Lev 20:13 and Homosexuality

[seebs]

You're right, Shane, I *am* judgemental, although I'm getting better with time, because God is slowly healing me.

But this doesn't make you *not* judgemental, it just means we're all in this sin thing together.

 

[PastorFreud]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Both of you denounce me as judgemental and yet take no thought that in doing so you judge me. In the meantime, the type of judgement we are exhorted to acoid is the judgement of the inner man. No one says not to judge that murder is wrong. You make this big show of your supposed care for others, but you attack those who simply point out that your doubts about avoiding homosexuality appear entirely unwaranted and groundless, and also lead to one of the few remaining prohibitions in the New Testament, to keep the temple, you own body, pure, by abstaining from sexual sin. It's like the only sin left that holds true danger for the Christian, because "you make the members of Christ the members of a harlot" (1Cor 6:15).

You accuse anyone who refutes you of doing it out of spite and judgement, but you are wrong. I do it, and will continue to counter you, out of love for those who, like me, have been told that abominable things are ok, and who will, like me, learn too late the pain and dissapointment of the falsehood. Seebs accuses me of commiting abominations as well. So true! But I repent of them, and also would counsel anyone who loves Christ that they too can repent, and be "more than conquorers" (ROm 8:37) rather than those who simply cry helplessly that they have no control over their sin.

You accuse me of being lazy and leading people astray.  Sorry, but I responded in kind.

You simply can't accept the possibility that you could be wrong.  You hold up a standard of sexual purity, but don't realize what you hold up.  It is NOT a biblical model of sexuality.  Do you support Levirite marriage?  Jesus did.  Do you believe physical abuse is an acceptable reason for divorce?  Jesus did not.  But you accuse me of rhetoric!!!  Pharisee is a word that fits this kind of behavior. 

Being a good shrink as well as a pastor, I know that some have accepted a label of homosexual and really are not.  I know that some are pained because of their sexual orientation.  I don't believe EVERY homosexual act or relationship is acceptable, just as not EVERY heterosexual act or relationship is acceptable.  But you claim as clear something that is not so clear.  It is only clear when you are predisposed in some way to see it that way.  I would be careful calling something sin when God's word is not so clear. 

"It's the only sin left that holds true danger for a Christian"?  I beg to differ.  There are examples here of a greater sin, one that is against the very nature and character of Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

 

[seebs]

I don't believe sexual sin is any worse than other sins. Indeed, I favor Lewis's view that it may well be potentially lesser, simply because love is a great mitigating factor.

 

[PastorFreud]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
 

Considering that at the moment David was about to run for his very life, yes, I doubt they hung around long enough for anyone to "exceed" in the sense you seem to be implying.

 

Actually, I was trying to support Seebs here and supply the verses you said you had not seen.  I think that this example is not conclusive.  However, for you to suppose that there is nothing in scripture that even comes close is not valid based on this account.  This account, while not conclusive, sure looks suspicious.

 

As I said, I need to go before this degenerates.  That interpretation of two men who care deeply for one another crying adn being emotional in the midst of danger is not a homoerotic moment.  I can think of a similar writing by Tolkien where Frodo is naked and Sam holds him and kisses him.  You have no understanding of non sexual male intimacy, as I stated earlier.

 

Actually, I do have an understanding of non sexual male intimacy.  How you could make such a blanket statement about me goes back to that judgment thing.  I feel you do dismiss me and only seek to blame and shame.  

 

How escaping Saul's murderous intentions and denouncing David's enemies becomes a courtship ritual, I will never understand I am sure.

This one you should be more hip with.  In a covenant ceremony, which happened between men, clothing was exchanged.  Vows are made.  God does this with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The marriage ceremony is patterned after the covenant.  But women were not allowed to make covenants with men.  Biblical truth about women is that they are the property of men.  Women did make covenants with other women, i.e. Naomi and Ruth.

 

[PastorFreud]

Oh, the courtship ritual I was referring to was later in 1 Samuel 17. I didn't paste that in.

Here's biblical courtship for men:
1. Find the woman you want to marry.
2. Go cut off the foreskins of 1,000 of her father's enemies.
3. Give the foreskins to the father.

Here's biblical courtship for women:
1. Find the man you want to marry.
2. Wait until he is drunk and falls asleep.
3. Lay down at his feet. When he awakes, tell him you are there to do whatever he wishes.

Alternative biblical courtship for men:
1. Have your servant go down to the local marketplace and find you a wife.

Or:
1. Find the woman you want to marry.
2. Work seven years for her father. Do strange things with animals.
3. Get tricked and marry the woman's ugly sister.
4. Work seven more years and keep doing strange things with animals.
5. Marry the woman you love.

Aren't we so lucky the Bible tells how to live!

 

[Shane Roach]

A point of clarification. I did not say sexual sins were the only ones that hold danger, I said that sexual sins were the ones directly referred to in the New Testament as still being binding upon believers who are not Jewish.

You continually say, as Seebs has in the past, that not every homosexual relationship is wrong, yet I have still not seen any evidence of this. You both may call me judgemental till the world ends, but I am under no onus to believe you because you call me names.

Pastor Freud, I specifically referred to your rhetoric as lazy. If you will gop back and read precisely what I was refering to, I think you will find that you yourself will recognize the bit of lazy rhetoric I am refering to. It is of much the same vein as your present assault on the entire concept of courtship.

The Bible does indeed state that women are to be subservient to their husbands. It also makes demands of the husband towards the wife. I find no reference to property. Perhaps I am using a different version that you.

FInally, I think you and Seebs both throw the word judgemental around wrecklessly whenever someone refuses to grant you that the issue is questionable. If you like, I will grant you that all issues can be considered "questionable". It's a matter of little consequence though when so few share the doubts you two seem to have. Nevertheless, it is possible that the majority can be wrong about something, and I don't claim this as proof, but rather exspress without reservation my opinion, which remains that your arguments are without merit and lean too heavily on emotionalistic rhetorical grandstanding.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
Oh, the courtship ritual I was referring to was later in 1 Samuel 17. I didn't paste that in.

Here's biblical courtship for men:
1. Find the woman you want to marry.
2. Go cut off the foreskins of 1,000 of her father's enemies.
3. Give the foreskins to the father.

Here's biblical courtship for women:
1. Find the man you want to marry.
2. Wait until he is drunk and falls asleep.
3. Lay down at his feet. When he awakes, tell him you are there to do whatever he wishes.

Alternative biblical courtship for men:
1. Have your servant go down to the local marketplace and find you a wife.

Or:
1. Find the woman you want to marry.
2. Work seven years for her father. Do strange things with animals.
3. Get tricked and marry the woman's ugly sister.
4. Work seven more years and keep doing strange things with animals.
5. Marry the woman you love.

Aren't we so lucky the Bible tells how to live!

 

This is truly a shameful display.  Pastor, you need to learn some self control.  Even if I myself were to have provoked you to this, as a pastor it is your duty to do even as your own signature says, to handle the word of God properly.  I make no claim to being a person holding myself foreward as a keeper of God's own people, yet I know better than to make a mockery of God's word to look cute in public in front of my friends.

 

Each and every one of these stories has important meaning that is undermined by your flippant treatment.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
Aren't we so lucky the Bible tells how to live!

 

Jesus seemed to think so.  I certainly think so.

 

[seebs]

Shane, as I've said before, the Bible doesn't list everything that's not wrong. It lists a few wrong things, and a few right things, and the rest is basic principles.

I believe that compassion is foremost among those principles.

I don't feel that the case for the Bible's condemnation of "homosexuality in general" is a persuasive one. Given that, I must look at the basic principles. What I see in those principles is that, as a community, as a species, we are asked to continue our species, but that not everyone is called to that.

When I see people who feel they are called to celibacy, although I do not believe they are fulfilling the "be fruitful and multiply" part of God's plan, I recognize that He may have other plans for them.

When couples who are infertile marry anyway, I don't think they're sinful for expressing their love physically. Sex is not *only* for procreation; cleaving two together as one is also part of God's plan, because He wishes us to find companionship.

When people in the Bible are polygamous, or follow the practice of Levirate marriage, it's not the culture I was born to, but I am given to understand that they meet with God's approval, so I don't argue.

So... When I see a same-sex couple, expressing love physically, I generally feel it's most compassionate and correct to treat them the way I would treat any other couple physically unable to have children; with compassion and love.

For me to do otherwise, I would need to be convinced that God condemns homosexuality itself, not just certain practices of it. I know that God condemns non-consensual sex among straight people, ritual sex among straight people, adultery, and many other kinds of sex, but I don't see in that any condemnation of heterosexual sexual attraction itself.

If you wish to reject everything the Bible doesn't explicitly show, you're welcome to; doing so is certainly a good way to avoid mistakenly condoning anything God disapproves of. However, many things I believe to be moral, such as freeing slaves, are ignored or forbidden by the Bible, so I think you will mistakenly condemn things that God *does* approve of.

In the end, when we find ourselves disagreeing over what the Bible teaches, all we can do is pray to God for guidance and follow His guidance as best we can. For me, that means reaching out to gay people, and preaching the Gospel to them. I mean the Gospel, the story that Christ has paved the way for us to be saved, not a bunch of stuff about all the things you have to give up to be saved.

Christ was very clear on this in His ministry; you welcome people in, and then they clean up their sins on their own schedule, and as long as they're still trying, they're saved. It doesn't matter whether you still drink, or can't get those racist thoughts out of your head, or get into fist fights; if you're *trying*, you're saved. It doesn't even matter if you just haven't been convicted of some of your sins yet; as long as you're listening, and you're ready to try, Christ can bridge that gap.

So, in the end, my course is clear; encourage people to enter Christ's kingdom and find fellowship here, and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict them of whatever sins they may have. Judging them to not be "good enough" or not "sincere" is not within my authority.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
 

Jesus seemed to think so.  I certainly think so.

I do too, but I guess I put more emphasis on compassion, and less on trying to eradicate other people's sins, than you do.

 

[PastorFreud]

See, you just don't get it. My "shameful" display had nothing to do with making mockery of the Word of God. It had nothing to do with looking, what did you say, cute? in front of my friends. It had everything to do with mocking your literalistic way of interpreting scripture, which is dishonest as well as wrong headed.

Read Leviticus, the topic of this thread, if you would like to learn the worth of women. You can also learn how to own slaves. Jesus never said anything about that either. You can learn how much unborn children are valued as well.

Why do you ignore my points? Could you outline for us what you believe about levirite marriage to start? This is a clear biblical teaching supported by Jesus. Tell me about divorce. You apply the scripture literally where it is convenient and figuratively where it is not. My "mishandling" of the Bible was a parody of where biblical literalism will take you.

 

[PastorFreud]

One of the major sources of controversy is a disagreement in the terms we are using.

Christian -- to open and affirming Christians, is someone who thoughtfully considers themselves a follower of the teachings of Christ

Christian -- to Evangelical Christians, is someone who is "born-again" by trusting in Jesus to save them from sin and hell.

Homosexuality -- to open and affirming Christians, is an orientation of sexual desire, thought and interest toward members of the same sex.

Homosexuality -- to non-tolerant Evangelical Christians, is a sexual act with someone of the same sex.

Homosexual behavior is a sin -- to open and affirming Christians, means sexual behavior that is coercive, violent, non-consensual, or knowingly unsafe.

Homosexual behavior is a sin -- to non-tolerant Evangelicals, means homosexuality in any form is deviant, perverse, and offends God. It could never be otherwise, because only marriage makes sex acceptable in God's eyes.

Homosexuality, for open and affirming Christians, is about a rare, but normal expression of human sexuality.

Homosexuality, for some non-tolerant Christians, includes pedophilia, inappropriate behavior with animals, and more. For these people, to be accepting to homosexuality would require accepting these other sexual practices as well.

I think this is a fundamental reason why we keep banging our heads against a brick wall.

 

[seebs]

I have to point out: I'm actually agnostic on the sinfulness of homosexual acts. I do not believe them to be sinful; I'm not sure they're *not* sinful. However, it's clear to me that straight sex won't get anyone into heaven, and that God would rather have homosexuals who are in sexually active relationships in His church than have them not know Him.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs
Shane, as I've said before, the Bible doesn't list everything that's not wrong. It lists a few wrong things, and a few right things, and the rest is basic principles.

I believe that compassion is foremost among those principles.

I don't feel that the case for the Bible's condemnation of "homosexuality in general" is a persuasive one. Given that, I must look at the basic principles. What I see in those principles is that, as a community, as a species, we are asked to continue our species, but that not everyone is called to that.

When I see people who feel they are called to celibacy, although I do not believe they are fulfilling the "be fruitful and multiply" part of God's plan, I recognize that He may have other plans for them.

When couples who are infertile marry anyway, I don't think they're sinful for expressing their love physically. Sex is not *only* for procreation; cleaving two together as one is also part of God's plan, because He wishes us to find companionship.

When people in the Bible are polygamous, or follow the practice of Levirate marriage, it's not the culture I was born to, but I am given to understand that they meet with God's approval, so I don't argue.

So... When I see a same-sex couple, expressing love physically, I generally feel it's most compassionate and correct to treat them the way I would treat any other couple physically unable to have children; with compassion and love.

For me to do otherwise, I would need to be convinced that God condemns homosexuality itself, not just certain practices of it. I know that God condemns non-consensual sex among straight people, ritual sex among straight people, adultery, and many other kinds of sex, but I don't see in that any condemnation of heterosexual sexual attraction itself.

If you wish to reject everything the Bible doesn't explicitly show, you're welcome to; doing so is certainly a good way to avoid mistakenly condoning anything God disapproves of. However, many things I believe to be moral, such as freeing slaves, are ignored or forbidden by the Bible, so I think you will mistakenly condemn things that God *does* approve of.

In the end, when we find ourselves disagreeing over what the Bible teaches, all we can do is pray to God for guidance and follow His guidance as best we can. For me, that means reaching out to gay people, and preaching the Gospel to them. I mean the Gospel, the story that Christ has paved the way for us to be saved, not a bunch of stuff about all the things you have to give up to be saved.

Christ was very clear on this in His ministry; you welcome people in, and then they clean up their sins on their own schedule, and as long as they're still trying, they're saved. It doesn't matter whether you still drink, or can't get those racist thoughts out of your head, or get into fist fights; if you're *trying*, you're saved. It doesn't even matter if you just haven't been convicted of some of your sins yet; as long as you're listening, and you're ready to try, Christ can bridge that gap.

So, in the end, my course is clear; encourage people to enter Christ's kingdom and find fellowship here, and leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict them of whatever sins they may have. Judging them to not be "good enough" or not "sincere" is not within my authority.

 

Once again, you misrepresent my position and make an argument based on labeling me.

 

I have never said anything close to suggesting that anything not affirmed in the Bible is wrong.  Homoswexuality is condemened in both the old and new Testaments, and YOU bring up contextual issues of rather dubious origin to argue against that, so I introduce you now for like the third time to my REAL argum,ent, which is that contextually, there is absolutely no support for this acceptance of homosexuality outside of pagan ritualism that you keep suggesting.  It is never once anywhere discriminated out as ok, there are no marriages, there is no homosexual relationshiup at all anywhere in the Bible that would support your supposed contextual arguments.

 

That is the point.  It is out of context for you to argue the contexts that you suggest.  There is no evidence whatsoever that this confusion you speak of existed or exists.  It has nothing to do with being judgemental, or anything else other than not being at all convinced by your inventions on the subject.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
One of the major sources of controversy is a disagreement in the terms we are using.

Christian -- to open and affirming Christians, is someone who thoughtfully considers themselves a follower of the teachings of Christ

Christian -- to Evangelical Christians, is someone who is "born-again" by trusting in Jesus to save them from sin and hell.

Homosexuality -- to open and affirming Christians, is an orientation of sexual desire, thought and interest toward members of the same sex.

Homosexuality -- to non-tolerant Evangelical Christians, is a sexual act with someone of the same sex.

Homosexual behavior is a sin -- to open and affirming Christians, means sexual behavior that is coercive, violent, non-consensual, or knowingly unsafe.

Homosexual behavior is a sin -- to non-tolerant Evangelicals, means homosexuality in any form is deviant, perverse, and offends God. It could never be otherwise, because only marriage makes sex acceptable in God's eyes.

Homosexuality, for open and affirming Christians, is about a rare, but normal expression of human sexuality.

Homosexuality, for some non-tolerant Christians, includes pedophilia, inappropriate behavior with animals, and more. For these people, to be accepting to homosexuality would require accepting these other sexual practices as well.

I think this is a fundamental reason why we keep banging our heads against a brick wall.

 

Nexst time I meet a brother in the church I'll be sure to check them for the seal of "Open and and Affirming" aproval from PastorFreud.

 

Yoiu have no authority, right, not insight to make the decision as to who is open and affirming and who is a closed minded fundamentalist.  Once again your entire argument rests on labeling people and making charactewr assassination, and not on anything you can point to that actually suggests that homosexuality is not a sin, and that God can't free a believer from it.

 

I choose to openly affirm God's power instead of your personal vendeta PastorFreud.  It doesn't make me wrong to disagree with you and agree with what I see right in front of my eyes.  All you have done the last two days is make fun.  If you had listened to me, you'd know that I have great compassion for anyone who struggles with sin.  But that's the thing.  You don't even understand the struggle.  You want to be open and affirming to the point of actually affirming the sin, which is not going to get God's people free, but blind them to the freedom that they have to leave sin behind.

 

Men can love one another deeply and passionately and have nothing to do with sex.  In fact, on this forum I repeatedly hear people telling me that this is part of their whole supposed homosexual experience, that they just have this deep love for men.  Fine!  The Bible affirms THAT wholeheartedly.  It just maintains that sex between men is a disgrace.  And it is.  It just is.

 

Both of you need to leave off just saying that anyone who doesn't buy your arguemnts is just judgemental and "fundamentalist" or whatever.  You're only adding to the problem by drawing lines of exclusion based on politics rather than having a discussion about the ideas themselves.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

I have never said anything close to suggesting that anything not affirmed in the Bible is wrong.

That has been my interpretation of your demand that I produce positive support for it.

  Homoswexuality is condemened in both the old and new Testaments, and YOU bring up contextual issues of rather dubious origin to argue against that, so I introduce you now for like the third time to my REAL argum,ent, which is that contextually, there is absolutely no support for this acceptance of homosexuality outside of pagan ritualism that you keep suggesting.

See? Here it is again: You say "no support for...", but I don't need to see Biblical support for something to accept it; I need to be unconvinced that there is condemnation.

  It is never once anywhere discriminated out as ok, there are no marriages, there is no homosexual relationshiup at all anywhere in the Bible that would support your supposed contextual arguments.

See? Once again, you're insisting that lack of explicit mention means it's not okay.

That is the point.  It is out of context for you to argue the contexts that you suggest.  There is no evidence whatsoever that this confusion you speak of existed or exists.  It has nothing to do with being judgemental, or anything else other than not being at all convinced by your inventions on the subject.

They're not *my* "inventions". They're the result of a lot of scholarly work from people who happen to disagree with you.

I think the problem is this: You see a clear position, and people starting from a premise of "we must discredit this" scrambling for excuses.

I see an ambiguous text, and lots of good arguments on both sides... but when the text is ambiguous, I default to not condemning.

Many people who started from your position changed their minds when they did the research. They're not lying, they're not trying to "discredit" the Bible; they're just confronting, honestly, the possibility that a commonly accepted teaching of men about what the Bible says could be wrong.

 

[Shane Roach]

I don't care who invented them originally, they are your arguemnts that you keep bringing here and you have yet to clarify them with facts. I am not responsible for everyone else. I am responsible for me. I have done this research you keep speaking of and apparently I don't fall into this group of people who have just been swept away by your lack of evidence of your belief that this is debatable. You have yet to show what is supposed to be debatable. You apparently even purposely misrepresented my argument again.

I repat, the lack of explicit mentioon by itself means nothing. I am adressing the argument YOU put forth, whoever it originally belongs to, that this is a complex matter of textual interpretaion and context. It is not. Thge context is, read this carefully now, the CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE IS THAT NOWHERE IS THERE ANY AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THIS BEHAVIOR. This is not to say that simply because a behavior is not mentioned and affirmed, it is therefore wrong. It is to say that THERE IS NO CONTEXT THAT EXISTS IN THE BIBLE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR OR ANYONE ELSES ASSERTION THAT THIS IS MYSTERIOUS OR DIFFICULT TO TRANSLATE.

I am sorry to use all caps but this is easily the third time in this thread alone you have misrepresented my position. I want you to read it now, and try to understand it as I wrote it, rather than as your prejudice requires you to read it and pretend I am "scrambling for some excuse" or whatever that claptrap was about. You, or whoever you are taking your cues from, are not exhibiting any evidence that this issue is debatable. You merely state over and over that it is debatable. So what? The sky, when not clouded over, and the sun is out, is blue. There is no debating this. The Bible, without a single mention of any acceptable homosexual behavior, denounces it repeatedly. This is not debatable. It denounces it in both the old and new testaments. This is not debatable. There IS no context, there IS no transaltional complexity, there IS no problem that you have yet shown, and yet you insist it is there. Where? Where is it? If it's not yours, then why do you cling to it when you can't even defend it yourself? What do YOU believe, and why? Why do you find ambiguity? I keep asking this and you keep showing me things that are as clear as the blue sky on a cloudless day. Where is your doubt coming from? You can't tell me. You just insist it is there.

Well, if I don't see it I'd be a liar to sit here and tell you ok, it's debatable. It doesn't look debatable to me, except in that as I have mentioned some people will debate just for the sake of contention, which I have already established is behavior the Bible expressly advises the Christian to avoid.

So, you arguem yet you have no point, not even a point of question that I can see as vaguely rational, and you argue about it over and over. What I am supposed to do is clear. Avoid your teachings, and those like yours.

 

[Shane Roach]

Usually what you fall bnack on is it's scientifically not a choice so it can't be a sin. This is a question of free will, the nature of sine, and whatever else. It could easily be a sin even if a person had no control over it. For a good defence of that position, you would have to find someone who honestly believes that it is something that even a non-beleiver can't change. I believe a non-believer is a slave to sin, but it is apparent to me that they from time to time can change their behavior if for no other reson that for self preservation, so I do not believe at all the science that this is uncontrolable. There is a good debate to be had about whether people can choose their sexual orientation, or anything else for that matter. All things may well be preordained, or just physically determined. This hardly changes what the Bible says or whether or not it is a sin according to the text. Now, if you as I have seen some do, want to start sifting through the Bible and deciding which parts of the text are acceptable to you, fine. But whenever you devolve into an argument about what the text actually says, it is impossible for me to sit idly by while you insist there is some debate. I don't know in what dark corner of the world this became a debate, but now it is in my face and I'm sorry, but I can read! And I am reading this, and the Hebrew commentary, and the history, and there is no debate about this being referred to as a sin. *shrugs*

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
See, you just don't get it. My "shameful" display had nothing to do with making mockery of the Word of God. It had nothing to do with looking, what did you say, cute? in front of my friends. It had everything to do with mocking your literalistic way of interpreting scripture, which is dishonest as well as wrong headed.

Read Leviticus, the topic of this thread, if you would like to learn the worth of women. You can also learn how to own slaves. Jesus never said anything about that either. You can learn how much unborn children are valued as well.

Why do you ignore my points? Could you outline for us what you believe about levirite marriage to start? This is a clear biblical teaching supported by Jesus. Tell me about divorce. You apply the scripture literally where it is convenient and figuratively where it is not. My "mishandling" of the Bible was a parody of where biblical literalism will take you.

 

Your comment at the end was a blatant slam at the Bible itself.  Also, I have read Leviticus.  Many people have, and come out with views remarkably different from yours even though everyone seems to agree that you have to read in context, and use your common sense.  You accuse me of a literalistic interpretation?  Whatever.  I interpret this specific sin in light of every possible angle that I have yet heard of.  It doesn't even matter to me if you dissassociate the story from a religion, reading them they are plainly, even if entirely fictional, denoucning homosexuality.

 

Your attitude is wrong on this when you continually attack Christians and Chrsitianity itself because of it.  Whether on purpose or no, your attitude shows how helpfull this is to any anti-Christian trend, in that by bringing up homosexuality and casting the issue as some sort of hatefulness, it just makes Christianity itself look bad.  Nevermind that there is not an ounce of hate in the position that it is a sin.  It's just the image you put out when you begin making snide comments and mocking the Bible itself.

 

Why would anyone who really repsects God come to YOU for advice, after watching the way you treat the Bible?  It's easy to see that because of this one issue, you discount me entirely as a human being.  Yet your supposed to be showing all this tolerance?

 

I'm not sold.

 

[seebs]

What is debatable, or ambiguous, to me is exactly what behavior is condemned.

I am not trying to misrepresent your position; you keep saying that, without positive support for gay relationships, you will reject them. That's exactly what you've said, over and over.

You have said that you reject my doubts about the interpretation of the apparent condemnation, because there's no "support" for gay relationships. I don't see any distinction here between what you say and what I describe you as saying.

The Bible does not need to show me an "acceptable" example of something for me to think it is acceptable. It's sufficient that I don't see that the Bible condemns it.

The Bible condemns something, yes. I believe that, interpreting the context correctly, we find that that thing is *not* all homosexual sex, but certain practices of the time.

Could you cite an example of a Biblical condemnation of homosexuality that does *not* have this context associated with it? Leviticus 18 says explicitly that it's about practices of other cultures. Romans is directed at romans who had other beliefs before they converted to Christianity, and turned back to those beliefs. 1Cor6:9 is probably a reference back to Leviticus 18. Leviticus 20 and the Timothy quote are just duplicates of Leviticus 18 and 1Cor6:9.

So... They're all coming down to a couple of things which are *explicitly* in a specific context, and I see nothing outside that context.

You're welcome to disagree, but I do wish you'd imagine, for a moment, the possibility of someone who is honestly searching for truth, and just disagrees with you. It's not as if this would be the first time that good Christians, earnestly seeking God's guidance, came to disagree on something that was simply *obvious* to one side or another. Why should this be any different?

Let's try an example that might be a little easier for you to relate to. I can find lots of stuff in the Bible which is taken, by many people, as condemnation of "secret" groups such as the freemasons. I can't find a *single* example in the Bible where the Bible says "go ahead, join an organization that has secret rituals". But... I believe that the Bible's rejection of things that, to many people, look very similar to masonry are, in fact, specific to non-Christian religions.

I can't find anything in the Bible that says "masons are okay". I can't find anything supporting the formation of groups with secret rituals, or anything even similar. But... I don't believe the condemnations in the Bible that people use against masons are intended to be taken that way. I refuse to condemn masonry simply because a few people tell me that the Bible says so. When someone tells me something like this, I search Scripture to see whether it's true. In the case of the freemasons (sorry if it's impolite to not capitalize that, unsure), I have concluded that the condemnation just isn't explicitly there. Maybe it should be, but since it *isn't*, I have to reserve judgement, and I believe that masons can be my brothers in Christ, and co-masons can be my sisters in Christ, and if someone says otherwise, I will debate them just as endlessly, until they can *convince me* that their interpretation is correct.

It's all the same to me. I'm not gay, and I've never been interested in masonry. However, I believe that these are things best left to the individual conscience, and I will defend the rights of gays and masons to follow Christ without undue harassment based on interpretations I find questionable. The only arguable difference is that I'm pretty sure no one is born a mason... But that just means I have one *less* reason to believe masonry might not be sinful.

But... I look at actual people, and I see the fruits of the holy spirit, and I say "you look good to me, if there's a problem, let God do the judging".