C.A.R.M. 's homosexuality webpage

[OllieFranz]

In another thread, LincolnGreen posted a link to CARM's webpage, claiming it was "a good rescource of information refuting the Homosexual argument about scripture." Since examining the claims would seriously derail that discussion from the OP's original purpose, I have decided to open a new thread, instead.

Lord_Barthok_Soc has given an excellent critique of their positive case, and especially the fact that after claiming that their opponants take nverses out of context, and without regard to historical accuracy, they procede to do exactly what they accuse the other side of doing.* So I will confine myself to examining their rebuttal of the "pro-homosexual" side.

1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Their rebuttal to this is to trot out the "priestly, civil, and moral" law distinction. However:

• Nowhere in their rebuttal do they explain the scriptural basis for making this distinction.
• Nor do they explain how to classify any particular law into these classifications
• Nor do they mention that other Christian groups only divide the laws into "ceremonial" and "moral"
• Or that, in fact, the only thing various proponents of the "different types of law" view agree upon is that the ones in Leviticus 18 and 20 are "moral" laws -- except the one forbidding sleeping with a woman having her period. [And the dietary laws are ceremonial -- they can only agree on this because it is the specific example used in three chapters of Acts, and three of Paul's letters.]

2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.

Their rebuttal to this is based on an hypocritical Catch-22 they impose on their opponents. Many on the "pro-gay" side speak of a "loving, commited relationship" because the Christians refuse to recognize their marriages. But then, because the word "marriage" was not used, those same Christians assume they can equate these relationships with any type of pairing, including bestiality and child molesting -- provided at least one of the partners can claim to "love" the other.

If instead of equating marriages of lesbians and gays to such wanton and depraved acts, they were to equate them with their own marriages, most of this "rebuttal" would collapse under its own weight.

3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.

In the first sentence of the rebuttal, they claim they are going to examine the merits of the claim they are bebutting, but they only look at the same four verses, in isolation, rather than in context*, and in English translation only. Using that technique, I can find prooftext verses to declare that God does not exist.

* Once in the entire page did they even consider a phrase that clearly connected one of the verses to a larger context within the book it came from. Even that they got wrong. When a sentence begins with "Wherefore..." it obviously relates to what went before. In this case, the sexual sins described in Romans 1:26-27 are the result, not the cause, of God giving them up to their lesser passions. Those who commit these sins are already lost to sins listed in the earlier verses: idolators, and those who reject God. The reference to Plato's Laws adds a second group: addicts, whom Plato calls "slaves to pleasure," and who, according to Paul, are already recieving into themselves the just recompense for their error. Neither of these describe a loving, committed couple in a marriage, whether approved by the government.

Nor do they even attempt to do what they claim to do, and consider that the idea of "man-lying" might refer to a specific practice that is not a part of modern gay relationships. Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians "obviously" refer simply to "homosexuality" and this same "homosexuality" is the sine qua non of gay relationships. There are so many hidden assumptions involved in this attitude that it is difficult to find where to begin to unravel.

Examining these verses within context (both context within the book, and historical context) will require several separate posts. For now I'll move on to the next rebuttal.

4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.

Here they abandon exegesis altogether in favor of eisogesis. They ignore the judgment of men who were closer in culture to the time of Abraham and Lot, and who were directly inspired to report god's truths.

• (Jeremiah 23:14) "Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing:
  The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood;
  And they strengthen the hands of evildoers,
  So that no one has turned back from his wickedness.
  All of them have become to Me like Sodom,
  And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.
• (Ezekiel 16:49-50) "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
• (Luke 10:!0-12) "But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, `Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' "I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city.

 

[MercyBurst]

1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

The difference is that all those Laws in the OT could be remediated with a sin offering. Gay-sex on the otherhand, was a capital offense. Of the capital offenses listed in the OT law, tell us just one that is good. (you don't get to count gay sex *hint *hint)

2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.

Tell us why incestuous marriage between siblings is moral, using the same rubric.

3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.

"Homosexuality" is an obsolete term to describe a multifaceted sexual orientation whose etiology isn't understood. Under some definitions of homosexuality, ALL women could be considered lesbian. Hence the bible isn't the problem, rather it's a lack of understanding.

4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.

Yes, indeed. The men of sodom were quite unfriendly when they tried to gang rape Lot's overnight visitors.

I have already covered all these points and more on my own web-blog. Check out the link in my signature.

 

[jamescarvin]

I really would like to see a serious discussion of the Biblical case for or against committed homosexual relationships one verse at a time, rather than the whole fell swoop. I'm having trouble following this discussion.

I am neither for nor against anything - only interested in the opinion of Jesus, as a listener.

Let's start with the issue of Sodom. It seems clear to me that all of the men of the town had rallied there and that not only were they being unhospitable but they were desiring to gang rape, not just people but angels.

It also seems to me that God had judged Sodom before the arrival of the angels. Whatever the reason may be it isn't stated, except from what can be gleaned from Ezekiel.

However, you certainly get a reflection of the spirit in the one scene we do get.

Now to say that this has anything to do with homosexuality rather than rape is hard for me to comprehend. Please help me with this.

 

[MercyBurst]

Let's start with the issue of Sodom. It seems clear to me that all of the men of the town had rallied there and that not only were they being unhospitable but they were desiring to gang rape, not just people but angels.

It also seems to me that God had judged Sodom before the arrival of the angels. Whatever the reason may be it isn't stated, except from what can be gleaned from Ezekiel.

The men of sodom thought the angels visiting Lot were actually other men, not angels. They demanded that the "men" come out for a gang rape, but you don't see this connected to gay sex. Furthermore they turned down Lot's virgin daughters, while insisting on the "men" for their rape party. It's real obvious (to most people) that the men of Sodom wanted gay sex.

Also note that Sodom was the only town visited by the angels, however, Gomorrah and the neighboring villages were destroyed as well. In Jude we find those souls are burning in hell today as an eternal example. Example of what? God's affirmation of gay sex??? I don't think so.

Gommorah and the other villages went after "strange flesh" according to Jude, but the angels only visited Sodom. So the "strange flesh" isn't about the angels, though many gay-advocates try to squirm around this Biblical fact. They have no explanation for the "strange flesh" verse. I have an explanation -- it's gay sex, and the destruction is an eternal example for all liars that try to change the facts, and say God changed his mind about it. Nope -- eternal includes today, tomorrow and forever.

 

[Washington]

The difference is that all those Laws in the OT could be remediated with a sin offering. Gay-sex on the otherhand, was a capital offense.

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Of the capital offenses listed in the OT law, tell us just one that is good. (you don't get to count gay sex *hint *hint)

Why? What difference does it make?

"Homosexuality" is an obsolete term to describe a multifaceted sexual orientation whose etiology isn't understood. Under some definitions of homosexuality, ALL women could be considered lesbian. Hence the bible isn't the problem, rather it's a lack of understanding.

Don't you wish. From the American Psychiatric Association.

“Sexual orientation” is a term frequently used to describe a person’s romantic, emotional or sexual attraction to another person. A person attracted to another person of the same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation and may be called gay (both men and women) or lesbian.
source
​

If the American Psychiatric Association is comfortable using "homosexual" to describe a sexual orientation I'll take that as evidence that "homosexuality" is far from being obsolete.

 

[MercyBurst]

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

All the dietary and ritualistic laws could be forgiven with a sin offering, but not the moral offenses.

Why? What difference does it make?

Well things like murder, kidnapping, and manslaughter matter to most people.

Don't you wish. From the American Psychiatric Association.

“Sexual orientation” is a term frequently used to describe a person’s romantic, emotional or sexual attraction to another person. A person attracted to another person of the same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation and may be called gay (both men and women) or lesbian.
source
​

If the American Psychiatric Association is comfortable using "homosexual" to describe a sexual orientation I'll take that as evidence that "homosexuality" is far from being obsolete.

I don't wish anything like that. I merely quote from research:

http://staff.um.edu.mt/mbor7/orientation.htm

• Women, regardless of sexual orientation, respond to both male and female stimuli. (Chivers & others, 2002).

Now using the APA's rubric that you just quoted, that would make all women lesbians wouldn't it?

 

[OllieFranz]

The difference is that all those Laws in the OT could be remediated with a sin offering. Gay-sex on the otherhand, was a capital offense. Of the capital offenses listed in the OT law, tell us just one that is good. (you don't get to count gay sex *hint *hint)

Even if that is the case (and have you also included a woman who was raped but didn't scream loud enough to prove it was rape? [Deut 22:23-24]), how does that affect my critique of CARM's rebuttal? There is nothing in the CARM webpage about death penalties vs fines.

Tell us why incestuous marriage between siblings is moral, using the same rubric.

Again, what does this have to do with CARM's rebuttal? Where does CARM talk about incest? (Although they very well might have chosen to do so, they did not.) However since incest is a better example than "paedophiles" by which they actually meant child molesters, I will answer.

Nothing. There is nothing Biblically wrong with Sibling Marriage. Abraham and Sarah were siblings (or at least half-siblings). Most of the "incest laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not about sex and marriage between blood relatives, but about adultery within the family (with in-laws as well as with blood relatives) and few are about family politics (like when an older sister or a mother becomes the second wife to the younger woman's primary wife).

"Homosexuality" is an obsolete term to describe a multifaceted sexual orientation whose etiology isn't understood. Under some definitions of homosexuality, ALL women could be considered lesbian. Hence the bible isn't the problem, rather it's a lack of understanding.

Frankly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. It certainly has nothing to do with CARM's webpage. They use the term the same way that most people do in these debates.

Yes, indeed. The men of sodom were quite unfriendly when they tried to gang rape Lot's overnight visitors.

I have already covered all these points and more on my own web-blog. Check out the link in my signature.

Then why are you coming here and trying to hijack this thread? Nothing you wrote either defended any points that CARM tried to make, or directly countered my critisisms of their points. There are threads that your posts are appropriate to. Perhaps this might have also become one after a little topic drift, but if you are posting in someone else's thread -- and especially if yours is the first reply -- it is only courteous to respond to the tone and purpose of the OP.

Edited to add: I specifically started a new thread to discuss something that would have been a derail of another thread if I had simply posted in the thread in which it first came up. Hijacking threads is not civilized behaviour, so I will not do it. I do not appreciate others doing it to me.

 

[Washington]

All the dietary and ritualistic laws could be forgiven with a sin offering, but not the moral offenses.

Considerably different, isn't it!

Well things like murder, kidnapping, and manslaughter matter to most people.

My point was, what difference does it make that OllieFranz might consider any of the other capital offenses to be good? If you find a particular movie to be good what difference does it make that you find another movie to be good? Does it have a direct bearing on your evaluation of the movie in question? If not, then it's relevance is moot.

I don't wish anything like that. I merely quote from research:

First of all, you didn't quote anyone in your original statement. And I fail to see what the quote is now supposed to do. It certainly doesn't support your claim that "'Homosexuality' is an obsolete term." OR, that "Under some definitions of homosexuality, ALL women could be considered lesbian."

Secondly, lecture notes from a Psych course at the University of Malta is hardly the best source for current information. If anything, it smacks of desperate quote mining.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Thank you for yuour considerable work, Ollie Franz. In my experience the operators of CARM are not honorable persons so one would be mistaken to expect integrity from them. The fact they offer a "theology test" and then presume to tell you the "correct" answers was just the first clue they're dishonorable and play fast and loose with the truth.

The worldview of these folks generally consists of "we will use anything and everything against those we hate, and when empowered to do so we will whip them till they bleed and then fine them for bleeding.'

 

[CaDan]

I don't wish anything like that. I merely quote from research:

http://staff.um.edu.mt/mbor7/orientation.htm

Those are class notes, not research.

Just thought the audience might want to be aware of this.

 

[Ave Maria]

The fact is, homosexuality and homosexual sexual behavior is sinful. It is considered an abomination in the eyes of God.

 

[JohnT]

... Since examining the claims would seriously derail that discussion from the OP's original purpose, I have decided to open a new thread, instead. Blah blah blah ...

If you are going to trash CARM, the least you can do is quote their response accurately instead of making a fallacious straw man argument, then supply your inaccurate paraphrases as “proofs”
Objections Answered

1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

• The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy.

  Nor do they explain how to classify any particular law into these classifications

Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

Nowhere in their rebuttal do they explain the scriptural basis for making this distinction.

The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty. Or that, in fact, the only thing various proponents of the "different types of law" view agree upon is that the ones in Leviticus 18 and 20 are "moral" laws -- except the one forbidding sleeping with a woman having her period. [And the dietary laws are ceremonial -- they can only agree on this because it is the specific example used in three chapters of Acts, and three of Paul's letters.

Sorry, but your whining is at odds with the facts.

2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one.

Their rebuttal to this is based on an hypocritical Catch-22 they impose on their opponents. Many on the "pro-gay" side speak of a "loving, commited relationship" because the Christians refuse to recognize their marriages

This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture.

If instead of equating marriages of lesbians and gays to such wanton and depraved acts, they were to equate them with their own marriages, most of this "rebuttal" would collapse under its own weight.

Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.


Again, you fail to establish your point, for your accusations are contrary to fact.

3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding?

In the first sentence of the rebuttal, they claim they are going to examine the merits of the claim they are rebutting, but they only look at the same four verses, in isolation, rather than in context*, and in English translation only. Using that technique, I can find proof text verses to declare that God does not exist.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROVIDE THE HEBREW TEXTS FOR YOU? THEN YOU CAN TELL US WHERE CARM, AND THE BIBLE TRANSLATORS MESSED UP, OR THAT THE CONTEXT IS WRONG.
The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.

When a sentence begins with "Wherefore..." it obviously relates to what went before. In this case, the sexual sins described in Romans 1:26-27 are the result, not the cause, of God giving them up to their lesser passions. Those who commit these sins are already lost to sins listed in the earlier verses: idolators, and those who reject God. The reference to Plato's Laws adds a second group: addicts, whom Plato calls "slaves to pleasure," and who, according to Paul, are already recieving (sic) into themselves the just recompense for their error. Neither of these describe a loving, committed couple in a marriage, whether approved by the government.

WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE??? (((SHAKING MY HEAD)))

There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:26ff

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. ASV
​

26 δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν 27 ομοιως τε και οι αρρενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες 28 και καθως ουκ εδοκιμασαν τον θεον εχειν εν επιγνωσει παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις αδοκιμον νουν ποιειν τα μη καθηκοντα 29 πεπληρωμενους παση αδικια πορνεια πονηρια πλεονεξια κακια μεστους φθονου φονου εριδος δολου κακοηθειας ψιθυριστας 30 καταλαλους θεοστυγεις υβριστας υπερηφανους αλαζονας εφευρετας κακων γονευσιν απειθεις 31 ασυνετους ασυνθετους αστοργους ασπονδους ανελεημονας 32 οιτινες το δικαιωμα του θεου επιγνοντες οτι οι τα τοιαυτα πρασσοντες αξιοι θανατου εισιν ου μονον αυτα ποιουσιν αλλα και συνευδοκουσιν τοις πρασσουσιν Stephanus

Here is the original Greek followed by perhaps the most accurate American translation of Scripture.

Where did the experts go wrong??




4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'

Here they abandon exegesis altogether in favor of eisogesis (sic). They ignore the judgment of men who were closer in culture to the time of Abraham and Lot, and who were directly inspired to report god's truths.

ACTUALLY, THE HEBREW WORD IS TRANSLATED “KNOW” AND IT HAS AS A MEANING “KNOW SEXUALLY” THIS IS THEREFORE TOTALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE HEBREW; I CAN COPY FROM SEVERAL HEBREW LEXICONS ON THAT ONE.

AS TO THE SECOND SENTENCE, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, NOR ITS RELEVANCE. YOU SIMPLY FAIL TO REBUT THE CARM POSITION, AGAIN. (SIGH)

Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors?

If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity.


____________________
1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek aρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996).

The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts."
========================================================

Honestly, you will be more fruitful by trying to obey the plain truth of what God said rather than trying to find sophomoric ways to evade the plain truth.

Howl and whine that we are unloving, etc, but the plain fact is that homosexuals are just like adulterers: sinners who need to be forgiven, accept Jesus as savior, then stop sinning. It is that simple.

All we do is quote Scripture; all you opponents do is try to wiggle out from the plain laws of God. There may be some who believe that he/she has good rhetorical skills on your side; (I found none so far) who can state things clearly and reasonable, but do any of you think for one nanosecond that if you have the greatest skills in the world that you could convince a just, righteous and holy God to change his mind about what he wrote? Who are you to stand in the face of God and argue your case yourself?

Ultimately it is his judgment each of you will face, and I hope you do it as a humble Christian rather than as a PROUD homosexual.

 

[MercyBurst]

Even if that is the case (and have you also included a woman who was raped but didn't scream loud enough to prove it was rape? [Deut 22:23-24]),

I recommend you research Hebrew custom in this matter. In order to be convicted, there would be two or more eyewitnesses against her. She could have screamed to them for help, couldn't she?

Again, what does this have to do with CARM's rebuttal? Where does CARM talk about incest? (Although they very well might have chosen to do so, they did not.) However since incest is a better example than "paedophiles" by which they actually meant child molesters, I will answer.

I'm using your loving monagamous relationship rubric that is supposed to make a relationship moral between two consenting adults. Then I'm comparing an adult brother and sister in an incestuous relationship, and I'm using the gay rubric that "mimics a straight relationship", and I find it faulty. The rubric is no good, and homophobic to boot.

Nothing. There is nothing Biblically wrong with Sibling Marriage. Abraham and Sarah were siblings (or at least half-siblings). Most of the "incest laws in Leviticus 18 and 20 are not about sex and marriage between blood relatives, but about adultery within the family (with in-laws as well as with blood relatives) and few are about family politics (like when an older sister or a mother becomes the second wife to the younger woman's primary wife).

Abraham is a poor example of morality. He had multiple wives and concubines too.

Frankly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. It certainly has nothing to do with CARM's webpage. They use the term the same way that most people do in these debates.

The point is that the bible is never obsolete, and men try to dream up excuses for immorality.

Then why are you coming here and trying to hijack this thread? Nothing you wrote either defended any points that CARM tried to make, or directly countered my critisisms of their points. There are threads that your posts are appropriate to. Perhaps this might have also become one after a little topic drift, but if you are posting in someone else's thread -- and especially if yours is the first reply -- it is only courteous to respond to the tone and purpose of the OP.

Becasue my points demolish all your counterpoints to CARM.

Edited to add: I specifically started a new thread to discuss something that would have been a derail of another thread if I had simply posted in the thread in which it first came up. Hijacking threads is not civilized behaviour, so I will not do it. I do not appreciate others doing it to me.

You made your points and I countered them. I'm sorry you don't like the answers but all your counterpoints look really weak with the additional evidence I presented to CARM's points.

 

[KCKID]

I find it incomprehensible that one should become so passionate about the writings of men that they would discriminate so harshly against fellow human beings whose intent is not to harm anyone. John T, your posts are almost fanatical and I can't help but wonder what drives you so. I doubt that It's God, even though you and others with similar tone believe it to be. When are people going to acknowledge once and for all that the fulfilling of the 'Christian command' is simply 'to love one another.' Loving 'gay' people by accepting who they are despite their being different from the norm (why should you even CARE that not all people are carbon copies of you?) should not be difficult for a real Christian.

I believe that most of us have some form of 'psychological' issues if the truth be known. Bible fanaticism such as is displayed on this sub-forum is most decidedly a psychological issue. One only needs to check out the TONE of most of the anti-gay posters to recognize this. On the other hand, a number of anti anti-gays also display a similar tone. The difference here, however, is that they are attempting to defend themselves or others FROM the Bible fanatics. It's a no-win situation and will never be until all who claim to follow Jesus ACTUALLY DO SO.

 

[MercyBurst]

Those are class notes, not research.

Just thought the audience might want to be aware of this.

ummmm I also quoted the reference...

http://staff.um.edu.mt/mbor7/orientation.htm

• Women, regardless of sexual orientation, respond to both male and female stimuli (Chivers & others, 2002).

More good notes for you teach...

http://www.iasr.org/meeting/2002/abstracts_2002.html

Will the real lesbians please stand up? Diversity in sexual-minority women's desires and relationships over time

Diamond, L.M., University of Utah, USA


Many sexual-minority (i.e., nonheterosexual) women report inconsistencies among their sexual attractions, sexual behaviors, and sexual identities, as well as discontinuities in each of these domains over time. For example, some self-identified lesbians continue to experience sexual attractions for men; others have never had same-sex sexual contact; still others initiate heterosexual relationships after long periods of exclusive same-sex behavior. Such cases complicate efforts to identify prototypical sexual "careers" among lesbian vs. bisexual vs. heterosexual women. In this presentation, I present longitudinal data bearing on this problem and identify areas for future theoretical and empirical study. Specifically, I summarize findings from 2-year and 5-year follow-up interviews with 80 sexual-minority women who were first interviewed in 1995 when they were between 16-23 years of age. Changes in sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities are reviewed, as well as associations among these domains over time. Particular attention is devoted to describing and explaining discrepancies between women's attractions and behaviors, and highlighting individual difference dimensions (such as motivesfor sexual contact) that help propel women with similar patterns of attraction onto divergent sexual-developmental trajectories. Implications of these findings for folk distinctions between "real" and "fake/bisexual" lesbians, as well as for the hypothesis of female sexual plasticity, are discussed.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The men of sodom thought the angels visiting Lot were actually other men, not angels. They demanded that the "men" come out for a gang rape, but you don't see this connected to gay sex. Furthermore they turned down Lot's virgin daughters, while insisting on the "men" for their rape party. It's real obvious (to most people) that the men of Sodom wanted gay sex.

Also note that Sodom was the only town visited by the angels, however, Gomorrah and the neighboring villages were destroyed as well. In Jude we find those souls are burning in hell today as an eternal example. Example of what? God's affirmation of gay sex??? I don't think so.

Gommorah and the other villages went after "strange flesh" according to Jude, but the angels only visited Sodom. So the "strange flesh" isn't about the angels, though many gay-advocates try to squirm around this Biblical fact. They have no explanation for the "strange flesh" verse. I have an explanation -- it's gay sex, and the destruction is an eternal example for all liars that try to change the facts, and say God changed his mind about it. Nope -- eternal includes today, tomorrow and forever.

As has been pointed out before, is it just possible that perhaps the problem was that the people of Sodom wanted to RAPE the angels, not that they wanted to have homosexual sex with them?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The fact is, homosexuality and homosexual sexual behavior is sinful. It is considered an abomination in the eyes of God.

Thats not a fact, thats an opinion (allegedly) based on a partcular interpretation of the Bible

 

[MercyBurst]

As has been pointed out before, is it just possible that perhaps the problem was that the people of Sodom wanted to RAPE the angels, not that they wanted to have homosexual sex with them?

As I pointed out in the previous post, Gomorrah and the neighboring cities were destroyed for fornication and going after "strange flesh" (Jude 1:8). There wasn't an angel to be found in any of them. "Angel rape" had nothing to do with their destruction.

The angels only visited Sodom.

 

[KCKID]

As has been pointed out before, is it just possible that perhaps the problem was that the people of Sodom wanted to RAPE the angels, not that they wanted to have homosexual sex with them?

It's entirely probable that the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is a fable anyway. If so - and their existence cannot be scientifically substantiated - then isn't this entire issue rather pointless?

By the way, I don't believe that it's a part of the 'homosexual agenda' to enmass as a mob and gather outside a person's home lusting after them like a pack of animals for sex. But, I could be wrong.

This entire line of thought by the Christian anti-gays about S&G is so ludicrous that it's laughable. I can't believe that people are so gullible that they would still be falling for this nonsense. It just shows the length that some will go to in order to support their own agenda.

Come on folks, Jesus died to take away our sins ...not our brains!

 

[Texas Lynn]

It's entirely probable that the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is a fable anyway. If so - and their existence cannot be scientifically substantiated - then isn't this entire issue rather pointless?

By the way, I don't believe that it's a part of the 'homosexual agenda' to enmass as a mob and gather outside a person's home lusting after them like a pack of animals for sex. But, I could be wrong.

This entire line of thought by the Christian anti-gays about S&G is so ludicrous that it's laughable. I can't believe that people are so gullible that they would still be falling for this nonsense. It just shows the length that some will go to in order to support their own agenda.

Come on folks, Jesus died to take away our sins ...not our brains!

Well put. In Horton Foote's movie A Trip to Bountiful an elderly woman wishes to visit her old home town only to find out it doesn't exist anymore. Obviously towns come and go but the legend of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is primarily a campfire tall tale with no basis in fact. A pornographic movie called "The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah" was released in about 1978 and its poster revealed a spaceship above the villiage which looked exactly like The Starship Enterprise of the original Star Trek except it was green. From this ship fell the nuclear bomb which rose a mushroom cloud above the city. Fanciful, huh? But no less so than the discredited notion the town's destruction somehow had something to do with homosexuality.