IMHO, homosexuals and anyone else can have sex 100 times a day if they want.
It isn’t my business and it isn’t the laws business either.
If God thinks it wrong, then he will tell them, I suppose.
IMHO, homosexuals and anyone else can have sex 100 times a day if they want.
It isn’t my business and it isn’t the laws business either.
If God thinks it wrong, then he will tell them, I suppose.
Good read, obviously there is no concensus. That in itself tells me there is no divine guidance. Here’s 2 more cents:
-
Is there a God?
No, unless you consider the universe itself to be, as Einstien/Spinoza did. -
Does such a God have opinions on human moral behavior?
How could he? He never does anything about it. -
Is such a God identical to the historical God of Judaism and Christianity?
No way - too many contradictions. -
Is the Bible as it stands an accurate record of such a God’s views?
Again too many contradictions, errors of fact. -
What does the Bible have to say about homosexuality?
It seems to be agin it. Along with many modern biblical scholars.
(BTW, don’t get to excited over my screen name - it’s from the George Kennedy character in “Cool Hand Luke”) -
Is a “literal” reading of the passages answering question 5 an accurate representation of what God has to say?
I really doubt that. -
To what extent is the Law of the Bible applicable to people today, Christian or not?
Christians don’t even follow it, why should anybody else? -
What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards a gay person?
I wish everyone could be treated respectfully. But that includes gays not pushing their lifestyle into everyone else’s face. The “icky” factor was mentioned earlier - I gotta admit, I find the whole idea really “icky”. -
Presuming the political power to do so, to what extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose his moral standards on those who hold different moral standards?
Religious people with political power really scare the hell out of me. Can you imagine Jimmy Swaggart with unlimited power? Talk about the American Taliban!
Well, here’s my take on it. FWIW.
1. Is there a God? Yes.
2. Does such a God have opinions on human moral behavior? Possibly. God knows what’s in God’s mind. (Though I have to say, I was very impressed with Shodan’s answer to this particular question.)
3. Is such a God identical to the historical God of Judaism and Christianity? Allowing for the distortion inevitably imposed on our view of God by our limited human perceptions, I would say yes… but also allow for the possibility that some other view of God may well be the same Entity, seen through a different set of distortions.
4. Is the Bible as it stands an accurate record of such a God’s views? No, it’s an attempt at a record of various people’s perceptions of God, His works, and how they think His will should be done in the world. It’s an enormously valuable historical document, and a source of guidance in one’s own quest for God, but, at the end of the day, it’s a book, written by human beings, with all the fallibility and limitations that that implies.
5. What does the Bible have to say about homosexuality? Ably summarised by several previous posters; where homosexuality is specifically addressed, it is condemned. However, there are verses which address people in general which don’t appear to exclude homosexuals, and which are not consistent with this condemnation. (I also take into account just Who seems to have said these inclusive things, like the Summary of the Law; if I’m going to be a Christian, I’d better listen to Christ, no? And if what He says appears to contradict the Book of Leviticus, well, what He says goes, doesn’t it? Assuming, of course, that both have been accurately recorded and interpreted…)
6. Is a “literal” reading of the passages answering question 5 an accurate representation of what God has to say? No - at best, it’s an accurate representation of what the authors of those passages thought God had to say. (At worst, it’s a statement of their cultural or personal prejudices, inserted into the Bible without any thought as to God’s opinions.)
7. To what extent is the Law of the Bible applicable to people today, Christian or not? The Law of the Bible is not relevant: only God’s Law applies. Reading the Bible may help you reach an understanding of God’s Law (but you also need to listen to what God is telling you, in your heart). God’s Law, of course, applies to everyone, whether they know it or not.
8. What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards a gay person? “Oh, look, there’s a sinner… just like me.”
Why is this the proper reaction? Because Christ tells us to love our neighbours and not to judge? That’s what my reading of the Bible, and my experience of Christ working in my life, tell me.
9. Presuming the political power to do so, to what extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose his moral standards on those who hold different moral standards? Christians have a duty - hold on - I, as a self-describing Christian, feel I have a duty - to engage with the community, which includes helping formulate its laws. But, also as a self-describing Christian, I feel I have a duty to refrain from abstract moral judgements - that is, I can say “murder is bad, because it hurts the person murdered”, but not “gay sex is bad, because it just is”. So, I don’t think I’d be justified in supporting any law that prohibited some behaviour, solely on the grounds that it was morally unacceptable to me. (Not that I’m saying I find gay sex morally unacceptable per se anyway.) If I want to uphold my view of Christian moral standards, the best way to do it is to let them show in my own life, not to impose them on others by fiat.
Instead of repeating what everyone else has said, I’ll answer most of the questions by simply stating that I’m an agnostic. Now I’ll play the devil’s advocate and offer a different answer for question #5. I’m ripping this off another message board:
http://www.frankdux.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000071.html
In one of the posts, NoMan uses the following to argue that Moses, not God, is against homosexuality; and that God doesn’t have a problem with it, since David and Johnathan were gay lovers (hence Saul not liking David much).
I recall reading a longer post where NoMan discussed verses where Saul alluded to David being his son-in-law in the “twain” (i.e. once through Saul’s daughter that David married, and again through Johnathon), but I can’t find it right now.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of any of these claims, I just offer them up for you to chew on:
[DELETED BY MODERATOR]
- Rucksinator
I asked Jersey and His4ever the question in this post on the first page of this thread. The exact passages I am wondering about their view on are quoted in that post.
Meanwhile I would also like to l now how Jersey proposes to resolve the conflict between these two statements:
I’m sorry but you’re not making any sense at all here. One minute we can pick and chose, the next we can’t, and then there is some code that enables us to read out what is symbolic and what is literal? Make up your mind! Which is it; literal or not?
You kind of answered that it isn’t to be taken literaly by this remark:
Whereupon you quote the essence of Christian love and our savior through Christ’s sacrifice.
But then I have to ask you: If that is all that counts, how did you end up with all these other rules, or rather some of all these other rules? It would seem that you are allowed to pick and choose a little as you feel like it or is there some code? Most importantly why keep specifically rules against anti-homosexuality when you discard so much else?
Could it be that what you consider moral anyway is singled out in the numerous passages in the Bible and made into God’s absolute word, while the morals and ethics you don’t agree with become unimportant. Could it just be that you’re setting your own morals before the Book. Isn’t to do that a sin?
Sparc
Obviously I did not inted this double negative: “rules against anti-homosexuality.”
It should have read: rules against homosexuality.
Here’s more. Again ripped off, this time from a different thread:
http://www.frankdux.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000069-2.html
[DELETED BY MODERATOR]
Perhaps someday I’ll pop in with an opinion of my own.
- Rucksinator
Moderator’s Note: Rucksinator, please do not “rip off” posts from other message boards. You are free to provide links to things people have posted elsewhere (and I have left the links from your posts intact), along with your own comments, but we don’t like it when people “rip off” the content from our message board (and in fact it is expressly forbidden to do so–see the copyright disclaimer at the bottom of each page–and the Chicago Reader’s lawyers are notified when it happens). We therefore do not allow people posting on this message board to violate the intellectual property rights of other message boards, web sites, etc.
My bad. Won’t happen again.
- Rucksinator
I don’t think the Bible writers (or, if God, then the supposedly omniscient god) had a very informed idea of what homosexuality even was. They simply saw it as a factor of a perverted sexual act, not anything to do with loving men. They didn’t even seem to have any concept that women could be gay (women in general are beneath any notice or concern sexually, except where they might, gasp!, dirty penises)
For what it’s worth…
-
Is there a God? Yes; there is a “something” similar enough to the “standard” concept of God that to draw a fine distinction is pointless.
-
Does such a God have opinions on human moral behavior? Reading as “opinions of what kind of human behavior is morally to be desired”, yes.
-
Is such a God identical to the historical God of Judaism and Christianity? We are told to “assume this for purposes of this thread.” OK.
-
Is the Bible as it stands an accurate record of such a God’s views? I cannot affirm this statement as it stands. Which I guess = No. I regard the Bible, as we have it today, as a compendium of a great many things, sacred and profane. The trick is figuring out which is which.
-
What does the Bible have to say about homosexuality? Jersey did a good job of recapping. It should be noted that in many of the cites, scholars have challenged the interpretation of the word or phrase as referring to what we today would consider “a homosexual” or “homosexual sex.” So opinions might vary from “basically nothing” to “a lot, and it’s negative.” I am not qualified to comment. I do think it fair to note that no statements on the subject are attributed to Jesus.
-
Is a “literal” reading of the passages answering question 5 an accurate representation of what God has to say? Given that the interpretations are controversial, “no” is probably the best answer. Or perhaps the best answer is: there really is no such thing as a “literal” interpretation under such circumstances.
-
To what extent is the Law of the Bible applicable to people today, Christian or not? If “the Law” means something like the most stringent possible degree of faithfulness to the mosaic codes and proscriptions, I think it too counterintuitive as “what God wants” to be binding without one being miraculously enlightened by God himself. I find the spirit of the Bible to be evident, not unique to any one or two religions, and generally self-validating. I have yet to be persuaded that God cares about the “details.” So: loosely instructive, not rigorously applicable.
-
What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards a gay person? Depends upon the particularities of one’s beliefs. I advocate joyous acceptance.
Why is this the proper reaction? I do not define myself as a Christian; but I am “closest” to forms of Christianity that treat man’s experiences as tools in the timeless “return” to the divine unity-in-diversity. An “artistic” love of balance and diversity seems to harmonize with this more obviously than an enforced uniformity and indifference to the pain (=a turning-inward) of others.
- Presuming the political power to do so, to what extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose his moral standards on those who hold different moral standards? Again, it depends on one’s beliefs. I myself choose to work for diversity, balance, freedom, and harmony. Yet I recognize that some attention to the opposite side of the coin has its place. Ultimately, I consult my conscience and my intuitions.
I don’t really grasp the argument of those who think moral questions have rational answers.
—I do think it fair to note that no statements on the subject are attributed to Jesus.—
Wasn’t he the one who said the “and the effeminate” bit (in a negative way)? Hardly the most conclusive example, but certainly enough to debate.
I am late to the thread, but I have decided to answer the OP first, and then read the responses, so as to present my views uninfluenced by the argument to date. I will add more, after reading the rest of the thread.
Yes.
I think opinions are expressions of human thinking, and may or may not be applicable to God. I think God wants us to love Him, and love each other, I am not sure that is an opinion.
Humans need to know God, but He is not limited by their understanding.
My opinion of the Bible has always been that it is the story of some people who came to know God. I think it is a valuable tool for someone to use to do that same thing, even today, after thousands of years. I do not think that it is an infallible source of pronouncements of God’s opinions, or a source of instructions for one person, or one group of people to order the lives of other people on the earth. I don’t see that the Bible claims to be those things, or appoints anyone to do those things.
Very little that I know of, and it says nothing at all about what I should do about homosexuality. Sexuality and sexual behaviors are matters much prone to causing sorrow in human beings, and the proscription against causing such sorrow would certainly apply to everyone on the matter of sexual conduct, including homosexuality. Most of the controversy in public is not about heterosexuals causing sorrow to each other, or themselves. I think that is probably unrelated to God’s own opinions, if He has opinions. If homosexual behavior is sinful, then it is but one of many sins that man is beset by. It has no special place in the downfall of the human spirit, nor is it somehow beyond the redemption of Christ’s sacrifice. Being sinless is not the point, loving God is the point.
I am unwilling to characterize “What God has to say”, other than to ask people to put love in their hearts, and ask Him themselves. Reading from the Bible is a good way to help yourself do this, but first you need to be looking for the love of the Lord, with your own heart, and in your own heart. If you go to the Bible seeking condemnation of another, you will fulfill you own heart’s desire, and find hatred. It is not God’s hatred you have found, but your own.
The Covenant of the Ten Commandments is the promise of God to the Israelites. For them, it is the living spirit of the Lord God, present in their lives, and a strong staff to lean upon, a guide to live by, and a tradition whereby they can make amends for their own failings in matters of faith. It is not fitting that I should judge them.
I see no reason to react to a gay person any differently than to any other of God’s beloved children. Certainly I was not bidden to revile them, even if I felt it were true that they had sinned. I have sinned, and the Lord loves me still, how can I do less, and still claim to be faithful?
I believe that imposed standards are never moral, and cannot have any spiritual effect, unless they encourage hatred, or cruelty. So the law might be neutral, or evil, but cannot be good. Therefore I choose to have the law be strictly neutral, and concern itself only with the protection of the social compact that makes men free. When men are free, they can be good, and the law can protect them from the acts of those who would destroy that freedom. These are matters of the world, not matters of faith.
I cannot compel faith, nor require penitence, nor identify sin. Presuming to do so as if I had the authority of God is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Separation of Church and State serves the Church as much as it serves the state. The state must serve the people, or it is illegitimate, the Church serves the Lord, but it’s legitimacy lies in its faithfulness to the message of the Lord. His message is one of love.
Ok, now I post, and then read. Perhaps I shall post again.
Tris
Thank you for your post, Tris.
Since this turned out to be somewhat of a poll I couldn’t resist to compile the answers so far. Obviously I had to do some interpretations since there was no multiple choices and some answers were given in a more expanded form than yes or no.
So far 20 posters have answered the questions. Not all of them answered all questions why the total for each question will vary. Obviously the statistical value of all this as basis for any conclusion of the average beliefs of the SDMB are zilch, zip and zero, but it can be vaguely entertaining to see the overview of the answers.
**1. Is there a God?**
Yes 12 - 60%
No 4 – 20%
Maybe 4 – 20%
Total 20
.
.
**2. Does such a God have opinions on human
moral behavior?**
Yes 8 - 56%
No 6 – 38%
Maybe 3 – 12%
Total 17
.
.
**3. Is such a God identical to the historical God
of Judaism and Christianity? **
Yes 9 - 53%
No 6 – 35%
Maybe 2 – 12%
Total 17
.
.
**4. Is the Bible as it stands an accurate record of
such a God's views?**
Yes 2 - 11%
No 13 – 72%
Maybe 3 – 17%
Total 18
.
.
**5. What does the Bible have to say about
homosexuality**
Condemns it 11 – 55%
Inconclusive 9 – 45%
Total 20
.
*Three of the four acclaimed atheists answered
that the Bible condemns homosexuality.*
.
.
**6. Is a "literal" reading of the passages answering
question 5 an accuraterepresentation of what God
has to say? **
Yes 18 - 90%
No 2 – 10%=
Total 20
.
.
**7. To what extent is the Law of the Bible applicable to
people today, Christian or not?**
It is for everyone 2 – 11%
It isn’t to anyone 8 – 42%
To Christians only 3 – 16%
The core message is for all 6 – 32%
Total 19
.
.
**8. What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards
a gay person?**.
Embrace them 4 – 20%
Condemn them 2 – 10%
Do not judge 14 – 70%
Total 20
.
.
**9. Presuming the political power to do so, to what
extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose
his moral standards on those who hold different
moral standards?**
1. S/he is required to 2 – 10%
2. Not at all 15 – 75%
3. In some way 3 – 15%
Total 20
.
*One out of the two answers that answered along
alternative 1 was an acclaimed atheist. Of the two
posters that stated that homosexuality should be
condemned; one answered along lines of alternative 1
and the other answered along lines of alternative 3.*
All of which wasn’t too surprising if you ask me. I’ll go do something better with my time now…
Sparc
Obviously I made a mistake in question 6 where Yes and No need to reversed i.e. 18 posters answered that a literal reading was not warranted and 2 answered that it was.
My preference would be that they be repealed, as I see dangers in allowing sporadic enforcement of laws - too much danger of the laws being used to harass the unpopular.
Said repeal should come (ideally) thru legislation, not the courts. Another personal preference, but elected representatives are more accountable to the electorate than judges. The constitutional courts were intended as a check on the tyranny of the majority. In many instances, I see more need of legislatures acting as a check on the tyranny of some judge with an agenda.
Here’s hoping I haven’t set myself up for some devastating rebuttal with my posts. :eek:
And Rucksinator -
If NoMan is the same person who posts on other messageboards in which I participate, my best advice would be to check any cites given rather carefully. If it is the same person.
An example to hand is the contention that David and Jonathan were lovers, an assertion whose evidence is, to say the least, lacking.
Not to start a war on this messageboard about posters on another messageboard, but the phenomenon of a blowhard whose claims exceed his evidence is not limited to the SDMB.
Or indeed, to my posts.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. And also multiple Gods.
Not as such.
Not exactly. There is the Divine, from which all things spring. This is not the same as the God of Judaism, Christianity (and Islam, for shame, Poly ;)). That God (the J/C/I God) is one of the multiplicity of gods mentioned above.
Not all of it. Much of it was written based on the perceptions and culture(s) of the persons at the times it was written.
It seems negative, but I don’t read the original languages and only have the quotes thrown around this message board (and a few other MBs) to go on, having not read the passages in depth myself since I left the Presbyterian church some eighteen years ago.
There is no such thing as a “literal” (objective) reading of Biblical passages; all readings of the Bible are filtered through fallible human minds.
This is another one that depends. Biblical law (as interpreted by the given human with the “fallible” caveat applied above) is applicable to those for whom the Bible is a necessary part of their spirituality and their relationship with that face of the Divine with which they most often interact. However, non-Christians are not restricted by Biblical law, but by the laws of their spirituality and relationship with that face of the Divine with which they most often interact.
Note that I do not believe that atheists nor agnostics are without “lawful restrictions” but I think we’ve beaten that particular horse to death and occasionally take swipes at its skeleton.
-
What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards a gay person? Why is this the proper reaction? I see this one as the most critical question of the lot, given the attitudes presented in threads touching on the subject recently.
-
Presuming the political power to do so, to what extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose his moral standards on those who hold different moral standards?
Oops. I forgot to answer the last two questions. And I’m not sure I do have an answer for #8, not being a Christian. I don’t look at the world through that filter, and didn’t bring my “Christian” filter to work with me. 
As far as #9 - not at all. Unless someone were suddenly lobbying, for example, to make killing someone out of hand legal - in which case I would hope that all good-hearted and compassionate people would step in to prevent it. I just don’t think they’d need “Thou Shalt Not Murder” to do so.