of which you do not claim to have received a divine message, rather than to punish those who are promiscuous.

cantata · May 7, 2008

What is with this assumption that everyone who favours equal rights for gay people must be gay?

Maren · May 7, 2008

cantata said:
What is with this assumption that everyone who favours equal rights for gay people must be gay?

[sarcasm]Why else would anyone ever believe those evil gays should have the same rights as everyone else? So if someone supports equal rights for gays they must be gay. [/sarcasm]

For some reason I'm reminded of the movie In & Out where people stand up and say "I'm gay" to support the Kevin Kline character.

HannahBanana · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
1. The Bible mentions homosexuality 11-12 times, all in quite negative terms, and nowhere does the Bible give a positive affirmative of homosexual conduct.

God says many more negative things to heterosexuals than he does to homosexuals (after all, almost the entire Bible is directed towards heterosexuals). Can we conclude, then, that heterosexuality is worse than homosexuality?

2. While I have no direct homosexual experience, if I see 2 girls kissing on TV, for example, my conscience is hurt if I don't change the channel.

That's just because it's an unfamiliar sight. Once you start seeing it more and more, you'll have no problem with it.

3. Homosexuality is incredibly addictive, it causes a person to become unwise in their sexual conduct, it helps spread loathsome diseases, it put separates a person from God, it produces no children, it changes a person's attitudes and demeanor in subtle ways, etc.

Odd. I've been bisexual for eight years now, and I'm not addicted to sex (I'm actually a virgin), I'm not unwise in terms of who I choose to have sex with, I don't have any STDs at all, and my attitude hasn't been changed at all. As for the "producing no children" bit, if you're against homosexuals having sex for that reason, then you'd better be against infertile couples and elderly couples having sex for that reason as well.

The moral of this story is: stereotypes almost never apply to everyone in a group. So you shouldn't use them as fodder for a debate.

4. The people I know and trust who are close to God all disapprove of homosexuality in the strongest of terms, including my parents, my mentor, my closest friends.

How does this prove that homosexuality is wrong? All it proves is that some people agree with you. Big whoop. Plenty of people agree with me that it's not wrong.

5. I have received a divine message telling me not to engage in premarital sex, but not homosexuality specifically.

And this is relevant to the discussion at hand how, exactly...?

True_Blue · May 7, 2008

TheManeki said:
Your profile says you wish to be a lawyer, so I'll try to couch things in those terms.

You are trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong to Christians and non-Christians. The Christians are looking at the same Bible passages as you and coming away with a different interpretation. The non-Christians do not accept the validity of Bible-based arguments. Both of these reasons limit the usefulness of Bible-based arguments alone to convince others you are correct.

If you truly wish to persuade others, you're going to have to bring in an outside source. An easy way to prove homosexuality is wrong is to have an expert scientific witness testify for you -- in this case, by a journal article -- to show there is proven harm from being gay or lesbian. After all, God wouldn't just arbitrarily ban something that does no harm, would he?

Providing a journal article would serve multiple purposes. First, it would show us you actually read the article, instead of copying a summary from someone who didn't understand it in the first place (much like you did with the Van de Ven article). Secondly, it would allow us to read the article and "cross examine" the witness.

If you're truly sure of your position, this shouldn't be a problem for you.

Ok, what you are saying makes perfect sense to me. To address your points, relatively few actual Christians believe homosexuality is ok. In the US, for example, typically 80% of the people say they're Christian, but only 20-30% attend church on a weekly basis. Out of that percentage, perhaps half are actually born again Christians with communion with the Holy Spirit. There are vanishingly few born again Christians in the world who believe homosexuality is ok. Christians are sinners. It's one thing to sin, but another thing to say the sin itself is ok. For true Christians, exogenous evidence is irrelevant--the Bible itself must be definitive to the extent that it mentions a particular moral issue.

For people who are not Christians, no amount of exogenous scientific evidence, including any number of scientific journals, can persuade someone on a deeply important moral issue. If I gave you 20 scientific journals showing homosexuality is unhealthy and dangerous (scientific journals still can't prove morals), you still would not be convinced. Life is essentially a moral journey. Every human being is on a different stage of the moral journey. I can't help you leap forward a 1000 miles on the moral journey by showing you a scientific journal--you have to come to that conclusion on your own. Morals are a matter of the soul and spirit, not a matter of the mind. I can tell you why I believe in Jesus Christ or why I believe something is right or wrong, but it's up to you to make your own decisions. Some people can be persuaded about Christianity in 20 minutes--for others it takes years, a lifetime, or never. Every person is a unique individual.

WatersMoon110 · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Ok, what you are saying makes perfect sense to me. To address your points, relatively few actual Christians believe homosexuality is ok. In the US, for example, typically 80% of the people say they're Christian, but only 20-30% attend church on a weekly basis. Out of that percentage, perhaps half are actually born again Christians with communion with the Holy Spirit. There are vanishingly few born again Christians in the world who believe homosexuality is ok. Christians are sinners. It's one thing to sin, but another thing to say the sin itself is ok. For true Christians, exogenous evidence is irrelevant--the Bible itself must be definitive to the extent that it mentions a particular moral issue.

So, instead of believing that people who call themselves "Christians" are, in fact, Christians; we are supposed to take your personal definition of the term. Which, conveniently, allows you to define "Christians" as people who think exactly like you! So, of course, they all happen to agree with you when it comes to your personal beliefs on homosexuality.

True_Blue said:
For people who are not Christians, no amount of exogenous scientific evidence, including any number of scientific journals, can persuade someone on a deeply important moral issue. If I gave you 20 scientific journals showing homosexuality is unhealthy and dangerous (scientific journals still can't prove morals), you still would not be convinced. Life is essentially a moral journey. Every human being is on a different stage of the moral journey. I can't help you leap forward a 1000 miles on the moral journey by showing you a scientific journal--you have to come to that conclusion on your own. Morals are a matter of the soul and spirit, not a matter of the mind. I can tell you why I believe in Jesus Christ or why I believe something is right or wrong, but it's up to you to make your own decisions. Some people can be persuaded about Christianity in 20 minutes--for others it takes years, a lifetime, or never. Every person is a unique individual.

In other words, there isn't any evidence in reality to back up your personal morals; therefore everyone needs to believe in them, since that is the only way to be moral?

If there are any actual studies that show homosexuality is any more dangerous than heterosexuality, that would help back up your point that homosexuality is bad for an individual.

If your goal is to convert people to Christianity, you're in the wrong forum. Try General Apologetics or Christian Apologetics (which seems to be more for tips on how to do it well).

True_Blue · May 7, 2008

Maren said:
I'd love to know what those 11 or 12 times are? Most people only think there are 5 or 6.

Yet you chose to say that you wish to deny marriage to homosexuals, of which you do not claim to have received a divine message, rather than to punish those who are promiscuous.

Maren, don't get me wrong--the Bible condemns promiscuity to the same extent as homosexuality. In the Bible, and in the US for most of its history, both homosexuality and promiscuity have been punishable offenses. Both adultery and homosexual conduct are punishable under the UCMJ in the US military. A friend of mine spent a year in jail in Boston for adultery. The Bible, of course, mandates a death sentence, which I concur with because it would drastically reduce the amount of adultery going on. I use the Bible's condemnation of adultery as a way to guard myself against the temptation to cheat on my wife. It was also a civil offense punishable by fine to sleep with someone prior to marriage in the Bible.

Here are the verses I have found on homosexuality in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible support it. I found Job 36 particularly interesting. It seems the health consequences of homosexual conduct has not changed in 5000 years.

1. Genesis 18-19 on Sodom and Gomorrah
2. Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.
3. Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
4. Deuteronomy 23:18
You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.
5. 1 Kings 14:24
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.
6. 1 Kings 15:12
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.
7. 1 Kings 22:46
He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.
8. 2 Kings 23:7
He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.
9. Job 36:14
They die in their youth, among male prostitutes of the shrines.
10. Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
11. 1 Corinthians 6:9
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
12. I Timothy 1:9-10
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
13. Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

TheManeki · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Ok, what you are saying makes perfect sense to me. To address your points, relatively few actual Christians believe homosexuality is ok. In the US, for example, typically 80% of the people say they're Christian, but only 20-30% attend church on a weekly basis. Out of that percentage, perhaps half are actually born again Christians with communion with the Holy Spirit. There are vanishingly few born again Christians in the world who believe homosexuality is ok. Christians are sinners. It's one thing to sin, but another thing to say the sin itself is ok. For true Christians, exogenous evidence is irrelevant--the Bible itself must be definitive to the extent that it mentions a particular moral issue.

For people who are not Christians, no amount of exogenous scientific evidence, including any number of scientific journals, can persuade someone on a deeply important moral issue. If I gave you 20 scientific journals showing homosexuality is unhealthy and dangerous (scientific journals still can't prove morals), you still would not be convinced. Life is essentially a moral journey. Every human being is on a different stage of the moral journey. I can't help you leap forward a 1000 miles on the moral journey by showing you a scientific journal--you have to come to that conclusion on your own. Morals are a matter of the soul and spirit, not a matter of the mind. I can tell you why I believe in Jesus Christ or why I believe something is right or wrong, but it's up to you to make your own decisions. Some people can be persuaded about Christianity in 20 minutes--for others it takes years, a lifetime, or never. Every person is a unique individual.

Sounds like you're not really here to convince anybody, or even examine your own beliefs. If you ever decide you are ready for either -- really, both, since you need to know your own position before you can convince others -- you know where to find me.

True_Blue · May 7, 2008

Maren said:
[sarcasm]Why else would anyone ever believe those evil gays should have the same rights as everyone else? So if someone supports equal rights for gays they must be gay. [/sarcasm]

For some reason I'm reminded of the movie In & Out where people stand up and say "I'm gay" to support the Kevin Kline character.

Maren, you and I are both quite evil people. You've got your issues, I've got mine. The difference is that I continually re-acknowledge my evil on a daily basis, and work to correct it. I never succeed, but I never stop trying. I hope you take similar journeys into your own soul and see the truth of your character.

HannahBanana · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Maren, you and I are both quite evil people. You've got your issues, I've got mine. The difference is that I continually re-acknowledge my evil on a daily basis, and work to correct it. I never succeed, but I never stop trying. I hope you take similar journeys into your own soul and see the truth of your character.

How is Maren "evil" at all? Seriously, she seems to be one of the more loving people on this board.

True_Blue · May 7, 2008

WatersMoon110 said:
So, instead of believing that people who call themselves "Christians" are, in fact, Christians; we are supposed to take your personal definition of the term. Which, conveniently, allows you to define "Christians" as people who think exactly like you! So, of course, they all happen to agree with you when it comes to your personal beliefs on homosexuality.

In other words, there isn't any evidence in reality to back up your personal morals; therefore everyone needs to believe in them, since that is the only way to be moral?

If there are any actual studies that show homosexuality is any more dangerous than heterosexuality, that would help back up your point that homosexuality is bad for an individual.

If your goal is to convert people to Christianity, you're in the wrong forum. Try General Apologetics or Christian Apologetics (which seems to be more for tips on how to do it well).

Dude, my definition of "Christian" is a person who believes the Nicene Creed when they're introduced to it. This is a purely objective and universally recognized standard of Christianity. A Christian who cherry-picks the Bible is a poor Christian, especially given John 1:1: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the Beginning." A person who cherry-picks the Bible, or rejects the Bible altogether, is rejecting Jesus. All people, including Christians, are on different points of the road in their spiritual journey. Christians who believe homosexuality is not immoral have far to travel indeed.

In previous posts, I've made the point that no university, government, or polling institution has the courage to renew two older 1990s-era studies showing homosexuals, both lesbian and gay, don't live past 45 on average. Until liberals have the courage to collect better data, I'm going to adhere to the studies that have been done. I encourage you to lobby gay groups to tell us how long the average homosexual can expect to live.

Also, keep in mind that my standard of sexual excellence is that every person only have sex with one person--the person of the opposite gender to whom they are legally married. I don't compare homosexuals to heterosexuals--I compare monogamous married couples to everyone else, including promiscuous heteros.

HannahBanana · May 7, 2008

HannahBanana said:
God says many more negative things to heterosexuals than he does to homosexuals (after all, almost the entire Bible is directed towards heterosexuals). Can we conclude, then, that heterosexuality is worse than homosexuality?

That's just because it's an unfamiliar sight. Once you start seeing it more and more, you'll have no problem with it.

Odd. I've been bisexual for eight years now, and I'm not addicted to sex (I'm actually a virgin), I'm not unwise in terms of who I choose to have sex with, I don't have any STDs at all, and my attitude hasn't been changed at all. As for the "producing no children" bit, if you're against homosexuals having sex for that reason, then you'd better be against infertile couples and elderly couples having sex for that reason as well.

The moral of this story is: stereotypes almost never apply to everyone in a group. So you shouldn't use them as fodder for a debate.

How does this prove that homosexuality is wrong? All it proves is that some people agree with you. Big whoop. Plenty of people agree with me that it's not wrong.

And this is relevant to the discussion at hand how, exactly...?

I'm still waiting for a response, True_Blue.

Maren · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Maren, don't get me wrong--the Bible condemns promiscuity to the same extent as homosexuality. In the Bible, and in the US for most of its history, both homosexuality and promiscuity have been punishable offenses. Both adultery and homosexual conduct are punishable under the UCMJ in the US military. A friend of mine spent a year in jail in Boston for adultery. The Bible, of course, mandates a death sentence, which I concur with because it would drastically reduce the amount of adultery going on. I use the Bible's condemnation of adultery as a way to guard myself against the temptation to cheat on my wife. It was also a civil offense punishable by fine to sleep with someone prior to marriage in the Bible.

Yet what does this have to do with the OP or our current discussion?

True_Blue said:
Here are the verses I have found on homosexuality in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible support it. I found Job 36 particularly interesting. It seems the health consequences of homosexual conduct has not changed in 5000 years.

1. Genesis 18-19 on Sodom and Gomorrah

You have yet to show this has anything to do with homosexuality, outside of gang rape and inhospitality.

True_Blue said:
2. Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

One.

True_Blue said:
3. Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Two.

True_Blue said:
4. Deuteronomy 23:18
You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

Are you claiming this scripture also condemns all heterosexuality? That you include this as a condemnation of homosexuality says more about you and your biases than about homosexuality. Rather, it clearly seems to be talking of prostitution without mentioning the orientation of the prostitute (women are known to hire male prostitutes, you know?).

True_Blue said:
5. 1 Kings 14:24
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

Again, not directly related to a condemnation of homosexuality -- rather a condemnation of pagan sex rites.

True_Blue said:
6. 1 Kings 15:12
He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.

Yet another...

True_Blue said:
7. 1 Kings 22:46
He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.

And another...

True_Blue said:
8. 2 Kings 23:7
He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.

And another... so can we safely assume, based on how you seem to be reading these scriptures, that the Bible condemns all heterosexuality because of verses condemning heterosexual prostitution and pagan sex rites?

True_Blue said:
9. Job 36:14
They die in their youth, among male prostitutes of the shrines.

Again, not a condemnation of homosexuality but rather of prostitution and pagan sex rites.

True_Blue said:
10. Romans 1:26-27
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You finally hit three.

True_Blue said:
11. 1 Corinthians 6:9
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

The fourth.

True_Blue said:
12. I Timothy 1:9-10
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

And the fifth and last.

True_Blue said:
13. Jude 1:7
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Again, required reading into the text to claim homosexuality is mentioned here. As you have admitted, not all sexual immorality or perversion is homosexual in nature.

So again, there are only five verses that can be claimed to condemn homosexuality.

True_Blue · May 7, 2008

Maren said:

The verses in Leviticus having to do with Jewish social differentiation, like food and clothing, still apply to Jews. Most of us are Gentiles. The verses on crime and punishment, including the verses on homosexuality apply to all of humanity to this day. The verses on sacrifice became superseded by Christs death, and dont apply to anyone, Jew or Gentile, after 33 AD or so.

I dont accept the hypertechnical scholarly interpretations youve described. In the law, Ive often noticed that judges who adopt a hypertechnical approach to interpreting laws usually get the law wrong and are really trying to bend the law to fit their preconceived notions. Laws should be taken for their plain meaning. I generally only look at original language if the English word seems odd to me. For example, NIV translators of Genesis 6:2 use sons of God rather than demons because the use of the word demons in this context, while the only reasonable interpretation, is controversial. So my rule is that I only study original language words if confusion arises out of an ambiguous English word. If I understood Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, I wouldnt bother with English.

I also prefer not to identify people as being gay or straight. I see people as people. Some people commit some types of sexual acts, others do not. But the homosexual lobby is responsible for the identification of people as BEING gay or lesbian and having that become part of their identityit has helped them win the debate over inclusiveness. I dont look in the mirror and see a heterosexual or a white guy. A lot of societies around the world dont consider gays and lesbians to be members of a separate identity schema.

My source for homosexuals acquiring AIDS at a rate of 2.2% per year comes from here:
http://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/RptsHIVAIDS/HIVAIDAnnlRpt2000.pdf

No one in the US is denied marriage rights [anymore]. Everyone, black, white, gay, or straight, has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

The major associations are full of secular-progressives, including the American Bar Association, which I am a member of. Im also an officer in the US military. It is just as difficult for an outspoken conservative psychologist to succeed in the American Psychological Association as it is for a flaming homosexual to succeed in the military. [please dont interpret my use of the word flaming as derogatory] I have personal experience as to how hard it is to succeed in academia as a conservative.

HannahBanana · May 7, 2008

So, True_Blue, I'm just going to assume that your lack of a response to my post means that you can't refute the points that I brought up. Well, thanks for admitting that. It's mighty big of you to do so.

Maren · May 7, 2008

True_Blue said:
Maren, you and I are both quite evil people.

I've never claimed that I was perfect, merely warned you that you should know what you are talking about before pointing fingers (see Matthew 7:1-2)

True_Blue said:
You've got your issues, I've got mine. The difference is that I continually re-acknowledge my evil on a daily basis, and work to correct it. I never succeed, but I never stop trying. I hope you take similar journeys into your own soul and see the truth of your character.

Though you seem not to have learned that bit about not judging without facts... again, what evidence do you have that I don't work to improve on my faults?

True_Blue · May 7, 2008

Maren said:
I've never claimed that I was perfect, merely warned you that you should know what you are talking about before pointing fingers (see Matthew 7:1-2)

Though you seem not to have learned that bit about not judging without facts... again, what evidence do you have that I don't work to improve on my faults?

I know almost nothing about you, so I have no evidence whatsoever. I would encourage people with inappropriate contentography addictions like myself to work to break the habit. I would encourage people who are not married to not have sex until they are married. I would encourage people who have committed homosexual acts to not commit any more such acts in the future. I don't truly know whether you fit into any of the above categories.

Maren · May 8, 2008

True_Blue said:
The verses in Leviticus having to do with Jewish social differentiation, like food and clothing, still apply to Jews. Most of us are Gentiles. The verses on crime and punishment, including the verses on homosexuality apply to all of humanity to this day. The verses on sacrifice became superseded by Christs death, and dont apply to anyone, Jew or Gentile, after 33 AD or so.

Could you please point out in the Bible where it talks of these different categories of the law? In fact, in Galatians Paul says that if you obey part of the law, then you are subject to all the law -- he makes no mention here of being subject to only portions of the law.

In fact, this whole idea of parts of the law applying and other parts not seem to hint strongly at people not wanting to be inconvenienced by the parts of the law that they don't like (much like you speak of below).

True_Blue said:
I dont accept the hypertechnical scholarly interpretations youve described. In the law, Ive often noticed that judges who adopt a hypertechnical approach to interpreting laws usually get the law wrong and are really trying to bend the law to fit their preconceived notions. Laws should be taken for their plain meaning. I generally only look at original language if the English word seems odd to me. For example, NIV translators of Genesis 6:2 use sons of God rather than demons because the use of the word demons in this context, while the only reasonable interpretation, is controversial. So my rule is that I only study original language words if confusion arises out of an ambiguous English word. If I understood Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, I wouldnt bother with English.

So, basically you cherry pick. If your reading of the Bible lines up with your pre-determined belief, then you accept that the English is correct. If it doesn't, then you might look at particular words to see if you can find a definition that fits your paradigm.

True_Blue said:
I also prefer not to identify people as being gay or straight. I see people as people.

I doubt this is true. You've seen me as female, you have made assumptions about my sexual orientation, etc. Your comments here seems to show that you do classify people in various ways, and not simply "as people".

True_Blue said:
Some people commit some types of sexual acts, others do not.

And you don't seem to have a problem with calling those that sleep with someone other than their spouse as adulterers, or of using the word prostitute. Again, you do seem to classify some people by their sexual sin.

True_Blue said:
But the homosexual lobby is responsible for the identification of people as BEING gay or lesbian and having that become part of their identityit has helped them win the debate over inclusiveness.
I dont look in the mirror and see a heterosexual or a white guy.

Yet you apparently do look in the mirror and see yourself as "male". After all, if we are just looking at "people as people" then their gender shouldn't matter -- making the idea of homosexual and heterosexual moot -- it's simply two people that love each other.

True_Blue said:
A lot of societies around the world dont consider gays and lesbians to be members of a separate identity schema.

And a lot of societies around the world see no problem with child labor. Does this make it right?

True_Blue said:
My source for homosexuals acquiring AIDS at a rate of 2.2% per year comes from here:
http://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/RptsHIVAIDS/HIVAIDAnnlRpt2000.pdf

Let's go back and look at your original claim: " The reality is that today, homosexuals in San Francisco around 2000 acquired HIV at a rate of 2.2% per year."

The clear implication (based on the reality today) is that gays acquire HIV every year at a rate of 2.2% per year. The fact is, the article you quote says, "Of 34,014 uninfected MSM, a projected 748 will acquire HIV infection
this year for an incidence rate of 2.2% per year." So basically, you are using projected numbers for a single year and not actual numbers.

It gets even more interesting when you look further down and see, "The incidence rate of AIDS among men of all race/ethnic groups peaked in 1992 and has declined through 2000." So your claims does not seem to reflect "the reality" of today at all.

Further you completely ignore the Black portion of my post. From the link you posted, "In 1998, the incidence rate of AIDS among African American
men first exceeded that of white men and that difference has persisted. In 2000, the incidence rate of AIDS per 100,000 population among African American men was 202 and 177 among white men." It goes on further to say, "Compared to other women, African American women have been disproportionately affected by AIDS throughout the AIDS epidemic. In 2000, the incidence rate among African American women was 61 per 100,000; three times greater than the rate among Latino women, and six times greater than the rate among white women."

So, again, since African Americans (and all Blacks, based on the even higher AIDS rates in Africa) have the worst AIDS rates of anyone, does this make being Black immoral?

True_Blue said:
No one in the US is denied marriage rights [anymore]. Everyone, black, white, gay, or straight, has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

So if we said that people were free to attend church as long as they attended a Jewish synagogue that all people had the same rights? Yet that is exactly the same logic you are using when you say that everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite gender (especially considering civil rights laws reject discrimination based on gender).

True_Blue said:
The major associations are full of secular-progressives, including the American Bar Association, which I am a member of.

Seriously? That's the best you can do? And I'm sure you have evidence to back up your claims? What it sounds like is you are actually claiming that the vast majority of doctors, psychiatrists and lawyers are secular-progressives. And if these groups are so out of touch with so many people, why are there not large conservative organizations competing with them? It is even more interesting considering there are competing conservative (typically religious conservatives) competing with these groups, but these groups are inevitably much smaller (typically less than 1% of the members)

Simply because these groups vote for things you don't agree with does not make them secular-progressives. Further, the facts are that the studies support these positions.

True_Blue said:
Im also an officer in the US military. It is just as difficult for an outspoken conservative psychologist to succeed in the American Psychological Association as it is for a flaming homosexual to succeed in the military. [please dont interpret my use of the word flaming as derogatory]

I've not seen any problems for conservative psychologists to succeed, even with or despite the APA. That they might not successfully promote their agenda with the APA but that has little effect on their careers.

As for "flaming", I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean "openly gay", then I suppose you are somewhat correct because of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". If you mean effeminate, I'd submit most wouldn't have any desire/aptitude for the military, just like effeminate heterosexual men. But it is a fact there have been plenty of gay men serve in the United States military.

And it is even more interesting that every single one of our Western Allies allow gays to serve openly in their militaries without problem.

True_Blue said:
I have personal experience as to how hard it is to succeed in academia as a conservative.

Yet I'm not sure what this has to do with anything we are talking about.

MasterOfKrikkit · May 8, 2008

True_Blue said:
The verses in Leviticus having to do with Jewish social differentiation, like food and clothing, still apply to Jews. Most of us are Gentiles. The verses on crime and punishment, including the verses on homosexuality apply to all of humanity to this day. The verses on sacrifice became superseded by Christs death, and dont apply to anyone, Jew or Gentile, after 33 AD or so.

Dodge around it however you like, you can't escape the cherry picking. Either the Levitical laws apply to us or they don't. If they do, do you denounce men who shave and wear poly-cotton shirts? If they don't apply, then why bother quoting these verses?

I dont accept the hypertechnical scholarly interpretations youve described. In the law, Ive often noticed that judges who adopt a hypertechnical approach to interpreting laws usually get the law wrong and are really trying to bend the law to fit their preconceived notions. Laws should be taken for their plain meaning.

Unless they have to do with Jewish social differentiation, I guess. IOW, you're interpreting (paragraph 1) even though you say we should take things at face value (par 2). The ABA will make you King For Life if you keep up this kind of logical gymnastics.

I generally only look at original language if the English word seems odd to me. For example, NIV translators of Genesis 6:2 use sons of God rather than demons because the use of the word demons in this context, while the only reasonable interpretation, is controversial. So my rule is that I only study original language words if confusion arises out of an ambiguous English word. If I understood Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, I wouldnt bother with English.

So you read at face value ... unless it doesn't fit your predetermined paradigm, in which case you interpret. Okay.

No one in the US is denied marriage rights [anymore]. Everyone, black, white, gay, or straight, has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

You can choose any color as long as it's black.

:doh:

Your "logic" should come with a Surgeon General's warning: logical twisting this rapid may cause vertigo.

Christians: Here's your chance...

Veteran

Veteran

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Christian Humanist

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Well-Known Member

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Non-denominational, literalist YEC Christian

Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads