Homosexuality - Here I stand.

SughaNSpice said:

What is true is that there is serious academic debate among theologians and experts in Greek about the claim that homosexuality is biblically condemned. What they say has merit and should be looked at honestly and openly

Click to expand...

What experts? You keep making this claim, but do nothing to back it up. What people are saying this?

JacobHall86 said:

What experts? You keep making this claim, but do nothing to back it up. What people are saying this?

Click to expand...

Here is a short list:
Bernhard Anderson – Professor of theology at Princeton
J Glen Taylor – Professor of Greek at University of Toronto
Allen Verhey Professor of Christian Studies at DukeUniversity
Bernadette Brooten - professor of new testament studies at BrandeisUniversity
Ann Nyland professor of Classical and Ionic Greek form New EnglandUniversity
Susan Smith Professor of ancient history and classical Greek from the School Of Theology, the University of Auckland
Bradley Artsun – Dean of the American Jewish University
Dale Martin Professor of religious studies at Yale
William Petersen Professor of New Testament and Christian Studies at PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Allice Bellis Professor at HowardUniversitySchool of Divinity
David Tiede president of Luther Seminary
Brian Blount New Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary
Marcus Borg Professor of Religion and Culture at OregonStateUniversity
John Boswell – Professor of History at YaleUniversity
Margaret Davies Prof of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield
Frederick Gaiser – Professor at Luther Seminary
Richard Hays, Prof of New Testament studies at George Washington Univeristy
Daniel Helminiak Professor of theology at University of WestGeorgia
Richard McBrein – head of theology department at Notre Dame
Robin Scroggs Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary
Abraham Smith Professor of New Testament at Southern Methodist Universtiy
G. David Comstock – professor of theology at WesylanUniversity
L. William Countryman – Professor the New Testament studies at the EpiscoplianChurchDivinitySchool of the Pacific, Berkeley
Kenneth Dover – Professor of Greek at University of St. Andrews at Oxford

So that's the men covered.

Now, what's the situation with women?

'Tis OK for females?

Trolling on a dead thread?

Men/ women same difference.

Just out of interest, where is that written?

SughaNSpice said:

Here is a short list:
Bernhard Anderson – Professor of theology at Princeton
J Glen Taylor – Professor of Greek at University of Toronto
Allen Verhey Professor of Christian Studies at DukeUniversity
Bernadette Brooten - professor of new testament studies at BrandeisUniversity
Ann Nyland professor of Classical and Ionic Greek form New EnglandUniversity
Susan Smith Professor of ancient history and classical Greek from the School Of Theology, the University of Auckland
Bradley Artsun – Dean of the American Jewish University
Dale Martin Professor of religious studies at Yale
William Petersen Professor of New Testament and Christian Studies at PennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Allice Bellis Professor at HowardUniversitySchool of Divinity
David Tiede president of Luther Seminary
Brian Blount New Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary
Marcus Borg Professor of Religion and Culture at OregonStateUniversity
John Boswell – Professor of History at YaleUniversity
Margaret Davies Prof of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield
Frederick Gaiser – Professor at Luther Seminary
Richard Hays, Prof of New Testament studies at George Washington Univeristy
Daniel Helminiak Professor of theology at University of WestGeorgia
Richard McBrein – head of theology department at Notre Dame
Robin Scroggs Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary
Abraham Smith Professor of New Testament at Southern Methodist Universtiy
G. David Comstock – professor of theology at WesylanUniversity
L. William Countryman – Professor the New Testament studies at the EpiscoplianChurchDivinitySchool of the Pacific, Berkeley
Kenneth Dover – Professor of Greek at University of St. Andrews at Oxford

Click to expand...

Hey, I agree with you on this topic, but I just wanted to point out something here. The logical fallacy being committed here is an appeal to authority. Even though these individuals are likely to know what they're talking about, doesn't mean that they're right. All that it would mean is that if I'm not going to or not able to look into the evidence myself, then I'm more likely to trust their professional over Joe Bloe's from down the street. Yet, I should realize that it's possible that they're wrong until I do the research myself to confirm this.

JacobHall86 said:

What experts? You keep making this claim, but do nothing to back it up. What people are saying this?

Click to expand...

There are people who study Greek and appear to be very knowledgeable in the subject, having PhD's and whatnot that argue against homosexuality being banned in the Bible. Likewise, scholars also point to the original Hebrew writings of the OT in regards to what Leviticus says about homosexuality to argue against the claim that Christian theology really does ban homosexuality in the bible.


But, in regards to the Greek used in the New Testament, I guess a person could always ask a Greek Orthodox how these same scriptures are to be interpreted since this person may actually be a native speaker of Greek.


Here's the thing many Christians don't seem to realize, ALOT can get lost when translating from one language to another. Not every word translates directly over, certain words have other meanings in one language which wouldn't have the same meanings in another, idioms, cultural references, etc.

Not to mention, some of our "traditional" understanding of Christianity was handed down to us from the Dark Ages. The vast majority of Christendom lived in ignorance, believing whatever their religious authorities told them to believe because they didn't know any better. Even though the Western Hempishere has done alot to move away from this way of life (some of which pushed people away from "Christian practice") we still carry some of these stories which were passed down to us since then.

Unless you look use tools which are external to the bible, such as looking at original translations and history surrounding the scripture, you really can't know what it was exactly that God might've wanted for us to know. This is even more so, if you're one who believes that the Bible has to be interpreted literally, word-for-word. Because, if you do then relying on English translations is the wrong way to go about doing this because none of these writers spoke English nor would they have been able to predict how we might interpret them today.

liars_paradox said:

Hey, I agree with you on this topic, but I just wanted to point out something here. The logical fallacy being committed here is an appeal to authority. Even though these individuals are likely to know what they're talking about, doesn't mean that they're right. All that it would mean is that if I'm not going to or not able to look into the evidence myself, then I'm more likely to trust their professional over Joe Bloe's from down the street. Yet, I should realize that it's possible that they're wrong until I do the research myself to confirm this.

Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't an appeal to authority. The fallacy of the appeal to authority is committed when one attempts to prove a particular proposition by, accordingly, appealing to an authority. Sugha was not attempting to prove a point through the list. She was simply providing a list for JacobHall, who asked for a list of experts on the matter.

I found this article interesting by Pastor: P. Michael Ukleja
Rossmor Grace Brethren Church, Los Alamitos, California

Homosexuality and the Sin of Sodom

Two angels who came to Lot in Sodom were threatened by a mob (Gen 19:4-11). What were the men of Sodom seeking when they called on Lot to bring out the men "that we may know them" (19:5, KJV)? Some conclude that the story has no reference to homosexual acts at all. Bailey seeks to justify homosexuality from the Old Testament in his work "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition." [1] Others (for example, Boswell [2]) use Bailey's arguments concerning this passage. Bailey was an Anglican scholar whose work influenced the change in British law regarding this issue. This work is fast becoming a standard reference work for the pro-homosexual viewpoint.

Bailey believes that much of Christian prejudice against homosexuality is the result of misunderstanding the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. He argues that the men of Sodom were anxious to interrogate the strangers to find out if they were spies. Therefore, he argues, the story does not refer to homosexuality at all. The sin involved was not homosexuality, but gang rape. Lot had angered these residents by receiving foreigners whose credentials had not been examined. The men were angered by this omission, and were showing extreme discourtesy to these visitors by demanding to know their credentials. [3] Bailey argues that the demand of the men of Sodom to "know" the strangers in Lot's house meant nothing more than their desire to "get acquainted with" them. The problem, argues Bailey, was nothing more than inhospitality. Others, including Blair, have expanded on this argument.

The Biblical story demonstrates the seriousness with which these early Eastern people took the important customs of Oriental hospitality. It appears that, if necessary, they would even allow their own daughters to undergo abuse in order to protect guests. The sexual aspect of the story is simply the vehicle in which the subject of demanded hospitality is conveyed. It is clearly interpreted in Ezekiel 16:49: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy." [4]

The Hebrew word for "know" (yada), Bailey points out, can be translated "to get acquainted with" or "to have knowledge of" or "to have intercourse with." The word "yada" appears over 943 times in the Old Testament and only 12 times does it mean "to have intercourse with." He also states that intercourse, as a means to personal knowledge, depends on more than copulation. Therefore, he argues, the circumstances in Sodom could not fit the sexual connotation of the word "know." He concludes by reasoning from the fact that Lot was a "gur" (Hebrew word), a resident foreigner. As such, Lot had exceeded his rights by receiving two foreigners whose credentials had not been examined. [5]

The first problem with this argument is the fact that the meaning of a word in a given passage is not determined solely on the basis of the number of times it is translated that way in the Bible. The context determines how it is to be translated. Of the 12 times the word "yada" occurs in Genesis, 10 times it means "to have intercourse with." Kidner offers the following rebuttal to Bailey's arguments.

To this we may reply: (a) Statistics are no substitute for contextual evidence (otherwise the rarer sense of the word would never seem probable), and in both these passages the demand to "know" is used in its sexual sense (Gen 19:8; Jdg 19:25). Even apart from this verbal conjunction it would be grotesquely inconsequent that Lot should reply to a demand for credentials by an offer of daughters. (b) Psychology can suggest how "to know" acquired its secondary sense; but in fact the use of the word is completely flexible. No one suggests that in Judges 19:25 the men of Gibeah were gaining "knowledge" of their victim in the sense of personal relationship, yet "know" is the word used of them. (c) Conjecture here has the marks of special pleading for it substitutes a trivial reason ("commotion . . . inhospitality") for a serious one for the angels' decision. Apart from this, it is silenced by Jude 7, a pronouncement which Dr. Bailey has to discount as belonging to a late stage of interpretation. [6]

The whole scene in Genesis 19 takes on near-comic proportions if Lot, on hearing the demand of the crowd that they wished to "get acquainted with" the men in his house, said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please let me bring them out to you and do to them as is good in your sight, only do nothing to these men . . ." (author's translation). In verse 8 the same verb, "yada" with the negative particle is used to describe Lot's daughters as having "not known" a man. The verb here obviously means "have intercourse with." It could hardly mean simply "be acquainted with." In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite
obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.

Jude 7 gives a commentary on this passage. It clearly states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange or different flesh "sarkikos heteras" (Greek). It is no accident that Jude describes their actions by using "ekpornusasai" (Greek). The verb "pornuo" definitely refers to sexual immorality and the preposition "ek" explains that it means that "they gave themselves up fully, without reserve, thoroughly, out and out, utterly." [7] The term "strange flesh" could imply unnatural acts between men or even of human beings with animals. The inhabitants of Canaan were guilty of both of these sins (Lev 18:23-29). This definitely includes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. History and archaeology confirm these same conditions. Josephus, who wrote around A.D. 99-100, said that the Sodomites "hated strangers and abused themselves with sodomitical practices." [8].......

Notes

1 D. Sherwin Bailey, "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition" (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955; reprint, Hamden, CT: Shoestring Press,
1975).

2 John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

3 Bailey, "Homosexuality," p. 5.

4 Ibid., p. 4.

5 Ibid., pp. 3-5.

6 Derek Kidner, "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1963), p. 137.

7 Richard Wolff, "A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude" (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 75.

8 Josephus, quoted in Wolff, ibid., pp. 76-77.



This article appeared in "Bibliotheca Sacra" Volume 140, July-September 1983,Number 559. For more information write Bibliotheca Sacra, Subscription
Services, 3909 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204.

Tissue said:

Actually, it isn't an appeal to authority. The fallacy of the appeal to authority is committed when one attempts to prove a particular proposition by, accordingly, appealing to an authority. Sugha was not attempting to prove a point through the list. She was simply providing a list for JacobHall, who asked for a list of experts on the matter.

Click to expand...

That, and expert testimony is not automatically to be excluded as a fallacious appeal to authority. In a court of law, a potential expert witness must present credentials to the court, and if both sides are satisfied with his qualifications, he is allowed to testify. Moreover, most expert testimony is just that, testimony, not the final judgment, and is to be vetted and either accepted or rejected the same as any other evidence.

Similarly, although quoting from the Bible is appealing to its authority, here in the Christians Only sections of CF we are all agreed that it has that authority, so it becomes "expert testimony," although in this case, it is not its truth value that is in question, but how it is to be understood.

So Sugah's list, which as has been noted, is in reply to a request for just such a list, is more like a list of potential expert witnesses, than an appeal to their names as an argument.

liars_paradox said:

There are people who study Greek and appear to be very knowledgeable in the subject, having PhD's and whatnot that argue against homosexuality being banned in the Bible. Likewise, scholars also point to the original Hebrew writings of the OT in regards to what Leviticus says about homosexuality to argue against the claim that Christian theology really does ban homosexuality in the bible.


But, in regards to the Greek used in the New Testament, I guess a person could always ask a Greek Orthodox how these same scriptures are to be interpreted since this person may actually be a native speaker of Greek.


Here's the thing many Christians don't seem to realize, ALOT can get lost when translating from one language to another. Not every word translates directly over, certain words have other meanings in one language which wouldn't have the same meanings in another, idioms, cultural references, etc.

Not to mention, some of our "traditional" understanding of Christianity was handed down to us from the Dark Ages. The vast majority of Christendom lived in ignorance, believing whatever their religious authorities told them to believe because they didn't know any better. Even though the Western Hempishere has done alot to move away from this way of life (some of which pushed people away from "Christian practice") we still carry some of these stories which were passed down to us since then.

Unless you look use tools which are external to the bible, such as looking at original translations and history surrounding the scripture, you really can't know what it was exactly that God might've wanted for us to know. This is even more so, if you're one who believes that the Bible has to be interpreted literally, word-for-word. Because, if you do then relying on English translations is the wrong way to go about doing this because none of these writers spoke English nor would they have been able to predict how we might interpret them today.

Click to expand...

They mistranslated the words in when a man lies with another man as a man lies with a woman?

david_x said:

They mistranslated the words in when a man lies with another man as a man lies with a woman?

Click to expand...

You do have a point. Lie with another and to "know" is known as sex most of the time in the OT.

I.E. Gen 19, Lot's daughter being offered to the young and old men was understood Lot was giving his daughter as sacrificial sex offer in exchange instead for the Men/angels, the young and old men wanted to "know".....Sex......When a man wants to "know" another man that is a homosexual act. When has a 100% heterosexual man ever wanted to have sex with another man? You dont see that. That would be a contradiction. If he does want sex from another men then he wouldn't be considered heterosexual anymore. Either to be homosexual or bisexual.

Regardless of rape or not, the young and old men did not know the angels were angels. It is understood the young and old men thought the angels were men.

rape

1 

 /reɪp/

Show Spelled Pronunciation [reyp]

Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap⋅ing.

...... to force to have sexual intercourse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like I stated a few lines above, regardless of the rape, sexual desire is still involved. When a man desires another man sexually then that is on the grounds of homosexuality.

Jadin Xquire said:

You do have a point. Lie with another and to "know" is known as sex most of the time in the OT.

I.E. Gen 19, Lot's daughter being offered to the young and old men was understood Lot was giving his daughter as sacrificial sex offer in exchange instead for the Men/angels, the young and old men wanted to "know".....Sex......When a man wants to "know" another man that is a homosexual act. When has a 100% heterosexual man ever wanted to have sex with another man? You dont see that. That would be a contradiction. If he does want sex from another men then he wouldn't be considered heterosexual anymore. Either to be homosexual or bisexual.

Regardless of rape or not, the young and old men did not know the angels were angels. It is understood the young and old men thought the angels were men.

rape

1 

 /reɪp/

Show Spelled Pronunciation [reyp]

Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap⋅ing.

...... to force to have sexual intercourse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like I stated a few lines above, regardless of the rape, sexual desire is still involved. When a man desires another man sexually then that is on the grounds of homosexuality.

Click to expand...

That was very insulting. What kind of ignorant do you take me for?
I know what the English term "know" means.

Not to mention that segment of scripture was not the one I was referencing.

David X: It wasn't towards you. God Bless you David.

wayseer said:

Read the Bible - you might actually learn something. There is no conclusive evidence within the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin.

Click to expand...

I disagree.
It dosen't say it's a sin. correct.
since it's abominable to God the Father who is all perfect etc.

Then we can go to James 4:17, "If you know what you ought to do yet don't do it, you sin."

Simple as that. Your well processed claims are no match for scriptural cross-referencing.

Thus, homosexuality is a sin.

If it's a sin, why is it never explicitly called a sin? Why is it instead called an 'abomination'?

Of the sixty-five occurrences of the word in the Old Testament, five refer to something as being an abomination to another people. Thirteen of the things labeled "abominations" are dietary restrictions, the observation of which would bar a person from consuming such things as clam chowder, shrimp and, one of my favorites, the non-existent four-legged insect, which certainly refers to something besides what we call "insects". Seventeen refer to improper sacrifice, although I am hard pressed to think of a single Christian (or Jewish, for that matter) congregation that slaughters animals on their altars these days. Outright adultery and adultery cause by divorce, which is prohibited by the Bible even though it is a widespread practice today, account for three of the verses. In addition to Jesus's comment in Luke, the love of money is decried as an abomination in two Old Testament passages. Four related verses cite dishonest trading practices as abominations. Twelve other verses list behaviors ranging from murder to women wearing "anything that pertains to a man" (for example, pants). Eight passages, including the one from Revelation, are not clear about what they mean by "abomination." Precisely two refer to homosexual behavior, though there was no understanding in biblical times of homosexuality as we define it today.

(by Linda A. Malcor : Putting Abominations in Perspective)

In light of verses like Leviticus 11:41 ("Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten." RSV) and Deuteronomy 22:5 ("A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." RSV - Essentially, a woman wearing men's pants is an abomination) make the whole 'abomination' tag very hazy. It is not at all clear that homosexuality, on its basis of being called an 'abomination', is actually a sin.

Tissue said:

If it's a sin, why is it never explicitly called a sin? Why is it instead called an 'abomination'

(by Linda A. Malcor : Putting Abominations in Perspective)

In light of verses like Leviticus 11:41 ("Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten." RSV) and Deuteronomy 22:5 ("A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." RSV - Essentially, a woman wearing men's pants is an abomination) make the whole 'abomination' tag very hazy. It is not at all clear that homosexuality, on its basis of being called an 'abomination', is actually a sin.

Click to expand...

Sorry but your defense is a putrid attempt to defend fallacy with fallacy.
I am disgusted greatly that people defend sin with clever argumentation.
That link told me that it's an apostate defending sinners, just goes to show how corrupt the world has come to.

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"- Isaiah 5:20

Ok, you didn't address my argument at all. You can't just make things go away by saying they are fallacious. That's not how this works.

I just showed that abomination obviously doesn't mean sin in every instance it is used. This, combined with other arguments, provides a rather compelling case for homosexual love being valid (that is, not any more sinful than heterosexual love). If you want to undermine that case, you have to use logic.

why would I want to address fallacy? it's plain and obvious to see to those who know the Shepherd's voice.

I Commented on your lucrative argument. I'm not sorry that I don't conform to the beliefs of those who call "good evil and evil good."