Ahh, I see now, all homosexuals are either permissive or (more probably) promiscuous. No homosexuals in monagamous relationships, none with a shred of moral fibre, none with any righteous intolerance.
No wonder they should all be condemned to Hades, the devils.
I never realised…
Rant
Rave
Waterj2, as long as it was stipulated that the people discussing Dune realize that it is a work of fiction, I would even join in on the discussion. If, on the other hand, people claim to have actually take spice and recieved enlightenment from it, I might call them on it.
I actually have read it through several times. Ok, twice when I was actually a believer, and the last time in a fairly patchwork fashion. For that last time, I found the key to be skimming over genealogies, and cross-referencing with commentaries which could point out amusing bits of history or religious silliness.
BTW, no point in getting people’s hopes up. It does not in fact “shut them up” as your site claims. In fact, the more ignorant, the more voluble in that regard.
I do think that studying the Bible is key to any Christian’s deconversion, however. For example, focusing on the evidence for a 2nd Century origin to Daniel, helped a lot with a friend of the Left Behind persuasion. Studying the dating and origins of the gospels would probably be more useful to those who focus on Jesus’ sayings.
As for homosexuality, it’s interesting in that I’m having an argument with a fundie teacher in an Urban Social Problems class who was claiming that his unchanging God had clearly laid down homosexuality as a sin (does he follow the stoning bit?) in Leviticus. He used Paul’s letter to the Romans too.
I got some help from a pastor on that one. The usual points are how even pagan writers of Paul’s time were decrying certain perverse and decadent homosexual behaviours - and the love between a man and a young boy had once been considered one of the purest forms. Paul very likely was combining his two traditions - the Jewish one where the condemnation of homosexuality was part of the separation of the world into sacred and profane (like the business with foods, fabrics, times etc) and his Roman heritage in which the pimping of young boys was becoming a particular vile and common practice.
Anyway, there are a bunch of books which cover this in a much more solid and less condensed form (contradiction in terms? :)) Last one I looked at, as usual trying to undo the add a little historical background to Paul and undo the literalist harm that has been caused over the centuries - The Moral Teachings of Paul, by Furnish.
**Caesar0211 wrote:
Fact is, whats written in the bible was written to be followed (in the new testament that is.**
Prehaps. The Bible, OT and NT treats slavery as acceptable, women have a social status of slightly above inanimate property and killing people simply because they “violated God’s Word” is acceptable punishment.
It’s been some 3 thousand years since those words were written. We’re no longer a pastoral society living under the rulership of a divinely appointed king or a set of judges and prophets. Yet you still want us to abide by those rules, customs and social conventions.
If modern Christians want to live that way, fine. Just leave the rest of us in the 20th century, CE.
That itself can be debated. I went to a somewhat religious Jewish school for middle school, and we had a debate about this in our Judaic studies class. The quote given in the Biible is “it is disgusting for two men to lie together”, or something of the sort. The explanation that I was given at the time was that it was wrong for two men who were not “gay” to have sex without “love”. That also doesn’t mention anything about women. Lesbians anyone?
1st, re the “Noahide laws”- they are not in the Bible, either OT or NT. They are not one of JCs 'commandments". Some Jews may think these Laws apply to gentiles- but they would be (and have been) a bit miffed if us Christians insisted that the Jews follow Christian Laws. The “Noahide Laws”, altho certainly part of the Jewish faith- are in now way part of the Bible- which we are discussin here, in any case.
2- In John especially, JC is clear that he came with a New Covenant. Us Christians accept this as part of our faith.
Now, as to the later writings, mainly by Paul- in my Church they are not canonical- ie if it does not came from the Master, himself- it is very interesting and all that- but not nessesarily to be followed. Paul is a bit odd at times- he also thinks sex between married couples is not really OK. In any case- altho he did condemn gay sex- that was including in a LOOOONG rant where he also condemns drunkards, debaters, and all sorts of others. Hell, if debaters are condemned- I’m toast! 
You’ve mentioned several times that the denomination you belong to doesn’t consider Paul’s writings cannonical (presumably the other Epistles, too). I’m very interested–what church is this (First Marcionist? ;))? Is this the same chuch you belong to, Gaspode? What is your official position on the OT (which didn’t come from Christ either, and which he refers to as “the laws of men”)? What about the Gospels themselves, which claim to present the teachings of Christ, but weren’t written by him, and parts which (John in particular) may be far removed from the historical teachings of Jesus?
Speaking of Marcionism, you wrote this, too, Daniel:
That really does sound Marcionist. Is that what you meant by it?
While I’m on the subject, I’ll (further) hijack the thread quickly to ask what denomination you are, Polycarp.
Just thought I’d try to find out a little more about my fellow Christian Dopers. 
For the record, I’m United Methodist, myself, and rather Wesleyan, at that. (I have an interesting personal history, though. Ask me about it some time. :))
Sorry about the hijack, Robo. Hope you don’t mind!
Actually, there would be nothing at all unorthodox to your average fundamentalist Christian about this position. God punishing someone for something entirely beyond his/her control? Sure, and it’s not just homosexuals who suffer from it. The whole concept of original sin is a punishment for something over which you have no control. I believe the words are something along the lines of, “Lo, I shall visit the sins of the fathers upon the sons, even unto the seventh generation.”
In orthodox Calvinist belief, basically anything and everything you do (from murder to prayer and charity) is sinful until God invests you with the Holy Spirit and regenerates you, something which He chooses to do completely without regard to your own actions, and over which you have not the slightest control. In Calvinist doctrine, a person with a free will cannot thereby choose not to sin; the very fact that his will is free is sinful. Once he is invested by the Holy Spirit, his will ceases to be free and becomes bonded to God, and only then can he avoid sin.
Does this contradict the notion of God being omnibenevolent? Depends on what your concept of benevolence is. To the True Believer, * anything * God wills is good and benevolent, a priori. God orders you, “Vex the Midianites, and slay them,” down to the last man, woman and child except the virgin girls; by the orthodox standard that is a good and benevolent action, simply because God wills it. (This is hard-core fundamentalist Protestant belief I am describing; I am not sure that it would be a fair description of Catholic doctrine).
As many others have pointed out, Leviticus and other Old Testament verses forbid many other things besides homosexuality, like multi-fabric clothing, shaving, and shellfish-eating. And Christians break these rules all the time. Paul says, “there is none that is righteous, not one.” Fundamentalists know that nobody can follow the Old Testament law perfectly; if they could, they wouldn’t need Christ’s sacrifice. Theologically, there is no good reason why Protestant Christians should consider homosexuals to be in any worse a bind than the other 5.5 billion violators of Old Testament law on this planet.
If you find the idea of sin as something beyond one’s control repellent, well, so do I; my bias shows in my writing. But the fundamentalists come by this belief honestly, straight from their intellectual forefather Martin Luther, and he in turn from Augustine and Jerome. It’s not something they just made up on the spot in the 20th century. On the other hand, singling out homosexuals in particular for persecution, out of all those who have original sin or other sin that they cannot control, is without any doctrinal justification that I know of.
I accept the way of the Celtic Christian Church. In general- the OT is background & history- true, we do accept that G-d did (& still does) have a Covenant with the Jews- but not that the entire OT is inerrant. The Jews did an excellent job of recording, but they were just men- and could make mistakes in transcribing, etc. Also, later of the Priests seemed to have “put their own spin on things”. The Gospels DO record the actual words & teachings of JC. But, that does not mean thet every word that John (eg) wrote was divinely inspired- altho he was so inspired. Later mistakes could creep in, and likely have. I do not know much about “Marcionism”- tell me more.
Jesus did not override or change anything. He established a new covenant, different and separate from the old one.
What was stated in Leviticus was intended for the Jews. In Acts, there was a controversy between Jewish and Gentile believers, the Jews expecting the Gentiles to adhere to Jewish cermonial law (circumcision was a main point of contention, for obvious reasons). The Apostles met to decide which of the Jewish laws non-Jewish believers were to follow, and came up with the following:
From Acts 15:
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? … Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas … And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner …
So Only Jews have to keep the Jewish Law. Gentile Believers are held to the above remnants of the Law, with the addition of the two commandments of Jesus:
Now, to get back on topic:
the word translated as “from fornication” or “from sexual immorality” is porneia [drat! no way to post in a different font??]
Also, Paul mentions homosexuality specifically many times as something to avoid, in no uncertain language. So to answer the OP, since the bible says it homosexuality is forbidden, then it is sinful, by definition.
With this, I agree wholeheartedly. I view it like this: If you love your wife, you won’t do anything to hurt her. By the same reasoning, if you love God, then you will endeavor (to the best of your ability) to do the things that are repellent to him. Homosexuality is one of those things, but a sin is a sin is a sin. Homosexuality is no worse and no better than any other sin in God’s eyes. Including heterosexual sex outside of marriage.
So if you do sin, and we all do, then God has provided for your forgiveness. Although, forgiveness hinges on repentance, which means (according to Merriam-Webster): “to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life.” In other words, according to the bible, you need to quit doing what you’re doing in order to be forgiven. You don’t just get to say “oh, I’m sorry, and I’ll be sorry the next time I do it, and the next time, too!”
As my parents told me so many times, “If you were really sorry, you wouldn’t keep doing it.”
[Reverend Lovejoy]
“The Bible says a lot of things.”
“Have you actually read this thing? Technically, we’re not allowed to go the bathroom”
[/Reverend Lovejoy]
Have we learned nothing from President Bartlett?
Really? And here I’ve been reading Genesis 9, interpreted as the covenant with Noah, and thought it was in the Bible. Even Acts 15, which Judaism doesn’t consider inspired, refer to the Noahide laws. I guess that isn’t in the Bible either.
Of course, if you can pick and choose what you consider authoritative, which you obviously do with you comments about Paul, then I’d like to comment that Judaism considers both the Talmud and the Torah as inspired by God, and these both refer to the Noahide laws (Talmud Sanh.56a & Mishnah Torah, Law of Kings 8:10).
I can’t speak for the Jews, as I am not one, but I’m pretty sure that if it’s in the Talmud and Torah, they believe it.
As for Christian Laws, which would those be? Christianity threw out the law. Does “Everything is permissible, but not everything is edifiable” ring a bell? Just by this alone, homosexuality should be permitted by Christianity. Although the argument being that just because it’s allowed, doesn’t mean it is good for the person.
I am WELL award of Christian theology and arguments. I was a Christian for 20 years, and a Fundamentalist for quite a few of those years. I just know better now.
So the Jews made mistakes, but everything in the gospel is the actual words of Jesus, without any “spin” by his followers who wrote it down without hearing it personally at least 10 years after Jesus’ death?! How convenient! And your proof of either of these statements is . . .
Of course, most of this is straying (far away) from my point that homosexuality was considered a sin for the Jew as well as the non-Jew in traditional Judaism. Your point is taken that the laws, which incude prohibiting sexual relations between two men, are not in what traditional Christianity considers the Bible. However, in what Judaism might call their “bible”, it is specified. If you are going to refer to the Jewsih laws and what their faith is based on, why not use it all.
Yeeps. My take would be that the five “commandments” given to Noah constitute the “Noachide laws” and anything else is halacha (do I have the right idiom? the stuff that’s added as “fences” to the Law by Orthodox Jews).
But in any case, Jesus made it quite clear what He expected, and it’s orders of magnitude tougher than keeping 631 miscellaneous commandments. I figure that if I ever get to the point where I can honestly say that I always and everywhere keep the two commandments He singled out as key, I’ll worry about what else God expects. Of course, in the interim I do amplify it a little: “Judge not, lest you be judged” – “Seek ye first…” And one that is totally non-Scriptural but summarizes an attitude that I believe is, which I humorously cite as “Thou shalt not presume to live out thy neighbor’s life for him, for thou hast a hard enough time getting thine own act together.”
I’m Episcopalian, actually.
quimby: Again, even the Gospels are not “inerrant”- even tos the actual words of JC were recorded, some errors could have crept in- but since the span is less, etc- less errors. And, yes, John did but his own “spin” on things a bit- not that he is wrong, but John & matthew interpret JCs missions somewhat differently.
Genesis 9 does not caontain the “Noahide laws”- there is a covenant with Noah (note that later, the Covenant with Abraham superseded this)- but it mentions nought about homosexuality, or “improper” sex at all. There are 2 'commandments"- don’t eat meat which is still “alive” (ie, with blood still flowing), and don’t murder your fellow man.
In exchange- no more big floods. Note that also the covenant with Noah specifically mentions that “every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you”- which sorta is contradicted by the dietary laws. So much for the Noahide Laws, as in the Bible. Yes, I am quite aware that the Jews also follow the Talmud- and that is fine- but we are discusing what the BIBLE says about homosexuality- not the Talmud, Koran, or Eddas. The Talmud is not in any way part of the Bible- no matter the wieght given it by the jews.
Polycarp:
Amen. I’m only presenting another view, I’m not saying it is right for anyone. Just wanted to state that. Kind of like devil’s advocate, if you’ll excuse the pun. Although personally, I put more credence in Judaism than Christianity. And in that, most sources say that christianity is “ok” as far as gentile beliefs go.
Daniel:
I read “actual”, not “not as inerrant”.
Genesis 9 is the formation of the covenant, not the explanation of the laws. The laws stated in the oral tradition, which you wouldn’t see in the bible. Supposedly, the laws were given to Adam, but attributed to Noah because of the flood and therefore all the decendants being from him now. But, in that oral tradition, includes no homosexuality between men. Doesn’t say anything about women.
As for your dietary law “problem”, Noahides are not held to the same dietary laws as the decendants of Abraham, they were instructed not to eat the limb of an animal while it was still alive (apparently a common pagan practice). So there is no contradiction here, they were allowed to eat any kind of meat (except human).
The Talmud is not a part of YOUR Bible, just as the writing of Paul are not part of your bible. And the writings of Paul are a major part of what Christianity is based on, no matter how little weight you give it.
And for a religion that is supposedly evolved from Judaism, you certainly dismiss a lot of it’s foundation.
Your the BEST JOE_COOL
Joe Cool, I forgot about you!
Those two commandments Jesus was referring too?
Deuternomy 6:4-6 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.”
Hillel (50 B.C.E.): “Do not to others what you would not like others to do to you.”
Hardly original, hardly new. There is where that oral tradition comes in!
Now, back to the OP:
You mention Paul speaks out against homosexuality, which is true. But right afterwards (1 Cor. 10:23 and on), he goes on to say don’t worry about breaking the law (all things are lawful but . . ), and speaks of liberty (“why should my liberty be judged by another man’s conscience”). So he condems certain things, but then turns around and says they are ok, although not necessarily hepful. Which is it? Laws or liberty?
Now wonder Daniels church doesn’t recognize Paul’s teachings.
Paul also spoke out quite strongly against “those who judge” and the intolerant. What’s the old greek word for “hypocrite”?
I am tempted to respond to certain statements made in this thread, but it would take way too much time as the thread has gotten so lengthy. In lieu, I’ll just respond to the OP:
Polycarp’s learned studies aside, I’m inclined to agree.
That’s my understanding as well.
According to gay people themselves and every major psychological organization, yes. (Caveat: everyone has control over their sexual behavior, which is different from sexual orientation.)
It would seem that way, but if you take the time period when the Bible was written, between the social customs and the lack of knowledge of understanding of human nature, biology, psychology, etc., it’s not surprising. (Much of this has already been addressed.) But if we accept that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then yes, He seems to be quite the vengeful, persnickety one.
All good points. All these little contradictions certainly assure me that by not being Christian I’m following the spiritual path that’s right for me, and am quite happy in my little Unitarian Universalist cubbyhole.
For one of my favorite essays on this topic, see Walter Wink’s “Homosexuality and the Bible”.
Esprix
So, is it possible for homosexual behavior to be sinful and not the orientation itself? I’m not saying it is or isn’t…just that that’s a possibility.