The Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual practices had much to do with distinguishing the Hebrews from their Canaanite neighbors, whose religious practices involved both gay and straight prostitution and a nasty little thing called human sacrifice.
Anyways, I have come to conclude, as a Christian, that all the available data makes it impossible for me to either condemn or endorse homosexual behavior. It is hardly comfortable to be on the fence; but honesty permits me no other position. I would advise Christians to remember, in regards to homosexuals, what they learned in kindergarten: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
Remember Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." And remember also 1 Corinthians 5:13 -- God judges those outside the church. And if someone is gay and also Christian, then have faith in the Holy Spirit's power to convict him of his sins; and if he does not repent of homosexual behavior, then either he is not really a Christian or his homosexuality is not truly sinful. But in any case, who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another (Romans 14:4)?
Pandas! Kudos! This is the most well thought-out, profound religious statement I think I've ever heard you make. Seriously, had I read this without your little avatar next to it, I'd've probably taken it for a post from Stan (save, of course, that he's already posted his thoughts on homosexuality elsewhere and I'm well familiar with them).
Anyway, I think that this is a fairly sensible position to take, in regards to Christianity and religion. There are clear prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible in a few places, but there are also very clear sociological reasons for those condemnations. Further, given the New Testament's essential silence on the subject, I do not believe that it is either naive or foolish to take the stance that the Bible, as it relates to Christianity, does not condemn homosexuality in a way that stands up to a New Historical critical reading of the text.
It takes no courage to be undecided before researching something. It takes all the courage in the world to take an undecided stance after researching everything.
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
You see the distinction of the cannite religeous prostitutes vs the homosexual act. You have really been educating yourself, that is awesome. Did you see the links I posted earlier?
Just wanted to note that, as I said before, your link stretches the truth a bit and at times is more hypothetical than historical. It has some good stuff in it, but also some disappointing stuff.
Let's say the Elves are my chosen people and I'm trying to keep them culturally distinct. The Goblins nearby, among other things, shave their heads, dance around bonfires with silly hats, and kill innocent people. So I tell the Elves, "See the Goblins! They shave their heads. Do not shave your heads. See the Goblins! They dance around bonfires. Do not dance around bonfires. See the Goblins! They kill innocent people. Do not kill innocent people."
Thousands of years later, there's a web site made called www.dancingelves101.com. In it, they claimed that since I only prohibited dancing around bonfires, and since the Goblins danced around bonfires with silly hats on, it must be okay to dance around bonfires without silly hats on.
In this case, Levitical Law condemned men having sex with other men, period. At the time, the best cultural representation of this activity was the gay religious prostitution found in adjacent cultures. But that shouldn't imply that the "religious prostitution" created an effective delineation between moral man-****ing and immoral man-****ing (to translate Paul's "arsenokoitai").
That's certainly an interpretation you can have. But it looks like special pleading to me.
Just wanted to note that, as I said before, your link stretches the truth a bit and at times is more hypothetical than historical. It has some good stuff in it, but also some disappointing stuff.
Let's say the Elves are my chosen people and I'm trying to keep them culturally distinct. The Goblins nearby, among other things, shave their heads, dance around bonfires with silly hats, and kill innocent people. So I tell the Elves, "See the Goblins! They shave their heads. Do not shave your heads. See the Goblins! They dance around bonfires. Do not dance around bonfires. See the Goblins! They kill innocent people. Do not kill innocent people."
Thousands of years later, there's a web site made called www.dancingelves101.com. In it, they claimed that since I only prohibited dancing around bonfires, and since the Goblins danced around bonfires with silly hats on, it must be okay to dance around bonfires without silly hats on.
In this case, Levitical Law condemned men having sex with other men, period. At the time, the best cultural representation of this activity was the gay religious prostitution found in adjacent cultures. But that shouldn't imply that the "religious prostitution" created an effective delineation between moral man-****ing and immoral man-****ing (to translate Paul's "arsenokoitai").
That's certainly an interpretation you can have. But it looks like special pleading to me.
I don't follow you - you're trying to map the difference between pagan temple prostitution and normal courtship and dating to wearing or not wearing silly hats? Really?
I'm of the opinion that it's not possible for Levitical Law to speak to any behaviors that didn't exist at the time the book was authored.
I don't follow you - you're trying to map the difference between pagan temple prostitution and normal courtship and dating to wearing or not wearing silly hats? Really?
Yes. If, from that, you're drawing an implication that temple prostitution and wearing silly hats are similar in severity then you're missing the point.
I'm mapping Elves to Jews too, but I clearly don't think they're at all the same outside of some relevant analogous qualities. Elves, for instance, don't even exist.
I sure do hope people talking about Old Testament law as if it's relevant don't eat shellfish...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
I sure do hope people talking about Old Testament law as if it's relevant don't eat shellfish...
The Old Law, according to Christ, is no longer in effect. But there are certain imperatives from the Old Law that are maintained even under the New Covenant. You still can't murder people, for instance. And arsenokoitai, a contraction of Levitical verbiage literally meaning "man-****ing," is explicitly condemned in New Testament Scripture.
The Old Law, according to Christ, is no longer in effect. But there are certain imperatives from the Old Law that are maintained even under the New Covenant. You still can't murder people, for instance. And arsenokoitai, a contraction of Levitical verbiage literally meaning "man-****ing," is explicitly condemned in New Testament Scripture.
The Old Law, according to Christ, is no longer in effect. But there are certain imperatives from the Old Law that are maintained even under the New Covenant. You still can't murder people, for instance. And arsenokoitai, a contraction of Levitical verbiage literally meaning "man-****ing," is explicitly condemned in New Testament Scripture.
Yes. If, from that, you're drawing an implication that temple prostitution and wearing silly hats are similar in severity then you're missing the point.
What then, is the point you were trying to make?
It seems to me that the issue of severity is essential to this discussion.
I'm sure men having sex with other men outside of religious prostitution existed at the time the book was authored.
As am I.
However again, the issue of severity is huge here. On one hand two guys of the same age who have been in a committed relationship for 2 years making love after an spending an evening enjoying each other's company counts, but so does an 80 year old male millionare forcing himself on his 21-year old slave boy while he's chained in the wine cellar.
How common do you think the former was in the ancient world? I'm using hyperbole, of course, but my point still stands. Courtship and relationships among gays that exist in the same sphere of norms of heterosexuals certainly hardly existed back then. Was there any monogamy at all among gays in the 1st and 2nd centuries?
It seems to me that the issue of severity is essential to this discussion.
...
As am I.
However again, the issue of severity is huge here. On one hand two guys of the same age who have been in a committed relationship for 2 years making love after an spending an evening enjoying each other's company counts, but so does an 80 year old male millionare forcing himself on his 21-year old slave boy while he's chained in the wine cellar.
How common do you think the former was in the ancient world? I'm using hyperbole, of course, but my point still stands. Courtship and relationships among gays that exist in the same sphere of norms of heterosexuals certainly hardly existed back then. Was there any monogamy at all among gays in the 1st and 2nd centuries?
The point I was making was that assuming the Bible would be okay with "modern homosexuality" is just that: assumption. And while that may possibly be true, it certainly can't be found through conservative exegesis.
without starting a flame war, I don't see what the big deal is about gay couples. the reason homosexuality is so maligned in today's culture may or may not have something to do with the avid religious reasoning of some, or it may just be because some view it as instinctually wrong. both of which are a personal reason, and make just as much sense as someone choosing homosexuality in the first place. it's a personal preference.
we've all got them. so why so much fire over it? hasn't homosexuality been present in pretty much every dominant society in the last thousand years? greeks and romans ring a bell, anyone?(READ: I've no vast knowledge of history. if I'm wrong, merely point this out to me and I'll correct my mistake posthaste.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
"You heard it here folks:
Anyone who disagrees with "Jack from NC" is an idiot."-The Dead Weatherman
That's about what I thought. Personally, I find fault in including anything as part of the new convenant that isn't based on things that Jesus directly said and did. Especially things that are contradictary with Jesus' overreaching messages.
the reason homosexuality is so maligned in today's culture may or may not have something to do with the avid religious reasoning of some, or it may just be because some view it as instinctually wrong.
I would suggest the latter is the main contributor. Most straight people's reactions to imagining engaging in homosexual behavior is "Ew" (as is most gay people's reaction to imagining straight sex). That's the way sexuality works; that's the way it's supposed to be. The problem comes from the all-too-human tencancy to translate emotions like that into "wrong".
The point I was making was that assuming the Bible would be okay with "modern homosexuality" is just that: assumption. And while that may possibly be true, it certainly can't be found through conservative exegesis.
That's about what I thought. Personally, I find fault in including anything as part of the new convenant that isn't based on things that Jesus directly said and did. Especially things that are contradictary with Jesus' overreaching messages.
Jesus' overarching message did not involve any relaxation on matters of sexual discipline. He made major movements in matters of forgiveness for sexual transgressions, however.
The last part is especially interesting, regarding the interpretation of Paul's personal opinions.
Paul's odd opinions were reasonable at the time, given that Jerusalem was about to be annihilated as foretold by Christ, and Nero, the antichrist, was about to show up. He didn't want Mediterranean Christians getting bogged down in social complacency with the impending upheaval.
Read that web site's last paragraph with that in mind. Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to say those things about Paul, in that light?
Sakura: What fallacy in particular are you referring to? I already read that article. I have also previously read the link you just gave us.
In Adam and Eve's story, it is often used as an argument against Gay marriage because God created man and woman as a couple, thus using exclusion to try and state God's will.
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is obvious God would need to make one member of this couple female for offspring to be produced. He never mentioned homosexuality or same sex couples. He never mentions anything of what marriage is.
You are using the reverse form of exclusion to say seafood is ok. Because it was not mentioned in the new testiment, it must be fine. Either way is a logical Falacy based on exclusion used specifically to give the answer you desire.
I might argue that God did not mention Homosexuality in Genesis and therefore he is ok with it, since obv he is ok with Shellfish.
I might argue that God is against Shellfish, and having Cable Modems, since neither is mentioned in the new testement.
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
Quoting myself, because I added more links since people posted in response.
In Adam and Eve's story, it is often used as an argument against Gay marriage because God created man and woman as a couple, thus using exclusion to try and state God's will.
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is obvious God would need to make one member of this couple female for offspring to be produced. He never mentioned homosexuality or same sex couples. He never mentions anything of what marriage is.
You are using the reverse form of exclusion to say seafood is ok. Because it was not mentioned in the new testiment, it must be fine. Either way is a logical Falacy based on exclusion used specifically to give the answer you desire.
I might argue that God did not mention Homosexuality in Genesis and therefore he is ok with it, since obv he is ok with Shellfish.
I might argue that God is against Shellfish, and having Cable Modems, since neither is mentioned in the new testement.
Oh my. So many things wrong with this post.
Stop saying "logical Falacy." It's "logical fallacy."
The Law is not found in Genesis.
Eating the previously-forbidden foods is explicitly allowed in Acts; other remnants of the Old Law are also explicitly addressed there. So this is not "assumed inclusion." Have you read these Bible books, or just what those web sites quote?
The "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" argument is stupid.
Jesus' overarching message did not involve any relaxation on matters of sexual discipline. He didn't even like extramarital cohabitation. He made major movements in matters of forgiveness for sexual transgressions, however.
I honestly don't recall him putting much focus on sexuality at all. There is no "blessed are the chaste" among the Beatitudes, for example. What passages refer to his issues with extramarital cohabitation?
Paul's odd opinions were reasonable at the time, given that Jerusalem was about to be annihilated as foretold by Christ, and Nero, the antichrist, was about to show up. He didn't want Mediterranean Christians getting bogged down in social complacency with the impending upheaval.
Read that web site's last paragraph with that in mind. Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to say those things about Paul, in that light?
Well... no, not really. If we're going to accept the Bible as the literal, divinely preserved word of God then it's a double standard to say in some cases we can apply an author's state of mind at the time to the interpretation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I honestly don't recall him putting much focus on sexuality at all. There is no "blessed are the chaste" among the Beatitudes, for example.
Matthew 15:
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:
20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defiles the man not.
Well... no, not really. If we're going to accept the Bible as the literal, divinely preserved word of God then it's a double standard to say in some cases we can apply an author's state of mind at the time to the interpretation.
We should always apply the author's state of mind. Contextless interpretation is folly. Paul's advice made sense in the context of impending social disaster for those in Jerusalem and Christians in general elsewhere.
If we must always apply the author's state of mind, then the entire Bible is suspect. Every word. How can we then at any time rightfully say what God condemns?
Pandas! Kudos! This is the most well thought-out, profound religious statement I think I've ever heard you make. Seriously, had I read this without your little avatar next to it, I'd've probably taken it for a post from Stan (save, of course, that he's already posted his thoughts on homosexuality elsewhere and I'm well familiar with them).
Anyway, I think that this is a fairly sensible position to take, in regards to Christianity and religion. There are clear prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible in a few places, but there are also very clear sociological reasons for those condemnations. Further, given the New Testament's essential silence on the subject, I do not believe that it is either naive or foolish to take the stance that the Bible, as it relates to Christianity, does not condemn homosexuality in a way that stands up to a New Historical critical reading of the text.
It takes no courage to be undecided before researching something. It takes all the courage in the world to take an undecided stance after researching everything.
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Just wanted to note that, as I said before, your link stretches the truth a bit and at times is more hypothetical than historical. It has some good stuff in it, but also some disappointing stuff.
Let's say the Elves are my chosen people and I'm trying to keep them culturally distinct. The Goblins nearby, among other things, shave their heads, dance around bonfires with silly hats, and kill innocent people. So I tell the Elves, "See the Goblins! They shave their heads. Do not shave your heads. See the Goblins! They dance around bonfires. Do not dance around bonfires. See the Goblins! They kill innocent people. Do not kill innocent people."
Thousands of years later, there's a web site made called www.dancingelves101.com. In it, they claimed that since I only prohibited dancing around bonfires, and since the Goblins danced around bonfires with silly hats on, it must be okay to dance around bonfires without silly hats on.
In this case, Levitical Law condemned men having sex with other men, period. At the time, the best cultural representation of this activity was the gay religious prostitution found in adjacent cultures. But that shouldn't imply that the "religious prostitution" created an effective delineation between moral man-****ing and immoral man-****ing (to translate Paul's "arsenokoitai").
That's certainly an interpretation you can have. But it looks like special pleading to me.
I don't follow you - you're trying to map the difference between pagan temple prostitution and normal courtship and dating to wearing or not wearing silly hats? Really?
I'm of the opinion that it's not possible for Levitical Law to speak to any behaviors that didn't exist at the time the book was authored.
Yes. If, from that, you're drawing an implication that temple prostitution and wearing silly hats are similar in severity then you're missing the point.
I'm mapping Elves to Jews too, but I clearly don't think they're at all the same outside of some relevant analogous qualities. Elves, for instance, don't even exist.
I also mapped myself to God!
I'm sure men having sex with other men outside of religious prostitution existed at the time the book was authored.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
The Old Law, according to Christ, is no longer in effect. But there are certain imperatives from the Old Law that are maintained even under the New Covenant. You still can't murder people, for instance. And arsenokoitai, a contraction of Levitical verbiage literally meaning "man-****ing," is explicitly condemned in New Testament Scripture.
Eating shellfish is not.
This is the same kind of Falicy mentioned here http://www.gaychristian101.com/adam-and-eve.html
Ironically, from the complete opposite angle.
Where? I'm honestly interested to know.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I suggest you both read here
http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/word_arsenokoitai.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/PaulineLists.html
http://www.catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html
What then, is the point you were trying to make?
It seems to me that the issue of severity is essential to this discussion.
As am I.
However again, the issue of severity is huge here. On one hand two guys of the same age who have been in a committed relationship for 2 years making love after an spending an evening enjoying each other's company counts, but so does an 80 year old male millionare forcing himself on his 21-year old slave boy while he's chained in the wine cellar.
How common do you think the former was in the ancient world? I'm using hyperbole, of course, but my point still stands. Courtship and relationships among gays that exist in the same sphere of norms of heterosexuals certainly hardly existed back then. Was there any monogamy at all among gays in the 1st and 2nd centuries?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
Sakura: What fallacy in particular are you referring to? I already read that article. I have also previously read the link you just gave us.
The last part is especially interesting, regarding the interpretation of Paul's personal opinions.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
The point I was making was that assuming the Bible would be okay with "modern homosexuality" is just that: assumption. And while that may possibly be true, it certainly can't be found through conservative exegesis.
we've all got them. so why so much fire over it? hasn't homosexuality been present in pretty much every dominant society in the last thousand years? greeks and romans ring a bell, anyone?(READ: I've no vast knowledge of history. if I'm wrong, merely point this out to me and I'll correct my mistake posthaste.)
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
That's about what I thought. Personally, I find fault in including anything as part of the new convenant that isn't based on things that Jesus directly said and did. Especially things that are contradictary with Jesus' overreaching messages.
I would suggest the latter is the main contributor. Most straight people's reactions to imagining engaging in homosexual behavior is "Ew" (as is most gay people's reaction to imagining straight sex). That's the way sexuality works; that's the way it's supposed to be. The problem comes from the all-too-human tencancy to translate emotions like that into "wrong".
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Oh, I agree with that.
Jesus' overarching message did not involve any relaxation on matters of sexual discipline. He made major movements in matters of forgiveness for sexual transgressions, however.
Paul's odd opinions were reasonable at the time, given that Jerusalem was about to be annihilated as foretold by Christ, and Nero, the antichrist, was about to show up. He didn't want Mediterranean Christians getting bogged down in social complacency with the impending upheaval.
Read that web site's last paragraph with that in mind. Doesn't it seem a bit unfair to say those things about Paul, in that light?
Quoting myself, because I added more links since people posted in response.
In Adam and Eve's story, it is often used as an argument against Gay marriage because God created man and woman as a couple, thus using exclusion to try and state God's will.
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It is obvious God would need to make one member of this couple female for offspring to be produced. He never mentioned homosexuality or same sex couples. He never mentions anything of what marriage is.
You are using the reverse form of exclusion to say seafood is ok. Because it was not mentioned in the new testiment, it must be fine. Either way is a logical Falacy based on exclusion used specifically to give the answer you desire.
I might argue that God did not mention Homosexuality in Genesis and therefore he is ok with it, since obv he is ok with Shellfish.
I might argue that God is against Shellfish, and having Cable Modems, since neither is mentioned in the new testement.
This point has already been addressed and this isn't debating. Warning for Spam
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
Oh my. So many things wrong with this post.
Stop saying "logical Falacy." It's "logical fallacy."
The Law is not found in Genesis.
Eating the previously-forbidden foods is explicitly allowed in Acts; other remnants of the Old Law are also explicitly addressed there. So this is not "assumed inclusion." Have you read these Bible books, or just what those web sites quote?
The "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" argument is stupid.
Yes of course it is a stupid argument, but it doesn't make it any less used. Any argument based on exclusion is fundamentally flawed.
Indeed.
That's why I avoid such arguments. lol
I honestly don't recall him putting much focus on sexuality at all. There is no "blessed are the chaste" among the Beatitudes, for example. What passages refer to his issues with extramarital cohabitation?
Well... no, not really. If we're going to accept the Bible as the literal, divinely preserved word of God then it's a double standard to say in some cases we can apply an author's state of mind at the time to the interpretation.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Matthew 15:
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:
20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defiles the man not.
Um, I was actually thinking of the wrong thing here. Sorry, strike what I said. lol
We should always apply the author's state of mind. Contextless interpretation is folly. Paul's advice made sense in the context of impending social disaster for those in Jerusalem and Christians in general elsewhere.